Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 Next
Comments 40001 to 40050:
-
william5331 at 05:59 AM on 26 December 2013Sea Ice Volume is Not Recovering
I'm sure we have all being waiting for the update of Mr Robinsons fantastic video on ice volume. Many thanks. What I wonder is where he gets the information to plug into the formula. The ESA Cryosat2 has been advertized as the best thing since sliced bread with respect to measuring ice volume and so far, just a few days ago, I finally found a site that said minimum ice in October 2012 was 6000km3 and 9000km3 in October 2013. Is this the best they can do. Such slack approximations delivered months after the fact and not even for the most important month. Why don't they have a web site like the NSIDC which reports results with a one day delay. If they are in the typical 90 minute orbit, they cover the Arctic 16 times each day. If I was in the European Common Market, I would be asking what the Eropean Space Agency is doing with my money.
-
bvt123 at 04:37 AM on 26 December 2013Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
If we have a positive feedback of amount of water vapor to the Earth's temperature, who stabilize tempereture for the last billion year? Why our planet not frozen as Mars or wapored as Venus?
There is a theory of Biotic Regulation by Prof. Victor G. Gorshkov, where that stabilization entity is suggested to Forest - http://bioticregulation.ru/news.php?nn=42
You can find a lot of information and arguments on that site.
Moderator Response:[TD] Positive feedback does not necessarily mean runaway warming, as is explained in a post here on Skeptical Science; after you read the Basic tabbed pane there, read the Intermediate and then the Advanced tabbed panes. Another way to find that post is to enter "positive feedback" in the Search box at the top left of any page. There are several influences on the Earth's temperature, some acting over long time frames and some over short time frames.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 09:16 AM on 25 December 2013There is no consensus
It's also worth noting (once again, since people seem to so easily miss this important point) that Cook et al is not a survey of scientists' opinions. It is a survey of the positions expressed in the research papers.
-
Tom Curtis at 09:02 AM on 25 December 2013There is no consensus
Mytheroo @575, Cook et al specifically included a secondary rating of a random sample of "neutral" papers to determine if they were neutral becaue the simply did at least implicitly endorse or reject AGW, or whether they were neutral because they endorsed the view that the evidence was inconclusive. They then took those abstracts that at least implicitly endorse or reject AGW, plus a proportion of all neutral abstracts equal to the proportion in the sub-sample of neutral abstracts that were neutral because they indicated the evidence was insufficient to either endorse or reject AGW. They report the proportions in each category of this group of abstracts in Table 3, under the column, "% among abstracts with an AGW postion". The percentages are:
97.1% endorse AGW
1.9% reject AGW
1% uncertain on AGW.
The percentages among authors of papers are:
98.4% endorse AGW;
1.2% reject AGW;
0.4% uncertain on AGW.
So, using your terminology, 1.8% of authors of rated papers published papers which are "skeptical", with 25% of those authors publishing skeptical papers which are agnostic, while 75% published skeptical papers which rejected AGW.
Those percentages do not directly translate into percentages of the climate scientist population holding particular opinions as some authors published both papers rated as endorsing, and papers rated as neutral. There is no contradiction in that in that authors opinions may have changed over time, and papers deal with only a small subset of the data, so that an author may in one paper say that a particular subset shows AGW to be true, while in another paper say that the seperate data does not support a conclusive decision.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 07:00 AM on 25 December 2013There is no consensus
Mytheroo.... You can think of it this way: How many research papers that relate to evolution are going to state a position on whether evolution is real or not?
The more accepted the basic science is, the less papers are going to actually express a position. Thus, Cook et al is saying, of the papers that do state a position, 97% accept man-made global warming.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 06:47 AM on 25 December 2013There is no consensus
Mytheroo... My first question for you would be, have you read the entire paper yet?
-
Mytheroo at 06:34 AM on 25 December 2013There is no consensus
Hi all, I chanced upon this site looking for some condensed evidence into AGW. I'm not a climate scientist though I have a good basis in science.
My main issue is that most things I read essentially say "climate change is happening therefore we must tackle man-made climate change" without making the link between climate-change and man-made climate change.
The headline for this page is "97% of climate scientists endorse AGW", and yet reading the small print this seems not to be the case.It seems some feel that to be a skeptic you have to reject AGW as possible. This would then suggest there were only about 1% of papers that were skeptical.
