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  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next

Comments 301 to 350:

  1. jimsteele24224 at 08:54 AM on 4 April 2024
    Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

    John Mason, I could easily refute your ridiculous post but when I do, only my posts are deleted and deemed off topic. I dont have the privilege posting here that you do

    Moderator Response:

    [BL] One last try:

    All you need to do is look at the table presented in this blog post, find the topic that you want to discuss, and follow the link to a place where that topic is the key subject. Then your deleted comments will be on topic.

    As part of your comment, you can point back to the comment you are responding to. The date/time label at the top of each comment is a link you can use.

    Final Warning

    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  This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online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.

  2. Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

    Jim, which is it to be?

    "But truth is I have never denied the greenhouse effect."

    "Clearly commneting here on SkS is a privelege only given to those who support the CO2 warming narrative."

    If you have never denied the greenhouse effect, you must surely accept that enhancing its intensity warms the planet. Likewise you must surely accept that reducing its intensity cools the planet.

    Both, I must add, based on very old, tried and tested first principles.

    There are as we all know other factors that should be taken into account at all times. We are talking about one component, albeit highly significant, of the climate system here.

    So I suggest you try and reconcile the two statements above, upon which I have quoted you.

  3. jimsteele24224 at 07:54 AM on 4 April 2024
    Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

    I would respond to Charlie_Brown and Eclectic,  but the moderator will simply remove my comments that refute your comments. Clearly commneting here on SkS is a privelege only given to those who support the CO2 warming narrative. Allowing scientific debate is not something that is honored here as revealed by the "moderator" deleting my post on polar bears, and other trivia. WUWT is clearly offtopic, but is always allowed because it dishonestly trashes skeptics which is the mission of SkS.

    Moderator Response:

    [BL] The moderator will simply apply the rules described in the Comments Policy.

  4. Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

    Scaddenp @94 :

    Thanks for that.  What a surprise.  Actually, I don't remember seeing Jimsteele's name among the WUWT  comments . . . but the WUWT  commentariat has a cast of thousands . . . and memorywise I might well be developing some Fronto-Temporal Dementia (sadly, one of my bigly favorite rightwing politicians is showing early signs of that condition.  Stay tuned ! )

    And perhaps my memory was influenced by Jimsteele saying that every skeptic he knew totally understands the greenhouse effect . . . but that quote would be incongruous with Jimsteele being extremely familiar with WUWT, don't you reckon ?

  5. Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

    Eclectic - the role infrared radiation in retaining heat in the ocean has some experimental verification. See The Response of the Ocean Thermal Skin Layer to Variations in Incident Infrared Radiation 2018

  6. Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

    Eclectic - a cursory look will assure you that Jim Steele is extremely familiar with WUWT - and also perhaps indicate whether discussion with him is worth bothering with.

  7. A data scientist’s case for ‘cautious optimism’ about climate change

    William @ 38

    "At what point - would you start to not trust a climate alarmist - if deaths continue to fall or not rise for another 40 years - would you think maybe we should not trust those who make these predictions and fuel the narrative. Or do they just get a forever pass - and you will always accept more predictions - even though the people and movements who made them before have always been wrong."

    Scientists are making the best predictions and projections  they can. The best evidence they have says heatwaves have already become significantly more frequent and intense (refer last IPCC report), and that this situation will get worse over time particularly as warming gets above 2 degrees C. I see no reason to doubt them. The predictions are rational, logical and evidence based. I am a sceptical sort of person but Im not a fool who thinks all predictions should be ignored or that everything is fake or a conspiracy.

    Scientists generally predict heatwave mortality will increase and be greater than reducing deaths in winter due to warmer winters, as per the reference I posted @34. What scientists cannot possibly predict is what advances there might be in healthcare and technology that might keep the mortality rate low. All we know is there will likely be further improvements in healthcare and technology, but quantifying them is impossible and it would be foolish to assume there will be massive improvements. We have to follow the precautionary principle that things could be quite bad.

    If warming over the next 20 years causes less harm than predicted mitigation policies can be adjusted accordingly. This is far better than just making wild assumptions that global warming would be a fizzer.

    Please appreciate that contrary to your comments elsewhere,  multiple climate predictions have proven to be correct. Just a few examples:

    theconversation.com/20-years-on-climate-change-projections-have-come-true-11245

    www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/oct/25/charlie-kirk/many-climate-predictions-do-come-true

    "I think people just want to believe things will be terrible and there are primed believe end of days narratives."

    Some people yes. Other people think things will always be fine. Both are delusional views. I would suggest the vast majority of people between those extremes have a more rational, nuanced view and that they look at the overall evidence. Polling by Pew Research does show the majority of people globally accept humans are warming the climate and we need to mitigate the problem.

    "Yes - anything could happen in the future and deaths and damage levels could rise again- but it is nor healthy to ignore the present - or trust people that wilfully distort it."

    I'm not ignoring the present or past. The mortality rate from disasters has mostly fallen over the last 100 years and that looks like robust data. I didn't dispute this above. I dont recal anyone disputing it. However you cant assume that trend will always be the case. The climate projections show deadly heatwaves are very likely to become very frequent and over widespread areas, and so obviously there is a significant risk the mortality rate will go up.

    It's almost completely certain that at the very least considerably increased resources will have to go into healthcare, air conditioning, adaptation, etc,etc. This means fewer resources available for other things we want to achieve in life. Once again its not all about the mortality rate per se. So when I look at the big picture there is a strong case to stop greenhouse gas emissions and transition to a new zero carbon energy grid.

    Moderator Response:

    [BL] Please exercise restraint in responding to William. Think about whether this actually advances the discussion, or merely starts another spin cycle on the washing machine.

  8. Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

    Gentlemen ~  "Climate The Movie" is currently being featured and featured "bigly" , at the WattsUpWithThat  [WUWT]  blogsite.  WUWT  has the topic "pinned" for consideration and comments.   Comments are currently numbering 422.   Yes, 422.

