Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 Next
Comments 38451 to 38500:
-
Susan Anderson at 23:56 PM on 16 February 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #7
I find it useful to keep in mind the full strength, though nowadays I prefer greenhouse chaos, disruption, or weirding.
climate change due to global warming caused by the accumulation of heat-trapping greenhouse gases.
The idea that somehow these words, which have been assigned meanings for convenience, can be used to argue away the reality they represent, is misleading and at this point dangerous to our futures, as we all comfort ourselves that it will go away by itself. It won't.
-
Wol at 20:32 PM on 16 February 2014MP Graham Stringer and CNN Crossfire are wrong about the 97% consensus on human-caused global warming
Forgot to add the link!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/10639819/UK-weather-its-not-as-weird-as-our-warmists-claim.html
-
Wol at 20:31 PM on 16 February 2014MP Graham Stringer and CNN Crossfire are wrong about the 97% consensus on human-caused global warming
.
Since this thread is - more or less - about public perception of concensus - I offer this link to today's London Sunday Telegraph.
Christopher Booker is a sainted (by his followers) jounalist who specialises in dissing AGW on a regular basis.
It is quite evident to those who read his blog regularly that each week there are fewer and fewer people bothering to post the scientific case for AGW: they are just shouted down, often in offensive language, with the same old, unsupported and refuted, arguments.
I see no way to "persuade" most of these people of the reality of the problem.
.
-
bouke at 19:41 PM on 16 February 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #7
@1:
If I had a die with an extra pip added to each side, rolling a single 2 isn't evidence against the hypothesis that the die is tampered with. Rolling a single 7 however, is pretty convincing evidence!
-
chriskoz at 18:43 PM on 16 February 2014How we know the greenhouse effect isn't saturated
To provide further explanation to potvinj@20 question, the analogy to the water heating in a kettle can be considered. The water is heated from the bottom only but being poor heat conductor, it would not be possible to heat its entire volume evenly by conduction only. But convection processes cause bottom parcel rising and top parcels falling creating mixing turbulences and assuring that heat distributes evenly.
The same convection mechanisms happen in gases like air that's also heated from the bottom by the ground absorbing the incoming sun's radiation: the experimental proof is the weather and the rising currents used by gliders/birds as a lift-off. The only difference is that water in a kettle ends up with the same temperature in its entire volume while atmosphere's air temperature equilibrium is defined by the lapse rate as I've shown @13
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 17:57 PM on 16 February 2014How we know the greenhouse effect isn't saturated
potvinj
to comment further on Tom's point. We need to differentiate between the mechanisms that can add heat to the atmosphere, and those that can then move heat around the atmosphere once it is there.
From Trenberth, Fasullo & Kiehl 2009 the estimated energy flows into the atmosphere are:
- 356 Watts/m2 of radiation absorbed from the surface
- 80 Watts/m2 of Evapotranspiration from the surface
- 78 Watts/m2 of incoming short wave sunlight
- 17 Watts/m2 of heat from thermals from the surface
So radiation dominates the the sources of heat transfered into the atmosphere. However once absorbed by the atmosphere radiation is then a very poor method of moving heat around within the atmosphere. Every time some radiation occurs it is quickly absorbed and then reradiated in a random direction, making it very hard for radiation to transfer heat in one direction quickly - this is the opposite of what happens when radiation isn't being absorbed by the medium. A similar situation occurs inside the Sun where it can take 100's of 1000's of years for heat to percolate out from the core via radiative transfer.
In contrast air movements rapidly move heat up and down and from one loaction to another. So air movement will quickly propagate a change in one location to bring other parts of the atmosphere into balance with it.
-
2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #7
Russ R. - Note the operative term, climate change. While there are frequently media errors claiming that either a single weather event either proves or disproves AGW, the statistics of extremes in warming (and for example the recent eastern US cooling that appears to be tied to Arctic warming) are the result in shifts of average weather, of the climate.
As to your rhetorical question, I don't think it can be left unaddressed. "Is local weather evidence of global warming, or is it not?" - It's absolutely evidence of climate change if the longer term statistics, the averages of highs, lows, rain or drought, change from previous values.
As to what would provide evidence against climate change? Weather remaining consistent with historical values (not the case across the globe), or some alternate explanation for the observations (not to be found).
As to whether or not it will be a serious problem, I would need to see some evidence that 2-4C changes in temperature over the next century, shifts in Hadley cell circulation, growth zones, plant productivity, and sea level rise won't induce truly significant costs and dislocations - and that evidence is sadly lacking. As I see it, the "business as usual" path is the most economically expensive policy choice available.
-
MP Graham Stringer and CNN Crossfire are wrong about the 97% consensus on human-caused global warming
Russ R - Regarding the list you presented above, I will accept the correction that not every part of the science has a 97% consensus, and that the Cook et al paper did not go into details on every aspect of the science - simply on whether we are responsible for recent warming. My apologies if I conflated that particular paper with the (generally understood) science as present in the literature.
That said, the basics of the greenhouse effect have been understood for roughly 150 years, the IPCC report is a reasonable summary of the state of the science, and significant disagreement with 1-4, and even 5, of your list puts anyone holding said disagreement in a distinctly minority position. The rest of your post is economics (reasonable debate possible on underlying assumptions such as discount rates and carbon costs, although still quite significant agreement) and political policies, which are not the subject of the Cook et al paper (or this thread).
After some thought, I went back to previous discussions - you have in fact made quite the same arguments with me over a year ago, on WUWT, and I continue to disagree with you on the same grounds as then.
