Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 Next
Comments 38051 to 38100:
-
Rob Honeycutt at 08:53 AM on 28 February 2014A Hack by Any Other Name — Part 2
Russ R... As well, no one that I know of has ever condoned Gleick's actions. But it's absurd to compare that to the CRU and SkS hacks where people have systematically, deliberated, and with malice of forethought, perpetrated very serious crimes.
-
Paul Pukite at 08:49 AM on 28 February 2014Nazis, shoddy science, and the climate contrarian credibility gap
mgardner said:
"So, rather than respond at the level appropriate to the debate as presented by skeptics, and the audience it is aimed at, they foster the impression that rebuttal requires an ever-more complex analysis. "
One of my goals is to create an ever more simple analysis and not rely on GCMs. Skeptics should like that. One approach I take is to include factors that alternative theory scientists such as Scafetta and Curry want to see in the models. Skeptics should also like that.
What I am finding that skeptics don't like, is that even with all this bowing to their wishes, when the results don't agree with their preset notiions they still complain.
The goal-posts will always move.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 08:44 AM on 28 February 2014A Hack by Any Other Name — Part 2
Russ R... Interestingly, Peter Gleick, himself, stated that he believed it was wrong what he did, that he definitely had a lapse in judgement.
Has anyone done the same after the CRU hack? Has anyone bravely apologized for the SkS hack?
-
Russ R. at 08:36 AM on 28 February 2014A Hack by Any Other Name — Part 2
"And it's just phenominal to me that there are people out there with such low standards of morality as to believe it's okay to do this."
Peter Gleick, for example... and those who condone his actions in phishing and leaking documents from the Heartland Institute.
By the way, just thought I should let you know that SkS is still quoting from and linking to the 2-yr old fake "Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy" document of which Gleick denies authorship. (http://www.skepticalscience.com/denialgate-heartland.html). I'm assuming this is merely an oversight that will be corrected.
N.B.
- I accept on good faith that SkS' editors intended to remove links to the fake document, and simply missed one link and a few quotations.
- I have no issue with SkS continuing to link to the real Heartland documents despite the "low standards of morality" employed in their acquisition.
- I commend SkS for removing those documents that contain individuals' personal information.
- I do not support the Heartland Institute in any way.
- I do not condone the actions of whoever hacked SkS.
-
dwm at 06:53 AM on 28 February 2014Humidity is falling
Hi Tom,(-snip-)
I am familiar with the water vapor articles on the Doom site, but I hadn't read the latest, thank you for that.Looking it over, I found several qualifying statements in the article that basically agree with the opinions I have been posting. You seem to have missed them so here they are:
This quote from Doom corroborates exactly what I said (in bold):
"A major problem with analyzing UTWV is that most historic measurements are poor for this region. The upper troposphere is very cold and very dry – two issues that cause significant problems for radiosondes."
This quote from Doom also agrees with what I wrote, water vapour is a critical issue (hence potential weak spot), and it is massively complex (hence hard to calculate and easy to get wrong, exhaustive study is necessary before having confidence):
"The question of how water vapor responds to increasing surface temperature is a critical one in climate research.
vapor concentration in the free troposphere is dependent on the global circulation, making it dependent on the massive complexity of atmospheric dynamics."
This quote from Doom concedes it is "very possible" that climate models get it "wrong" when he writes that
some people may “acknowledge that climate models attempt to calculate humidity from some kind of physics but believe that these climate models get it wrong. That is of course very possible."Gettelman & Fu concede that their short (and scattered) data sample by itself is “not sufficient”, or in other words, only one step in a long road yet ahead before we can conclude with confidence that the models are accurate:
"The hypothesis we seek to test is whether water vapor in the model responds to changes in surface temperatures in a manner similar to the observations. This can be viewed as a necessary but not sufficient condition for the model to reproduce the upper-tropospheric water vapor feedback caused by external forcings such as anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions."Moderator Response:[Dikran Marsupial] Moderation complaints snipped. Moderation complaints are by definition off-topic and will be deleted (after reading). I have snipped the moderation complaint this time, but in future the whole comment will be deleted as moderators do not have the time to edit posts. If you want to make a substantive point, leave the moderation complaints out of it. Please read the comments policy and abide by it, compliance is non-negotiable.
-
ubrew12 at 06:39 AM on 28 February 2014The epidemic of climate science false balance in the media
Among Climate Scientists, the agreement about Global Warming is 100%. Most believe the sensitivity is above 2C per doubling of CO2. A very few believe its below 2C. But there are no Climate Scientists, none, who disbelieve the idea altogether. This is a point that the public needs to be made more aware of. Its the reason Climate Deniers say their argument is with CAGW, not AGW, because it allows them to weasel out of their advocacy like a lawyer if you manage to nail them down on specifics.
