Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 Next
Comments 3901 to 3950:
-
Bob Loblaw at 01:52 AM on 20 July 2022It's cooling
Rationalise @ 320.
Welcome to Skeptical Science. Glad to hear that you are looking through the material available here - there is much useful information available.
This web site has a specific goal: to take many of the myths that exist in the understanding of climate science and show what the science actually says. These are labelled myths because there is strong evidence that they are incorrect. They are not dismissed because they are speculative, or because their "conclusions" are disliked - they are dismissed because of the evidence, which is the way science works.
One of the other things you will find here is information on the rhetorical and logical tactics and fallacies that are often used in promoting these myths. For example, the argument that you appear to be making - that science advances through ideas that run contrary to established thinking - is known as the Galileo gambit. Not all "contrary thinking" is a Galileo gambit, but it is one false argument that has been commonly used in the climate science "debates". We even have a page devoted specifically to it here at Skeptical Science:
https://skepticalscience.com/climate-skeptics-are-like-galileo.htm
Also note that here at Skeptical Science, there is a strong desire to keep comments on topic. Please review the Comments Policy, where this is one of the key points. (There is also a link to the policy above the box you use to enter comments.) If you wish to pursue your line of thinking, the above Galileo post is a better place than here, where the myth being debunked is that the globe is cooling.
Also note that each myth debunking usually has Beginner, Intermediate, and (sometimes) Advanced tabs that can be read for more and more detail.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:27 AM on 20 July 2022It's cooling
Rationalise @320,
My personal beliefs (open to improvement) include:
- learning (improved understanding) is developed by the pursuit of increased awareness of what is going on (evidence and thoughtful consideration consistent with all of the evidence) with a focus on limiting harm done.
- Science efforts that are not focused on improving understanding and limiting the potential harm done, especially the potentially devastating science of marketing, can be very bad.
- Increased awareness of the evidence limits the range of reasonable explanations of what is going on (and exposes misleading marketing). Obtaining more evidence legitimately cancels (corrects) beliefs that are inconsistent with the evidence.
That is what science pursues - improved understanding of what is actually going on. Science can be especially helpful when it exposes new areas of improved understanding, like discovering harmful consequences of popular and profitable pursuits of personal benefit that had not been investigated or were attempted to be hidden or be doubted by people benefiting from harm done.
Based on those beliefs (understandings), I am pretty sure that the inconsistencies of each Climate Myth vs. the available evidence and a more consistent, but open to improvement (common sense), understanding has been presented. Of course, new evidence (not different opinions) could change the developed, open-to-improvement understanding.
-
Rationalise at 23:45 PM on 19 July 2022It's cooling
I've been browsing through this website and find it all very interesting. However there are some fundamentals that concern me. At the top of each page there are two sections titled "What the science says" and "Climate myth". Is this really how science and discovery is supposed to work? That opposing opinions are divided into "fact" and "myth"? Hasn't it been so that throughout recorded history that individuals have stood alone against 99% opposing consensus, even to the point of enduring persecution and cancellation? In fact haven't many of the greatest discoveries of all time been railed at by the majority? The fact is that there is always the possibility of a factor hidden from the multitude that's staring one lone individual right in the face. Isn't your "Climate myth" section a modern day equivalent of the medieval pillory with the data you have on hand the equivalent of fruit for the throwing?
I was very interested to note in the comments back in 2010 where a contributor calling himself Dr Tom stated unequivocally that Atlantic Bluefin Tuna would be extinct by 2012 and humans possibly as early as 2020. 12 years on and Atlantic Bluefin Tuna now have a conservation status of least concern. As to humans, I can't see too much evidence of extinction at the moment. Moral of the story is, don't fall for climate alarmism/extremism or characterise sceptics as misinformation peddlers. That's medieval and we really don't know what's around the next corner or what new discoveries may blow all conventional wisdom to kingdom come.
-
nigelj at 11:16 AM on 19 July 2022104°F? A Continental heat wave heads for England
Heatwaves are being made worse by climate change, and they put huge pressure on hospitals, adding to the pressure of the covid pandemic, the rise in treatment resistant infections, and an aging population. Hospitals surge capacity probably just can't cope with this alarming combination of things. The future is looking very tough for the health sector. Its going to need massive financial investment.
-
Bob Loblaw at 10:29 AM on 19 July 20222nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Grindupbaker:
Sorry for the colloquial jargon, but yes, "bog standard" indicates agreement - basically, nothing remarkable or exceptional about the statements.
As for absorption and emission: these happen at the molecule/photon level. As soon as you start invoking Stefan-Boltzmann, Planck, etc. then you are by necessity looking at statistics of large numbers of molecules. For a single emitted photon, the direction is random. For a large collection, the emissions are isotropic. Any two halves of the sphere are "equal".
Radiation transfer is a continuous process in the real world, and anything dividing it up into layers is already a simplification. A finite difference approach to a continuous function - the same way a slope between two points compares to the derivative from calculus.
As soon as you are talking about layers, adjacent layers need to be consistent. What goes out the top of one layer goes into the bottom of the next, and vice versus. For any layer, the IR flux out of it can be either emitted from that layer, or it can be transmitted transmitted through that layer from previous layers. As all photons of the same wavelength are the same, there is no way of identifying which is the case. Flux out of a layer is not equal to emissions.
The 199, 200, 201 W/m2 example was a very simplified thought experiment to illustrate how your "it can't be 50%" argument was wrong. The flux can and does vary with height, and that does not break the equal up/down emission rule. The up/down aspect has a formal label: the two-stream approximation. The combination of the Beer-Lambert Law (for absorption) plus emissions of IR radiation, leading to a net IR flux along a temperature gradient also has formal solutions, one of which is called Schwarzschild’s equation. All of these are still approximations - but useful ones.
Eli has a good discussion of the time constants for re-emission vs. thermal collisions. If you want to distinguish between (1) energy that is absorbed and emitted by the same molecule from (2) energy that is absorbed by one molecule, transferred to another molecule and emitted from that second molecule - and want to restrict "re-emitted" to the first case - then you are welcome to add to your collection of pedant points.
Eli also has a good presentation on why you cannot think of any of this solely on the basis of radiation transfer - all energy fluxes in the atmosphere play a role.
Your habit of referring to diagrams as "cartoons", and your desire to "..challenge the ubiquitous 'greenhouse effect'..." suggests that you think that you have something new to add. You don't. You are taking simplified explanations, criticizing them for their incompleteness ("All models are wrong. Some are useful."), and replacing them with your own incomplete explanations. To quote MA Rodger in #1508, "I'm not sure your efforts assist in such general descriptions."
And as MA Rodger has also pointed out, this is really getting off topic for this particular climate myth, which is supposed to be about the second law of thermodynamics.
-
MA Rodger at 21:11 PM on 18 July 20222nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
grindupBaker @1509,
You ask about a particular statement within this talk by Jennifer Kay 2021 'How do clouds affect global warming?'. @6:30 the video addresses the question "How do clouds affect the mean climate?" pointing to a net global mean effect of -21.1Wm^-2 (thus cooling), this comprising -47.3 Wm^-2 (cooling effect) due to albedo and +26.2 Wm^-2 (warming effect) due to a "longwave effect." Thus the statement:-[From 8:04] "Clouds also have a longwave effect on the system. Just like greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, clouds absorb and re-emit long wave radiation and that actually causes the surface and the atmosphere to be warm."
My own objection to this statement would go no further than pick up on the use of the term "re-emit."
Your objection that "only a tiny portion" of the LW radiation arriving at the surface were 're-emitted' from clouds apparently expresses a similar concern.