    However, please do not waste your time by seeking through the 422 for any sign of perceptive & intelligent comments.   I assure you that I have skimmed the 400-ish . . . and it's merely the typical WUWT  "usual suspects" who are angrily venting into the WUWT  echochamber.

    Jimsteele , it sounds like you are completely unfamiliar with the WUWT  website.   It is full (well ~ at the 95% level) of commenters who deny the greenhouse effect ~ either directly or indirectly.   Yes, I view the website to "educate" myself . . . mostly about the follies of Motivated Reasoning which are on display there daily.   WUWT  manages to be both interesting and tiresome.  But the cynical reader will see some amusing comments there ~ of egregious fatuities & unintended ironies.

    Jimsteele @91 ~ please go back and carefully re-read my comment @84.   No, I did not state or allege that you "denied the greenhouse effect".   But among your convoluted statements on ocean warming/cooling, you both allege and imply that CO2 contributes little or nothing to the (presently unfrozen) temperature of the Earth's ocean.   Do you see the irony/incongruity of your position ?

  9. Charlie_Brown at 05:02 AM on 4 April 2024
    Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

    The discussion of the heat transfer mechanisms at the ocean’s surface is irrelevant for understanding the mechanism of global warming caused by increasing greenhouse gas emissions. It neglects infrared radiant energy emitted from the surface and the overall global energy balance.

    jimsteele @91 claims that he does not deny the “greenhouse effect”, yet the movie and his initial post @67 direct to myths about “global warming caused by increasing GHG emissions.” He reveals his lack of knowledge about the “greenhouse effect” when, @83, he accuses eclectic: “It is your narrative that grossly incomplete! You make a totally unsubstantiated assertion that without CO2 the oceans would freeze.” It is a correct assertion substantiated by a simple radiant energy balance over the globe:  Solar In = Infrared Out.

    The surface of the ocean and the land are blackbodies that absorb and emit radiant energy based on Planck’s Distribution Law. Gases, being simple molecules, emit at specific wavelengths as internal energy levels change determined by bending and stretching depending on the molecular structure. CO2 has many strong absorptance/emittance lines in the wavelength band of about 14 to 16 microns and many more weak lines on the shoulders of this band.

    Absorptance equals emittance at thermal equilibrium (Kirchoff’s Law). That is the energy balance of a molecule. The condition of thermal equilibrium is important because it is conservation of energy, not conservation of photons at a specific frequency. Because the bottom layer of the stratosphere is cold, the intensity of emitted energy from CO2 is lower than the intensity emitted in the same wavelength band from the surface. Thus, energy emitted to space is reduced. With increasing CO2, the emittance lines fill in and the range of the CO2 emittance band becomes wider. Infrared out is reduced. Energy accumulates. The pre-industrial steady state balance when accumulation was zero is upset. Warming occurs until the energy balance is restored. It is restored when the temperature of the surface increases enough such that the energy emitted by the surface at other wavelengths outside of the CO2 absorptance band matches the reduced energy emitted to space from within the CO2 band.

  10. jimsteele24224 at 03:39 AM on 4 April 2024
    Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

    Second, when you Bob told me to discuss this elsewheere I didnt know it was said by a moderator. You never made that clear, so it appeared you were just a random commenter deflecting the discussion.

    I also believed the topic here was about the Climate the Movie and whether or not the facts presented in it were just refuted myths. 

    SkS topic 31 greenhouse stated the argument "Increasing CO2 has little to no effect" is a myth and that "The strong CO2 effect has been observed by many different measurements."

    I had not argued about the greenhouse effect in general,  just about how the ocean is warmed. Then Eclectic dishonestly alleged I denied the greenhouse effect. So please explain why his post is still up but my reply gets deleted? 

    Moderator Response:

    [BL] I'll leave this intact for now, but the original comment advising where to take the discussion was a general comment to all involved.

    The only comments of yours that have been deleted are the ones posted after the initial gentle warning. All posts prior to that have been left intact.

    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 or off-topic posts. 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.

  11. Renewable energy is too expensive

    I came across a recent substack post by Energy Bad Boys, EBB, claiming that wind and solar make for expensive electricity.  They used a very limited example of California and their home state of Minnesota to make that claim. I countered with Iowa and South Dakota that have very high percentages of wind and cheaper electricity, which they dismissed.

    This motivated a more complete analysis using data from EIA, EIA electricity data browser , for 2022 for all 48 contiguous states comparing average retail electricity prices to the percentage of renewable electricity generation - wind plus all solar, i.e., utility solar plus small solar. The data for 2022 extends the percentage of renewables out to greater than 60%, Hosted images .  (Sorry, I could not get the image insert function to work.)

    The conclusion is still the same. There is no correlation between state electricity prices and percentage of renewables. If anything there is a slight trend towards lower prices with increased penetration.

    Moderator Response:

    [BL] The ability to insert images is limited to images that are on a publicly-available server with a direct URL to the image. Your "hosted images" link goes to a Google page, not a stand-alone image. This site does not cache or store a copy of the image - it will only be visible as long as the original on the external site is still available.

    It looks like Google does not allow such linking and display, even if  you use the link that leads to the image only.

     

  12. William24205 at 03:22 AM on 4 April 2024
    A data scientist’s case for ‘cautious optimism’ about climate change

    Bob

     It is clear that you cannot look beyond one statistic about historical patterns.
    It is not just one stat. Despite predictions. There has been no discernible increase in drought, floods, land burnt by bushfire, typhoons, hurricanes.famines, migration from hot to cold places. Actually people continue to move from colder to hotter places. 

    Yes , there has been in heatwaves - but we have discussed the flipside of that before. 

    All the data is available on World in Data - it is interactive - just put in hurricanes or floods and it gives you the information

     

     

    Moderator Response:

    [BL] Yes, "discussed ...that before" is the definition of repetition.

    Repetition snipped.