-
Doug Bostrom at 06:34 AM on 28 February 2014The epidemic of climate science false balance in the media
Any fool can look at detailed budget slashing at DEFRA and decode what the Conservatives actually think about climate change. Meanwhile the BBC's been on the wrong foot recently for a number of reasons, are vulnerable and hence need to be careful not to offend the wrong people.
Folks don't rise to the top of management with a tin ear. Tone is set from the top. It's all a matter of listening.
-
scaddenp at 05:18 AM on 28 February 2014Humidity is falling
In terms of quantifying feedback, there are well-acknowledged uncertainities in what the value of climate sensitivity is. However, you have asserted " we understand very little of the complex interactions of having different humidities in different layers of the atmosphere and in different regions of the earth" and I cant find backing for this in science that I am aware of.
Geoengineering is discussed as only as method of last resort if humanity doesnt do the obvious step - reduce emissions. Reducing emissions is safe, since it takes us to takes us back to known state. Since you accept the precautionary principle, I assume you are good with that.
-
Paul D at 05:11 AM on 28 February 2014The epidemic of climate science false balance in the media
The BBC have got appalling at covering climate change over the last two or three years.
The recent storms have been devastating in the UK and follows up on the year of flooding in 2012.In over two months of bad weather and extreme flooding, the BBC completely failed to look at climate change or ask scientists about the weather. Instead they happily gave the voice of a Somerset MP who has a background of opposing wind farms and blamed the Environment Agency for failing to cope with record rain fall.
I have to say, but don't like to, the changes have come about since the last election.
It may be coincidence, but given that we have a government here that has a Prime Minister that refuses to acknowledge that he has appointed climate change deniers in some key positions, the BBC should be challenging the views of various government officials and politicians that they interview.Plus of course Labour did their bit by fueling the arguements last year about energy bills, which lit the touch paper that launched attacks on renewable energy.
-
Composer99 at 03:07 AM on 28 February 2014The epidemic of climate science false balance in the media
MA Rodger: The BBC's response seems especially inapt given what Lawson actually spent his time arguing about (the science).
-
EliRabett at 02:50 AM on 28 February 2014The epidemic of climate science false balance in the media
Some hope from NBC News
-
MA Rodger at 02:43 AM on 28 February 2014The epidemic of climate science false balance in the media
I put a complaint in to the BBC about Lawson's appearance on Radio 4 because "almost every point he made was woefully wrong."
The reply I got back from the BBC was:-
Whilst there may be a scientific consensus about global warming - that it is happening and largely man-made - there is no similar agreement about what should be done to tackle it; whether money should be spent, for example, on cutting carbon emissions or would be better used adapting our defences to the changing climate. Lord Lawson is not a scientist, but as a former Chancellor of the Exchequer is well qualified to comment on the economic arguments, which are a legitimate area for debate.
We believe there has to be space in the BBC’s coverage where scientific consensus meets reasonable argument about the policy implications of that consensus view. That said we do accept that we could have offered a clearer description of the sceptical position taken by Lord Lawson and the Global Warming Policy Foundation in the introduction. That would have clarified in the audience’s minds the ideological background to the arguments.
It smacks of an excuse of the moment rather than a proper explanation.My own explanation is that the many 'swivel-eyed loons' within the Tory party had been applying a lot of pressure on climate (and may be other things as well) and the BBC caved in.
-
Composer99 at 01:37 AM on 28 February 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #9A
Non-Scientist:
I must disagree strongly with your characterization. There is no hint of what you suggest regarding "buying a Prius".
Here is the abstract of the paper discussed in the Reuters article:
It is widely assumed by policymakers and health professionals that the harmful health impacts of anthropogenic climate change1, 2, 3 will be partially offset by a decline in excess winter deaths (EWDs) in temperate countries, as winters warm4, 5, 6. Recent UK government reports state that winter warming will decrease EWDs7, 8. Over the past few decades, however, the UK and other temperate countries have simultaneously experienced better housing, improved health care, higher incomes and greater awareness of the risks of cold. The link between winter temperatures and EWDs may therefore no longer be as strong as before. Here we report on the key drivers that underlie year-to-year variations in EWDs. We found that the association of year-to-year variation in EWDs with the number of cold days in winter ( <5 °C), evident until the mid 1970s, has disappeared, leaving only the incidence of influenza-like illnesses to explain any of the year-to-year variation in EWDs in the past decade. Although EWDs evidently do exist, winter cold severity no longer predicts the numbers affected. We conclude that no evidence exists that EWDs in England and Wales will fall if winters warm with climate change. These findings have important implications for climate change health adaptation policies. [Emphasis mine.]
In short, excess winter mortality no longer seems related to winter conditions themselves, but to the varying deadliness of seasonal influenza and its relatives - the paper analyses the expectation that excess winter deaths will decrease due to milder winters and finds that there is little room for improvement. (It must be said that this is a single paper, so some corroboration is surely required before it is taken as fact.)
The headline itself is nothing more than a literal one-sentence summary of the findings of the paper as noted in the abstract.