In fact, skeptical means you feel the evidence has not proved the issue one way or the other.
In the abstract study, only 32% of the 12000 papers endorsed AGW. 1% rejected. This leaves 67% skeptical.
One of the problems with the wording of this article says the papers will be segregated into various categories, but it doesn't state whether the "no position" category means "we cannot endorse or reject AGW based on the evidence in this paper" or if it means "we just haven't mentioned endorsing or rejecting AGW".
Stating "we are taking no position in the matter" is very different to just not talking about it in the first place.
The Self-rated section helps a little but still the "no position" problem is evident. Did the authors write "I take no position with regards to endorsing or refuting AGW" or did they just leave the section blank?
As it stands, the only facts that can be deduced is 64.8% of climate scientists endorse AGW (97.2% of 1400/2100)
So again where everyone says the science is convincing, the facts speak for themselves etc, yet again the headline is purposely misleading using the wrong numbers to make the point it is trying to make. This is just bad science in my book, and just reinforces my impression that AGW endorsers overstate the argument, and in turn that raises my doubts. My experience has been that the skeptics (not deniers) don't overstate the science. I am currently a skeptic for this reason alone, but I am worried about being a skeptic if that doesn't do justice to the actual science. Hence my occaisional search for the science that lead me here :)
So, am I missing something in the numbers? What % of authors stated "no position" versus the % that just didn't mention it at all?
Am not intending to flame, or dismiss this study, but currently this study says to me 35% of climate scientists are skeptics.
-
william5331 at 04:40 AM on 25 December 2013Global warming will intensify drought, says new study
It is clear that we aren't going to reduce or even stabilize our output of Carbon dioxide from fossil fuel so the next best thing is to prepare for sudden heavy downpours puntuating long periods of drought. Think Australa. Way back in and before the time of Christ in the deserts in the vicinity of Southern Israel there was a civilization called the Nabateans. It was and still is a very dry area puntuated by extreme rainfall events. With only hand tools, they build channels to transfer water into huge caverns that they cut into the live rock. If we made the same effort in proportion to our ability that they made in proportion to theirs we would, for instance, turn the floods in Australia back into the interior to sink into the ground and charge up the water tables. Underground, evaporation ceases and there is not a better place for agriculture than a desert, if you have water available. Look at the Arava valley north of Elat to see an example. We could also get serious about sea water green houses which can use any saline, brackish or alkaline water for growing plants. Google it to see how they work. The smart money is on some huge disruptions of our climate system and no significant action to reduce carbon outputs so preparation is our only option.
http://mtkass.blogspot.co.nz/2007/09/i-wish-id-thought-of-that-growing.html
-
wili at 01:00 AM on 25 December 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #51C
Yes, encourage economic transition through net metering and carbon tax.
But that's not really enough for what the situation is demanding right now. As the widget at the top right of the page should make clear, we are dropping bombs on our childrens heads.
If there was an industry in your neighborhood mass producing bombs that you knew they were planning to drop on your house and your neighbors houses, would you call for merely a slight increase in the tax on bomb production to encourage that company to move into some other line of business?? In WWII, did we decide that greed would win the war for us if we just let the market do its thing?
The top climatologists of the world are saying we need cuts of 6-10% or more NOW, if we want any remote chance of having anything remotely like a viable planet left. Advocating doing nothing and just 'trusting the market' sounds rather...Chamberlain-esque, at best.
-
scaddenp at 16:57 PM on 24 December 2013Gavin Schmidt … Speaking up and Speaking Out
Hmm, the whole point of a carbon tax is that people will try to avoid it - don't use carbon based energy and you can avoid the tax completely.
-
John Brookes at 15:45 PM on 24 December 2013Gavin Schmidt … Speaking up and Speaking Out
"Nor should we assume that such a tax would be sufficient to solve the climate crisis. In my opinion, this would only be a good start, we'll need lots of regulations..."
I'm not sure this is the case. If the price on carbon emissions is adequate to reflect the environmental cost, that should be all we need. Of course its not anywhere near that simple, because like any tax people will try and avoid it. But a well designed carbon tax of the type Hansen envisages would work.
Sometimes there is an element of Catholic guilt about all this. A desire to self-flagellate. We don't need to.
-
wili at 15:29 PM on 24 December 2013Global warming will intensify drought, says new study
Thanks for this excellent article. When I read the title I thought, "That's odd; I thought I just read that Trenberth had concluded almost the opposite." Then I saw that explaining the difference between the two studies was very nicely explained.
