Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 Next
Comments 38551 to 38600:
-
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.
-
Tom Curtis at 12:55 PM on 15 February 2014MP Graham Stringer and CNN Crossfire are wrong about the 97% consensus on human-caused global warming
Rob @10, while it is quite appropriate - even necessary - to point out the OFA's mistake. The mistake was confusing the consensus position as assessed by the paper with the consensus of scientists as assessed by the IPCC. That the consensus of climate scientists finds that global warming will be dangerous is in fact shown by the IPCC. It is, however, not assessed by the paper.
However, the obsessiveness with which this is brought up is revealing. It is almost always brought up on any discussion of the paper, as though it was a mistake by Cook et al. Further, it is brought up by people who give free passes to outrageous falsehood from the other side, as you note.
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). Failing that, we can assume his mention of the OFA tweet represents merely an attempt to belittle the paper with a convenient talking point rather than a serious contribution.
-
michael sweet at 12:55 PM on 15 February 2014MP Graham Stringer and CNN Crossfire are wrong about the 97% consensus on human-caused global warming
Russ,
The consensus science position on all of your points is outlined in the IPCC report. You are claiming that an enormous search of the literature must be done for each claim that you have made. That has been done by the IPCC. The consensus project documents in explicit detail that the consensus is extreme. That consensus also relates to the entire IPCC report, which is approved by every contry in the world. It is up to you to produce evidence that the consensus as shown in the IPCC report is not accepted. That is impossible, since the IPCC is a consensus document.
You are hair splitting. It is unnessaary to prove every claim in the IPCC document, since it is acccepted as consensus.
-
Tom Curtis at 12:47 PM on 15 February 2014MP Graham Stringer and CNN Crossfire are wrong about the 97% consensus on human-caused global warming
KR @7, Russ's list is indeed consistent with the consensus as assessed by the Consensus Paper (Cook et al). That only assessed endorsement in papers of the proposition that >50% of recent warming was due to anthropogenic factors. There is indeed general agreement on far more issues than addressed by the paper, as explored by the IPCC; and the "consensus position" does indeed contradict most of Russ's list, but that is a seperate issue.
Note, it is possible to accept even a low climate sensitivity (about 1.5 C per doubling of CO2) and that most recent warming has been anthropogenic if you also believe that aerosol forcings have been low, and the natural contribution of natural cycles to recent warming is close to, but below 50%.
Having said that, Russ's conclusions from his list of questions would appear to rely on some very dubious inferences, or on simply ignoring relevant data. The "no problem" view of climate change relies on assuming the truth lies in the lower 16% range of IPCC uncertainties across a range of issues. Those uncertainties compound so that the probability that no action is a reasonable strategy is very small.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 11:35 AM on 15 February 2014MP Graham Stringer and CNN Crossfire are wrong about the 97% consensus on human-caused global warming
Russ @8... Jeez, I wish you guys would apply even just a tiny fraction of scrutiny to the claims a wide range of high profile individuals who challenge man-made climate change.
Why not apply the same level of scrutiny to WUWT. Or to ClimateAudit. Or Pielke, Curry, Tol, Monckton, Ball, Carter, Humlum, JoNova, or any of a very very long list of people who torture the facts.
The OFA drops in one word that oversteps and all hell breaks loose. All the while, others on the "skeptic" side get away with intellectual murder.
-
Don9000 at 11:08 AM on 15 February 20142014 SkS News Bulletin #1: Keystone XL Pipeline
Don@2
While I appreciate the moderator's point, I must now point out that if people in the US had been asked in--say--1936, if they thought a second World War was going to get underway in 1939 and they and their country would be dragged into it by the end of 1941, they would have been skeptical or adamantly in denial. Attitudes clearly change in response to new circumstances. Thus, while it is not exactly clear what it will take to galvanize the US into action, I don't think it makes sense to act as if building the pipeline removes any hope of acting. Maybe it will take some climate calamity five years in our future, or ten. Or maybe education and demographics will do the trick in fifteen years, but if the best counter to my point is that it is unlikely we'll see a carbon tax passed soon in the US or Canada, then that still doesn't justify the doomsday tone associated with talk of approving the pipeline.