The 'consensus gap' evident in the political landscape, the difference between expert opinion on AGW and the public perception thereof, is an ongoing impediment to reasoned action. Public policy should be informed by the best information available, and the many denials of consensus in the public sphere are an impediment to a well informed public response. If you disagree with the consensus measured by Cook et al, support your argument on the appropriate threads. If you object to a public understanding of that scientific consensus, I would ask why you feel that policy decisions should be made under perceptual errors on expert opinion.
-
Leto at 15:55 PM on 16 February 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #7
DSL @ 9: my father too.
-
DSL at 14:23 PM on 16 February 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #7
Leto: "What observable evidence would cause you to reject your belief that smoking causes lung cancer?"
"Smoking doesn't cause lung cancer; it kills the cancer," said my father as I gave him a last sponge of morphine. The parallels are simply astounding.
-
DSL at 14:17 PM on 16 February 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #7
Russ, for crying out loud, don't complain about other people not being precise when you yourself are not being precise:
Russ 1: "What exactly would constitute evidence against climate change? Or is climate change an unfalsifiable hypothesis?"
Russ 2: "What observable evidence would cause you to reject your belief that global warming is a serious problem that requires urgent policy action?"
1 does not equal 2, not even within the broad context of your posts at SkS. To answer your second question:
It would take strong evidence for a much lower sensitivity, and strong evidence against the mainstream sensitivity. I'd need an ECS around 1.3 (i.e. near balanced feedbacks). An ECS of 1.3C per doubling can't explain the last 50 years (the transient response is closer to that). My best estimate ECS is 2.8C, following the array of evidence in AR5.
Given an ECS of 2.8C and the long residence time for CO2, it's fairly certain that we're locked into major ice loss from WAIS and Greenland. It's also fairly certain that the rest of the land ice will likely go away fairly soon. The jet stream will likely continue to weaken, and that will mean persistent change in weather patterns. What we're talking about here is a period of 400-500 years, minimum, of persistent climate change. It's not a step change. It's something different, all the time. The paleo record tells us that the biosphere doesn't like abrupt change, and with CO2 rising faster than at any time in the last 300 million years, I'd say this is pretty abrupt. At the same time, the decline of cheap energy will be occurring. We're also facing, a few centuries from now, the inevitable end of phosphate production. And then there are the usual disasters. There is no better time than now to prepare for these conditions. Tomorrow it will be more difficult. I also note that you ask the question about policy without stating what you mean by "urgent." Do you think urgent policy action is necessary to push us off fossil energy, pre-empting a market-driven scrabble for energy that will, as it always has, lead to death and misery?
-
Leto at 14:05 PM on 16 February 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #7
"What observable evidence would cause you to reject your belief that global warming is a serious problem that requires urgent policy action?"
Russ, this strikes me as a cheap rhetorical device rather than a genuine discussion point. The falsifiability of climate science resembles most other aspects of science for which there is overwhelming consensus. There is nothing intrisically unfalsifiable about the key propositions underlying AGW; there is just so much accumulated evidence that it is hard to imagine what combination of errors and conspiracies could account for the current consensus and the multiple independent lines of evidence backing it up. (It is also hard to account for the lameness of the denialist attacks on AGW. If good denialist arguments existed, we would have heard them by now; it was this more than the positive evidence that helped convince me.)
Perhaps you could establish that yours is a genuine question either by answering the following question, or showing how your question is different?
What observable evidence would cause you to reject your belief that smoking causes lung cancer?
-
villabolo at 11:43 AM on 16 February 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #7
"What observable evidence would cause you to reject your belief that global warming is a serious problem that requires urgent policy action?"
That carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas levels are not increasing or even decreasing.
-
Leto at 11:36 AM on 16 February 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #7
"The issue is this, you can't use an argument (i.e that specific weather is clear evidence of climate change) when it suits your cause (as with heat in Australia) and then turn around and argue the opposite when it doesn't suit you (as is being done with the cold in the US)."
Russ, you perceive, or choose to perceive, a double-standard here. That is understandable, if you approach the whole discussion with a particular cognitive bias in which you start out believing warmists are inconsistent muddle-headed alarmists, and then merely seek confirmation of that in everything you read. The apparent double-standard disappears entirely if you accept, as plausible, that experts on a subject know more about this than the average blogger and drive-by commenter.
There are at least two reasons that your perceived double-standard is illusory.
One is that there is a big difference between a phenomenon being a sign of X and being proof of X. Thus, the spectacular heat wave in Australia over 2012/2013 is obviously a sign of anthropogenic global warming - subtract out the estimated contribution from AGW and the heat wave ceases to be all that spectacular. But it is not proof of global warming.That proof comes from a vast web of interlocking evidence that does not rely on any single element - and certainly not a single heat wave.
(In the same way, coughing up blood is a classic sign of lung cancer, but hardly constitutes proof of lung cancer. In someone who has not been investigated, it would be foolish to conclude from a bit of coughed-up blood that the correct diagnosis was lung cancer. In someone in whom the diagnosis is already established by other means, however, each new episode of coughing up blood is another reminder of the situation.)
A second reason that the double standard is illusory is that there is a genuine asymmetry in the current burden of proof that denialists and warmists face. A cold-snap cannot provide proof that AGW is wrong, and it cannot even be an indirect sign of the wrongness of AGW, because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - and it would be truly extraordinary if the interlocking web of evidence for AGW all turned out to be wrong. A cold-snap simply does not have the evidentiary weight to challenge AGW. A single heat-wave cannot be proof of AGW, either, but it sure can be a sign of AGW, because the evidence for AGW is already so vast.