From the article 'below the fold':
"Increased heating from global warming may not cause droughts but it is expected that when droughts occur they are likely to set in quicker and be more intense."
That can't help but remind me of the "flash drought" that developed so rapidly last year (and is still largely with us, though shifted west a bit.)
-
michael sweet at 10:08 AM on 24 December 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #51C
This Bloomburg report says that a major electricity generator in Germany is planning on closing 7% of its generating capacity in Nothern Europe because of low prices. The low prices are caused by less electricity demand and renewable generation. It is not peer reviewed, but hopefully it will be confirmed. It is clear that the German price for electricity will go down next year partly due to their renewable policies. When renewables are cheaper than coal they will be rapidly built out. That time may be now!
-
scaddenp at 06:27 AM on 24 December 2013Gavin Schmidt … Speaking up and Speaking Out
Yes, fair enough, but it's hard to find examples of climate scientists that somehow think climate physics is wrong. Spencer also readily accepts AGW theory while wishing for a lower sensitivity. They are "skeptics" in sense that they are in denial about the published literature on sensitivity. Both have ideological bias which means they are trying to find a theory which will give a sensitivity such that no climate action is needed. Ie they have an a priori position on sensitivity and are thrashing about trying to justify it. I think such probes are good as they strengthen the science and they argue through the science literature. Not so great is misleading statements to the naive (eg congress).
-
DennisMyers at 06:23 AM on 24 December 20132013 SkS Weekly Digest #51
There is a new paper out that details the funding of the anti-climate change machine. It's a very interesting paper. (PDF)
http://www.drexel.edu/~/media/Files/now/pdfs/Institutionalizing%20Delay%20-%20Climatic%20Change.ashx
Moderator Response:[JH] Link activated.
-
grindupBaker at 06:13 AM on 24 December 2013Gavin Schmidt … Speaking up and Speaking Out
scaddenp #22 Dr. Lindzen positively does not deny AGW. I've viewed one of his talks to lay persons in which he gives his estimated range of transient climate response (TCR) at ~+1.0C (I've forgotten his low end) to +1.6C due to his opinion on cloud changes (vs Dr. Hansen's stated best guess of +2.8C). As far as I've seen, Dr. L's actual science point is that he considers AGW feedback's to be greatly overestimated by the consensus, so obviously he considers +CO2-caused warming to be factual and significant. I'm assuming Dr. L and Dr. H mean TCR because the ECS is a long time in the future and IPCC calls TCR "a more informative indicator".
-
CBDunkerson at 02:39 AM on 24 December 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #51C
As Michael Sweet explains, I think we are going to be saved by greed. According to FERC, the U.S. now generates only 29% of its electricity from coal vs 42% from natural gas. Those numbers were essentially reversed just five years ago. When the 'fracking' boom made natural gas cheaper than coal there was a sea change in U.S. electricity generation. However, natural gas prices are already starting to rise again while solar and wind costs continue to decline. Natural gas has killed off coal use in the U.S. much faster than renewables could have, but soon we may see renewables killing off natural gas just as quickly. The past few months there has been more renewable (more solar than wind) power added to the U.S. grid than fossil fuel (almost 100% natural gas) power. Natural gas is still the biggest new source for the year as a whole, but even just over the course of 2013 the balance has shifted and it seems likely renewables will be the majority new source for 2014 and later.
As wind and solar continue to gain steam the huge economic benefits currently given to fossil fuels will be withdrawn and even shifted to supporting renewable power. Already we are seeing efforts by utilities to charge ridiculous prices to connect renewables to the grid being beaten back in most cases (Spain not-withstanding). That loss of control will only continue to get worse for the fossil fuel lobbies. We may not be at 7% global wind and solar next year, but over the course of this decade financial pressures are going to move solar & wind to the forefront. Unless some significant new factor is introduced I'd expect nearly all new electricity generation being added by 2020 will be renewable.
-
PluviAL at 01:30 AM on 24 December 2013Climate Risk Index 2014: Haiti, Philippines and Pakistan most affected
This article fleshes out the map of climate effects in my mind as I have never imagined before. I imagine a river of humidity coming off of the Atlantic and slamming into the Easter coasts of Mexico and the USA, a similar river from the pacific slams in to the eater coasts of Southeast China and Asia. The island on the way are hit the hardest, the Philippines and Cribbean. Energy from the Indian Ocean is diverted by the highest mountain range in the world affecting the Pakistan Delta the worst.