But I'm not sure why you would then go beyond simply suggesting the replacement of "re-emit" with "emit". You appear to want to distance these cloud IR emissions from surface warming with description of them setting off "absorb-and-re-emit cycles before succeeding in achieving surface absorption," a description that deploys the very same objectionable "re-emit" term.The point the video makes is that the climate system ("the surface and the atmosphere") is warm to the level it is significantly because of this long wave cloud effect. And I think we agree it is this warmth that sets the level of IR whizzing about in the atmosphere as well as the level being absorbed and emitted by the surface.
(And as a point of note: I recall that perhaps some 10% of the LWR from clouds will be due to reflection and presumably some will be directly returning surface-emitted IR back to the surface.) -
grindupBaker at 16:03 PM on 18 July 20222nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
MA Rodger @1508 Your "grindupBaker @1507, You ask ... that atmosphere." Thanks. I'll put some thought this winter into wording gooder that bit because "sourced from surface re-emit" is precisely what I object to as being stated as the source of all downwelling LWR at surface and yet the Bob Loblaw glossed right past "re-emit" and focussed a challenge on 50% when I could have readily typed "most" or "some" or "a bunch" instead of "50%" without changing the meaning of my objection at all, and then you stated outright that I was silent ("unchallenged") on "re-emit" so my phrasing there is somehow poor. It isn't just a junk-science cartoon, it's one of the scam types that have served the "Skeptic" community very well the last couple of decades (Henrik Svensmark did a nice one). That junk-science cartoon is the nasty, cunning Scam of Omission (aka The Dog That Barked in The Night). A photon leaves surface, absorbed by CO2 molecule, re-emitted upward, no change, another photon leaves surface, absorbed by CO2 molecule, re-emitted downward, warming surface, got trapped (maybe a couple of repeats in cartoon). It's obvious even to an uneducated mind that this will cause warming so the "greenhouse effect" makes perfect sense. However, an uneducated mind doesn't think to wonder "so is this all that CO2 molecule does regarding photons then ?". The cartoon states outright that the CO2 molecule never gets vibration due to a collision and then sometimes emits a photon in a random direction even though it didn't absorb a photon to re-emit. I could modify that cartoon to show that CO2 molecule emitting 2 photons without absorbing a photon for every photon it absorbs and then adding a CO2 molecule increases upward radiation, so using that junk-science cartoon I could show the public how increased CO2 is actually cooling Earth and how "they" have been deliberately leaving this out to fool people as a hoax. Of course, we both know that radiation to space must decrease with increased tropospheric GHGs because the average emission level becomes higher, becomes cooler and emits less. The bods presenting that cunning Scam of Omission cartoon need to be brought to task by presenting the "greenhouse effect" correctly (like Andrew Dessler does) or the public is going to think it's all a scam when what I've pointed out here is pointed out to them in a form without explanation that's not designed at all to educate them.
Do you concur with physicist climate scientist Jennifer Kay statement at 8:09 at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kE1VBCt8GLc that "clouds absorb and re-emit long-wave radiation and that actually causes the surface and the atmosphere to be warm", or do you concur with me that Jennifer provides incorrect physics regarding what "actually causes the surface ... to be warm" because only a tiny portion of the photons that arrive at the surface are "clouds absorb and re-emit" photons, with the vast majority being "manufactured by H2O collisions in clouds" photons (with any number 0 to n of interim absorb-and-re-emit cycles before succeeding in achieving surface absorption) ?
-
MA Rodger at 22:26 PM on 17 July 20222nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
This interchange is getting rather forensic and probably unproductive. All agree. There is a troposhperic lapse rate. Radiation from the atmosphere goes in all directions so at any point the net radiation flux emitted by the atmosphere will be 50% one way and 50% the other, this with the caviat that the lapse rate reduces temperature with altitude and thus emission reduces with altitude (at least within the troposphere).
grindupBaker @1507,
You ask for confirmation that absorbed radiation is transferred to atmosphic thermal energy through mollecular collision. This is entirely correct. The average relaxation time for an excited molecule to re-emit is measured in hundredths of seconds while the atmospheric collisions occur in microseconds. Indeed, one of the points I would have made concerning your statements @1505 was use of the term "re-emit" which you allow unchallenged. It is the temperature of the atmosphere that determines (almost all) the radiation it emits, not the radiation being absorbed by that atmosphere.I guess your comment (not a lot to do with laws of thermodynamics) is prompted by the often dreadful descriptions of the greenhouse effect we all encounter. But I'm not sure your efforts assist in such general descriptions.
When discussing the greenhouse effect, it is usually not linked to albedo (as you do) and is best seen in terms of the effective height (and thus temperature) at which the planet radiates to space. Thus it is not so much 'cloud thickness' which you imply @1505 is the important factor, but it is the 'cloud height'.
Trying to aportion the strength of the GH-effect to particular atmospheric constituents is far from straightforward as their contributions are interdependent. Thus to say O2 & N2 have no part to play is wrong as without them you get a Martian atmosphere which has an insignificant GH-effect. And specific to Earth, while H20 (gas, liquid and solid) is bigger player than CO2, it requires the CO2 to get into the atmosphere.
Trying to aportion the sensitivity of the GH-effect to particular atmospheric constituents is also far from straightforward. -
grindupBaker at 15:04 PM on 17 July 20222nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Bob:
Change my "Cartoons or text that describe a "greenhouse effect" in which photons from the surface are absorbed by infrared-active gas molecules and then are re-emitted with 50% of it going down and warming the surface are incorrect because they do not include a tropospheric temperature lapse rate which is an absolute requirement".
to
"Cartoons or text that describe a "greenhouse effect" at the surface which is caused entirely, or even mostly, by photons emitted from the surface being absorbed by infrared-active gas molecules and then re-emitted with 50% of it going down and this 50% adding energy at the surface are incorrect because they do not include a tropospheric temperature lapse rate, which is an absolute requirement".My reasoning is that I assert that >99% of photons from molecules in the atmosphere arriving at the surface were emitted by molecules of solid, liquid or infrared-active gas due to them having obtained molecular vibrational kinetic energy on collision and then relaxed and emitted a photon downward, which made it to the surface, and <1% of photons from molecules in the atmosphere arriving at the surface were emitted by molecules of solid, liquid or infrared-active gas due to the sequence of (1) photon upward from surface ---> (2) absorbed by molecule of solid, liquid or infrared-active gas making it vibrate ---> (3) spontaneously re-emitted (4) repeat (2)(3) any number of times whatsoever (5) photon arrives at the surface. Since this >99% vs <1% ratio is the case those cartoons (...and then the rest of my revised refutation of the cartoon that's bandied about).
I don't have the foggiest clue what "bog standard" is and I don't see that your second sentence informed anything about this topic. It appears to just be a weird way of typing "I agree with you".
I assume that your 2 consecutive sentences "The 50% up, ... "downward". You could also ... is most useful" refer to emissions by a single molecule analyzed over sufficient time. I agree with that of course, it's random.
Your 3 consecutive sentences "And it is most useful ... below this one?" "The layer above this one ... downward". "The layer below this one ... downward" are self contradictory because you state that there is 199 W/m2 downward and 201 W/m2 upward at the junction (your "a single height" == junction) between the 2 layers yet there is 200 W/m2 emitted upward, and 200 W/m2 emitted downward at the junction between the 2 layers.
I see no meaning in your "at any single height the locally-emitted IR is equal up and down" because you haven't spatially defined "locally-emitted". How may molecular widths or Angstrom units is the vertical limit for the IR to be considered "locally-emitted" ? I don't know the minimum required size of the infrared-active gas parcel for the Stefan-Boltzmann radiative equation to be accurate to say 5 decimal places so I can't contribute other than stating like "I'm pretty sure 5 molecules thick is too thin to do accurate radiative assessments and I'm pretty sure 200 metres thick is thick enough to do accurate radiative assessments".