Even if the XL pipeline is built, the total amount of oil that can be extracted from the tar sands will not be extracted in a handful of years but would require decades of exploitation, and thus it seems to me we should not act as if approval of the pipeline guarantees that worst-case outcome.
In my view, the XL Pipeline project is more closely akin to a battle in a long drawn out war. Nations, including both the UK and the US, have histories of losing battles and going on to win these kinds of wars. Sometimes, losing a battle is even strategically useful. If Obama chooses to fight this battle, I'd be happy, but I'm not convinced doing so is his best option. It may be that not approving the pipeline could be the straw that tilts the US even further toward the Tea Party end of rational though, and that might see us talking about President Cruz's climate policies in a few years.
My ultimate point is that by staking out the position that building the pipeline is in effect the ultimate defeat or whatever extreme conclusion you prefer, then people are setting themselves up for a trap.
Here's a question: If the XL Pipeline is built, will all of us just give up and accept that we are heading for the worst case rcp 8.5 scenario and stop fighting? I won't. Will you? Will Skeptical Science shut down its website, since the end is nigh? That's what it seems to me is being implicitly stated when possible presidential approval of the XL Pipeline is put forward as a "game over" outcome. Again, I don't agree with this position, and I think it is a flaw in the overall strategy we are following.
Given the nature of reality where global warming is concerned, governments like the US and Canada will eventually impose carbon taxes or their equivalent. Given the current political reality around the world, that point just won't be soon enough to prevent a 2 degree rise, but if it comes soon enough to prevent a 3 degree rise, or a 4 degree rise, or worse, those would all still be victories.
Again, I would like to be corrected if I am wrong in thinking that a comprehensive carbon tax plan, gradually imposed, let's say, for the sake of the argument, beginning five years from now and fully implemented in the US and Europe by 2025 would go a long way toward slowing or stopping the flow of tar sands oil. Note that if I'm wrong, I'd have to say attempts to stop using coal in particular on a large global scale must also be doomed to failure. But if I'm right, I'd suggest that educating people about the need for a carbon tax would be more useful than spouting end of days rhetoric about a pipeline project.
-
Russ R. at 10:34 AM on 15 February 2014MP Graham Stringer and CNN Crossfire are wrong about the 97% consensus on human-caused global warming
KR.
Here's where you're guilty of misrepresenting the "97% consensus":
"[Questions]1-4 on the greenhouse effect are basic science, as per the overviews in the IPCC WG1 publications here and here. If you wholly disagree with any of those you are in the 3% of dismissives."
Since questions 1-4 weren't covered in the paper, how can they be part of the "97% consensus"? -
Russ R. at 10:30 AM on 15 February 2014MP Graham Stringer and CNN Crossfire are wrong about the 97% consensus on human-caused global warming
Dikran Marsupial & KR,
Please show me where any of these 12 questions were addressed as part of the "97% Consensus" in the paper being cited. They're not. The paper (and the much touted 97% Consensus") only addressed two very narrow and simple questions. (Is the earth warming? and Are humans responsible?) I happen to agree with both positions, so no issues there.
I have two issues with how this is being used (by folks from this site and others).
First, the "consensus" is being misrepresented as being broader than it actually is. For example, here:
Pardon? Where exactly did "dangerous" come from? It wasn't part of the study, which make the third part of the statement completely unsubstantiated. Okay, the president probably didn't actually read the paper himself. But did anybody bother to correct that very public mistake? It appears not.
Second, this "97% consensus" is being presented, in and of itself, as justification for policy action, taking for granted all of the rather important questions that I listed above. Here for instance:
"With the latest study showing 97 percent certainty about climate change being caused by human activity, we're 100 percent certain that Congress needs to pass serious climate legislation such as a revenue-neutral carbon tax." - Dana Nuccitelli (http://www.sacbee.com/2013/06/05/5471547/climate-debate-is-settled-carbon.html#storylink=cpy)
If that's not an a serious leap of reasoning, I don't know what is. (And I'm not even opposed to a revenue-neutral carbon tax, so my taking issue with Dana's statement isn't ideological.)