Instead of reading everything written on AGW from your particular cognitive stance, try looking for genuine understanding for a while.
-
Russ R. at 09:47 AM on 16 February 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #7
DSL,
"Who is "you"? It's not an SkS general position."
Sorry, I meant "you" in the general sense. Perhaps I should have written "one can't use an argument when it suits one's cause and then turn around and argue the opposite when it doesn't suit one." Is that better?
But when, in a single blog post, one presents excerpts from two articles (Nicholas Stern, in the Guardian, and Justin Gillis in the NYT) that take exactly opposite sides of the argument that a particular local weather event is evidence for/against climate change, one would think that one ought to notice the logical contradiction.
"In answer to your question: CO2 would have to stop absorbing/emitting thermal infrared. And "climate change" is not an hypothesis. It is a complex set of hypotheses that form a general theory."
With all due respect, you're completely missing the point of my question, so I'll rephrase it.
What observable evidence would cause you to reject your belief that global warming is a serious problem that requires urgent policy action? (Feel free to replace the bit I've underlined with whatever statement aligns most closely with what you personally believe).
Moderator Response:[JH] If you read the Stern op-ed and the Gillis article, you will find that the two authors are in agreement. The excerpts are the lead paragpraphs of each and do not contradict each other.
-
How we know the greenhouse effect isn't saturated
Others here have already explained how the greenhouse effect shifts the Earth’s heat loss to space from the relatively warm and strongly radiating surface up to a colder and therefore less radiating layer in the atmosphere. That altitude is about 5 km on average, but varies a lot depending on the frequency because the atmosphere is virtually 100% opaque in some parts of the infrared spectrum and almost completely transparent in others. The image below (created with the MODTRAN radiation model) shows the source of the radiation escaping to space in different parts of the IR spectrum when CO2 concentration is 400 ppm and the surface temp is 300 K.
Note the thin, upward spike (4) at the centre of the CO2 band. That’s the signature of the warmer stratosphere compared to the very cold, upper troposphere. As the CO2 concentration continues to rise, most of the extra absorption will happen in the “wings” (2) of the big CO2 “bite”, not at the bottom (3) where the radiation already comes from the coldest part of the atmosphere.
-
Russ R. at 09:10 AM on 16 February 2014MP Graham Stringer and CNN Crossfire are wrong about the 97% consensus on human-caused global warming
Rob Honeycutt,
Yes, I spotted that error immediately, in fact, just from reading the headline I figured he'd made such a mistake (ignoring thermal inertia and time lag), and reading his first few paragraphs confirmed it.
I would have been very pleased to take the author to task on it, but I was denied the opportunity as several commentators had already beaten me to it.
"At SkS, each of the posts goes through an internal review process. We apply skepticism, ask questions, point out errors or other problems well before anything sees the light of day on the site."
My humble observation is that the collective "skepticism" here is only ever applied in one direction. And the term for that is "confirmation bias". As an example: http://www.skepticalscience.com/BCCarbonTax2.html#96732
BTW, I'm not singling out SkS for being "selectively skeptical"... everyone does it. It's immensely difficult to be critical of arguments when you already agree with the conclusion.
Moderator Response:[JH] Rob Honeycutt's statement applies to original articles posted on SkS. Reprints of articles, the weekly digest, and news roundups are not subject to a rigorous internal review process prior to posting.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 09:03 AM on 16 February 2014Discussing global warming: why does this have to be so hard?
Brooks makes a good point at #47. Carbon based fuels will run out and their end won't be pretty. Every aspect of our easy comfortable lives is dependent on the delirious energy use in which we are splurging. Our food supply is little more than oil transformed into edible products.
The unfettered use of coal gives results like can be seen in China, with smogs so dense and toxic, they seem out of science fiction. The now infamous Asian Brown Cloud is a standard feature of satellite imagery of the region, sedning particles all the way to where I live, in the Pacific Northwest region of North America. China gives a preview of what the world and people's lives will be if we can't go away from carbon, except for the part where it will start running out. Nobody with some sense can look at this and not see that it is sheer madness.
The only way we can make a less uncomfortable transition is to start to go away from industrial scale use of fossil carbon fuels as soon as possible. It will happen at some point. How difficult it will be depends on how much time we have. The forces resisting this change are mostly inspired by private interest groups who will not let go of the enormous profits they get from fossil fuels. I'm sure there are plenty of individuals in these industries bent on ensuring they extract every last penny they can. How much influence should they have on everybody else's lives and future?
-
Rob Nicholls at 08:34 AM on 16 February 2014Discussing global warming: why does this have to be so hard?
#33 One Planet Only Forever..."I believe your heartfelt belief that all people are basically good hearted is naïve." I wasn't really trying to say "all people are basically good hearted." I admit I'm not good at expressing what I'm trying to say here! I'll try again: Many vociferous climate "skeptics" seem to me to believe they are right about climate change. Either that or they are very, very good actors (to keep up such an act consistently for years doesn't seem easy). I'm sure there are many people who are paid by fossil fuel barons to say the opposite of what they believe on climate change, or who just don't have an opinion about it, but I just don't think many of the more notable "skeptics" quite fit that category. It seems more likely to me that they are true believers in their cause (which I think makes them more likely to be able to convince others that they are speaking the truth), whether or not they are paid by the fossil fuel industry. I could be utterly wrong, obviously.