  13. jimsteele24224 at 03:20 AM on 4 April 2024
    Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

    Hmmmm. You deleted my polar bear post because you deemed it off topic despite the fact I was responding to SkS' original post  calling

    "Polar bear numbers are increasing" is a myth and then stating

    "Polar bears are in danger of extinction as well as many other species."

    Clearly I was on topic  and your subjectively deleting my post that refuets SkS' claim!

    Moderator Response:

    [BL] Every single one of the entries in the table in the OP includes a link to the proper place where the topic can be discussed - and where the myths in the movie have been previously debunked.

    I'll repeat the part from the Comments Policy, with added emphasis to the last part.:

    • All comments must be on topic. Comments are on topic if they draw attention to possible errors of fact or interpretation in the main article, of if they discuss the immediate implications of the facts discussed in the main article. However, general discussions of Global Warming not explicitly related to the details of the main article are always off topic. Moderation complaints are always off topic and will be deleted
  14. jimsteele24224 at 03:15 AM on 4 April 2024
    Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

    Eclectic, LOL What are you talking about saying " Jim ~ you would lose all scientific credibility if you assert that the so-called greenhouse effect does not exist."  

    But truth is I have never denied the greenhouse effect.  Your allegations are typical of alarmists trying to denigrate skeptics. Every skeptic I know totally understands the greenhouse effect and are grateful for its warming effect. The question is how much does further increased CO2 cause further warming and is that beneficial or not.

     Your second funny is telling me not to get distracted by the details of the actual mechanisms of the ocean is warming, simply because you believe ,without ever substantiating, that there are equilibrium points that are unaffected by those proven dynamics. 

    Please educate yourself Eclectic.

    Moderator Response:

    [BL] You're not getting the message. Re-post of off-topic deleted comment deleted again.

    There are plenty of better threads here to discuss the Greenhouse effect. There is a box on the upper left of each page that says "Search". I'll let you try to figure out on your own what that is for.

  15. William24205 at 02:26 AM on 4 April 2024
    A data scientist’s case for ‘cautious optimism’ about climate change

     I don't dismiss predictions and opinions.
    I am however a great believer in evidence, especially hard evidence .
    It is difficult to discuss matters with someone who ignores evidence because it does not fit their pre conceived opinion and biases.
    If you say t will rain tomorrow -and I say it will not - and we both agree to a bet on it.
    And it did not rain - you can't say I think it will rain nest week therefore i was right - and I am not paying you.
    This is the basic tactic of climate alarmist - they keep being proved wrong - so they move the timelines. - the new timeline are wrong - so they move them again - and so on and so on.

    It is why people still say Thomas Malthus was right. One can never win with them - because they just say somethimng that  is unfalsifiable .

    It is like someone saying - prove there are no UFO

    And btw – it is not just one metric deaths – there has been no increase in economic damage in real terms, no increase in droughts, floods, land burned by bushfires, famine , migration from hot places to cold. None of these ( despite 40 years of predictions )  have occurred – but yes you will be able to find new predictions – and maybe in your book – that means they have occurred.

    Moderator Response:

    [BL] You have now crossed the line in terms of repetition.

    Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

    Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

    In particular:

    Comments should avoid excessive repetition. Discussions which circle back on themselves and involve endless repetition of points already discussed do not help clarify relevant points. They are merely tiresome to participants and a barrier to readers. If moderators believe you are being excessively repetitive, they will advise you as such, and any further repetition will be treated as being off topic.

     

  16. jimsteele24224 at 02:19 AM on 4 April 2024
    Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

    Eclectic, LOL What are you talking about saying " Jim ~ you would lose all scientific credibility if you assert that the so-called greenhouse effect does not exist."  

    But truth is I have never denied the greenhouse effect.  Your allegations are typical of alarmists trying to denigrate skeptics. Every skeptic I know totally understands the greenhouse effect and are grateful for its warming effect. The question is how much does further increased CO2 cause further warming and is that beneficial or not.

     Your second funny is telling me not to get distracted by the details of the actual mechanisms of the ocean is warming, simply because you believe ,without ever substantiating, that there are equilibrium points that are unaffected by those proven dynamics. 

    Please educate yourself Eclectic.

    Moderator Response:

    [BL] Contents snipped - off-topic.

  17. jimsteele24224 at 02:05 AM on 4 April 2024
    Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

    I would also take issue with SkepticalScience claiming Polar bears are in danger of extinction as well as many other species.

    polar bear population

    Polar bears are believed to be affected by reduced sea ice because their main prey, the ringed seal, remains in the Arctic all year and they give birth to their pups on the ice where they are very vulnerable to the bears.

    • There are 2 types of sea ice. Land-fast ice and pack-ice. Unlike fast-ice, pack ice is mobile. When winds cause pack ice to collide with the shore or other ice slabs, the pack ice thickens as ice slabs are pushed on top of each other. Thick pack ice doesn’t melt completely in the summer. However, shifting winds can blow thick pack ice out of the Arctic, as happened in the 1990s9.

    • Ringed seals depend on fast-ice. Thin fast-ice naturally melts completely by July, and then re-forms starting in October.To breathe, ringed seals must create breathing holes by head-butting through any newly forming thin ice. Then gnawing and clawing at the ice as it thickens, keeps their breathing holes open throughout the winter. Multi-year pack ice is too thick for seals to create breathing holes.

    • Ringed seals mostly give birth to their pups on land fast-ice in March and April. Pups remain on the ice while nursing and then molting in June. Land-fast ice is thickest during the seals reproduction cycle and remains until late June. Seals then abandon the ice to hunt in open water starting in July and only crawl out on ice unpredictably to bask in the sun for a few hours. Melting ice after July has no effect on how available the seal pups are to bears.


    • Polar bears gain almost all of their body fat in the late spring and early summer from feeding on baby ringed seals. In contrast, all bears lose weight during the winter when there is the greatest amount of ice. Feasting on baby seals from March thru June determines if the bears will survive the winter. Unlike feasting on baby seals, any feeding on ice  or land after June is purely opportunistic. Pregnant females enter hibernation just as ice begins to reform and emerge only as ringed seals are giving birth

     
    • Ringed Seal are so abundant they are considered a Species of Least Concern, so Arctic climate change does not appear to have had a negative effect.