Do you agree with me that infrared-active gas molecules sometimes, probably very often, lose a molecular vibrational kinetic energy upon collision, with its energy going into increased molecular translational kinetic energy and/or molecular rotational kinetic energy ? If you don't agree and can point to physics refuting that then I'm incorrect in challenging that ubiquitous "greenhouse effect" cartoon and I'll drop that and stop describing the "greenhouse effect", but if you confidently agree with me on that then debate between us on this topic comes down to semantics and thoughts expressed a tad too casually for full accuracy.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:56 AM on 17 July 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #28 2022
Doug,
I appreciate that there are more rigorous/robust ways for a team to do the investigation/evaluation that Reynolds performed solo. But after reading the presentation and reflecting on it I am updating my initial comment.
Reynolds makes good points about summary statements and press releases needing to be consistent with the understanding of the evidence. However, the following quotes appear to indicate that the author lacks awareness of the evidence and understanding of the bigger picture that SRM is a part of.
Quote at the end of Case 1 evaluation:
“Whether the disruption of the Asian summer monsoon is enough to argue against SRM depends on other scientific questions (What would be the expected agricultural impacts? How would evaporation and water availability change? Could water storage and irrigation systems mitigate any negative impacts?) as well as normative and political ones (Would the reduction of other climate change impacts outweigh this regional precipitation one? Could other countries and regions compensate negatively affected areas?)."
Quote in Discussion:
“Likewise, one could argue that my critique of the generalized assumed regime implicitly assumes that SRM would be used in a nearly optimal, globally coordinated manner. However, the papers in question generalize assumed regimes that would be in multiple actors’ interests and likely within their capabilities to prevent.”
The author appears to be unaware of the history of failure of multiple actors to collectively prevent harm done by ‘actors pursuing benefit from actions that harm Others’ (not just the case of failure to limit global warming impacts). Total human wealth has grown far more rapidly than global population. In spite of centuries of perceived per capita advancement, many less fortunate people still live far less than decent basic lives and die unnecessarily early deaths. And perceptions of advancement and reduction of poverty due to unsustainable harmful activity like fossil fuel use are not sustainable impressions of improvement.
The following quote in the Discussion is also questionable.
“My critiques of inappropriate reference world and focus on the residuals assert that SRM should be compared with a world of elevated GHG concentrations, not a preindustrial one.”
SRM evaluations, like any other scientific investigation of part of a bigger picture, should be consistently presented in the context of understanding of the bigger picture. For SRM, the bigger picture is the requirement for global leadership action to limit peak ghg impacts to 2.0C (ideally limiting impacts to 1.5C) plus actions to rapidly bring CO2 levels back down to 350 ppm (or perhaps even lower would be better) and strictly limit other ghgs. That understanding should be the ‘reference world’ (baseline) for evaluating the potential benefit of ‘temporarily adding SRM’. And SRM, temporarily applied that way, needs to be proven to harmlessly provide global benefits. The major challenge would be to have near certainty that there would not be harm done by ‘adding SRM’. Until global leadership consistently proves its ability to rapidly effectively limit and remedy harm done by pursuits of benefit, it is inappropriate to encourage any ‘added’ actions that may be harmful in spite of perceptions of improvement.
A Building Code analogy would be better than my original comment example of medical treatments needing to be ‘real world tested’ to prove they are safe and helpful before being used to ‘safely actually help a patient’.
A Building Code analogy highlights that the important evaluation of SRM is not a focus on bits of hoped for benefits like: less warming, less sea level rise, or less storm intensity. In a Building Code analogy, SRM is like a ‘novel building system’. It is not a rigorously proven ‘tried and true’ system.
Building Codes present minimum checks to be performed on known and proven to be reliable structural systems. They make it clear that ‘novel materials or systems’ (not already well proven) must be proven to be reliable safe ways of building a structure before they are used. And it appears to be virtually impossible to ‘prove the safety of the novel SRM system in the real world before SRM is implemented’.
From a Building Code analogy perspective SRM would not be within the realm of relevant helpful options for scientific investigation. Investigating SRM ‘benefits’ without focusing on the potential for harm would be in the realm of fantastic (fantasy) science investigation. It may produce interesting ‘new understanding’, but should not be a prominent focus of investigation.
That leads to the same conclusion as my original comment:
Never lose focus on the need to limit harm done. And never forget how unexpectedly (shockingly knowingly) harmful human actions can be.
-
Bob Loblaw at 11:15 AM on 16 July 2022Supreme Court sharply limits EPA power plant authority
Phillippe:
As I mentioned above, it may be that David-acct meant "enforce" in the sense of creating, but he will have to explain what he meant.
-
Eclectic at 11:01 AM on 16 July 2022Supreme Court sharply limits EPA power plant authority
Each side acts behind a veil of words.
In the end, it comes to power politics : who-can-get-away-with-what.
And we ourselves can choose to be a bystander or a participant.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 08:01 AM on 16 July 2022Supreme Court sharply limits EPA power plant authority
David-acct: " the executive branch can not enforce regulations"
US government official source: "The executive branch carries out and enforces laws."
I know who I'm going to believe on this one...
-
Bob Loblaw at 03:12 AM on 16 July 2022Supreme Court sharply limits EPA power plant authority
If you read the blog post, the disagreement between the majority and minority views within SCOTUS rest on the question of what sort of decisions need explicit legislative expression, and what can be delegated to the agency to decide on its own. ("Major questions doctrine").
Two quotes in the post, from the dissenting side, that strike me are:
Justice Kagan also expressed concern that the majority did not clearly define what constitutes a “major question,” meaning this ruling creates uncertainty for the future of federal regulation.
and
Kagan accused the current court of being “textualist only when being so suits it. When that method would frustrate broader goals, special canons like the ‘major questions doctrine’ magically appear as get-out-of-text-free cards.”
This strikes me as letting politics overshadow law (on the majority opinion side). Not a good sign, IMHO.
-
Eclectic at 15:27 PM on 15 July 2022Supreme Court sharply limits EPA power plant authority
Bob Loblaw @6 and David-acct @5 :
[Opinion] The concept of the Separation of Powers was "cutting edge" political thinking in the 1600's and 1700's. The famed American Constitution was a great achievement for its time. But, with the wisdom of hindsight, there is much room for criticism & improvement ~ only part of which has been "fixed" by Constitutional Amendments.
Analogy : the famed first airplane - the Kittyhawk biplane - was a great achievment. Cutting edge. Two pairs of wings, and a control lever system. [Stretching the analogy . . . the Congress, the Executive, and the SCOTUS.] Subsequent developments included the triplane with three pairs of wings. [The third pair corresponding to the States Legislatures?]
By analogy again : Adam Smith's economics theory (largely laissez-faire) was well-suited to the village economies of the 1700's and prior times. Unfortunately, the subsequent growth of city populations and of new technologies & communications , has led to a complex society which requires complex control systems (just as an elephant's body requires more complex systems than does a simple earthworm).
The point I am coming to, is that nowadays there is much overlap in the functions of Congress, Executive, and SCOTUS. In practical terms, we cannot regard them as fully separate. We engage in faulty thinking if we believe complete separation is possible ~ we are guilty of a False Dichotomy (Tri-chotomy?). We waste our time if we see Separation as being some form of Holy Writ which must never be questioned or examined or modified. The Constitutional Founding Fathers dealt with the problems facing them, and made a remarkable experimental creation. How could they have foreseen the problems of future vast developments? (including the current gridlocked paralysis of Congress/Executive . . . failing to deal intelligently with problems.)
To boil it down : please put aside doctrinaire thinking, and look at the realites. The reality is that all "wings" and control levers are influenced/manipulated by powerful individuals & groups ~ and we live in a plutocracy only slightly mollified by the democratic citizenry. Twas ever thus, throughout history. Nevertheless, we must do better.