-
DSL at 08:31 AM on 16 February 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #7
Russ R: 'The issue is this, you can't use an argument (i.e that specific weather is clear evidence of climate change) when it suits your cause (as with heat in Australia) and then turn around and argue the opposite when it doesn't suit you (as is being done with the cold in the US). Wet weather (in the UK) is evidence of climate change, yet dry weather (in California) is also evidence of climate change."
Who is "you"? It's not an SkS general position. Technically, all weather events as they have occurred are the products of climate change. You know that. Any change in global energy storage affects all parts of the system.
You're asking the wrong questions. What you should be asking is "How has global warming contributed to weather event X?" You can harp on SkS all you want, but the main posters here recognize the inextricable relationship between increasing energy storage and changes to global weather. TV newsfolk and politicians do not. The general public does not. When those entities talk about global warming, they say things like, "Scientists say this might have been caused by global warming." It's dumb, but then mainstream news and politicians dumb down things so their audiences don't go away.
In answer to your question: CO2 would have to stop absorbing/emitting thermal infrared. And "climate change" is not an hypothesis. It is a complex set of hypotheses that form a general theory.
-
Brooks Bridges at 08:06 AM on 16 February 2014Discussing global warming: why does this have to be so hard?
I think people talking about uncertainty are ignoring the other, really wicked end of that stick - uncertainty means things also could be far worse than currently predicted.
In fact, considering most predictions of the loss of summer ice in the arctic were for 50 years or so from now and Duarte and others are now predicting 5 years or less I'd say worse is the better bet. The much maligned climate models are wrong all right, but not in a reassuring way - they're missing important feedbacks and other mechanisms and are proving far too conservative. (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/may/02/white-house-arctic-ice-death-spiral)
No one can positively guarantee that climate change won't be catastrophic. Why not worry about that instead of worrying about spending money on solutions that everyone agrees must happen eventually?
I agree the fire insurance comparison is best: I don't have to guarnatee beyond a shadow of doubt your house will catch fire for fire insurance to seem like a great idea - assuming you're a "normal" person for whom losing their house to fire would be a financial catastrophe.
-
jja at 07:48 AM on 16 February 2014How we know the greenhouse effect isn't saturated
like to show this videotaped response to Dr. Fred Singer's (hired denialist) question on the subject dr. Roy Spencer. His basic response is, "pressure broadening" and "we can measure it increasing so it is not saturated"
-
YubeDude at 07:18 AM on 16 February 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #7
Wow, that was a mess of blah blah blah and only one slight reference to the title.
"The shift to such a world could cause mass migrations of hundreds of millions of people away from the worst-affected areas. That would lead to conflict and war, not peace and prosperity."
Speculative pronouncements ("could cause") that fail to explain the cause and effect nexus or use specifics to illustrate why a mass migration would necessarily lead to war ("that would lead to conflict and war") is really just the editor trying to sell a few papers using an inflammatory headline.
Maybe there is a point to the authors position but it requires a little more explanation and details beyond just a catchy title, otherwise it becomes fodder for the “Catastrophic” AGW deskepticons who always look for the outlier of embellishment that they can anchor to while ignoring the underlying truth. -
Russ R. at 07:18 AM on 16 February 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #7
"The record rainfall and storm surges that have brought flooding across the UK are a clear sign that we are already experiencing the impacts of climate change." - Nicholas Stern, The Guardian, Feb 14, 2014
"Scientists refer to global warming because it is about, well, the globe. It is also about the long run. It is really not about what happened yesterday in Poughkeepsie." Justin Gillis, By Degrees, New York Times, Feb 10, 2014
Maybe Nick and Justin ought to get their argument straight. Is local weather evidence of global warming, or is it not? (No need to debate the answer here... That's not the issue I'm raising.)
The issue is this, you can't use an argument (i.e that specific weather is clear evidence of climate change) when it suits your cause (as with heat in Australia) and then turn around and argue the opposite when it doesn't suit you (as is being done with the cold in the US). Wet weather (in the UK) is evidence of climate change, yet dry weather (in California) is also evidence of climate change.
I'll leave the following question for the good folks here: Science is all about making hypotheses, testing those hypotheses with experiment or observation, and rejecting those hypotheses that are falsified by results. To be scientific, a hypothesis must be falsifiable. What exactly would constitute evidence against climate change? Or is climate change an unfalsifiable hypothesis?
-
Rob Honeycutt at 06:48 AM on 16 February 2014MP Graham Stringer and CNN Crossfire are wrong about the 97% consensus on human-caused global warming
Russ... That WUWT you link to is an excellent example of the relative difference in errors presented on each side.
At SkS, each of the posts goes through an internal review process. We apply skepticism, ask questions, point out errors or other problems well before anything sees the light of day on the site.
At WUWT you have a near constant litany of fundamentally wrong information being presented without even the first hint of skeptism. AND the only litmus test ever applied for any article is that it side toward the rejection of AGW. Period.
That article suffered from an error a highschooler should have been able to pick up on. He's presenting transient sensitivity and claiming it's equilibrium sensitivity.
-
Russ R. at 05:43 AM on 16 February 2014MP Graham Stringer and CNN Crossfire are wrong about the 97% consensus on human-caused global warming
Tom Curtis,
"You are correct that you can both oppose mitigation of AGW and accept the concensus that greater than 50% of recent global warming has been caused by anthropogenic factors."
For the record, I don't categorically oppose all mitigation policies. Some are sensible, some may or may not be effective, and some are very likely to do more harm than good.