    • More open water from July to September increases sunlight reaching phytoplankton, generating greater photosynthesis and a more productive Arctic Ocean.3 Increased photosynthesis improves the whole Arctic food chain, eventually increasing fish populations that ringed seals depend upon. More ringed seals provide more food for polar bears.


    • Since hunting polar bears was restricted, polar bear populations have increased.

    Moderator Response:

    [BL] Contents snipped - off topic.

  18. jimsteele24224 at 01:56 AM on 4 April 2024
    Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

    Loblaw, You have said absolutely nothing to refute the science I preented here. Instead you try to eflect and redirect the issue. Not a very scientific approach. I will await your refutation here.

    Moderator Response:

    [BL] No, I was trying to give you a polite nudge to post things in places where there are on topic.

    Skeptical Science has a Comments Policy. There is a link to it above the edit box you use to type in comments. You agreed to follow that policy when you signed up for an account. The first two sections of it are:

    • All comments must be on topic. Comments are on topic if they draw attention to possible errors of fact or interpretation in the main article, of if they discuss the immediate implications of the facts discussed in the main article. However, general discussions of Global Warming not explicitly related to the details of the main article are always off topic. Moderation complaints are always off topic and will be deleted
    • Make comments in the most appropriate thread.  Some comments, while strictly on topic, may relate to issues discussed in more detail in some other thread.  Extended discussion of those points should be carried out in the more appropriate thread, with link backs to reference the discussion as needed.  Moderator's directions to move discussion to a more appropriate thread should always be followed.

    Since you have refused to follow that gentle advice, I have no choice but to enforce it more strongly. Any further off-topic posts will simply be deleted.

    Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

    Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

     

  19. A data scientist’s case for ‘cautious optimism’ about climate change

    William:

    It is clear that you cannot look beyond one statistic about historical patterns.

    I value the opinion of the authors of a study much more than I value your opinion about it.

    Your dismissal of any predictions whatsoever (except, it would seem, your own opinions) shows a state of denial of anything scientific. It makes me wonder how you can get out of bed in the morning, since it is impossible for you to predict whether or not the floor will support you.

  20. William24205 at 00:09 AM on 4 April 2024
    A data scientist’s case for ‘cautious optimism’ about climate change

    nigelj

     At what point - would you start to not trust a climate alarmist - if deaths continue to fall or not rise for another 40 years - would you think maybe we should not trust those who make these predictions and fuel the narrative. Or do they just get a forever pass - and you will always accept more predictions - even though the people and movements who made them before have always been wrong.

    I think people just want to believe things will be terrible and there are primed believe end of days narratives.

    Yes - anything could happen in the future and deaths and damage levels could rise again- but it is nor healthy to ignore the present - or trust people that wilfully distort it.

     

     

  21. William24205 at 23:49 PM on 3 April 2024
    A data scientist’s case for ‘cautious optimism’ about climate change

     BOB

    This study shows the negative health impacts of climate change that, under high-emission scenarios, would disproportionately affect warmer and poorer regions of the world. Comparison with lower emission scenarios emphasises the importance of mitigation policies for limiting global warming and reducing the associated health risks.

     

    Rather typical you have when presented with a fact, come back with someone's opinion and a prediction.
    You can't disprove a fact with a new prediction. As I said before - we could have this conversation in 40-years’ time, and you or other alarmists would still answer a fact with a prediction.

    Nothing that occurred matters. Evidence is always dismissed with evidence of a prediction. 

     

  22. Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

    Gentlemen:

    The proper place to be carrying on this discussion about ocean heating is on this thread:

    https://skepticalscience.com/How-Increasing-Carbon-Dioxide-Heats-The-Ocean.html

    Yes, the original post in that link is from 2011, but it is still open for comments.

    Scaddenp is correct in pointing out (in comment 70 here) that jimsteele is regurgitating debunked myths from more than a decade ago. Jimsteele: please actually read the appropriate post and comments before you start repeating yourself.

  23. Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

    The grids with the lowest emissions worldwide are not those with the  deregulated power markets that came in first under Pinochet in Chile, then in the UK under Thatcher, and subsequently mostly from about 1995 -2004 in parts of the US, Europe and in Australia (1998 under Max Bradford in New Zealand.) Those have not demonstrated the capability to grow capacity, and slash emissions, that will be needed if we want a real transition. For most of the last forty years, in first world countries, demand was static, and the market system only acted to replace existing capacity, not cover expanding uses. (Nor did it give the lowered prices promised when the reforms were introduced.) The lowest emissions are mostly in areas with large, government-run entities, using either hydro - Hydro Quebec and BC Hydro in Canada, Electrobras in Brazil, Statkraft in Norway - or hydro and nuclear - Electricite de France, Ontario Power Generation, Vattenfall in Sweden. Governments can supply the 'patient money', from superannuation funds, needed for long-term energy projects. Private companies, with management usually only staying in the job a few years, pay more attention to quarterly earnings than is needed for projects that will span many generations. A reactor takes years, and a lot of work, to bring online, but once done nothing compares for abundant clean power.

  24. Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

    Jimsteele @83  :

    Certainly the ocean skin surface is the gateway through which heat enters & leaves the ocean.  (Other than the large flux of solar radiation which penetrates deeply into the ocean ~ we scuba divers can definitely see that occurring ! )

    But as I mentioned above, the skin surface dynamics do not disturb the long-term equilibrium of energies, over the course of days and years.  Surely that is obvious to you.   Please do not confuse & distract yourself with the ephemeral fluctuations in the surface few microns of oceanic water.

    Also ~ do not distract yourself with thinking about the different heat fluxes in the tropic / temperate / and polar zones of the planet.   Those zones have their own long-term equilibrium positions, and their existence (and fluctuations) won't change the medium-term equilibrium of the total planet.