And on the airplane analogy : there are still a lot of Fokkers** who still favor a triplane design. ** a Red Baron reference, of course ;-)
-
Doug Bostrom at 12:24 PM on 15 July 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #28 2022
Speaking after hours and with tools down, it seems to me also that Reynolds is veering into the other lane, enough to see paint lines passing beneath tires. Hence "replies" rather than "answers."
When it comes to investigating and characterizing communications of the kind treated by Reynolds, it's a very good thing to have a group of "coders" parsing raw data. Typically this would apply to responses to open ended questions in surveys. It's a standard, reliable means of neutralizing researcher biases, part of the social sciences survey methodology toolkit. Here we don't have a "survey" per se but we do have communications that may unpack differently when read by different people, and the same improving methods and practice would pertain.
Reynolds' methods section mentions nothing about coders. Reynolds is distinguished in his field, but for matters such as this perhaps would do well to team up with a colleague more centered on social science research methods (and here I'm speaking far beyond my own pay grade but this is still a fairly uncontroversial suggestion, I think).
[Upon further reflection, it's surprising that this piece wasn't offered as a "perspective" but rather is classified as a research article, especially given its apparent total reliance on the author's personal, necessarily unique interpretations of communications he cites. And it does seem that after our stellar performance in the "unintended consequences" department over the past 250 years or so, an abundance of circumspection is arguably a virtue, not a fault.]
-
Bob Loblaw at 10:36 AM on 15 July 20222nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Grindupbaker:
Your formatting and general writing style make it hard to understand exactly what point you are trying to make. Most of the first part seems to be bog standard radiation and cloud physics.
The point where I disagree with you is where you say "...and then are re-emitted with 50% of it going down and warming the surface are incorrect because they do not include a tropospheric temperature lapse rate which is an absolute requirement. "
The 50% up, and 50% down is entriely correct. In fact, the IR emission rate is completely independent of direction, and is equal in all directions - spherical, to be precise. One half of that sphere is summarized as "upward", and one half is summarized as "downward".
You could also do two halves going horizontally - e.g., north/south, or east/west - or any other direction you wish, but the up/down summary is the one that is most useful.
And it is most useful for the reason you touch on: the vertical temperature gradient. If you think of a single height, where you have 200 W/m2 emitted upward, and 200 W/m2 emitted downward, you need to ask "what about the layers above or below this one?"
- The layer above this one is probably cooler, so it might be emitting 199 W/m2 upward and downward.
- The layer below this one is probably warmer, so it might be emitting 201 W/m2 upward and downward.
- so each layer is surrounded by other layers that are emitting more (if warmer) or less (if colder), so that you have a net IR flux from warm to cold. Even though at any single height the locally-emitted IR is equal up and down.
- The total IR flux (either upward or downward) at one height is a combination of the IR emitted in that direction plus an IR transmitted from layers "upstream", minus the IR absorbed at that height.
- Three different terms, that you need to think of individually: emitted, absorbed, transmitted.
The reason any horizontal "halves" of the IR emission sphere are of little interest is because the temperature gradients are so small. No temperature gradient - no net IR difference.
And you are correct that local heating/cooling is dependent on the aborption of that radiation - plus any exhanges of non-radiative energy (convection, evaporation/condensation of water), minus losses through emission.
-
Bob Loblaw at 09:56 AM on 15 July 2022Supreme Court sharply limits EPA power plant authority
Or are you using the phrase "enforce regulation" to mean "create it"?
Regulations passed by the legislative branch can and will be written to provide flexibilityto the executive branch, as in my speed limit example. The executive branch could be assigned the task of improving highway and road safety, and the flexibility to choose to do this via speed limits, traffic controls, driving test requirements, etc. The legislative branch does not need to pass a law stating every individual aspect of what is allowed on any individual road.
-
Bob Loblaw at 09:52 AM on 15 July 2022Supreme Court sharply limits EPA power plant authority
David-acct:
The executive branch cannot enforce regulation? Then who does? The judicial branch? That only includes the judges and court systems, not the police, not the bulding inspectors, health inspectors, not the tax auditors, etc.
In my definition of "executive branch", I am including pretty much all the government departments, all the government employees that work in them, etc. And yes, they act as a consequence of the duties assigned to them through legiislation. But legislation includes assigning responsibilities to monitor and assure compliance with the laws that are passed, adjust regulations, and charge people that break those laws.
In what you appear to be claiming, the legislative branch would have to approve each indivudal speed limit on each individual road, instead of giving the executive branch the power to assess appropriate speed limits, set them, and pursue offenders.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:15 AM on 15 July 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #28 2022
“Communication of solar geoengineering science: Forms, examples, and explanation of skewing” is interesting with some points meriting some consideration. I have not thoroughly read the item. But I have read enough to make the following critical observations (making no mention of points I consider worthy of consideration). I will carefully read the entire document to see if my initial impressions presented below need to be revised.
1. The author appears to have sought out examples that fit their desired conclusions. Then they played some games to get a 'best fit'. They provide no examples of the opposite of the type of examples they chose to focus on.
2. The author appears to be unaware that there is an important distinction between solar radiation modification (SRM) and medical treatments (they make many subjective comparisons between SRM and medical treatments - like "This important distinction can be clarified by analogy. Despite its own risks and negative side effects, chemotherapy is sometimes used to treat cancer."). Most medical treatments by something like:
- initial rigorous testing on non-humans,
- if the non-human treatment passes that initial testing then testing is done on a small number of carefully selected humans,
- if that testing is passed then testing is done on a larger and broader population,
- if that testing is passed then testing is done on an even larger and broader population.
And medical treatment tests are often done for a long periods of time to potentially discover unanticipated long-term consequences. COVID-19 vaccine testing was an exception to the longer-term testing of other medical treatments because of the clear evidence of the risk of significant harm done by COVID-19 infections.
There do not appear to be any non-planetary objects to meaningfully experiment SRM on. There are not hundreds of planets to have the second testing run on. There are not thousands of planets to have subsequent testing done on. There is this only one planet that, without humans messing it up by behaving like an asteroid, should be habitable for humanity for 10s of millions of years.
It is absurd to suggest that it is acceptable to run a global experiment on the planet. It is especially absurd to suggest the ‘need for, and benefit of, an SRM global experiment’ because leaders will not do what needs to be done (disappoint a portion of the global population that believes it is superior). Global Leadership needs to rapidly end the continued forcing of CO2 and other ghgs into the atmosphere )(which is an unacceptable global experiment that is not ‘mitigated’ by additional global scale experimentation).
3. The conclusions by the author regarding reasons for concern about how scientific presentations on SRM may be interpreted fails to mention the potential for political leaders (policy-makers) to be tempted to consider the potential for SRM to be a ‘solution’. The author appears to be unaware that some policy-makers have already exhibited a willingness to seek excuses for increasing harm to be done to future generations by the global leadership of the current generation failing to effectively reduce the harm being done. Some political game players may even selfishly consider it acceptable to delay the reduction of harm done, do more harm, because ‘future generations should be able to develop and use SRM’.
That said, climate science is complex. And the diversity of action plans in response to the undeniable harm being done deserve consideration - never losing focus on the need to limit the harm done, and never forgetting how unexpectedly harmful human actions can be.
-
David-acct at 07:53 AM on 15 July 2022Supreme Court sharply limits EPA power plant authority
Bob you comment indicates that you dont like the structure of the US Constitution and the separate powers to each of the three branchs of the US Government. As previously discussed, Congress is the branch that enact laws, the actions of the executive branch are limited to the laws passed by congress. Under the US Constitution, the executive branch can not enforce regulations or create "new law " not enacted by Congress. Whether that is good or bad is a separate and unrelated issue.