"However, that in no way obviates Dana's claim about the actual strategies of AGW deniers. They need not have taken that strategy, but as a matter of historical record, they did. Consequently, I am not sure what point you are trying to make. Perhaps it was that when given a choice of an honest strategy, they chose a dishonest one? "
I agree, people make disingenous arguments all the time... some do so habitually. I see this on both sides. I'm not defending them. The point(s) I am trying to make, and I apologize for not having been sufficiently clear, are as follows:
- Not everyone who opposes a given climate policy is "a denier". One can fully accept the "97% Consensus" (or a more general form of scientific agreement), yet not be convinced that various policy actions are warranted or will be effective. There are plenty of good-faith reasons that people may differ in their beliefs.
- The much touted "97% Consensus" is much narrower than it is frequently portrayed. It is often misrepresented (for example by Barack Obama and KR above) as supporting positions that weren't tested in the paper. Also, it is not, by itself, sufficent justification for any policy action, let alone grounds for being "100 percent certain that Congress needs to pass serious climate legislation..." as Dana wrote in the Sacramento Bee.
That's all.
"Russ, I am glad to see that you have in fact criticized those on your own side"...
I try not to take sides in this. I don't believe there is a right side or a wrong side here. There are good and bad arguments on both sides. I try to correct the bad arguments, but only where I think the person making the argument would actually be receptive and my efforts aren't going to be wated. I have better things to do my time.
"Given that the person criticized was Willis Eschenbach, I would point out that he has deserved such criticism far more than just once."
To Willis' credit, he is meticulous with his analysis, he shows all his work, he debates in good faith, and he admits when he's wrong. Also, he is very quick to point out errors from "his own side". One very recent example...
-
Alexandre at 04:37 AM on 16 February 2014MP Graham Stringer and CNN Crossfire are wrong about the 97% consensus on human-caused global warming
It is not surprising that the peer-reviewed work of Roy Spencer is a lot less contrarian than his stated opinion on interviews, or his blog posts. Once you have to back up your speech with evidence, you will start to align yourself a lot more with the mainstream consensus - and for a good reason.
-
Hans Berg at 04:26 AM on 16 February 2014New Video: Climate, Jetstream, Polar Vortex
As far as metaphor goes, how about the difference between a rushing mountain creek heading directly down a valley vs. a slow meandering river on the plain? Slow the fluid down and a stuck high-amplitude pattern results.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:05 AM on 16 February 2014Discussing global warming: why does this have to be so hard?
I wish to elaborate on why I have the perspective I have been sharing to the best of my ability.
My life experience is as a career Engineer with an MBA who has always been 'designing things' others want to profit from. I have also always had a stronger connection to the more real world than the artificial features that humans have built. I prefer a walk in the country and a moment to watch wildlife over any 'man-made condition or amusement'. I am also not a big 'buyer of stuff', and prefer un-powered recreation, under my own power, to any powered form of recreation. That may have given me a perspective that has not been as apparent to others.
I have recognised that it is the Engineering core attitude I hold strongly to that has led to the perspective I have developed. Engineering is about striving to best understand as much as possible about an item that I have been requested to develop the design for. The uncertainties regarding that best understanding is a significant consideration. As an Engineer I am required to 'defer to safety' in any uncertain situation, and not wait until all uncertainties are resolved. I then evaluate the options to determine acceptable or safe, low risk, ways of designing the item. Then I strive to deliver the most effective solution 'from among the acceptable choices'. If the most effective 'safe by conservatively addressing uncertainties' solution is not profitable enough "The item may not get built"! And the evaluation of acceptability is never weighed against profitability or popular desires.
This fundamental protection of the general population and environment, including future generations, from popular or profitable pursuits is 'not negotiable' for a Registered Professional Engineer in any of the regions of the planet where the importance of having such 'gate-keepers of acceptability' has been made the law of the land.
It appears that many people, including people trained as engineers and other applied sciences such as geologists, can be tempted to give the profit motive and popularity pre-eminence to the point of reducing the standard of acceptability. Essentially what many people seem to do is determine what is desirable. They then attempt to defend or justify it so they can get away with unacceptable actions because of higher profitability or popularity.
That attitude of trying to get away with 'desired actions' in spite of evidence of unacceptability is what needs to change. A clearly established basis of acceptability needs to be the first screening of any evaluation. The profit motive and popularity should only be applied to the limited choices remaining after screening out the unacceptable unsustainable and damaging actions.
I care deeply about the development of a sustainable better future for all life on this amazing planet. And I recognize that the socioeconomic system is what needs to be changed. The current most popular socioeconomic systems lead too many people to be tempted to be greedy or intolerant. Even Soviet Communism never developed toward a sustainable better future for all, and neither has China's Capitalist-Communism, though their rapid transition toward more sustainable energy does indicate a potential.
-
John Hartz at 02:57 AM on 16 February 2014Unprecedented trade wind strength is shifting global warming to the oceans, but for how much longer?
Markoh:
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.
-
Tom Curtis at 02:56 AM on 16 February 2014How we know the greenhouse effect isn't saturated
potvinj @20, briefly, convection in the troposphere is so strong that it dominates radiation as a method of energy transfer in the atmosphere. The consequence is that within the troposphere the relative temperature at different levels is tightly constrained by convection. If you increase CO2 concentrations, that reduces the escape of heat to space from higher levels of the troposphere. The resulting warm high altitude air slows the rate of convection, which thereby slows the rate of energy rising from near the surface to the upper troposphere. That warms the surface. After the surface has warmed sufficiently, convection returns to its prior levels. This process is quite fast, taking a few hours or so. It is also difficult to detect against the very varied background of changes in hourly rates of convection due to weather and day night cycles.