It's also worth noting the risk factors for mortality/morbidity for heat illness:
Age. Infants and children up to age 4, and adults over age 65, are particularly vulnerable because they adjust to heat more slowly than other people.
Certain health conditions. These include heart, lung, or kidney disease, obesity or underweight, high blood pressure, diabetes, mental illness, sickle cell trait, alcoholism, sunburn, and any conditions that cause fever. People with diabetes are at increased risk of emergency room visits, hospitalization, and death from heat-related illness and may be especially likely to underestimate their risk during heat waves.
Medications. These include diuretics, sedatives, tranquilizers, stimulants, some heart and blood pressure medications, and medications for psychiatric conditions.
[Emphasis original.]
Increased risk of heat illness is obviously a real risk of climate change, whatever your feelings about who dies from it. All this article does is show that we can't look to decreased winter mortality/morbidity to balance it off.
-
John Hartz at 01:21 AM on 28 February 2014Humidity is falling
dwm:
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.
-
Tom Dayton at 00:41 AM on 28 February 2014Humidity is falling
dwm, for data you've got the references in the original post (in particular, the AIRS instrument on AQUA), plus two people pointing you to AR5, plus an early comment pointing to Science of Doom (which now has a Part 7). It is necessary for you to click and read, and (horrors!) sometimes then click and read those sources' cited sources.
-
Non-Scientist at 00:38 AM on 28 February 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #9A
No edit function: For clarity, my last sentence would be better as "...mocked as insinuating..."
-
Non-Scientist at 00:36 AM on 28 February 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #9A
"Global warming won't cut winter deaths as hoped"
This topic, and the related topic of summer heat induced death are a tad misleading. The death rate of all causes is 100%: you are going to die at some point, and today there will be a medical diagnosis other than old age.
But nearly all deaths due to summer heat are natural deaths of old age, and that is a quiet passing during one's sleep, rather than while hooked up to machines, after a painful fall, or due to a hospital aquired infection.
It's best not to distract from the real risks of climate change with headlines which will be mocked as meaning "Millyuns will die in the streets if you don't buy a Prius".
Moderator Response:[JH] Newspaper headlines are purposely written to grab the reader's attention and entice him/jher to read the article.
-
Michael Whittemore at 22:49 PM on 27 February 2014Global warming continues, but volcanoes are slowing down the warming of the atmosphere
Its silly to imply climate models are getting it wrong when they are not designed to factor in certain aspects of the climate. Climate models should be adjusted each year to factor in increased ocean heat, volcano eruptions and what ever else is not accounted for.
-
Michael Whittemore at 22:41 PM on 27 February 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #9A
Its great to hear that the IPCC will now start to focus on ways to reduce the impacts of climate change. Its getting a little pointless when the only arguments we are hearing are conspiracy theory's.
-
MA Rodger at 20:50 PM on 27 February 2014Global warming continues, but volcanoes are slowing down the warming of the atmosphere
chriskoz @11.
Klimont et al (2013) shows sulphate emissions to 2011. There is a balance between rising emissions in the developing world and falling emissions in the developed world. This also results in emissions increasing at lower latitudes.
-
chriskoz at 20:19 PM on 27 February 2014Global warming continues, but volcanoes are slowing down the warming of the atmosphere
tstreet@9,
Human aerosol emissions can be acounted for quite reasonably in the past 100y or so, as seen on this graph from tamino:
The emissions clearly peaked in 70s, after they started cleaning what you've experienced in Denver, and what other experienced throughout the whole NAmerica & Europe.
I don't see any jump on this graph as the result of recent boom in China. The graph ends at 2000 however, and would love to see latest update on this account. But so far, I don't see anything what you describe as "what's going on in China" on this graph.
So my conclusion: "if China cuts its emissions", there will be no "ugly spike in [global] warming", because the drop in aerosol emissions should not be very signifficant. Perhaps the local temps would be affected. But the global effect might well be diluted. Often, what looks grandiose & very scary (especially when seen through sensationalism of the media) may not be actually a big deal when seen through the actual data analysis.
-
MA Rodger at 20:06 PM on 27 February 2014CO2 lags temperature
I asked @433 "Anybody any ideas?" It appears from the comments @ 434, 435 & 436 that dwm's answer to this question is "No. I have no idea whatever."
This still may not be the definitive answer to my question (dwm has not shown here much skill in providing such answers, even when well positioned to do so), so if anybody else has any ideas, I would be happy to learn of them.
