Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Recent Comments

Prev  682  683  684  685  686  687  688  689  690  691  692  693  694  695  696  697  Next

Comments 34451 to 34500:

  1. 97 hours of consensus: caricatures and quotes from 97 scientists

    I have 2 observations;

    1) it's vewry difficult to get some of the figures to respond to your mouse-over. I'm not sure what the problem is, do we need to rotate the screen?

    2) there seem to be too many "professors" and not enough "scientists" (as in dr.'s, etc). Or are the professors really scientists?

    Jen.

  2. 2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #36B

    jja should that perhaps be "Climate change threatenst to put the fight against hunger back by Millenia"?

  3. When their research has social implications, how should climate scientists get involved?

    saileshrao @19, a reasonable estimate for revving car engines for an hour is 5 liters of petrol consumed (based on a 1.8 liter, 4 cylinder engine), with CO2 emmisions of 11.5 Kg.  That in turn is half the CO2e emissions of 1 kg of grass fed beef, which comes in at 19.2 Kg per live kg of beef for the worst category (grass fed) in the Midwestern USA.  Even serving 500 g steaks means the beef is comparable to just one hours of "revved engines", and for the more reasonable 350 or 200 g steaks, the advantage is entirely with the beef.  Of course, the calculations above do not include CO2 generated in transporting and cooking the beef, but nor does it include that in transporting, refening and than further transporting the petrol.

    Of course, there is just one banquet at an AGU, and you propose an equivalent of 15 hours revved engines as the CO2 equivalent of that banquet.  Clearly you are not arguing this from science, or anything approaching a factual basis.

    Further, the AGU already advertizes its attempts to support sutainability, mostly through its choice of convention center which will by itself reduce emissions generated from the meeting by a greater amount than eliminating beef from the menu.  They further recommend that attendee's use the BART transport system, which will save CO2 emmissions more than that of a steak meal for each round trip.  These steps are visible, more effective, readilly associated with a concern regarding CO2 emissions and do not advertize a hair shirt mentality in the same way that banning beef from the banquet would do.   That later point, however, makes them insufficient from saileshao's point of view.

    saileshao @21, "foregoing the constant economic growth paradigm" is not necessary to tackle climate change and should not be coupled to reducing CO2 emissions as a strategy.  Doing so merely encumbers the later making it far less politically achievable.  Once again, hooking your particular political agenda to concern about AGW acts only to the detriment of the later and is not the strategy that shoud be pursued by those whose primary concern is ensuring AGW is controlled.

  4. When their research has social implications, how should climate scientists get involved?

    Personally, most of those I know, regardless of their political persuasion, understand and accept the basic mainstream science. While this is interesting, it leaves a lot of room for social/public policy choices and decisions. I'd rather start hearing more about the range of options and trade-offs with respect to individual choices and decisions, neighborhood/local planning, as well as State and Federal options.

    If enough people are responding at individual and local levels, we can drag the higher levels of social architecture along for the ride. Too many are interested in working on national and state level politics, without much attention to their personal and local level decisions and options. Too many view this as a black or white issue that one political "side" has the monopoly on. As in most such issues the reality is closer to being that there is one side that is generally much less wrong about what the science says. In fact, there are many traditionally fiscally conservative  public policy positions, such as revenue neutral carbon taxes, that ahould, and probably will, play vitally important roles in addressing AGW climate change adaptation and mitigation.

    We will never get past the "should we do something" stage and fully into the "what should we do" stage, if we don't start defining the options that everyone has at each level of decision making.  

  5. 97 hours of consensus: caricatures and quotes from 97 scientists

    Is this great initiative being intentionally coordinated with the "Disruption" screenings being held tonight around the country?

    "Disruption" film: grassroots global revolt a key answer to CC

  6. When their research has social implications, how should climate scientists get involved?

    Rob Honeycutt @20

    Re: "Simple taxation works wonders to alter broad consumer behavior."

    I don't see governments all over the world and the corporations who control them in our capitalist system foregoing the constant economic growth paradigm anytime soon. Therefore taxation policies that alter peoples' behavior so that they become net contributors to ecosystems instead of net consumers is a distant dream. This is not as easy a problem as getting people to switch to reusable shopping bags, which is why governments have been punting on this issue for the past two decades.