Basically, if you're going to claim that "97% of climate scientists agree", you have to be specific on what it is that's actually being agreed on. You have to not misrepresent the "consensus" as applying to matters that weren't covered. And lastly, you have to acknowledge that people who agree with the two "consensus" positions can still oppose "climate policies" (for a bunch of reasons), without labeling them "deniers".
Paul D.,
"Unless you were an author of one of the papers analysed, you aren't." You're entirely correct. I should have written that I'm in agreement with the "97% consensus".
Composer99,
I agree with you re: Spencer. He can't have it both ways.
-
Ken in Oz at 10:04 AM on 15 February 2014Discussing global warming: why does this have to be so hard?
Russ @4 The economic and social costs of insufficient and belated action, severely compromised by political processes can always be easy to appear or be portrayed as unwanted costs we can do without. But I don't think any actual policies so far, anywhere in the world, let alone international and globally inclusive, have been sufficient to the scale of the problem, or been anything like timely.
The justifiable criticism of policies that aren't working or work insufficiently should not be the justification for failure to push ahead with policies that are sufficient and will work. But that is the major thrust of mainstream politics where I live; to seek to do as little as possible, and use the perceived failures of the insufficient efforts to date to justify the elimination of the climate problem entirely as a consideration for policy and planning.
Political parties and elected MP's are not above making use of the abundance of manufactured misinformation on climate in order to enhance the perception of timely action as pointless and economically damaging.
Of course the full costs of climate change are cumulative, long delayed, long running and remain unaccounted for in any meaningful way by the preferred economic metrics these policies get judged by. Yet it is irreplaceable environmental capital that will be lost effectively forever as irreversible global warming proceeds apace, aided by willfully weak efforts to mitigate it combined with strong, well organised and politically well connected efforts to defend and extend the 'economic benefits' of fossil fuel use.
-
Richard McGuire at 09:20 AM on 15 February 2014How we know the greenhouse effect isn't saturated
@ 15 Jim Eager your explanation was helpful.
-
MP Graham Stringer and CNN Crossfire are wrong about the 97% consensus on human-caused global warming
Russ R. - I find your list interesting, but your assertion that these are unaddressed questions is not supportable.
- 1-4 on the greenhouse effect are basic science, as per the overviews in the IPCC WG1 publications here and here. If you wholly disagree with any of those you are in the 3% of dismissives.
- 5 on impacts has certainly been studied, see the IPCC WG2 "Impacts, Adaptcation, and Vulnerability" for an overview.
- 8-10, how fast and how much AGW can be reduced, depend entirely on the mitigation policies that are actually implemented - politics.
- 6, 7, 11, and 12 on cost/benefit ratios have been the subject of many studies; there are reasonable references here and here. In general economic studies of mitigation versus adaptation find mitigation advantageous by a factor of 5-10x over adaptation. I would suggest discussion on economics take place on those more appropriate threads.
The basic science is what it is, and that is where the oft-referred to 97% consensus is found. Economic studies vary quite a bit, but the ones not showing strong mitigation benefits tend to have some very unreasonable assumptions. And the policies and responses are strictly political in nature, although one hopes they are informed by the science.
Your objections and issues appear to be (IMO) primarily economic/political - that's really rather off-topic in a thread regarding consensus on science.
-
Composer99 at 07:12 AM on 15 February 2014MP Graham Stringer and CNN Crossfire are wrong about the 97% consensus on human-caused global warming
Russ R:
This article is meant to clear up misconceptions being spread by self-styled skeptics regarding the nature of the scientific consensus in general, and the Cook et al paper in specific (e.g. the deconstruction of Dr Spencer's claim).
Dr Spencer may well agree that the Earth is warming and humans have contributed, but his statements - "I think it is more likely that the warming is mostly natural" - and the papers of his assessed in Cook et al, show that his work and views fall into the category "implies humans have had a minimal impact on global warming" - in other words, he is contradicting himself if he claims to be "part of the 97%".