-
ubrew12 at 19:44 PM on 27 February 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #9A
"Debunking Charles Krauthammer’s climate lies" is missing a link, which is here
I hope everyone reads Krauthammer's piece as its a classic 'doubt is our product' piece of misinformation. If 'doubt is your product' then you aren't served by shedding a light on the problem, in this case, of future climate. Rather you are served by spray-painting out the light on the problem that's being shed by others. Hence its extremely important for Krauthammer to claim that he doesn't know whether Global Warming is real or not, because it excuses his lack of prediction of future climate. No light from him. Despite this ambivalence, he is somehow 'certain' that the climate scientists don't know what they're talking about- no light from them. This leaves us all stumbling around in the dark, supporting the fossil status quo, which is his intention. Its also why I call such people graffiti taggers. No constructing a bridge to the future for them. Just spray-painting over the bridge constructed by others to make it look unpalatable.
Moderator Response:[JH] Thank you for bringing this omission to our attention. The link has been inserted.
-
dwm at 16:59 PM on 27 February 2014Humidity is falling
scaddenp, I pointed out that we are all still waiting for a good source (of a data record), and I asked for a good source if you have one, so why are you asking me for my source?
This is getting off topic, but since you asked.. I don't disagree with the precautionary principle. The problem lies with how you define precautionary. For instance, I am alarmed by those who advocate for pro-active measures such as geoengineering based on climate science which is, in my opinion, still in its infant stage.
-
scaddenp at 13:18 PM on 27 February 2014Humidity is falling
dwm - are you seriously suggesting that Clausius-Clapeyron relation doesnt hold in the atmosphere? Furthermore water vapour are constrained by OLR measurement. What is your estimate (I would love to know your source...) that the error range in the humidity estimates invalidate model estimates.
Next question, suppose for whatever reason you decide that you dont trust models are the best predictors of future climate, and yet the physics of AGW is not in doubt. What predictor of future climate do you suggest policy makers use which you think has better skill than climate models?
Uncertainity cuts both ways. Suppose the errors are such that warming ends up much faster than predicted? The precautionary principle would seem to apply.
-
paulhtremblay at 12:51 PM on 27 February 2014Nazis, shoddy science, and the climate contrarian credibility gap
Bob @49. Thanks, got it now. I pretty much understood you post, but your the visual from your link really made me see.
-
dwm at 12:50 PM on 27 February 2014Humidity is falling
JH and others: as I said, we are years away from having reliable humidity data for the various levels of the atmosphere, and moreover, as humidity is not uniform, we understand very little of the complex interactions of having different humidities in different layers of the atmosphere and in different regions of the earth. The facts that we don't have the data, and that we don't understand the complexities of the interactions, don't allow you to indulge in the weak defense of "It's the old "if you don't know everything, you know nothing" gambit."
If that is not the case, please tell me where I can find the data showing humidity levels of all layers of the earth's atmosphere for the different regions, tropic, sub-tropic..., for the past century, or heck, how about just the past 20 years.
Without a very good idea of what humidity leves have been, climate models are left in the "best guess" scenario, and since water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas, their reliability is very much in question.
Moderator Response:[JH] Your personal opinions matter little on this website. If you cannot document your assertions, merely repeating them constitutes sloganeering- which is prohibited by the SkS Comment Policy.
-
scaddenp at 11:05 AM on 27 February 2014Global warming continues, but volcanoes are slowing down the warming of the atmosphere
You can get the historical radiative forcing from aerosols from the IPCC reports
Aerosols have improved since 1990 but way worse than 1950. What matters from climate point of view is the net forcings. Aerosols have got worse but dont cool because overwhelmed by increased CO2.
-
tstreet at 08:18 AM on 27 February 2014Global warming continues, but volcanoes are slowing down the warming of the atmosphere
Someone else can probably be more quantitative, but I would think that the amount of heat reflecting emssions put out by China would be at least what the U.S. and others were emitting during the period when we had a significant cooling effect. I do remember that pollution used to be a lot worse in places I have lived like Denver, but it doesn't seem close to comparing with what is going on in China.
However, I would be interested also in the actual quantitative impact on the results of the models and if the models try to take into account the cooling effect of ongoing heat refleting emissions.
If/when China cuts its emissions to that approaching western standards, it seems like this is going to cause an ugly spike in warming.
-
Chris8616 at 07:41 AM on 27 February 2014A Hack by Any Other Name — Part 2
Not sure how you come up with the destinations, but the first thing a hacker would do is to use a proxy(even with Tor), preferabily from a country not assocciated with his own.
-
Doug Bostrom at 07:39 AM on 27 February 2014A Hack by Any Other Name — Part 2
For all the wind emitted in other places about this topic, one would think the windy would blow here at least a little bit, at what is surely the true nexus of all the hot breezes.
It's true that it's more pleasant to agree than than disagree; what better than to flock with other agreeable, agreeing folk?
-
Rob Honeycutt at 06:08 AM on 27 February 2014Nazis, shoddy science, and the climate contrarian credibility gap
funglestrumpet... Just last night I went to a lecture on climate change where one of the speakers was a lead author for both the IPCC AR4 and AR5 reports.
This was someone who is very deeply involved in the science. He's a leading climate modeler and probably has as thorough an understanding of both the scientific side of this issue as he does the political side.