    We're facing the same intractable problem worldwide that Gandhi faced in India in 1915: an entrenched power structure that is utterly impervious to reason. Gandhi tackled it with voluntary grassroots actions.

    Besides, why wait to do the right thing at AGU meetings just because we haven't yet received price signals not to do the wrong thing? The IPCC AR5, Chapter 11, is unequivocal that the consumption of animal foods at present levels is unsustainable. Please take a look at Fig. 11.9 to see the land use component and the energy flow of animal food products vs. the land still remaining as pristine forest and the energy flow of plant food products. That figure illustrates why Nature has a loaded gun pointed at our heads, saying, "Change your conduct or it's your life!". And those stats are from 2000 and it has only gotten worse since then!

  7. 97 hours of consensus: caricatures and quotes from 97 scientists

    Ah. Now I see that only the name appears when the cursor is held on the figure (and not until it waves) and that the statement usually requires a click before it appears. I hope folks don't give up before they figure this out, especially old guys like me. 

  8. 97 hours of consensus: caricatures and quotes from 97 scientists

    johnthepainter - you can see the ones already published via the menue-path: Resources --> Climate Graphics - 97 Hours of Consensus . This takes you to this page:
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?c=9

    The ones in the email you received contain a glimpse into who is yet to come - a preview if you will.

  9. 97 hours of consensus: caricatures and quotes from 97 scientists

    Oh. Never mind. I saw the figures wave when I put my cursor on them, but didn't hold it there long enough to see the statements. Guess I'm too impatient.

  10. 97 hours of consensus: caricatures and quotes from 97 scientists

    Hey, I got tipped off to this by a George Mason Univerity email, which posted six of the figures with their statements. It's a great idea and I'd like to email friends about this, but I don't see a way to see all of the statements already made on this website--and the examples on the email don't all match the first six on the website. I don't know when people will check their emails and I don't want them to miss anything. When I check the corner box on the home page, I am taken to the picture of the group, with the ones whose statements have been made fo far shown and the rest as darkened figures. It took a little while before a large figure with a statement appeared, and I hope people will have the patience to wait until this happens. I also can't get back to the home page without downloading it all over again. If you can tell me how to navigate this any better, I would like to share it with the folks I am emailing.

  11. 97 hours of consensus: caricatures and quotes from 97 scientists

    While it is important to note and accentuate the fact of mainstream science support and confirmation of AGW, there are consequences to reinforcing perceptions of the importance of "concensus" (in general) on issues of science, especially with regard to the shaping of public policy in response the findings of science. These consequences can become more problematic as these terms get translated from considered debate to more colloquial exchanges.

  12. When their research has social implications, how should climate scientists get involved?

    saileshrao... "A carbon tax sends a message that well-to-do people, such as Al Gore and climate scientists, can continue with their profligate consumption, but it is the riff-raff, the poor people, who should be cutting down on their consumption."

    I think this is absolutely wrong. What it means is that the well-to-do have the greatest incentive to change. In fact, it's already the case that it's easier for people of means to, say, build a LEED certified home or purchase a Tesla and charge it with the solar panels the put on the roof of their home.

    But at the same time, carbon taxes that are paid by those who polute the most will ease the impacts on any rising cost of energy that result from taxation.

    Tax and dividend certainly would not "continue the orgy of consumption." In fact, quite the opposite. It's likely the only viable approach to changing broad national behaviors that produce carbon emissions.

    With regards to voluntary participation, the example I always use is the use of plastic grocery bags in California. We had decades of outreach, education, news stories, etc, etc, on the impacts of using plastic grocery bags. But volunary participation was limited even with people who agreed that it was a serious problem! But the first day the law went into place that said retailers had to charge 10 cents for a shopping bag, that was the day everyone changed. Now, here where I live, everyone uses reusable shopping bags.

    Simple taxation works wonders to alter broad consumer behavior.

  13. 97 hours of consensus: caricatures and quotes from 97 scientists

    RFMarine: we've got heaps of that now in biological repsonses to warming. Such as range shifts in marine and terrestrial plants and animals, changes in timing of life history events, etc.  Ecologists like to say we dont even need all the therometers (and satellites) - we can clearly see the warming in ecosystems responses. example one   example two

  14. 97 hours of consensus: caricatures and quotes from 97 scientists

    Very clever, and well done. But I count 100 figures, so I wonder who the remaining 3 will be.