-
Bob Loblaw at 06:41 AM on 15 July 2022Clouds provide negative feedback
Likeitwarm:
"Runaway" is very definitely the wrong term for what you are asking.
You should start by reading the post that shows up as #3 on the list of Most Used Climate Myths (top left side bar of every screen here).
https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm
Maybe go down the list, where you will probably continue to find material for many of the questions you seem to want to ask.
-
Likeitwarm at 03:36 AM on 15 July 2022Clouds provide negative feedback
Bob Loblaw:
I just meant warming to a point that causes unacceptable harm to human habitation. Maybe "runaway" is the wrong term. Maybe "harmfully warm" would be better.
I'm just posting what I think to see where I'm right or wrong. I appreciate your input. I'm going to withhold posting until I do more reading.
-
grindupBaker at 03:06 AM on 15 July 20222nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
The underlying heat-adjustment effect works like this:
---------
"GREENHOUSE EFFECT", TRYING TO WARM IF THE QUANTITY INCREASES
- The "greenhouse effect" in Earth's troposphere operates like this: Some of the "LWR" aka "infrared" radiation heading up gets absorbed into cloud above instead of going to space so that's the "heat trapping" effect of a cloud. The top portion of the cloud radiates up some of the LWR radiation that's manufactured inside the cloud but it's less amount than the LWR that was absorbed into the bottom of the cloud because the cloud top is colder than below the cloud and colder things radiate less than warmer things. That is PRECISELY the "greenhouse effect" in Earth's troposphere. It's the "greenhouse effect" of liquid "water" and solid "ice" in that example. You can see that "greenhouse effect" of liquid "water" and solid "ice" for all the various places on Earth from CERES satellite instrument at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kE1VBCt8GLc at 7:50. It's the pink one labelled "Longwave....26.2 w / m**2" so cloud globally has a "greenhouse effect" of 26.2 w / m**2.
- Solids in the troposphere have the exact same effect as the "cloud greenhouse effect" above for the exact same reason.
- Infrared-active gases in the troposphere (H2O gas, CO2, CH4, N2O, O3, CFCs) have the exact same effect as the "cloud greenhouse effect" above for the exact same reason. Non infrared-active gases in the troposphere (N2, O2, Ar) have no "greenhouse effect" because their molecule is too simple to get the vibrational kinetic energy by absorbing a photon of LWR radiation or by collision. The "greenhouse effect" really is that simple, and it's utterly 100% certain.
---------
SUNSHINE REFLECTION EFFECT, TRYING TO COOL IF THE QUANTITY INCREASES
- Clouds (liquid "water" and solid "ice") absorb & reflect some sunlight and the "reflect" part has an attempt-to-cool effect, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the "greenhouse effect". You can see that "sunlight reflection attempt-to-cool effect" of liquid "water" and solid "ice" for all the various places on Earth from CERES satellite instrument at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kE1VBCt8GLc at 7:50. It's the blue one labelled "Shortwave....-47.3 w / m**2" so cloud globally has a sunshine reflection effect of 47.3 w / m**2.
- Solids in the troposphere absorb & reflect some sunlight and the "reflect" part has an attempt-to-cool effect, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the "greenhouse effect".
- Infrared-active gases in the troposphere (H2O gas, CO2, CH4, N2O, O3, CFCs) do not absorb or reflect any sunlight (minor note: except a tiny portion in the high-frequency ultraviolet where O2 & O3 has absorbed most of it already in the stratosphere above the troposphere).
---------
NET EFFECT OF THE 2 ENTIRELY-DIFFERENT EFFECTS DESCRIBED ABOVE
- The net result of the 2 entirely-different "cloud" effects is that clouds have a net cooling effect of 21.1 w / m**2 as seen in the blue-hues pictorial at left on screen at either of my 2 GooglesTubes links above.
- The net result for solids in the troposphere is a net cooling effect because the change in this effect by humans is the "global dimming" atmospheric aerosols air pollution effect and that's a cooling effect (separate from its cloud change effect).
- The net result for infrared-active gases in the troposphere (H2O gas, CO2, CH4, N2O, O3, CFCs) is a warming effect because their 2nd effect above is negligible, essentially zero.
---------
Cartoons or text that describe a "greenhouse effect" in which photons from the surface are absorbed by infrared-active gas molecules and then are re-emitted with 50% of it going down and warming the surface are incorrect because they do not include a tropospheric temperature lapse rate which is an absolute requirement. Explanations of the "greenhouse effect" which include phrases like "the radiation from the surface does not directly heat the atmosphere" are incorrect because there are simple laboratory experiments which prove that infrared radiation does indeed heat the CO2 infrared-active gas and its surroundings (which means, of course, that molecular vibrational kinetic energy is converted on collision to molecular translational kinetic energy before it happened to "thermally relax" and emit a photon and thus no photon was "re-emitted" in that case).
++++++++++
Cloudy winter nights don't cool as much as clear-sky winter nights. It is PRECISELY the "greenhouse effect" in Earth's troposphere which causes that. -
michael sweet at 23:11 PM on 14 July 2022Clouds provide negative feedback
Likeitwarm,
The last time that CO2 was 400 ppm (It is currently 419 ppm) the sea level was over 23 meters higher than it is now. That amount of rise would flood most of the major cities worldwide and inundate a very large fraction of the best farmland in the world. I could go on with bad effects but those are enough to give any thinking person fits. I note that sea level rise accelerated rapidly the last ten years and is now over 10 mm per year. Pray that it goes back down.
-
Bob Loblaw at 10:51 AM on 14 July 2022Clouds provide negative feedback
Likeitwarm: what exactly do you mean by "runaway heating"? Unless you are willing to define your term, you are playing word games.
If CO2 content stabilizes at any point (450, 500, 600ppm, take your pick) then temperature will stablize at some new value (2, 3, 4 or more degrees warmer than it was at 300ppm CO2), and it will not continue to increase indefinitely. It will not "run away". But that new, stable temperature will have plenty of bad consequences.
Even if we were to manage to burn every gram of fossil fuel we can find, and raise CO2 to 1200ppm or more, we still won't see a perpetually-increasing temperature. No "runaway". A new equilibrium will be found. There is no reason to expect anything like Venus.
After all, body temperature is only 37C (98.6F), and if you get a fever and your temperature goes up to 41C and stabilizes at that point, you still run a pretty large risk of death. Your body temperature does not need to keep rising more ("runaway") to be a serious problem.
Unless you have some other (odd) definition of "runaway".
Should you wish to discuss "runaway greenhouse effect" myths, there are two possible threads here:
https://skepticalscience.com/Venus-runaway-greenhouse-effect.htm
https://skepticalscience.com/positive-feedback-runaway-warming.htm
It would be worth your time to read those posts (and possibly the comments) in full.
-
Likeitwarm at 09:42 AM on 14 July 2022Clouds provide negative feedback
Bob Loblaw:
If there is no prediction of runaway heating, what is all the hub-bub about CO2?
-
Likeitwarm at 09:38 AM on 14 July 2022Clouds provide negative feedback
Bob Loblaw:
Thanks for taking the time to point out my mis-understandings.
I didn't realize the article had been posted to SkS. It was news to me. I should have figured climate hawks like yourself would have read it. My mistake.
I will keep reading and post any questions I might have.
Best to you.
-
Petra Liverani at 13:23 PM on 13 July 2022How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
My apologies, DB. I didn't realise there was more than one moderator so I addressed you as Bob.
-
Petra Liverani at 13:18 PM on 13 July 2022How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
Bob,
I'd argue that the comment was not off-topic but very much on point. It related to the topic of disinformation and this is what the post is about - disinformation.One way of inoculating oneself against disinformation is to see how it is created and managed and in my comment there is a link to a perfect illustration where the alleged disinformation agent himself tells us - through a journalist who interviewed him - how he created disinformation in relation to AIDS and how the disinformation campaign he was involved in was managed. Please explain how the comment was off-topic. Because it related to AIDS doesn't make it off-topic if - at the same time - it relates to how disinformation is created and managed.