He made a very important point saying that, you have to remember, just a few months ago we had every member nation sign off on a statement saying that there is a >95% likelihood that humans have been causing warming and that the potential impacts are serious. This includes nations like the US with our fracking, Australia and China with vast deposits of coal, other oil producing nations, and more.
All these member nations have agreed that this is a serious problem that cannot be denied.
He made very clear that the BAU emissions scenarios are very severe. But he also said he is an optimist. He believes we can fix the problem. He did add that the time is now. We can no longer wait. Actions have to happen now, and primarily it sounded like the most favored instrument is going to be a carbon tax.
Yes, there has been irrational delay. Yes, we should have started long ago. Yes, there are still contrarian scientists who's opinions are being elevated far above where they actually should be.
I would suggest this is part of the process. You have to remember, we're also telling some of the largest corporations on the planet that we're going to have to pretty much stop using their products as they currently produce and sell them. These are products that are largely responsible for the prosperity of the past 150 years.
The transition is not going to be easy because these companies do not want to go gentle into that good night (apologies to Dylan Thomas).
I'm with Tom and chriskos here. This is not a time for rage. It is a time for a steady hand on the tiller. Stay true to the published science. Communicate it as clearly and as often as you possibly can.
We're going to show Lovelock that he's wrong.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 05:42 AM on 27 February 2014Nazis, shoddy science, and the climate contrarian credibility gap
funglestrumpet, I'll make one last comment on this topic. The reason that "fighting dirty" works for skeptics is because none of us actually want to forgo the benefits of fossil fuel use. As a result, those of us more susceptible to the cognitive biases that we all have will easily accept bogus arguments if it means they don't need to do anything. However those very same cognitive biases means that people are often very good at spotting bogus arguments that argue they should do something that they don't already want to do, and it will make them dig in their heels and ignore anything else you might want to say. So, while your hyperbolic partisan nonsense may go down well with some "warmists" that are impatient at the very slow rate of progress being made, it will go down like a lead balloon with the people whos minds you need to change if progress is going to be any faster. If you want to seek attention, fighting dirty is a good approach, if you actually want something done about climate change, it is a very bad approach.
-
funglestrumpet at 05:31 AM on 27 February 2014Nazis, shoddy science, and the climate contrarian credibility gap
Tom Curtis @ 53
You hit on one of the battlegrounds of the whole issue: time. If only we had enough of it, we could afford the luxury of sorting out, or at least trying to sort out, such anomalies that you correctly identify. Of course, if Professor Lovelock is correct in his new book, the time battle has already been lost. What a pity we have all frittered away so much of while relying on fair words and promises that have proved to be empty.
As for the general topic, I think we have reached an impasse.
-
funglestrumpet at 05:25 AM on 27 February 2014Nazis, shoddy science, and the climate contrarian credibility gap
chriskoz @ 52
I offer my apologies for the incorrect spelling of your name. My only excuse, and a weak one at that, is that I wrote the post in a hurry. Certainly no insult was intended.
As for the general topic, I think we have reached an impasse.
-
william5331 at 05:15 AM on 27 February 2014Global warming continues, but volcanoes are slowing down the warming of the atmosphere
Perhaps someone knows the answer to this one. It came about because of the headline in this morning's Press. China chokes on smog: crops die. How does the quantity of particulate air pollution from China compare with the amount put out by volcanoes. There was a theory that the lack of warming when America was putting out mega amounts of pollution was due to this pollution. She cleaned up her act and atmospheric warming continued. What would the effect be of China cleaning up her act.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 03:21 AM on 27 February 2014A Hack by Any Other Name — Part 2
It all has that feeling you get when someone has broken into your home. It's that sense of being violated. You don't know who they were but you know they were, at one point, there in your livingroom unhooking the cords to your kids' Wii they got for Xmas. They were in your office going through your desk drawer. They were in your bedroom going through your wife's family heirlooms.
It really is a sick feeling. And it's just phenominal to me that there are people out there with such low standards of morality as to believe it's okay to do this.
I also find it sickening that other bloggers scoff at the whole thing (no, I'm not going to reward them with links to their sites) when they, too, should be expressing a sense of indignation.
-
Tom Curtis at 23:27 PM on 26 February 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #8
chriskoz @7, glad to here you have enjoyed settling in Godzone - but why did you settle for being a cockroach, when you could have been a banana bender like our illustrious host?