    Second ~ please educate yourself about the paleo history of Earth . . . and its "iceball" phases.   Yes, the paleo evidence indicates low armospheric CO2 produces "iceball" oceanic freezing.   In addition to that evidence, the basic physics of Earth's planetary orbital distance and the incident solar radiation on Earth . . . indicate that the Earth's oceans would become meters-deep in ice, if the atmospheric "greenhouse" effect were to disappear.

    Jim ~ you would lose all scientific credibility if you assert that the so-called greenhouse effect does not exist.   Please step back from the brink . . . and reconsider your position.

  25. jimsteele24224 at 13:43 PM on 3 April 2024
    Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

    ocean heat flux

    Eclectic, First the skin surface dynamics are essential. The skin surface is the only layer from which heat can leave the ocean.

    Second It is your narrative that grossly incomplete! You make a totally unsubstantiated assertion that without CO2 the oceans would freeze. You totally ignore solar heating. However the heat flux into the ocean primarily happens due to tropical solar heating in the eastern oceans, where La Nina like conditions reduce cloud cover and increase solar heating. The ocean sub surface can trap heat but the skin surface cannot.

  26. Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

    Jimsteele @81 :

    Thank you ~ but the analysis is still incomplete.  Possibly some semantic obfuscation or confusion is impeding the basic physical picture.

    Over a 24 hour cycle or 365 day cycle, the interesting variations in the topmost few microns of ocean are unimportant.  What is important is the overall flux of energy into & out of the ocean  ~ for that is what maintains the ocean's temperature structure (stratification) and long-term heat content.  And the ocean is responsible for a large slice of the atmosphere's heat content & stratification (indirectly).  It goes both ways.

    Remove CO2 and the lesser greenhouse gasses . . . and the ocean temperature would decrease . . . and the surface few microns would be ice (and the deeper ocean would freeze as well).

    Ergo ~ and in straightforward language ~ it can be accurately said that CO2 has a major effect in warming the planetary ocean.

  27. jimsteele24224 at 12:26 PM on 3 April 2024
    Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

    Eclectic to be more complete

    First understand, CO2 infrared only penetrates a few microns depth compared to solar heating that warms the sub-surface for several meters depth, creating the diurnal warm layer

    Second, the ocean’s skin layer is the only layer where heat can ventilate from the ocean. Absorbed solar heat creates a temperature gradient where conduction moves heat from the diurnal warm layer up towards the skin surface and out to the atmosphere. 98% of the time the ocean heats the atmosphere. The atmosphere does not heat the ocean.

    The skin surface is always the coolest layer because as soon as any downward infrared from greenhouse gases heats the skin surface, the skin surface radiates that heat away as the laws of physics dictate! Furthermore, any heating of the skin surface increases evaporation and promotes evaporative cooling. And finally the skin surface heat is conducted away by the atmosphere. Thus even at night after most solar heat has been ventilaated, the skin surface is cooler than subsurface layers.

    Measurements show the skin surface radiates away infrared from the combined inputs of solar heating that rises to the skin surface and infrared heating absorbed in the skin surface. The skin surface cannot trap heat. However subsurface layers trap heat because of the time delay of that heat reaching the skin surface to ventilate. Furthermore, heat is trapped in the ocean where ever solar heated subsurface layers are overlain by fresher water that suppresses convection.

    To better understand this dynamic watch or read: Science of Solar Ponds Challenges the Climate Crisis
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wl3_YQ_Vufo&t=17s

     

  28. jimsteele24224 at 12:21 PM on 3 April 2024
    Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

    Eclectic, you missed something basic in physics and in logic ?

  29. Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

    Jimsteele @76 :

    You have answered incompletely.  Have I missed something basic in physics or in logic ?    e.g. ~

    Solar shortwave radiation -> ocean

    ocean heat -> atmosphere by molecular vibration and by IR radiation

    atmospheric heat -> ocean (predominantly by molecular vibration, but a small component of IR radiation too)

    CO2 -> greenhouse effect -> lower atmosphere warming [lapse rate]

    Ergo, CO2 provides a large (but indirect) amount of ocean warming.

    ?

     

  30. jimsteele24224 at 12:05 PM on 3 April 2024
    Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

    Hi John,

    Warming the surface stratifies the oceans' upper layers. Turbulent mixing mostly increases the cooling effect by bringing warmer subsurface water to the skin surface. The ocean's mixed layer deepens in the winter as the upper layer cools.

  31. Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

    Jim, what about turbulent mixing?

  32. jimsteele24224 at 11:20 AM on 3 April 2024
    Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

    Hi Eclectic, No you are wrong to claim "In summary ; the ocean receives heat predominantly from light energy and from conduction from the atmosphere."

    Conduction is negigible if at all.

    The diurnal warm layer created by greater subsurface heating from the sun creates heat conduction out of the ocean and towards the skinlayer which is the only layer from which heat can leave the ocean.

    Once infrared heats the ocean's couple of micron thick skin surface, the warmer surface begins emitting infrared and cools the skin surface. Basic physics! Heating the skin surface also increases evaporative cooling and 98% of the time the atmosphere is warmed by contact with the ocean's skin surface. Basic physics does not indicate CO2 infrared can heat the ocean.

  33. jimsteele24224 at 11:15 AM on 3 April 2024
    Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

    scaddenp SCIENCE OF DOOM  had many accurate posts but regards heating the ocean he/she failed miserably. So I ould appreciate hearing your understanding, instead of pawning the issue off to someone else.

    He first presented the idea of conduction as important for OC2 heating with "Once you establish a temperature difference you inevitably get heat transfer by conduction" 

    Indeed, the diurnal warm layer created by greater subsurfac heating by the sun created heat conduction towards the skinlayer which is the only layer from which heat can leave the ocean.