Whatever the merit to your views on specific policies viz. climate, they do not seem to have anything to do with whether Dr Spencer, the Hon. Mr Stringer, or Dr Kreutzer (and others) are propagating misconceptions regarding the scientific consensus or not.
-
Paul D at 06:58 AM on 15 February 2014MP Graham Stringer and CNN Crossfire are wrong about the 97% consensus on human-caused global warming
RussR"According to your definitions, I'm part of the "97% Consensus"..."
Unless you were an author of one of the papers analysed, you aren't.
Your comment has little to do with the research refered to in the article.But supposing you were an author. Fine you are entitled to your opinion, which is still irrelevent though in the context of the research, which was about scientists agreeing about the science, not about whether any subsequent policy was good or bad.
-
DSL at 06:58 AM on 15 February 2014Ice isn't melting
SB, I don't know of anyone tracking it, but tamino did a post a few years ago on it, and SoD has a variety of posts on it.
-
SocialBlunder at 06:44 AM on 15 February 2014Ice isn't melting
Does anyone track global snow/ice extent and relate it to albedo? I read in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan-Boltzmann_law#Temperature_of_the_Earth that the earth's albedo is 0.3. This means we can multiply the energy coming in by 0.7.
Could increase in air temperature be accurately predicted by the decrease in albedo?
-
Dikran Marsupial at 06:41 AM on 15 February 2014MP Graham Stringer and CNN Crossfire are wrong about the 97% consensus on human-caused global warming
Russ R O.K. lets take the first one, what do you think the uncertainty is on the subject of GHG emissions in a "business as usual" scenario? Do you think they are going to be substantially less than RCP 8.5? If so, please explain why.
-
Russ R. at 06:26 AM on 15 February 2014MP Graham Stringer and CNN Crossfire are wrong about the 97% consensus on human-caused global warming
dana1981,
I'm not sure whether or not you realize that it is an entirely reasonable position to agree with both of the "consensus" arguments (i.e. that the planet has warmed, and that human activities are responsible), and still not support "climate policy to address the problem".
The "97% consensus" that's you're reporting has nothing to say regarding any of the following, each of which is an essential link in the chain of reasoning that corrective policy action must be taken.
- How much will GHG emissions rise in a "business as usual" scenario?
- How much will atmospheric concentrations rise for that level of emissions?
- How sensitive is the climate to increased GHG concentrations?
- How long will it take for changes to manifest?
- How will those changes impact ecosystems, economies, societies and individuals (considering both positive and negative impacts)?
- What is the net cost / benefit of the expected changes (allowing for the possiblity and costs of adaptation)?
- What policy actions are politically feasible and economically viable?
- At best, how much can those actions actually reduce emissions below "business as usual"?
- With what probability of success?
- Over what time frame?
- At what cost, and with what unintended side-effects?
- And ultimately... will the probability-adjusted future benefits of policy action (discounted to present value), exceed the real direct and indirect costs of taking action, and will those costs and benefits be distributed equitably?
According to your definitions, I'm part of the "97% Consensus", but I still do not support the vast majority of proposed "climate policies" because I have numerous doubts relating to the dozen issues I've listed above.
FWIW, there are small number of "climate policies" that I would support even if climate change was not a problem, and they had no impact on emissions (e.g. ending energy subsidies).
-
Andy Skuce at 05:57 AM on 15 February 2014A methane mystery: Scientists probe unanswered questions about methane and climate change
There is a new study out that looks at methane leaks in the US. Here is the press release.
Quick summary: Emissions measured from continent-wide top-down sampling are bigger than the bottom-up measurements. This is mostly due to a few one-in-a-thousand very leaky components that may get undersampled either randomly or by selection bias. Fracking activity itself gets a comparitive free pass. Some of the recent top-down studies that have shown large release rates cannot be representative of the ccountry as a whole if the methane budget is to be balanced, many factors, such as natural seepage rates and emissions from abandoned wells are poorly known.