-
chriskoz at 22:48 PM on 26 February 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #8
Glenn@6,
Thanks. Having relocated few times in both hemispheres, I never considered myself a "permanent resident" of any country, until I bought a house in Denistone, NSW, 7y ago. At that time I wasn't so sure of moving my personal investments from US to OZ and settle down. But I gradually grew more comfortable here and I feel like OZ now :-)
-
Tom Curtis at 22:42 PM on 26 February 2014Nazis, shoddy science, and the climate contrarian credibility gap
fungelstrumpet @50, given the urgency of the situation, what is needed is greater adherence to principle. Not less. If you want effective action, lobby for the reform of campaign funding laws so that:
1) Only citizens (ie, natural or naturalized residents entitled to vote) can donate to political parties;
2) No citizen can donate more than 1/10th of modal weekly earnings;
3) Only citizens and NFP charitable organizations can fund advertizing on political issues; and
4) Any citizen so doing must identify themselves, and the extent of their funding on the advertizing material; while NPF charitable organizations must identify their sources of funding, or be entirely citizen funded with the same limits as for political parties.
At the same time, campaign for a strict and enforcable requirement that media should either clearly identify their programs and articles as being not intended as news and current affairs, and not claimed to be true - or adhere to a strict requirement of true and fair reportage.
In other words, kill the mechanisms whereby the US has become a plutocracy masquerading as a democracy.
However, if instead you give up on principle, the most effective thing you will do is to harm the efforts of those who are trying to combat global warming in a principled way. It is not just morally wrong (more than sufficient objection in any event), but it plays into the hands of the deniers. If you tell untruths, it will give deniers an excuse to paint the legitimate opponents of climate change as untruthful. If you resort to violence, it will give them a chance to portray us as fanatics. At the very best you will sink our reputation to their level so that the conflict will be percieved as simply a surrogate for political affiliation. In short, you will wet the powder in our biggest gun - the truth.
If you love your children, and have hopes for your progeny - do not be such a fool as to abandon principle in the fight against climate change.
-
mgardner at 22:34 PM on 26 February 2014Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Just_Curious@151
Your questions are quite clear and logical. One way to better understand these things, if you are not an expert yet, is to simplify the 'experiment' you are thinking about. For example:
Let's say we have an atmosphere of nitrogen and some CO2 only. Looking at a layer near the surface (say a hundred meters) in isolation (as if there is nothing above it), how would we characterize (a) the absorption of radiation from the surface and (b) emission at the top? (With the same pressure and temperature, of course.)
If you can explain that, you are already something of an expert, and the rest of it is much easier to follow.
-
chriskoz at 22:17 PM on 26 February 2014Nazis, shoddy science, and the climate contrarian credibility gap
funglestrumpet@50,
Please pay attention to the correct spelling of my username. Remember that some people, especially people coming from different cultures, do mind such details. In 100% opposition to e.g. "drive by trollers", I treat my username as my personal trademark, not only on SkS but also on other blogs, easily recognised by all people who know me.
Re your issue of "action on climate change", I have not much to add to what I said @45 and to DM@51. In case you misunderstood @45, I repeat that "I sympathise with your opinion" (i.e. I fully understand the urgency of the "action") but I obviously disagree with you how to do it. However that issue is off topic in this thread, which is about shoddy science by certain "skeptic" scientists.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 21:21 PM on 26 February 2014Nazis, shoddy science, and the climate contrarian credibility gap
funglestrumpet wrote "I have decided that the time has come to start fighting and fighting dirty if necessary. Yes, we will lose some standards."
In that case (speaking for myself rather than SkS) please can you do so elsewhere (or preferably not at all). I find this attitude reprehensible and deeply cynical, and think it would be ultimately counterproductive. The debate needs some truth and clarity, the last thing we need is yet more hyperbolic partisan nonsense (lets leave that to Dr Spencer et al.).
Lets move onto a more sensible discussion, please?
-
funglestrumpet at 20:57 PM on 26 February 2014Nazis, shoddy science, and the climate contrarian credibility gap
Kriskoz @ 48
I could agree with both you and Tom Curtis if we had time for the system to change organically. But we just don't have that time. I have been following the problem of climate change since the mid-eighties, when it first gained public prominence. Since then we have had all kinds of major conventions, meetings, and the like, with a lot of fine words about what needs to happen and how we are going to go about it. What we very definitely have not had is meaningful action to combat climate change, apart from some token gestures that the politicians think will placate the public.
With the levels of temperature rise currently predicted, it is difficult not to invoke the expression: Desperate needs call for desperate measures. I, as much as anyone, support the democratic process and abhor injustice. But I abhor even more the idea that this generation is, thanks to its inaction, going to impose conditions on future generations which will be unbearable and with an almost certain considerable loss of life. In my book that trumps any desire to protect the status quo. Sometimes one is faced with having to decide on the better of two evils, unpleasant is such a choice ever is.
I choose to sacrifice some of the niceties of today’s society in order to achieve some meaningful action to protect future generations. If we do not get that action, and get it soon, then the very real danger is that there will not be any social niceties, because there will not be any society in which those niceties can exist.