-
potvinj at 02:48 AM on 16 February 2014How we know the greenhouse effect isn't saturated
Thank you Glenn Tamblyn (#3) and Tom Curtis (#4) for showing the error of my thinking (#2). But - still - the 2nd bullet in the intro still rings false to me. Surely, one needs a mechanism to warm up the lower portion of the atmosphere in order to push upwards the height of the high altitude radiative layer, as eloquently sketched in the 2nd diagram of the OP. What is it?
Reading the 2nd sentence of Tom's 3rd paragraph (#4; about the absorption "wings"), it would follow that the lower atmosphere warms up further (in comparison to the pre-industrial regime) because adding CO2 increases the absortion likelyhood over a wider bandwith by adding more absorbers. In other words, those extra absorbers would be more likely to tap photons that used to pass through the lower atmosphere (here are my "untapped photons" again). So it would follow that the deniers' claim that "...adding more CO2 won't absorb much more IR at the surface..." is FALSE. The (lower) atmosphere is not saturated, currently.
Note: Some readers may be thinking that the lower atmosphere heats up more simply b/c less radiation leaks out to space if that radiative layer indeed ends up at a higher altitude. True enough. But what causes it to go up in the first place - say during the times of the beginning of the industrial revolution? To me, it would seem that the reduction of radiative leakage at high altitude acts as a GW positive feedback rather than a direct cause.
-
Tom Curtis at 02:05 AM on 16 February 2014MP Graham Stringer and CNN Crossfire are wrong about the 97% consensus on human-caused global warming
Russ R@23:
1) You are correct that you can both oppose mitigation of AGW and accept the concensus that greater than 50% of recent global warming has been caused by anthropogenic factors. However, that in no way obviates Dana's claim about the actual strategies of AGW deniers. They need not have taken that strategy, but as a matter of historical record, they did. Consequently, I am not sure what point you are trying to make. Perhaps it was that when given a choice of an honest strategy, they chose a dishonest one?
2) Russ, I am glad to see that you have in fact criticized those on your own side on at least one occassion when they deserved it. Given that the person criticized was Willis Eschenbach, I would point out that he has deserved such criticism far more than just once. Be that as it may, willingness to speak up about errors on your own side deserves real respect IMO, so well done. FWIW, I asked about criticisms of Inhofe (a US Senator) because you had chosen to criticize the office of the US President.
-
Russ R. at 00:45 AM on 16 February 2014MP Graham Stringer and CNN Crossfire are wrong about the 97% consensus on human-caused global warming
Tom Curtis,
Good to see you again, and thank you for continuing to be as fact-based and scrupulously analytical as I remember.
First, I wrote my comment here to Dana because I believe that he is being sloppy. He quite rightly points out that individuals who accept only "minimal" impact from human activities are not part of the "97% Consensus" (he should know, he was a co-author").
However, he goes on to attack "those who support the status quo and oppose efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions" saying they "have long engaged in a disinformation campaign to misinform the public about the expert consensus." I'm making the point that one can be completely reasonable in opposing "climate policies", while still completely agreeing with the "97% consensus", because the two "consensus" positions are not sufficient on their own to necessitate action.
Second, you wrote: "Of course, it is possible that Russ is different. If so, he can undoubtedly link us to his criticisms of errors in the science by Senator Inhofe (for example)." While you know this line of argument is clearly ad hominem, I'd be happy to indulge your request. Since I'm not an American, I don't pay much attention to Senator Inhofe, so I haven't felt the need to find and correct his errors. But if you want an example of me being impartial and objective, back last summer while I was giving you and others here a lesson on the economics of gasoline taxes in British Columbia, demand elasticity and exchange rate differentials, I was also arguing with a regular over at WUWT over his opposition to the BC gas tax based on a flawed economic argument. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/15/why-revenue-neutral-isnt-and-other-costs-of-the-bc-tax/ (As a financial analyst by profession, economics is one of the few things I know a bit about, and I like to limit my arguments to things that I know something about.)
In this case... I know what Cook et al (2013) said, I know what it didn't say, and I know that the way it's being applied and presented is not entirely in keeping with what it actually said.
-
Russ R. at 00:33 AM on 16 February 2014MP Graham Stringer and CNN Crossfire are wrong about the 97% consensus on human-caused global warming
One at a time Ladies and Gentlemen.
Rob Honeycutt,
I do apply the same scrutiny to voices on both sides of the debate.
I ignore the extremists altogether because their positions are nowhere close to reality, and arguing would be a complete waste of my time and effort.
Most of the others I take with a figurative grain of salt. I make myself aware of their biases and give credence only to the areas where they have some knowledge, ignoring their opinions on other matters.
When and where I bother to comment is to point out mistakes in fact or reasoning, and only with individuals who I think might actually respond constructively.
-
michael sweet at 00:19 AM on 16 February 2014MP Graham Stringer and CNN Crossfire are wrong about the 97% consensus on human-caused global warming
Tom,
We will have to agree to disagree on this one. When you write me 8+ paragraphs to explain why a twitter post is in error, I think the twitter post is fine. I agree completely with your final paragraph. Your entire post is a thoughtful consideration of the issue. It is too long for twitter.
We differ on the OFA twitter summary. In my view, the OFA twitter correctly reflects scientific opinion. I do not think the OFA should be held to the same standard as a peer reviewed publication in Nature. When deniers constantly make up stuff, we cannot expect politicians that support action to be perfect.
-
Tom Curtis at 23:59 PM on 15 February 2014MP Graham Stringer and CNN Crossfire are wrong about the 97% consensus on human-caused global warming
Michael Sweet @18, you need to read the most recent survey of climate scientists by Bray and von Storch (along with the earlier versions). These surveys are not without their methodological problems, but provide a reasonably accurate assessment of the detailed opinions of climate scientists.