Gas powered power stations are better for the climate than coal, at least over 100 year periods, but given the leak rates in the natural gas supply system, there are no full life-cycle emissions advantages for vehicles that use natural gas to replace diesel or gasoline.
Here's a link to a video where the lead author discusses the results.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 05:13 AM on 15 February 2014Unprecedented trade wind strength is shifting global warming to the oceans, but for how much longer?
DSL, slack-cutting is always a good idea, I was aiming for a concillatory tone (obviously I was rather off-target ;o), I was just trying to show that michaels comment was was not unreasonable and not an insult.
Just performing an ordinary google search for "Pinatubo climate model" works pretty well, and a Google Scholar search for "pinatubo climate model" brings up Hansens 1992 paper as the first hit for me. The real point is though that anybody that had looked into the reliability or otherwise of climate models should be particularly aware of the effects of Pinatubo as it provided a chance to test the predictive power of the models, and so has been very widely discussed.
There is nothing wrong with not knowing things (there is *plenty* I don't know, which is why I read much more than I write here), but in order to learn, you need to be able to admit that you don't know and not get upset if others tell you (this is a good guard against the Dunning-Kruger effect, so they are doing you a favour in the long run, even if it isn't pleasant at the time).
-
Tom Dayton at 05:01 AM on 15 February 2014Unprecedented trade wind strength is shifting global warming to the oceans, but for how much longer?
Markoh: Following up on comments by Michael and Dikran--the U.S. National Research Council wrote a whole report in 2012: A National Strategy for Advancing Climate Modeling.
-
DSL at 04:50 AM on 15 February 2014Unprecedented trade wind strength is shifting global warming to the oceans, but for how much longer?
Still, DM @ 86, perhaps some slack should be cut here. I mean, I did a Google Scholar search and only came up with ~8000 hits. Perhaps I over-limited my search string (pinatubo global mean surface temperature volcanic).
-
DSL at 04:34 AM on 15 February 2014Unprecedented trade wind strength is shifting global warming to the oceans, but for how much longer?
January GISS L-OTI is out (unadjusted): 0.72C.
DJ MEI = -.318
DEC PDO = -.41
CT SIE = lowest in the satellite period
CT SIA = 2nd lowest in the satellite period
Global SIA = 8th lowest in the latellite period
-
barry1487 at 02:45 AM on 15 February 2014How we know the greenhouse effect isn't saturated
Chriskoz, that graphic is a close representation of how I imagine the increase in surface temps from a steady lapse rate but increasing height of troposphere from GHG warming. I believe there is a small caveat to add - the lapse rate does not remain quite constant, providing a small negative feedback, but not nearly enough to counteract the impact on surface temps from the elevated tropopause (this from meory - someone please correct if I am wrong).
I am always reminded that saying enough to be clear without reneging on the whole truth is often difficult to balance. Like a documentary maker who has a limited frame and time in which to capture the essence of the subject as well as possible.
-
barry1487 at 02:22 AM on 15 February 2014Australia’s hottest year was no freak event: humans caused it
I knew that clouds were a complicated and uncertain factor and this adds some helpful detail. Thanks for the comments.
-
babazaroni at 02:17 AM on 15 February 2014MP Graham Stringer and CNN Crossfire are wrong about the 97% consensus on human-caused global warming
I see one can look up the classifications on the Skeptical Science page.
-
babazaroni at 02:12 AM on 15 February 2014MP Graham Stringer and CNN Crossfire are wrong about the 97% consensus on human-caused global warming
Is it possible to look up somehwere, like on the Concensus Project page, how a specific paper or author is classified?
-
Dikran Marsupial at 02:11 AM on 15 February 2014Unprecedented trade wind strength is shifting global warming to the oceans, but for how much longer?
To support what michael has written, climate modellers have conferences, where they discuss ways to improve their models (you need to know where the problems lie if you want to improve them, so talking about the failings of models is an important activity). Climate modellers also have journals where they publish papers explaining how to improve modelling of climate (again, you can't explain how to improve models without discussing the failings that justify the need for the improvement). Modellers also take part in Model Intercomparison Projects (e.g. CMIP3 and CMIP5, but there have been many others focussed on specific topics).