The dry side of climate change, I guess is why Poland and Russia are on the list of places most affected, but what about the US West and Northern Mexico? Are there such scientifically derived maps?
I look at my one-year old and fear for her future when I see the 2013 arctic ice curve approximate the 2012 extreme maximum today. I have done every thing I can to contribute to a solution. I am thankful for the community here for your efforts.
-
michael sweet at 20:57 PM on 23 December 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #51C
I think the fact that solar and wind power have both come way down in price the past five years will help enormously. The past decade. governments have shown that they will not take sufficient action to prevent damaging AGW. Texas now has the most wind power of any US state. They are not building wind in Texas to save the environment, they make more money than any other method of generation. This Think Progress link describes extraordinary growth in solar installations in the US. This is also economically driven.
Look at how fast coal was replaced with gas when gas became cheaper. Coal export terminals are being cancelled. That is because coal is becoming uneconomic. How can China (and India) continue to install more coal with no air to breathe? They are ramping up renewables for economic and pollution reasons. Solar has reached grid parity in India with coal, while coal is difficult to buy in India.
The best way to encourage renewables now is to encourage laws that enable high values of electricity from net metering. Utilities (and the Koch brothers) have realized that their business plans are about to be upset and are trying to keep out rooftop solar by charging them an arm and a leg for connection to the net.
A student in my class showed us his Dad's new Chevy Volt. I asked if he bought it to help the environment or to save money. He said 100% to save money. If enought wind is installed and/or solar comes down enough we may yet have a chance to change the projectory of the CO2 curve. People will do the right thing for the environment if they save money.
-
TonyW at 14:49 PM on 23 December 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #51C
I wouldn't count on economic contraction saving our sorry asses. Even declining emissions still add to what's already there, especially for CO2, which is very long lived. So we have the situation that, even if economies start to fall apart, atmospheric concentrations will continue up. As Hansen has pointed out we really need to be at no more than 350 ppm (we're near 400 ppm now). There is still an energy imbalance and the situation will continue to get worse. The only mitigation that's possible now is complete collapse of the world's major economies where "collapse" is the dictionary definition, "to break apart and fall down suddenly". -
scaddenp at 06:43 AM on 23 December 2013Gavin Schmidt … Speaking up and Speaking Out
Well I dont know about the statement "in the old days". This still happens all the time and is frankly how science debate should continue to be done. Slow is good. Science should not be a spectator sport. A scientist who is convinced of AGW can still strongly criticize the methodology or interpretation of another scientist publishing supporting evidence.
On the whole, pseudo-skeptics prefer blog science, where any garbage can be served up to a willing audience without the inconvenience of having to get things right so it passes peer-review. Peer-reviewed comments or counter-papers against published science is rare but happens (eg O'Donnell et al 2010 paper on Steig et al 2009). On the other hand, skeptic papers often draw a response. (look for cites of papers published by Lindzen, Spencer, Douglas and Knox etc). You have to remember though that there are very very few actual climate scientists that deny AGW.
-
wili at 04:39 AM on 23 December 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #51C
The links at your "Reviewing top U.S. climate news stories of 2013" and at your "Climate Change 2014 Crystal Ball" both go to the same site. Is that intentional?
Moderator Response:[JH] No, it was not intentional.
The correct url for Reviewing top U.S. climate news stories of 2013 is:
http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2013/12/reviewing-top-u-s-climate-news-stories-of-2013/
The url in the OP has also been corrected.
-
wili at 03:00 AM on 23 December 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #51C
Maybe a global financial collapse will come along just in time to save our sorry a$$e$, lol. But I wouldn't count on it. The collapse in 2008 barely made a tiny, temporary blip in the trajectory of the rise in C emissions. -
funglestrumpet at 02:23 AM on 23 December 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #51C
wili @ 1
If the world's finance system collapses, as many pundits are saying it might well, then, depending on how the chips fall, there could easily a reduction in economic activity to the extent required. If that happens, climate change will be the least of our worries.
I suppose the net outcome is that we are, as you point out, in a mess, and it is really only a question of timing. I just hope that the denial community are pleased with themselves. Of course, considering their behaviour, I expect that they have a spare planet to go to. The sooner they go to it, the better.