No one has to believe it, of course, because the alleged disinformation agent doesn't use his real name and doesn't provide any names that aren't already in the public domain but that is not reason not to publish. The fact that it cannot be authenticated is not a reason not to publish the comment because it is worthwhile considering and holding up against the information one already has to see if it matches up. Can it stand up against the information we already have about AIDS? That is up to us as individuals to decide, not the moderator.
Moderator Response:[BL] You are not listening. From the Comments Policy:
- All comments must be on topic. Comments are on topic if they draw attention to possible errors of fact or interpretation in the main article, of if they discuss the immediate implications of the facts discussed in the main article. However, general discussions of Global Warming not explicitly related to the details of the main article are always off topic. Moderation complaints are always off topic and will be deleted.
Arguing about moderation is a moderation complaint.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.
-
Bob Loblaw at 06:00 AM on 13 July 2022Clouds provide negative feedback
Likeitwarm:
The paper by Mulmenstadt et al that you mention was covered in this blog post at Skeptical Science, around the time it first appeared. (SkS reposted the Carbon Brief article.)
In that post, a key summary is:
However, the lead author of the study tells Carbon Brief that fixing the “problem” in rainfall simulations “reduces the amount of warming predicted by the model, by about the same amount as the warming increase between CMIP5 and CMIP6”.
So, the results are not as earth-shattering as you seem to want to imply. Uncertainties in cloud feedback are a well-known part of climate modelling and understanding, and this paper represents one more small step in helping understand the consequences.
As for your description of the water cycle:
- A wet surface evaporates more than a dry one. This transfers energy as latent heat into the atmosphere, and reduces the energy transfer as sensible heat (thermal energy). Thus, it priimarily changes the balance in how the energy reaches the atmosphere, not the total.
- What evaporates evenutally condenses and falls out as precipitation, but it rarely condenses or precipitates over the location it evaporates. Most extra water vapour is transported to other regions, where it falls as precipitation.
- Oceans receive far less water via precipitation than they lose as evaporation.
- Land areas (mostly) are the opposite - much more precipitation than evaporation.
- Increased evapoation does not necessarily lead to increased cloud cover at the evaporation location. Any changes in cloud type, amount, etc., are strongly depndent on when and where and how that cloud eventually forms.
- This complexiity is why cloud feedbacks are still an area of active study.
- The current understanding remains that clouds provide neither strong negative or positive feedback.
As for your discussion of "runaway warming" - nobody is predicting such a result due to CO2, so you are arguing a strawman.
And as to "self regulation of the temperature of the atmosphere" - the simple fact that climate has changed in many ways, for many reasons, over centuries and millenia is strong evidence that this is not true. Perhaps try reading the "Climate's changed before" post that reponds to our number 1 myth listed in our "Most Used Climate Myths" in the top left sidebar of all our pages.
I have worked through some darn cold sunny days in winter - much colder than overcast days in summer - to illustrate how incomplete your cloudy/sunny day closing statement is.
-
Eclectic at 04:50 AM on 13 July 2022Clouds provide negative feedback
Likeitwarm @26 :
Yes, it seems cooler on cloudy days than sunny days ~ during daytime.
But warmer nights, when it is cloudy.
Overall effect, rather close to neutral.
The paleo evidence shows no "runaway" , but it does show that the global climate can become very hot indeed.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:18 AM on 13 July 2022Supreme Court sharply limits EPA power plant authority
To supplement Bob Loblaw’s response to David-acct’s claim made @2,
I am pretty sure that Section 111 was passed after 1965.
Check out the recent SkS reposting of Climate Adam’s “Climate Change: We Were Warned!”. The entire video should be watched. But the part starting at 3:10 in the video conveys the following fact: In 1965 prominent climate scientist Charles Keeling wrote a report to the President of the USA which included a Section titled “Carbon Dioxide from Fossil Fuels – The Invisible Pollutant”.
So it appears that leaders in the USA since 1965 were aware that CO2 from fossil fuels was able to be considered to be a pollutant.
But there is a more fundamental point in response to the claims made by David-acct @2. There are undeniably harmful consequences from the type of thinking exhibited in the SC majority decision. It is a decision that fundamentally ‘allows more liberty to be more harmful’ vs. ‘implementing understandable restrictions on harmful actions that the marketplace (of ideas and of commerce) fails to effectively limit’. Claiming that such a decision is the correct interpretation of the constitution appears to only be explained by one of the following:
- The USA Constitution and its current set of Amendments is a fundamentally flawed guiding document for governing (limiting the harm done) by actions within the nation.
- Interpretations of the Constitution and Amendments can be harmfully incorrect, and the Constitution is flawed because of wording that is open to such interpretations.
- The abuse of the powerful science of misleading marketing can harmfully compromise even the Best Intentions.
There do not appear to be any other common sense explanations. Which one is it? My suspicion is it is a combination of all 3.
-
Likeitwarm at 02:02 AM on 13 July 2022Clouds provide negative feedback
Being a layman, it seems to me that the normal water cycle cools the surface through conduction and evaporation. That energy is eventually released to the upper atmosphere through convection and condensation of cloud formation. Low warm clouds in turn will block more radiation from the sun keeping the ground cooler, negative feedback: Johannes Mulmenstadt et al 6/3/2021 paper.
"As the atmosphere warms, part of the cloud population shifts from ice and mixed-phase (‘cold’) to liquid (‘warm’) clouds. Because warm clouds are more reflective and longer-lived, this phase change reduces the solar flux absorbed by the Earth and constitutes a negative radiative feedback."
See an article about this paper "Cooling effect of clouds ‘underestimated’ by climate models, says new study"
This process seems that it would cause self regulation of the temperature of the atmosphere preventing the possibility of the atmosphere from ever overheating and becoming uninhabitable, i.e. runaway warming. Maybe in a repeating cycle such as more co2=>more warming=>More h2o=>more warm cloud cover=>more cooling=>less co2=>less heating=>less h2o=>less warm cloud cover=>more heating=>more co2 and so on. This seems that it could cause long periods of heating and cooling, maybe decades. Let me know where I'm wrong.
I always thought it was cooler on cloudy days than sunny days. -
Petra Liverani at 12:33 PM on 12 July 2022How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
Bob,
I posted a comment that has disappeared. I don't know whether glitch or moderated. If moderated, can you please give grounds.
Moderator Response:[DB] The comment in question was removed due to being off-topic. Please construct all comments to better adhere to this venue's Comments Policy, which is not onerous and one that the vast majority of participants here have no difficulties in adhering to. This is not optional.
-
Bob Loblaw at 11:01 AM on 12 July 2022Supreme Court sharply limits EPA power plant authority
Part of the law - at least in Canada, and I'm pretty sure in the U.S. - is to delegate regulation to the executive branch.
If Congress had to pass a new law for every act of regulation of a new chemical, nothing would ever get regulated.
Some would probably think of that as a feature, not a bug, though.
-
David-acct at 10:40 AM on 12 July 2022Supreme Court sharply limits EPA power plant authority
Under the US constitution and the separation of powers, this decision was correct. In the US, congress makes law, the executive branch executes the law. At the time of passage of section 111 , would have taken a serious stretch of language to interpret congressional intent to treat CO2 as a pollutant.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:43 AM on 12 July 2022Supreme Court sharply limits EPA power plant authority
Indeed, the conservative biased judges (some selected for appointment due to the efforts of people like Charles Koch - see "2022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #27") do seem to have come to conclusions that do not bode well for the future of development of improvements that limit harm done in the USA (especially limiting damaging results of actions in the USA on Others, especially all the Others in the future impacted by un-limited ghg emissions).