Your comment "However with Pinatubo the question is what effect it had on the years following 1991? It probably had an effect and thus would also change the gradient but I am unaware of any analysis quantifying the effect for what you are looking at. It probably exists." demonstrates that you are not familiar with the work that has been done on modelling, as the sucessful forcasting of the effects of Pinatubo was a useful exercise in evaluating climate models. It is not an insult to point this out; we all start knowing very little and learn more by listening to those more expert than ourselves. However looking for insults where none was intended is not going to help you learn, so you need to take such comments as useful advice.
-
michael sweet at 02:01 AM on 15 February 2014Unprecedented trade wind strength is shifting global warming to the oceans, but for how much longer?
Markoh,
I do not see the insult that you are so concerned about. Clearly you do not understand how the climate models work since your questions are inappropriately phrased.
There have been a number of new posters lately (especially you) who have been extremely sensitive about responses to their questions. By the same standard, you have insulted me by your response. I only answered your question. Please point out what I said that was insulting.
I teach High School science and scientific models are discussed in class. The models are continually revised as new knowledge is gained. This statement is a general statement that is common knowledge. There is a meme at denier sites that models are not corrected as new knowledge is learned. That is false. Read the posts on Realclimate about climate models if you do not understand them. Which statement do you question that I made ? Your statement is to vague to respond specificly to.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:43 AM on 15 February 2014Discussing global warming: why does this have to be so hard?
Marcoh @34,
To answer your question it is important to share my understanding of the fundamentals of the full issue.
- Developing the understanding of ways of living that are truly sustainable, ways that everyone is able to develop to and continue forever, are the only valid 'development'. Anything else is unsustainable and likely damaging to the future.
- That required development requires the best minds to be motivated to pursue that development, and the entire population to admire and support that effort.
- Greed and Intolerance are two attitudes that persist in human societies and that are counter-productive to development of a truly sustainable better future for all. It is important that those attitudes not be successful or popular. I add intolerance in this discussion because there is clear evidence that some of the greediest have been partnering with intolerant people to gain more political popular power.
- Benefiting from burning fossil fuels is not a sustainable way of living. It cannot be done by all current humans, leading to massive global conflict from the more powerful fighting to benefit more form it. And, in addition to being unsustainable, it is damaging in ways other than the harm caused by ‘fighting over it’.
- Therefore, the burning of fossil fuels, like many other unsustainable damaging activities, must only be a short-term transition to more sustainable ways of living. And the real benefit should only accrue to those who are least fortunate, to help them develop to decent sustainable better ways of life.
- Therefore the people benefiting from it most should have been focusing on development of more sustainable ways of living, no matter what their perceived 'lost opportunity' would be compared to how much more pleasure, profit, comfort or convenience they personally could get away from the unsustainable and damaging activity.
- The profit motive in the current socioeconomic system will not 'fundamentally' lead to the rapid, or any serious, development toward more sustainable ways of living. The greedy will fight against what is required because what is required is for them to not be able to get away with getting as much profit, pleasure, comfort and convenience as they might be able to.
- How the socioeconomic system gets changed to actually motivate humanity to develop toward the required sustainable better ways of life, to keep greed from succeeding, is the question that must be answered. Identifying greed and intolerance and affectively keeping those attitudes from succeeding is probably the first step.
- Greed and Intolerance are choices. So an important step would be to try to help people tempted by such attitudes to understand the unacceptability of those attitudes. However, it is important to acknowledge that some of these people may be very heavily under the influence of greed or intolerance. This may be the reason ‘discussing climate change can be difficult’.
Many people do not wish to support the development of a sustainable better future for all. Many people are only willing to ‘change their minds and their ways’ if someone else develops a cheaper and easier way for them to benefit more. The more sustainable and less damaging ways of living will always be more limiting for any current generation or group of people. That is the problem that must be solved, or a sustainable better future for humanity will not develop.
Prev 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 Next