    Once infrared heats the ocean's  coup;le of micron skin surface, the warmer surface begins emitting infrared and cools the skin surface. Basic physics!  Heating the skin surface also increases evaporative cooling and 98% of the time the atmosphere is warmed by contact with the ocean's skin surface.  Basic physics does not indicate CO2 infrared can heat the ocean.

  34. Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

    Jimsteele : help me understand your position.

    m

    At the most basic level :- solar radiation at visible wavelengths does penetrate 10's of meters into the ocean.  (As a scuba diver, I can vouch for this.)

    At other wavelengths, into the infrared & longer, there is shallow or deep penetration, but the actual penetration flux is tiny in comparison to the visible light.  (That includes the infrared flux radiated from CO2 in the lowermost few meters of atmosphere.)

    Then we have a large flux of energy (both out of and into the ocean) from molecular vibrations at the ocean/air interface ~ vibrations of molecules of water / water vapor / nitrogen / and oxygen.   I have not chased down the magnitude of such flux into and out of the ocean ~ but presumably that magnitude is huge.

    In summary ; the ocean receives heat predominantly from light energy and from conduction from the atmosphere.  CO2 molecules have only a very tiny direct ocean-warming effect ~ but arguably a huge indirect warming effect through CO2's action as a greenhouse gas warming the planet's atmosphere.

    Have I understood that correctly ?

     

     

  35. Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

    Jim, the myth that backradiation cant warm the ocean. I freely admit the author of Science of Doom knows more about this than I do, so I suggest you take it up with him if find the argument unconvincing.

  36. jimsteele24224 at 08:01 AM on 3 April 2024
    Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

    LOL you say "I havent heard that myth for a decade or so"   Exactly what myth are you insinuating???

    You seem unable to distinguish solar irradiance vs solar insolation!?Clouds provide a huge determination of solar insolation but not irradiance . Please explain your viewpoint. Otherwise it appears you dont know what you are talking about!

  37. jimsteele24224 at 07:50 AM on 3 April 2024
    Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

    scaddenp:  I am unsure why you claim "On interannual and to some extent the decadal scales, variations in surface temperature are strongly influenced by ocean-atmosphere heat exchange, but I think you would agree that the increasing OHC rules that out as cause of global warming?"

    rn

    Why?

    rn

    Most studies I have reviewed, find that most heat flux(98%) leaves the oean and warms the air.  I trust the Argo data that the oceans have slightly warmed, but Argo does not determine attribution.

    rn

    It has been well established that the tropics absorbs more heat locally than it ventilates. And that outside the tropics more heat is ventilated than is absorbed. Because CO2 infrared never penetrates deeper than a few microns compared to deep solar heating, I argue solar heating of the oceans drives atmoispheric warming.

    rn

    I addressed this in https://twitter.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1771957182407536940

    rn

     

    rn

     

  38. Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

    jimsteele - well I havent heard that myth for a decade or so. So solar output isnt increasing but solar heating is?? I suggest that go over to Science of Doom who dealt with subject exhaustively in 2010. (4 parts in the end) If that doesnt convince you then I wont waste my time.

  39. jimsteele24224 at 07:15 AM on 3 April 2024
    Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

    scaddenp:  I am unsure why you claim "On interannual and to some extent the decadal scales, variations in surface temperature are strongly influenced by ocean-atmosphere heat exchange, but I think you would agree that the increasing OHC rules that out as cause of global warming?"

    Why?

    Most studies I have reviewed, find that most heat flux(98%) leaves the oean and warms the air.  I trust the Argo data that the oceans have slightly warmed, but Argo does not determine attribution.

    It has been well established that the tropics absorbs more heat locally than it ventilates. And that outside the tropics more heat is ventilated than is absorbed. Because CO2 infrared never penetrates deeper than a few microns compared to deep solar heating, I argue solar heating of the oceans drives atmoispheric warming.

    I addressed this in https://twitter.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1771957182407536940

     

     

  40. Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

    Two dog. The OHC content data in red comes from the Argo array. You can find reasonable description here. The old pentadecadal data is ship-based and has much bigger error bars. I cant immediately find the paper that determined the accuracy of the Argo data but if interested I am sure I dig it out.

    On interannual and to some extent the decadal scales, variations in surface temperature are strongly influenced by ocean-atmosphere heat exchange, but I think you would agree that the increasing OHC rules that out as cause of global warming?

    "I did also read that the warming effect of CO2 decreases as its concentration increases so the warming is expected to reduce over time. Is there any truth in that?"

    Sort of  - there is a square law. If radiation increase from 200-400 is say 4W/m2, then you have to increase from CO2 from 400 to 800ppm to get 8W/m2. However, that doesnt translate directly into "warming" because of feedbacks. Water vapour is powerful greenhouse gas and its concentration in the atmosphere is directly related to temperature. Also as temperature rises, albedo from ice decreases so less radiation is reflected back. Worse, over century level scales, all that ocean heat reduces the ability of the ocean to absorb CO2. From memory, half of emissions are currently being absorbed there. Hot enough and the oceans de-gas. These are the calculation which have to go into those climate models.

    Which brings us to natural sources. Geothermal heat and waste heat are insignificant so would you agree that the only natural source of that extra heat would be the sun? Now impact of sun on temperature has multiple components that climate models take into account. These are:
    1/ variations in energy emitted from the sun.
    2/ screening by aerosols (natural or manmade). Important in 20th  century variations you see.
    3/ changes in albedo (especially ice and high cloud)
    4/ The concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

    Now climate scientist would say that changes to all of those can account for all past natural climate change using known physics. They would also say very high confidence that 1/ to 3/ are not a significant part of current climate change (you can see the exact amount for each calculated in the IPCC report). Why are they confident? If you were climate scientist investigating those factors, what would you want to measure to investigate there effects? Seriously, think about that and how you might do such investigations.

    Is it possible there is something we dont understand at play? Of course, but there is no evidence for other factors. You can explain past and present climate change with known figures so trying to invoke the unknown seems to be clutching at straws. 