Perhaps you and Tom are unaware of the other major issues that face the next generation, and even the younger members of this generation. Issues that are all exacerbated by a failure to tackle climate change. We face a major problem with oil supply. Despite all the jubilation about fracking, we are just not discovering anything like enough new oil fields to meet the demand in the near future as existing oil fields dry up, let alone demands further into the future. Oil cannot readily be substituted by electricity, yet it is central to agriculture and to transportation of its produce. Oil is not the only commodity facing shortages. We have a major problem with potassium and phosphorus depletion, which are essential to food production. We cannot simply build factories to produce more. Supplies are finite as far as planet earth is concerned. We face copper shortages and all that that means for electronics and electrics and the role they play in today's society. On top of all those we have population growth, which is going to significantly raise the demand of all commodities and oil to use in transportation of same. I recommend Our Finite World blog for detailed discussion of the foregoing. Climate change, important as it is, does not exist in a vacuum.
Perhaps I am wrong and you and Tom are fully aware of these issues and I am missing something, but if that is the case, I cannot understand your complacency. As I see it, the need for positive action is urgent. Yes, there are standards to protect, but only until they are superseded by more important issues. Had I and my family been on the Titanic, I would have joined an orderly queue for the lifeboats, but only for so long. When it dawned on me that if I continued to queue, i.e. maintain my standards, I would not get on one, I would have left the queue and fought tooth and nail to get myself and my family onto one of them so that they might survive. My take on climate change is that we are now at that point.
You and Tom are welcome to continue ‘queuing’. I have decided that the time has come to start fighting and fighting dirty if necessary. Yes, we will lose some standards. But at least if we fight hard enough, soon enough, we might be able to save the society in which those standards be reinstated when things are more stable. If we fail, what value those standards? They will only be part of a memory of better times.
If you disagree with the above, please put forward your ideas as to how we can get the meaningful action that our current behaviour has so clearly and spectacularly failed to deliver.
B.A.U. not only leads to climate change because of increased fossil fuel usage, it also leads to it because the politicians will contine their inaction unless we change the business as usual of not forcing them into action.
Moderator Response:[JH] You are now skating on the thin ice of sloganeering and excessive repitition, both of which are prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy. Please cease and desist. If you do not, your future posts that are in noncomplioance will be deleted in their entirity.
-
Tom Curtis at 19:40 PM on 26 February 2014Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Just_Curious @151, KR @152 makes a very astute point.
The result of the fact that most energy absorbed as IR radiation is redistributed to the adjacent atmosphere as some for of kinetic energy via collisions is that the IR radiation from any level of the atmosphere is set the temperature at that level of the atmosphere, plus the radiation not absorbed by that level of the atmosphere. When the radiation leaving the top of that atmosphere is calculated on that principle, with a suitably high resolution, the result is a stunningly accurate prediction by the models of the observed radiation. Any such calculation shows that the greatest impact on outgoing radiation in terms of percentatage of radiation blocked at a given wavelength, is the impact of CO2; and will also show that the active wavelengths of CO2 coincide with the peak IR radiation from the Earth:
(In this graps, the strong spike around a wavenumber of 600 is CO2. The smaller spike around 1100 is ozone. Methane is responsible for the effect around 1300-1400, with H2O responsible for the rest of the reduction in OLR, which is shown by the red shaded region.)
The result is that CO2 is by far the strongest of the IR active gases, with the exception of water vapour. It also means that the greenhouse effect of CO2 is not blocked by that of water vapour.
I recomend that you read my post discussing the basics of the greenhouse effect to help get clear in your mind the relevant facts.
-
Tom Curtis at 19:17 PM on 26 February 2014Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Just-Curious @149 asks:
"1. If an infinitely thin line were extended out perpendicular from the earth, how far would it extend before it reached a 99.9% probability (aprox.) of coming in contact with a CO2 molecule? At 280 ppm and 400 ppm."
Answering this question literally, the answer is much, much greater than 150 kilometers. That is, there is essentially zero chance that such a line will strike a CO2 molecule before exiting the Earth's atmosphere.
This answer is very different from that by scaddenp @ 150, but that is because scaddenp made the "mistake" of answering the question he thought you intended rather than the question you asked. As a result he gave an approximate answer to the question, how long would an IR photon travel before interacting with a CO2 molecule if the photon was at the right wavelength, and if the CO2 molecule was in the right excitation state.
Lines do not have electrical fields. Therefore to come into contact with a CO2 molecule, it would need to strike the nuclei of the one of the three atoms in the molecule. As you have probably heard somewhere, atoms (and molecules even more so) are mostly empty space. The nuclei are very small relative to the size of the electron shells. So small that neutrons (which because they have no charge, interact only with the nuclei of atoms) have a mean free-path length of 1.91 cm when travelling through uranium oxide. In contrast, of all the CO2 in the atmosphere were to be reduced to a solid (dry ice) layer evenly covering the surface of the Earth, it would only be 0.1 cm thick. That is, you would have to increase the Earth's CO2 concentration by a factor of 19, or the thickness of the atmosphere by a similar amount, to have an approximately 50/50 chance that a neutron traveling vertically from the surface would strike a CO2 molecule. And, of course, lines are much thinner than neutrons, and so have an even lower chance of striking a molecule.