If this type of thinking had been applied decades ago, imagine all the important regulation of pursuits of profit, like Building Codes, having to have their details created and updated by Congress ...
-
michael sweet at 01:11 AM on 12 July 2022Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
A post here summarizes and links an article that shows nuclear power cannot provide a significant amount of world energy and the uranium supply is too small.
-
michael sweet at 01:09 AM on 12 July 2022What role for small modular nuclear reactors in combating climate change?
A new article in Energy Policy reviewes current plans to builod nuclear reactors and future possible builds. They find that the contribution of nuclear before 204 0will not be significant (less than 5% of all energy). They find that the supply of uranium is too small to support additional reactors. They find breeder reactors to be unreliable and unlikely to be developed before 2050.
The highlights read:
Highlights:
Nuclear power's contribution to climate change mitigation is and will be very limited.Currently nuclear power avoids 2–3% of total global GHG emissions per year.
According to current planning this value will decrease even further until 2040.
A substantial expansion of nuclear power will not be possible.
Given its low contribution, a complete phase-out of nuclear energy is feasible. (my emphasis)
They have a good review of the extremely limited supply of uranium and why the WNA article referenced by MacQuigg is incorrect (with references).
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:41 AM on 11 July 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #27
"How Charles Koch Purchased the Supreme Court’s EPA Decision" and "Energy charter treaty makes climate action nearly illegal in 52 countries" expose that the science has been well enough established and communicated to global leadership, including business leaders. But some leaders still win by being harmfully misleading, by choosing to excuse and reward those who deserve to be disappointed and penalized.
The science was clear enough 30 years ago for all global leaders to understand. The problem has been a lack of interest among a significant portion of leaders. They are not interested in doing what they understand needs to be done. Their reluctance is clearly because what needs to be done would drastically alter developed global impressions of wealth, prosperity, and what it means to live a good life and be a decent human.
The timing of the original Energy Charter in 1991 is amazingly coincidental with the solidification of understanding that existing and new fossil fuel developments were at significant, and deserved, risk of near-future policy restrictions. And other actions by people like Charles Koch appear to have been urgently initiated based on the same timing of global awareness of the need to restrict many activities some people were deeply interested/invested in.
It would be great if the risk of fossil fuel investments was deemed to have been established global leadership understanding in 1990. That would mean that attempts to use the Energy Charter to claim that ‘current policy actions cause a loss of future benefit’ could be summarily dismissed. The counter-argument would simply be that the delay of required leadership corrections of the ‘market-place failure to limit climate harm’ has more than adequately rewarded investors who gambled on profiting from fossil fuels. But, of course, players like Koch buying influence can clearly bias judgments in their favour.
The real problem for all aspects of the pursuit of Sustainable Development is the many ways that wealthy powerful people fail to honourably pursue increased awareness and improved understanding and apply what they learn to reduce harm done and be more helpful to people needing assistance to live at least decent basic lives. Many of them prefer to put their efforts into ‘protecting their interests’ to the detriment of all Others, especially to the detriment of future generations who have no power to penalize them.
In Addition: The following is part of the Overview of the International Energy Charter.
“The International Energy Charter reflects some of the most topical energy challenges of the 21st century, in particular:
• the full scope of multilateral documents and agreements on energy developed in the last two decades, and the synergies among energy-related multilateral fora, including the Energy Charter, in view of follow-up action
• the growing weight of developing countries for global energy security
• the “trilemma” between energy security, economic development and environmental protection
• the role of enhanced energy trade for sustainable development
• the need to promote access to modern energy services, energy poverty reduction, clean technology and capacity building
• the need for diversification of energy sources and routes
• the role of regional integration of energy markets”What I note to be ‘glaringly missing’ is the need for the highest consuming portion of the global population to dramatically reduce its energy consumption and for the richest to strictly limit how harmful their remaining consumption harmless to provide the example for others to aspire to develop towards.
Also, the term 'Energy Poverty' is being used in the Charter. That term is abused by people promoting discourses of climate (action) delay. Refer to my comment @14 on the SkS item “Skeptical Science tackles 'discourses of climate delay' and 'solutions denial'”
-
clima4 at 03:48 AM on 11 July 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #27 2022
Synoptic analysis of the most durable pollution and clean waves during 2009–2019 in Tehran City (capital of Iran)
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11069-021-04990-5Moderator Response:[BL] Link activated.
The web software here does not automatically create links. You can do this when posting a comment by selecting the "insert" tab, selecting the text you want to use for the link, and clicking on the icon that looks like a chain link. Add the URL in the dialog box.Also, note that the Comments Policy discourages link-only comments. As this is your first post, some latitude is given, but please keep this in mind.
The paper you link to is nearly a year old. It is not exactly "New Research".
-
Philippe Chantreau at 03:38 AM on 11 July 2022How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
Petra,
Not allowed? It is perfectly allowable when it pertains to establishing the merits of information and the disconnection of disinformation from reality, which is what this thread is about. There are in fact many similarities to the misinformation seen about climate, as the playbook of deception is shared by many. Similar also is the propensity of some to subscribe to faulty information that they find attractive, regardless of how implausible or unsupported it may be.
You have clearly stated earlier that you subscribed to a wild theory with no basis in reality whatsoever because you have been subjected to misinformation, which you found seductive, and have resisted evaluating it against facts and quality information, which you prefer to ignore.
Your contention was initially that actors were posing as Covid patients. I have pointed multiple ways in which this is just not possible physiologically, but completely ridiculous on its face because of all the aspects involved in such a scheme and the scale of it. You have brought absolutely nothing in support of this wild theory.
You are now launching another attempt to escape the corner in which you painted yourself. I note that you are not even remotely trying to defend the "theory" that all these patients were actors faking it. That one is such a ridiculous house of cards that it crumbles from just looking at it for more than a few seconds.
As I have previously disclosed, I am a professional, I don't really need Google to sort out symptoms and features of viral respiratory diseases, but even if I did, it would do absolutely nothing to help solidify a wild paranoid vision. Some features are, in fact, very distinctive of Covid, but that's not even the point.
You seem to now try to move goal posts toward a different argument: that these truly very sick people were sick with something else than Covid, their symptoms being due to that other thing, possibly another virus. This does not help your position at all. It implies that there was really a pandemic of something going on, because there were literally millions of sick people. No previous event at my hospital has ever filled the entire ICU with people all sick with the same thing. Since everyone coming in with these symptoms was subjected to a respiratory panel and nothing would result positive except the SARS CoV2 PCR, the logical conclusion is obvious.
You are now left with the contorted hypothesis that all these sick Covid patients did not have Covid but something else, that was not identifiable in any way, and did not result positive in any of the tests for respiratory viral diseases. However, the entire medical profession called it Covid and went as far as elaborating an immense scheme to have positive lab results for the non existent Covid disease. Makes perfect sense.
-
MA Rodger at 00:17 AM on 11 July 2022How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
BaerbelW @90,
You don't address the rather woolly ideas put forward by Petra Liverani @88. Thus:-
1. "Implausibility" (which either is lacking 'reason' or is lacking 'probability') is not at all the same as "incredulousness" (which is an unwillingness to accept offered evidence) with an argument from incredulity being a logical fallacy.
2. A "fair hearing" for an oft-repeated "challenge" may not appear "fair" to the challenger. And a hypothesis is tested against evidence, not against "opposing hypotheses" which should stand or fall on their own merits. (There can, of course, be competing hypotheses that are considered to fit the available evidence.)
3. Non-controversial evidence (which presumably what is meant by "tangible evidence") does not of itself take precedence over inexact or disputed evidence. Precedence would be determined by the level to which a set of evidence tests a hypothesis.