  41. jimsteele24224 at 06:07 AM on 3 April 2024
    Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

    A Netherlands journalist, Maarten Keulemans, tried to denigrate Climate the Movie: The Cold Truth in about 50 tweets using much of the same arguments posted to here on SkepticalScience. I successfully debunked all of his arguments in 16 tweets (originally I intended 20) listed below, and so I was just honored with being interviewed for a Dutch TV segment regards how the Climate the Movie promotes vital scientific debate. Too often alarmists try to suppress debate with weak arguments or denigrating the opposition as deniers. However I doubt alarmists can refute any of my arguments, but I will gladly entertain your arguments.

    1 Denigrating the Climate Reconstruction graph by Ljungqvist https://twitter.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1771929435366940908…

    2 Keulemans' Medieval Warm Period lie https://twitter.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1771933673488789868…

    3 Contamination of Instrumental by Urbanization https://twitter.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1771939656504062260…

    4 The Best USA temperature Statistic! https://twitter.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1771947116631580724…

    5 Ocean Warming Facts https://twitter.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1771957182407536940…

    6 US Heat Waves https://twitter.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1771963700951527487…

    7 It is the Sun Stupid! https://twitter.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1771977013576024282…

    8 Alarmists know better than Nobel Prize Winners ! https://twitter.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1771987039631921454…

    9 Wildfires: Liar Liar Keulemans' Pants on Fire https://twitter.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1772000151596572844…

    10 The Dangers of CO2 Sequestration and CO2 Starvation https://twitter.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1772016867265380795

    11 Models Running Hot! Keulemans Disgraceful attack on the most honest Dr John Christy! https://twitter.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1772081300884852829…

    12 Keulemans’ Blustering Hurricane Fears
    https://twitter.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1772319957042479298

    13. Dishonestly Defining Natural Climate Factors
    https://twitter.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1773395443864736058

    14. Denying Antarctica’s Lack of Warming
    https://twitter.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1773473481637957758

    15. Misinformation on CO2’s Role in Warming Interglacials during our Ice Age.
    https://twitter.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1773777313924297210

    16. Science journalists vs grifting propagandists – Antarctica
    https://twitter.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1774428539858907444

  42. Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

    Two Dog @65.  All that additional heat energy accumulating in the oceans has to come from somewhere. Possible candidates are anthropogenic warming, increased solar activity, and an increase in sub sea   geothermal or volcanic activity.

    Scientists have ruled out solar forcing and geothermal or volcanic activity. It's really hard for me to see where else that quantitiy of energy could come from if not those three possibilities. Just waving your hands and saying there may be something else isnt remotely convincing to me. Its just so implausible and such a vanishingly small possibility and so unlikely.

  43. A data scientist’s case for ‘cautious optimism’ about climate change

    William said (paraphrasing) that the mortality rate from natural disasters has fallen over the last 100 years. The implication being why worry about global warming because death rate will continue to fall. I think its a deluded view for the following reasons.

    I would assume the mortality rate has fallen because of improvements in prevention, technology, rescue services and healthcare. However this has been in the context of a reasonably stable climate until the last couple of decades. I would be concerned that as warming increases heatwaves, floods and crop failures could escalate and mean improvements in healthcare etc,etc cant keep up and the mortality rate increases. This would be especially in tropical zones that get hit hardest by climate change but have the weakest economies.

    It should also be noted that as more people are made sick by increasing numbers of natural disasters like heatwaves, this requires resources to treat them that could be spent elsewhere. So its incredibly naeive to focus just on the mortality rate.

    We cant stop volcanic eruptions or tidal waves and we just go into overdrive to save lives even although it uses massive resources. But we can do someting about anthropogenic climate change and thus avoid needing to put more resources than otherwise into healthcare and other rescue services.

  44. A data scientist’s case for ‘cautious optimism’ about climate change

    lchinitz @ 32:

    Fossil fuels look a lot cheaper than they should, because of externalities.

    Energy transition considers how costs will change. Production by renewables is already cheaper in may cases; storage to cover lulls is still an issue.

  45. A data scientist’s case for ‘cautious optimism’ about climate change

    The claim is made that global warming is not a problem because cold is far deadlier than heatwaves. It is  misguided and simplistic.  This commentary explains why and adds to Bob Loblows post. Excerpts: 

    Heat-related deaths will rise 257% by 2050 because of climate change. Number of heat-related deaths projected to increase in UK as temperature rise, with elderly people most at risk

    Researchers wanted to try to determine the effect that climate change will have on temperature-related deaths in the coming decades. Their study, published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, examined fluctuations in weather patterns and death rates between 1993 and 2006 to characterise the associations between temperature and mortality. (Emphasis mine. The study uses solid evidence.)

    The researchers, from Public Health England (PHE) and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, then looked at projected population and climate increases so they could estimate temperature-related deaths for the UK in coming decades.

    Heat-related deaths will rise 257% by 2050 because of climate change. Number of heat-related deaths projected to increase in UK as temperature rise, with elderly people most at risk.

    Researchers noted a 2.1% increase in the number of deaths for every 1C rise in the mercury and a 2% increase in mortality for every 1C drop in temperature. The number of hot weather days is projected to rise steeply, tripling by 2080, they said. Meanwhile the number of cold days is expected to fall, though at a less dramatic pace.

    At present there are around 41,000 winter-related deaths and 2,000 excess summer deaths.

    The authors predicted that without adaptation, the number of heat-related deaths will increase by 66% in the 2020s, 257% by the 2050s and 535% by the 2080s. Cold weather-related deaths will increase by 3% in the 2020s, then decrease by 2% in the 2050s and by 12% in the 2080s, they added.

    This means by 2080 there will be around 12,500 heat-related deaths and 36,500 cold-related deaths.

    The authors said that the burden of extreme weather remains such higher in those over the age of 75, particularly in the over-85s....