I note this not just from empty pedantry, or an inordinate love of trivia. It is to emphasize that the interactions between light and CO2 molecules are mediated by the electromagnetic force. Because of that, the IR radiation must have exactly the right wavelength if it is to interact. If it does not, if its wavelength is 18 microns rather than 15 microns, for example, it will breeze past all the CO2 in the atmosphere with no effect. Even if the wavelength is very close to 15 microns, the CO2 molecule has to be traveling in the right direction at the right speed (so that the doppler shift will result in the correct resonance), the and the molecule has to be at the correct excitation state, and so though a number of other factors. If not, the IR radiation will not be absorbed, but simply continue on its way. Consequently, for most IR photons, they will travel through the atmosphere without significant interaction with CO2. But at the crucial wavelength, their mean free-path length is quite short (and at 15 microns, is very close to 3 meters).
-
mancan18 at 18:30 PM on 26 February 2014'It's been hot before': faulty logic skews the climate debate
It's high time denier skeptics were challenged. They need to be asked as to what level of CO2 in the atmosphere do they deem to be safe and as to how much warming that they believe it will cause. It is pretty clear that if we burn all the known (and unknown) economically recoverable fossil fuel reserves stored in the Earth's crust then it will put the CO2/greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere over the top and will most certainly lead to significant warming. The deniers need to actually give us some numbers as to what they think are safe.
Also, it is not simply good enough for Abbott and Hunt to say that we are acting on Climate Change and then destroy all the Climate Change advisory bodies because they will only act when the US and China act. Since Australia is more likely to be adversely impacted by climate change due to global warming than a lot of other countries, then we should be actively arguing and using our influence to try to convince the Chinese and Americans to act. We are not doing so. It again highlights the hypocrisy of the current government's policy.
Most arguments and denial relate to the manifestation and impacts of the warming we've seen so far. They do not focus on the fundamental certainties that underlie the whole debate, i.e. that increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will warm the planet further and that will most certainly be due to human activity. What we are seeing so far and arguing about are only the very early signs as to what will happen.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 16:31 PM on 26 February 2014Global warming continues, but volcanoes are slowing down the warming of the atmosphere
Agnostic @ 5.
My understanding, from reading the WMO publication "Climate into the 21st Century", printed in 2003, and many other sources since then including SkS, is that the mechanism leading to warming of the oceans is a separate influence on the measured global average surface temperature.
The volcanic emissions are reducing the amount of solar energy that reaches the surface, but a lot still gets through. The reduced energy penetrating into the lower atmosphere slightly reduces the global average surface temperature compared to what it would have been without the volcanic emissions. When there is very little volcanic activity the 'clearer' global atmosphere leads to a temporarily warmer global average surface temperature. There was very little volcanic activity affecting 1998.
The ENSO trade wind circulation being more on the La Nina side of neutral is resulting in cooler surface water over a large area of the Pacific. It also produces currents in the ocean that take surface waters that have drawn heat from the atmosphere down into deeper waters, warming those deep waters. During a La Nina the warm waters in the Pacific are compressed into the western region, with cooler deeper layers of water appearing to reach the surface in the east, near South America.
When the trade winds shift to the El Nino side of neutral the warm surface waters spread eastward over more of the Pacific. The result is less heat energy being taken from the atmosphere down into the ocean depths. When a very strong El Nino forms, a much larger surface of the equatorial Pacific is warm, including the waters near South America. This type of event temporarily bumps the global average surface temperature because the trade winds spreading away from the warmer surface are warmer, leading to other areas of the surface of the globe also being warmer.
So 1998 was an extreme aberration from the norm produced by a very strong El Nino, stronger than any that have occurred since then, combined with very little volcanic dimming. That makes it a year that should not be the basis for starting an evaluation of a trend, or for any meaningful comparison to other years that do not have similar temporary forcing.
That rather obvious point seems to have been 'curiously' missed by some well-informed people. They claim to be 'just questioning the validity of the science' when they point out a lack of significant warming in the recent global average surface temperature values compared to 1998. And they get rather testy when evaluations like the one performed and published by Cowtan and Way show they have even less of a basis for their preferred claim about the rate of warming in the global average surface temperature data since that 1998 time period.
-
MA Rodger at 16:28 PM on 26 February 2014Humidity is falling
"It's the old "if you don't know everything, you know nothing" gambit." Bizarrely, such a 'gambit' usually stands as the corollary of "I understand everything that is known and totally disagree with your position. Therefore..."
-
One Planet Only Forever at 15:45 PM on 26 February 2014Global warming continues, but volcanoes are slowing down the warming of the atmosphere
John,
I believe the merge in the opening statement was meant to be emerge as is presented towards the end of the article. It is a little thing, and I know this is a reprint of your article in the Guardian, but I wondered about the wording when I read the opening statement.
Prev 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 Next