4. An ad hominem argument (which considers the source of evidence rather than the evidence itself) is well-know to a logical fallacy, although there are a few exceptions to it being a fallacy. -
BaerbelW at 16:49 PM on 10 July 2022How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
Petra Liverani @88
Have you actually and really tried to prove yourself wrong as explained in this other and very helpful article from Thinking is Power?
https://thinkingispower.com/why-trying-to-prove-yourself-wrong-is-the-key-to-being-right/
Your comments here read as if your mind is already very much made up and that you reject anything contradicting what you think is happening.
-
Petra Liverani at 16:06 PM on 10 July 2022How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
Philippe @86
Discussion of the medical side of covid is not allowed. Just to say, if you think certain symptoms are specific to covid, please ensure you've checked that is the case. One way to do this is to do an internet search of the symptoms within date periods prior to covid. -
Petra Liverani at 15:47 PM on 10 July 2022How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
This is my advice for critical thinking:
1. Don't dismiss hypotheses on the basis of implausibility. To do so is really indulging in the logical fallacy, Argument from Incredulity or Argument from Ignorance. Things can seem implausible due to lack of contextual information.
2. The scientist aims to prove their hypothesis wrong. If someone or something challenges your current thinking give that challenge a fair hearing. Check it out. If you hold an hypothesis to be correct ensure it stands up against any opposing hypotheses. Do your best to make sure all the evidence fits your hypothesis while not better fitting any opposing hypotheses.
3. Focus on the most tangible evidence first. This is an area where I think people really go wrong. What does the most tangible, the least easy to dispute evidence say?4. Judge by content, not source.
I shall leave it there. It's been interesting arguing with you and it's helped clarify my thoughts. Unfortunately, if only it were a matter that people can simply agree or disagree on. It's so much more important than that.
Moderator Response:[BL] Once again, you show that you have your own idiosyncratic definitions of words or concepts - definitions that run contrary to the ideas you are trying to present.
Implausibilitiy is not an argument from incredulity. Implausibilty is an assessment of probability- and highly improbable "explanations" do not need to be given equal weight during an investigation as much more likely ones. We do not need to include Gremlin Theory in every search for an explanation. Every story of a problem on the International Space Station does not need to include a segment with a representative of the Flat Earth Society to argue that the space station must be fake because there is no way to "orbit" a flat earth.
Argument from incredulity. consists of simple "I cannot believe" statements, which you have been using frequently. You have now reached argumentum ad nauseam (or WIkipedia's version, if you prefer), which is against the following part of the comments policy.
Comments should avoid excessive repetition. Discussions which circle back on themselves and involve endless repetition of points already discussed do not help clarify relevant points. They are merely tiresome to participants and a barrier to readers. If moderators believe you are being excessively repetitive, they will advise you as such, and any further repetition will be treated as being off topic.
Scientists don't prove things, and "challenges" that have been repeatedly debunked to not deserve examination again, and again, and again, and again, and again. See argumentum ad nauseam again (and again, and again, until it sinks in).
-
Petra Liverani at 15:34 PM on 10 July 2022How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
Nigel @85
"You have to 1)provide hard proof of conspiracies and 2) hard proof that anomalies dont have innocent explanations."
I never use the word conspiracy, Nigel, as the only kind of conspiracy I'm interested in are psychological operations so the only term I ever use is psyop. It's funny how the term "conspiracy theorist" is applied to a number of people who don't necessarily speak in terms of conspiracy themselves nor concern themselves too much with the conspiracy side of things.
I'm not concerned with the conspiracy side of things, I'm simply concerned with what the information available tells us.
What I'd say needs to be put forward for the case for a real pandemic are undisputed facts that support it, not disputed claims, as undisputed facts can certainly be put forward that are completley consistent with and tend to favour the fake pandemic hypothesis. If only disputed claims can be put forward for the real pandemic hypothesis we do have to wonder about that. Of course, I don't suggest that just because a claim is disputed it's false but it doesn't look good, does it, if only disputed claims can be put forward for your hypothesis while for the opposing hypothesis undisputed facts can be put forward.
Undisputable facts that are either consistent with or favour the fake pandemic hypothesis
1. Without bombardment from government and media we would have no clue that there was a dangerous pandemic (outside normal seasonal flu and cold pandemic).
2. The alleged covid does not have a set of symptoms that distinguishes it from cold, flu and other respiratory illnesses.
3. The PCR test is not a diagnostic test and yet it is used to determine cases of covid with no requirement for clinical diagnosis - in fact, if someone shows no symptoms they are designated "asymptomatic". The combined "lack of diagnostic test" with "asymptomatic" is the perfect combo, no?Moderator Response:[BL] Every single claim of yours that "it can be faked" is - at a fundamental level - an acceptance of a conspiracy theory, whether you use the word or not.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 10:13 AM on 10 July 2022How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
Petra,
Nonsense. These are normal, early steps to be taken in the initial stages of a suspected outbreak of what seems to be a new disease. That is what epidemiological vigilance consists of. Further steps ensue once the pathogen has been identified and confirmed to be either a known one or something new. Trying to color this with nefarious intent by the use of the grandiloquent language you inflict on everyone simply shows a level of paranoia that prevents logical thinking entirely.
I note that you used this to deflect and change the subject from rationalizing away the impossible tasks faced by the so-called actors hired to play out the supposedly fake disease. In fact, you did not address a single one of the points I made.
I am still waiting for your explanations. How does one "imaginary patient" create all the diagnosis findings, including hypoxia, ground glass opacities, etc and test negative for the whole respiratory panel to the exception of SARS CoV2? You put forth the conspiracy theory, the onus is on you to make it believable. So far I see only hand waving and deflection.
-
nigelj at 10:03 AM on 10 July 2022How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
Petra @80
"What I'm talking about is points favouring one hypothesis over an opposing hypothesis and doing the same the other way."
The problem is the points you put forward didn't really favour your fake covid hypothesis. They can either be argued either way, or were irrelevant or silly. This was all obvious in Eclectics respsonse. And I could take various historical events and find points that favour a faked hypothesis, eg the 911 tragedy. This doesn't make it fake of course, because you have to look widely at things.
I'm trying to get across to you that your a line of thinking ultimately goes nowhere, and doesnt prove anything. You have to 1)provide hard proof of conspiracies and 2) hard proof that anomalies dont have innocent explanations. Its the same standard of proof we apply to anything else in life whether science, criminal cases, etc, etc, so why not conspiracies?. There is no reason not to. So you tell me why we shouldnt require hard proof of conspiracies?
"I can say that the fact that we, as individuals, would never know that there was a pandemic unless government and media told us is perfectly consistent with fake pandemic."
We would know precious little about the world of current events if the governmnet and media didn't keep us informed. Using your idea you could claim everything is faked. And you are ignoring that plenty of research has been written on covid, that can be googled and purchased, so not needing the media or government, and so you have to claim that is all a conspiracy as well, which becomes more and more impossible to take seriously.
"Are there any facts you can put forward that simply cannot be refuted that favour real over fake?"
I gave you three links. I believe their points are largely irrefutable. Some people might dispute the claims, but I dont care about that. I'm highly educated and quite happy with my ability to determine what is credible, and other sensible, highly qualified people accept the covid data. Not interested in what the flat earthers have to say.
"you need to use claims that are disputed, for example, numbers of covid cases and covid mortality statistics"
There a difference between disputed claims on exacly how many people have died and the fact that a lot of people have clearly died. You seem to think the dispute suggests its all a conpiracy. The more logical conclusion is its hard to measure precisely and some countries might like to downplay the data. I've said this before, but you dont seem to understand and largely ignore most of the points people raise because they dont fit with your narrative.