-
wili at 01:11 AM on 23 December 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #51C
I would expand the first sentence of the first article:
"This was the year when climate change came out of the closet..."
To: "...announce that we're all f'ed."Consider these questions:
--Does anyone anywhere think that wind and solar can grow to from about 1% of total energy sources to being over 7% in the next year?
--Does anyone think that economic growth can happen while energy use rapidly shrinks?
--Does anyone think that the world will suddenly plan a 6% or more shrinkage of the world economy, or a 10% or more shrinkage of the industrial nations' economies?
If the answer to all of these is "no" (and that is clearly the only honest answer to them), then we have to agree that two of the world's top climatologist essentially said that we are now completely and utterly beyond hope.
(J. Hansen said we need immediate at least 6% annual reducsions in emissions; K. Anderson, 10% annual reductions from industrialized countries to avoid 2 degrees C increase. Potsdam Institute, IEA, World Bank, PWC, and a number of others have said much the same.)
-
chriskoz at 19:26 PM on 22 December 2013Gavin Schmidt … Speaking up and Speaking Out
MartinG@19,
I would love to see a forum where scientist A presents his new findings on AGW, and scientist B takes issue with some of the content – followed by scientist A countering these comments. In the old days this was done in scientific literature (peer reviewed of course), but this process is I believe too slow for our modern times. Of course I am dreaming again
No, you're not dreaming, your exact scenario is happening as we speak, e.g. here on SkS, or on realclimate (where Gavin is most active contributor) and on other blogs. Some comment threads are very interesting, sometimes enlightening for myself. Your old "peer review debate" is happening fast in the digital blogosphere now.
-
chriskoz at 19:17 PM on 22 December 2013Gavin Schmidt … Speaking up and Speaking Out
It's worth noting that Gavin's own understanding of advocacy has evolved in the last 4-5 years, as the digital media took over the bulk of science communication from TV/newspapers that dominated earlier on.
In his lecture, at about 11:20-12:20 of video pointed by BaerbelW@7, Gavin admits his definition of advocacy as "deliberate cherry-picking a piece of apparently useful data without consideration of any alternative explanations" (source) was wrong. Scientists have the same right to be advocates as any other citizens but in doing so, they need to make explicit distinction between their advocacy - based on personal moral values and their science - based on objective facts.
-
MartinG at 18:23 PM on 22 December 2013Gavin Schmidt … Speaking up and Speaking Out
Its an article with many interesting points. But I am missing one aspect. Our research is based on observations of the past and present, and our advocacy is related to predictions of the future and what we should do about it. In natural sciences nature is always one up on us by being incredibly more complex than our numerical models and theories can capture, so we have to work with uncertainties. The best way to do this is with scenarios – so that we can say for example there is a 60% chance that our emissions will bring uncontrollable consequences to the planet (this number is just an example – nothing to do with the facts!!). Then the scientist can advocate radical action based on a 60% probability of calamity, without having to falsely argue that all is certain – and thereby laying himself open to the observations/theories which support the other 40%.
I believe the biggest threat to action on climate change is the polarized and unscientific nature of the debate, both in the blogosphere with its brainwashed extremests, and to some extent among climate scientists. I would love to see a forum where scientist A presents his new findings on AGW, and scientist B takes issue with some of the content – followed by scientist A countering these comments. In the old days this was done in scientific literature (peer reviewed of course), but this process is I believe too slow for our modern times. Of course I am dreaming again ! But I am wholly in agreement with denisaf that we should open our eyes – its not just about CO2 – it’s the way we live which is unstainable. -
denisaf at 16:15 PM on 22 December 2013Gavin Schmidt … Speaking up and Speaking Out
I am a retired aeronautical scientist. I have learned four fundamental scientific principles late in life. They are:
- All the technological systems of civilization irreversibly consume the limited natural material resources, including oil, in producing the, infrastructure (from cities down), goods and services society has become so dependent on. This is an unsustainable process.
- This process produces immutable waste material which is polluting land, sea, air and organisms (including human beings), with climate change being only one of the unintended deleterious consequences.
- Natural resources will have to be used to operate and maintain the vast array of technological systems, including the infrastructure, during their limited lives. As these resources are running out, the demise of much of the infrastructure this century is certain.
- The extravagant usage of the limited natural resources has enabled the exponential growth of the global human population but this will end and a dieoff follow as natural resources become scarcer and the infrastructure crumbles.