    Lindzen, Curry and Christy?

  15. Rising Ocean Temperature: Is the Pacific Ocean Calling the Shots?

    BC

    Yep! Sea level rise with heat accumulation isn't anywhere nearly as simple as X Joules = Y millimeters. Here is another mechanism that might be involved. As heat moves to diferent points in the ocean this influences the how much density change occurs in different locations. In turn this impacts on the gravitational effect that each part o the ocean has on every otherr ppat, prhaps altering the Geoid slightly. And this might inflluence the rrate of the earth's rotation ever so slightly, in turn influencing how much the oceans bulge out at the equator.

    These efects might be small but they highlight that sea level is not simple.

  16. Rising Ocean Temperature: Is the Pacific Ocean Calling the Shots?

    Thanks. Interesting article. So the hiatus could end soon or go on for another 15 years?

    Would it be the case that because the heat is going down deep and at mid latitudes the thermal expansion would be reduced? This would be because it's occuring at low temperatures and the coefficient of expansion gets smaller as it approaches 0 deg C.

  17. 97 hours of consensus: caricatures and quotes from 97 scientists

    Here's an example. If we didnt have all those scientists monitoring the climate, we could tell that somehting is happening when obvious stuff like large cargo ships start using the northwest passage. The first large cargo ship to use the northwest passage was in 2013. If in the future it becomes a rebular occurence then you got non meterorological evidence that something is going on

  18. When their research has social implications, how should climate scientists get involved?

    Rob Honeycutt @16 and 17:

    I'm not as concerned about the chain smoking doctor having less influence over his smoking patients. I'm concerned that the AMA annual meeting is officially encouraging chain smoking during the conference, making ALL doctors less effective in the anti-smoking campaign.

    Imagine if at the AGU fall meeting, all attendees ritualistically revved their rental car engines for an hour at a stretch, three times a day. And then complained that the general public is not taking climate scientists seriously on greenhouse gas emissions.

    Serving animal foods at the AGU fall meeting is a worse display of frivolity from a lifecycle emissions standpoint.

    A carbon tax sends a message that well-to-do people, such as Al Gore and climate scientists, can continue with their profligate consumption, but it is the riff-raff, the poor people, who should be cutting down on their consumption. As such, I respectfully submit that it is politically impossible to implement it.

    A carbon tax with dividends is more palatable politically, but that just continues the orgy of consumption that brought us all these environmental catastrophes in the first place, because this policy has been shown to "grow the economy" in every analysis that I've seen.

    Therefore, there is no way out of our predicament but to change ourselves from within. We have no option but to pare down our consumption voluntarily without waiting for external price signals or Big Brother to modulate our behavior. At the minimum, we need to restrain ourselves in public gatherings for 4 days at the AGU annual fall meeting once a year, or risk being taken not too seriously.

  19. 2014 SkS Weekly Digest #35

    My guess, echoing conspiracy theories, is, it's the countdown to Bardarbunga Main eruption, that is machined by Climate Deniers to discredit global warming next year. lol.

  20. citizenschallenge at 14:06 PM on 7 September 2014
    Rising Ocean Temperature: Is the Pacific Ocean Calling the Shots?

    Excellent!

    Thank you Rob.

    Reposted at: citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/2014/09/global-warming-wheres-heat.html

  21. 2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #36B

    Climate change threatens to put the fight against hunger back by decades

    This is my vote for understatement of the Millenium.

  22. Rising Ocean Temperature: Is the Pacific Ocean Calling the Shots?

    Sorry to go off-topic here but it appears that the denialosphere (one blogger in particular who shall remain nameless) have already picked up on SKS's sidebar gray flash countdown thingy. They are hurling insults already without even knowing what it's for. (what IS the meaning of it?)

    Jen.

    Moderator Response:

    [JH] "Patience is a virtue."

    FYI - The comment threads for Weekly Digests and News Roundups are open threads.

  23. One Planet Only Forever at 08:30 AM on 6 September 2014
    When their research has social implications, how should climate scientists get involved?

    Tom Curtis @ 13,

    We are in close agreement. I also am optimistic (not even quasi), that properly motivated human ingenuity can develop continuously better sustainable ways of living. However, I see the current market system as a failing system that will only continue to fail.