Of particular interest to what follows is an issue with the phrasing of the question. They ask, "How convinced are you that ..." on a number of issues. They then allow responses from 1 to 7, with '1' being interpreted as "not at all convinced", and '7' being interpreted as 'very much convinced'. The problem arises that we can plausible say we are "a little bit convinced" (ie, approximately equivalent to '2') when we are either seriously in doubt, but open to the possibility that we are mistaken; or when we think it is a slightly better than a 50/50 prospect. This ambiguity, IMO, has the potential to bias the results low by an indeterminant amount.
With that caution, I note three interesting results.
In response to question 26, "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?", 95% are significantly convinced (response of 5 plus).
In response to question 27, "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?", 81% are significantly convinced. That question is the closest to the view assessed in Cook et al. The 81% result is significantly lower than the 97% obtained by Cook et al, and by other related surveys. That may be because of methodological flaws in Bray and von Storch, possibly relating to sample size, or bias. The bias may have been introduced by self selection bias. That is, Bray and von Storch are associated with a low estimate of climate senstivity, and that association may have lead scientists of the opposite view to not cooperate with their survey. It may be that climate scientists are in general less convinced than their evidence (as measured by endorsement in scientific papers) suggests. Or it may be that the bias is on the other foot, ie, to be found in Doran, Cook et al's and other equivalent results.
Finally, in response to question 28, "How convinced are you that climate change poses a very serious and dangerous threat to humanity?", 72% are significantly convinced.
For this discussion, the important point is that the level of agreement among climate scientists is not the same for the three propositions. Indeed, only 89% of climate scientists who agree that that recent (or near future) global warming is (or will be) the result of anthropogenic causes also agree that global warming is "...a very serious and dangerous threat to humanity". It follows that the OFA did make an error. Frankly, I consider that to have been transparent from the language, but even assuming them to have been making the more complex statement you assume, they are still in error.
Having said that, it still remains that a clear super majority of climate scientists think that:
1) Global warming will be "...a very serious and dangerous threat to humanity" (my emphasis);
2) We are "... beginning to experience the more gradual impacts of climate change" (question 29, 82% significantly convinced);
3) The general public should be told to be significantly worried about climate change (question 39, 80%);
4) There "... is a great need for immediate policy decisions for immediate action to ADAPT to climate change" (original emphasis, question 40, 70%);
5) There "... is a great need for immediate policy decisions for immediate action to MITIGATE climate change", (original emphasis, question 41, 77%); and that
6) Global warming has become a more urgent issue of the last 5 years (question 42, 70%).
Finally, 56% of climate scientists think the evidence indicates the impacts of climate change will be worse than they thought it would be 5 years ago (question 43). That compares to just 7% who think the evidence indicates the impacts will be less severe.
I think this clearly, and comprehensively underlines the fact that while the OFA made a mistake, the potential to misinform from that mistake was very small. Climate scientists overwhelmingly believe that global warming will be very dangerous; and that the case that global warming is anthropogenic keeps improving. They overwhelmingly believe that urgent action to mitigate global warming is required now. And the overwhelmingly believe that an additional five years evidence has either shown no decline in the threat, or has increased the threat from global warming.
-
michael sweet at 23:22 PM on 15 February 2014Unprecedented trade wind strength is shifting global warming to the oceans, but for how much longer?
Markoh:
Saying another poster is "pontificating" is insulting. You have already insulted me on this thread. If you want to discuss science with others here you need to stop insulting the other posters.
Moderator Response:[JH] Markoh is skating on thin ice and is close to recusing himself from posting comments on SkS.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 23:01 PM on 15 February 2014Unprecedented trade wind strength is shifting global warming to the oceans, but for how much longer?
Sorry Markoh, I am not going to rise to the bait ("pontificating"), you may be here just to argue for the sake of it, but life is just too short. If you want to know why posters here are being somewhat abrupt with you, read your post above and consider why that might be.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 22:50 PM on 15 February 2014MP Graham Stringer and CNN Crossfire are wrong about the 97% consensus on human-caused global warming
RussR@8 I see you have completely ducked the question I asked in order to find out the evidence underpinning your doubts on your first of 12 concerns. Ducking the question is a tacit admission that you have no evidence to support such a doubt and are just invoking the "uncertainty monster" as a reason to advocate a lack of action on climate change.
Sorry, my mind is changed by evidence and reason, it is not swayed by empty rhetoric and bluster.
-
michael sweet at 22:21 PM on 15 February 2014MP Graham Stringer and CNN Crossfire are wrong about the 97% consensus on human-caused global warming
The OFA post is accutate and does not require any corrections. Obama has referred to the 97% consensus of the Consensus Project and the separate, well known scientific consensus that AGW is dangerous. He is sending a tweet and has limited characters. Arguing that he must explain in detail what he means in a tweet is absurd.
Tha argument that Obama's post is incorrect must provide evidence that scientists do not consider AGW dangerous. Russ has provided no references to his wild claim that there is not a scientific consensus AGW is dangerous. Russ's claim that he does not agree with the consensus on some points is immaterial. A glance at the IPCC WG2 report is sufficient to show AGW is dangerous. Since there is a scientific consensus that GW is dangerous the tweet is accurate.