    (So the conclusion is the increase in the mortaility rate of heat related deaths is higher than the decrease in mortaility rate from warmer winters)

    www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/04/heat-related-deaths-climate-change

     

  46. A data scientist’s case for ‘cautious optimism’ about climate change

    William @ 30:

    No, I do not agree that deaths are "the most important" thing. And I do not agree that past trends in deaths present evidence that there will not be many deaths in the future. If I had to be on future causes of deaths related to climate change, I'd put it on massive failures of agriculture (which we are already seeing the early signs of), massive migrations of people fleeing lands that can no longer support them (they are not going to just roll over and die - they'll be showing up in your back yard), and massive instability in our economies and society as people try to adapt to the new conditions.

    ...and before people start dying, there can be an awful lot of pain and suffering.

    As for your questions about:

    Your idea that the IPCC doesn't think we have a problem is so far from what they say. (Unless, of course, your only metric is deaths so far.)

  47. A data scientist’s case for ‘cautious optimism’ about climate change

    Bob Loblaw @29, and WIlliam @27,

    I am probably doing a poor job at describing what I am trying to describe.  I am not trying to compare the Covid crisis with the climate crisis.  I am aware of the differences.

    I was just using the quote from Collins to illustrate that policymakers can, based on their policy goals, ignore certain things which later (upon reflection) they might wish they had not ignored.  And I'm just wondering if we could get that out of the way in the climate conversation.  William @26 is basically using that argument.  He says "Cheap reliable energy has massively improved human well-being. We ignore that our peril."  Meaning that in the climate change contenxt we are proposing to address climate change in such a way that we will affect the availability of cheap, reliable energy.

    Now, I don't agree with that, but that's not the point.  The point is that it's an argument to be considered.  As I said, personally I think that the risks are highly asymmetric, so if we were able to quantify the "peril" he mentions, it would be far less than the peril of NOT taking action.  But it would be great to have numbers there.  That is, show that we are NOT ignoring that at our peril.  That we have looked to the best of our ability, and we believe that there is a bigger peril to deal with.

    Maybe it's not possible, though.  Even the fact that I can't explain it to this group is discouraging me.  I see a glimmer of what I'm trying to say in this piece from NPR.  

    "It's kickstarting the government doing this," said Margaret Walls, Director of the Climate Risks and Impacts Program at Resources for the Future, a Washington research group. But, she continued, "it's imperfect."

    Walls said she would like to see the government include the climate costs of safety net programs, such as unemployment insurance, in future versions.

    Maybe I'll look into this "Resources for the Future" to see if anything like what I'm asking for has been done, or even considered.

  48. A data scientist’s case for ‘cautious optimism’ about climate change

    William @ 24:

    You refernce a newspaper story from 2015. The actual study is probably this one:

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)62114-0

    Have you read the actual study? (The Lancet copy is paywalled, but Google Scholar will find free versions.)

    The RealClimate post I linked to (and you chose to ignore) is newer, and written by an expert in the field (not a journalist). And it looks at more than one study, including a more recent one (2017) written by many of the same authors as the one your newspaper story mentions.

    In that newer study, their interpretation is:

    This study shows the negative health impacts of climate change that, under high-emission scenarios, would disproportionately affect warmer and poorer regions of the world. Comparison with lower emission scenarios emphasises the importance of mitigation policies for limiting global warming and reducing the associated health risks.

    So, the authors of that study do not seem to share your "nothing to worry about" point of view.

  49. William24205 at 04:19 AM on 3 April 2024
    A data scientist’s case for ‘cautious optimism’ about climate change

    Bob - 

     You continue to ignore "the fact" that deaths are not the only thing that contributes to an emergency or disaster.


    Not the only thing - but surely the most important?

    Getting rid of fossil fuels could cause untold damage"
    Do you not think there is a risk in getting rid of fossil fuels ?

    There is high confidence that the changes predicted by climate science are very likely

    What are these changes ? What are the effects ? Yes , it very likely will be warmer - but what are the effects ? The IPPC does not think they will be very significant , they don't say millions will die - and that there will be more weather disasters.

    I would like to ask you one question>
    If we carried on as we are - with disasters not increasing , deaths at an all-time low and fewer people dying from direct weather deaths and crop yields at their current improved rate. 
    Would you admit the " crisis was overblown?
    Or is it just a crisis because it is - regardless of what the outcome is?

     

     

  50. A data scientist’s case for ‘cautious optimism’ about climate change

    lchinitz @23:

    I don't think we are that far apart on our viewpoints. My question about whether there are specific things that you (or others) think are not part of the analysis was probably more directed at the arguments people like your friend are making to you.

    ...but I tend to disagree with you on parts of this. When you quote Francis Collins saying "You attach zero value to whether this actually totally disrupts people’s lives, ruins the economy..."  you are referring to a micro-case. The context of the quote is a public health person, and specifically saving lives. Even in the public health sphere writ large, where budgets and resources are limited, there will have to be some sort of consideration of the economic costs (even if they are only the short-term local ones). If the patient is paying, and the patient has the money for a quadruple bypass even though they are 80 years old, smoking 3 packs a day, and ridden with cancer that will kill them in 6 months, there may be a doctor that will take the money and "save the life". But in most cases, the medical decision will probably be "no bypass for you". Especially if there is only one surgeon and operating room available and there is an otherwise healthy 20-year-old that needs heart surgery due to a car accident.

    And when we get back to the global economy in relation to the global climate, then yes, "ruining the economy" will be part of the calculations. There will be a lot of subjective values that will be left out, but things that can be quantified are likely included. From my limited understanding, I think that one of the highly debatable points in economic modelling is the "discount rate" - the relative value placed on a life today versus a life 50 or 100 years from now. With a sufficiently high discount rate you can basically say "who cares about tomorrow?". Caring about the long-term argues for a low discount rate. But that also becomes subjective and a function of personal values.

    I am somewhat familiar with Canada's legislation related to regulation of chemicals and such. There are clear requirements that an analysis preceding regulation must consider available alternatives and "external" costs that industry and users will face.

Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next



The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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