    Waiting for drastic resource access pressures or totally unacceptable damage to accumulate to the point of actually negatively affecting the few most wealthy and powerful before such genious is tapped into and rewarded will not lead to success. History has proven it is cheaper and easier for those who get the benefit to be able to use a non-renewable resource rather than fully recycle those materials, or cause damage, or do things in a riskier way (riskier to others - protection from consequences to themselves if something goes wrong). The competetive advantage of those who get away with those types of development rather than the 'less profitable for them in their moment' actions towards sustainable ways of living are the problem. The motivation system needs to change.

    I also look forward to the day that humanity can spread the gift of sustainably living as part of a robust diversity of life on other planets. And I agree with efforts to develop the ability to leave our planet. However, we should not go beyond this planet until humanity as a whole has figured out how to live sustainably, keeping unsustainable and damaging actions from being popular and profitable.

  24. When their research has social implications, how should climate scientists get involved?

    ...to add:

    When people complain about Al Gore flying in corporate jets, my response is generally, "So... then... vote for a carbon tax that's going to double the fuel costs on his flights." 

    Al Gore flying in a corporate jet has no bearing on the reality of climate change. AGU serving meat products during their lecture series doesn't either. 

    Behaviors will change in a significant way when we get carbon priced in the marketplace.

  25. When their research has social implications, how should climate scientists get involved?

    saileshrao...  But, by the same right, whether or not a scientists changes his/her lifestyle based on the results of their research actually has no bearing on the data they collect and present.

    One does not have to follow the other. A chain-smoking doctor may have less influence on their patient's behavior when they suggest they stop smoking, but it doesn't change the fact that smoking cause cancer.

    I side with Tom, with his statements about a carbon tax. Forced or imposed behavioral changes (supply side) usually just don't have much lasting impact. A carbon tax (demand side) would place a market value on the damage that comes from carbon emissions, and thus would have far reaching – and long lasting – influence on a broader range of consumer behavior. 

  26. When their research has social implications, how should climate scientists get involved?

    doug_bostrom@14:

    That's a good analogy. While I agree with you that scientists studying the virtues of seatbelt should be expected to advocate for the wearing of seatbelt restraint systems, such advocacy always carries more weight when the scientists are routinely wearing seatbelts themselves, especially when they are attending a "Virtues of Seatbelts" conference.

    If the conference organizers proclaim it a virtue NOT to wear seatbelts to the world at large, then that would undermine the collective advocacy of the scientists.

  27. When their research has social implications, how should climate scientists get involved?

    Circling back to John's points in the blog post, I'm struck by how we're lead to treat certain scientific discoveries as exceptional and warranting discussion of whether it's at all appropriate for researchers to make any connection to the world outside the lab.

    Imagining that we were just now discovering the virtues of seatbelts, it's rather bizarre to think that a researcher forming the conclusion that unrestrained occupants of vehicles are at risk of injury should not report that finding along with the perfectly obvious observation that some kind of restraint system might be warranted. Yet in the case of climate change there's an exceptional demand that researchers not mention the obvious knock-on effects of their findings. 

    So rather than wonder about whether and how scientists should form connections to society at large with their research, I'm left wondering why we should become accustomed at all to the idea they should not. 

    The answer to this is rather obvious, as it was with automobile safety and the brief struggle over restraint systems and the like: research with policy implications is treated as exceptional, something demanding that scientists volunteer to remain muzzled. As soon as the question of expenditures or changes of social or personal habits enters the picture, scientists are apparently supposed to detect this and retreat into their laboratories. 

    It's better not to create exceptions or perhaps more to the point be trained into creating exceptions, when it comes to scientists being free to offer their expert advice. 

  28. 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

  29. 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.


  30. 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.

  31. 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.

  32. 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..

  33. 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.

  34. 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.

     

  35. 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.

  36. 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.

  37. 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.

  38. 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.

  39. 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?

  40. 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).

  41. Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle

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

  42. Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle

    muoncounter#46: 

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

  43. 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.

  44. 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.

  45. Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

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

  46. 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.

  47. 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.

  48. 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.

  49. 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.

  50. 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.

Prev  682  683  684  685  686  687  688  689  690  691  692  693  694  695  696  697  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2024 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us