-
chriskoz at 20:19 PM on 15 February 2014MP Graham Stringer and CNN Crossfire are wrong about the 97% consensus on human-caused global warming
Russ's list @3 can be described as an example of impossible expectations on the science by those who are "inconvenienced" by the evidence. Cook et al 2013 addresses a simple question, the answer to which may have some policy implications. But because Russ seemingly does not like those potential implications, he questions the usefulness of Cook et al 2013, arguing that it would only be useful if it addressed all questions from his list. I presume, in his view, the "scientific consensus" in climate science cannot be valid/useful unless sicentists agree on all his 12 points.
First of all, a poll consisting of such detailed points on 10K+ papers would not be possible due to too many details involved. Second, there will be not many (in any) climate sicentists who agree on all 12 points, because most of the points are about economics/politics as other commneters noted, and most notably, climate scientists are not experts on those point, therefore such study would not be a study of expert consensus but rather of casual population opinion.
In conclusion, Russ's list bears signs of a science denial trait: impossible expectations.
-
Markoh at 18:54 PM on 15 February 2014Unprecedented trade wind strength is shifting global warming to the oceans, but for how much longer?
DK @86
i believe if you read my post @78 more carefully you will see my focus was the mathematical consequence of outlier data on a linear regression.
And when I say "I am unaware" that is what I mean, and further pontifications are not necessary.
Moderator Response:[JH] Please lose the snark.
-
chriskoz at 18:00 PM on 15 February 2014How we know the greenhouse effect isn't saturated
barry@15,
You're correct: the negative lapse rate feedback parameter overall is about -0.8W/m2K, an absolute value smaller than e.g. the H2O feedback (parameter +1.8W/M2K. See IPCC AR4 and Soden 2005.
However, as you might guess, the LR feedback is not uniform nor positive everywhere:
Near the poles, LR feedback happens to be slightly positive (last picture) while negative (second last picture) in the tropics. Overall the tropics influence is larger, hence its average value -0.8W/m2K.
-
chriskoz at 17:22 PM on 15 February 20142014 SkS News Bulletin #1: Keystone XL Pipeline
Russ@13,
I don't share your opinion that Pigouvian tax is the best and only tool to resolve all tragedy of common problems. I appreciate your strong confidence in the market:
just correct the externality with [an arbitrary] tax of $36/tC and 'problem solved'.
No, not so simple. History shows many examples of ToC (sanitary waste in cities, acid rain, ozone hole, as I quoted above) where free market mechanisms have failed completely. Those problems were urgent at their time, and they were not solved by any tax. I would argue that if authorities decided to apply a modest tax equivalent to todays $36/t on CFC polution and said 'problem solved' we would still have CFC emissions growing today and ozone hole perhaps covering half hemisphere. The case of AGW problem is very similar in both socio-economic and environmental aspect, so similar solutions are applicable.
When free market has been failing miserably for 100+ years, creating serious ToC problem, a simple market correction may not be enough incentive to resolve the problem. That's why we have other tools to help.
KXL plays undeniable part in this problem. Not only as the contribution to the commons pollution. Also as the precedent of expansion over unconventional FF. Also as the nulification of your 'problem solved' $36/t market correction. The goal of such correction is to level the playing field between FF and renewables by rising the cost of FF but KXL infrastructure is to lower the cost of FF.
-
Jim Eager at 15:22 PM on 15 February 2014How we know the greenhouse effect isn't saturated
I'm glad you found it clear enough to be helpful, Richard. The animated diagram that chriskoz posted nicely illustrates the increase in effective radiating altitude that I described. The difference in temperature as the radiating altitude increases is crucial to the greenhouse effect, and it is a concept not explained in most general descriptions. The effective radiating altitude doesn't have to increase by very much, either. At the emission altitude of CO2 the dry lapse rate (remember, there is almost no H2O at that altitude) is around 1C per 100 meters.
-
Doug Hutcheson at 15:02 PM on 15 February 2014How we know the greenhouse effect isn't saturated
Thanks for this article: I will be linking to it often, in combating denialospheroids at various blogs.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 13:44 PM on 15 February 2014MP Graham Stringer and CNN Crossfire are wrong about the 97% consensus on human-caused global warming
Also Russ, your point 7
'What policy actions are politically feasible and economically viable?'
I would reword
'What policy actions are politically feasible, economically viable or morally required?'
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 13:40 PM on 15 February 2014MP Graham Stringer and CNN Crossfire are wrong about the 97% consensus on human-caused global warming
Russ R
'Second, this "97% consensus" is being presented, in and of itself, as justification for policy action'
Actually no Russ. What it is being presented is that supposed lack of consensus on the science, that there are substantial debates about much of the basics among the scientific community, is not true. Consensus on the science is not a sufficient basis for policy action. But it is an important part of the basis needed. In contrast a substantial lack of consensus, were that the situation, might well constitute sufficient grounds for not taking policy action.
Thus demonstrating that the consensus does exist removes a justification for policy inaction and contributes, although is not sufficient alone, to a justification for policy action.
Thus it is obvious why the idea that there is no consensus is so powerfully seductive to those who don't want policy action, whether needed or not. And it is telling when some folks will promulgate the 'there is no consensus' line in contradiction of the actual evidence. I can't imagine a starker example of the 'black is white' form of motivated reasoning.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 13:24 PM on 15 February 2014MP Graham Stringer and CNN Crossfire are wrong about the 97% consensus on human-caused global warming
Tom... Totally. I have no problem at all when people point out errors. The OFA definitely overstepped when they added the word "dangerous."
What drives me up a wall is a disproportionate expectations of accuracy. If someone is going to be a stickler for accuracy, the OFA's error, on the grand scale of climate change related errors, hardly registers on the meter.
Prev 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 Next