-
denis.boarder at 15:41 PM on 22 December 2013Gavin Schmidt … Speaking up and Speaking Out
A good article highlighting the dilemma within which the science community finds itself. What involvement in the end-to-end communication exercise? how far it should go in presenting impact analysis (physical and social), and solutions that might be construed as political interference.
We appear to be suffering from a ‘communications gap’ with the perceptions of a wider audience tainted by media misinformation and misdirection... perhaps this is the most significant barrier to public acceptance and active participation.
Tackling the problem from a purely scientific standpoint will have limited success.
Communications cannot be a ‘one size fits all’. The tailoring of content and emphasis, delivery channel and messenger, are essential to penetrate any particular 'market' sector. Start thinking like an advertising agency, establish the message to meet the ‘requirements’ of the audience and manage their expectations.What is the value proposition?
The market has numerous dimensions and permutations:
Off the top of my head:
1) Scientific and academic publications key source and empirical baseline – Communicated by scientists and scientific publications - A mainly technical audience.
2) Science journalism through scientific articles in science magazines, blogs , podcasts, presentations etc. – Targeting the more technically savvy audience, science professionals and students. Perhaps a first port of call for latest news and links to published articles?
3) Science journalism through higher end quality documentaries, TV, radio podcasts etc. - Scientifically aware and with particularlinterests.
4) Science journalism through popular and entertainment media, TV, radio, YouTube, press articles and social media. A generally wider and diverse audience (certainly the largest segment ).
5) Activist and environmental organisations, mainly communicating to the converted.
Our friends in the denial community operate within 3, 4 and particularly 5.This is where most effort should be invested for greatest impact. Engaging the audience has to be at a more emotional and organic level, not through overstatement but in ways that command their attention to risks and consequences. Financial and economic consequences along with family wellbeing tend to deliver the most immediate response.
-
Wol at 14:48 PM on 22 December 2013Gavin Schmidt … Speaking up and Speaking Out
.
>>When asked where to engage the public, Schmidt said: “You have to be tactical and find places where you can be heard. … avoid comment threads of most major newspapers.”<<
True, so very true.I'm not one for posting every minute on blogs, but I do read the london Daily Telegraph online most days: it's shocking the number of blog posters that come out of the woodwork whenever there's anything to do with climate change who are utterly abusive and ignorant of the most basic science. In general nowadays they get a free run because experts have run out of patience with repeating the same rebuttals over and over again to a readership that lacks the will to look at anything that doesn't match their convictions. Non experts (like me) eventually give up for the same reason and the constant abusive language.
Whilst personally persuaded of the fact of MMGW, I can't help feeling that any amount of CO2 per capita reduction is completely negated by the increase in population - roughly three extra "emitters" per second.
The problem, like so many in the present, fundamentally boils down to too many people and I don't see any realistic prospect of that changing voluntarily.
.
-
nigelj at 10:52 AM on 22 December 2013Gavin Schmidt … Speaking up and Speaking Out
Climate scientists should speak out in the daily media, but need to tread a fine balance. Certainly they could comment on the science and refute sceptical arguments, and discuss their personal feelings and backgrounds. James Hansen is a good communicator, concise and gets to the point.
However they should avoid being drawn into debates as such. Determining the scientific truth shouldnt become a public spectacle like a court room, complete with emotive battles. I also feel climate scientists should avoid comments on political issues, and mitigation measures unless they have specific expertise.
-
nigelj at 10:42 AM on 22 December 2013Gavin Schmidt … Speaking up and Speaking Out
Wpsokeland @ item 9, you imply solar energy is higher than normal and is driving climate change. The sun has been cooling slightly over roughly the last 40 years, and the research evidence can be found on this website, and obviously a cooling sun cant generate global warming.
Moderator Response:[TD] ...the counterargument to the myth "It's the Sun."
-
bbrowett at 06:54 AM on 22 December 2013Gavin Schmidt … Speaking up and Speaking Out
Excellent article.
The summary of the rules and cautions for advocacy were especially succinct.
"Scientists must be careful, however, and follow a handful of rules of engagement that will protect their integrity as a scientist as well as their rights as a citizen. Responsible advocacy is characterized by a handful of principles, Schmidt said. The individual should:
- communicate his/her values fairly and truthfully;
- make the connections between his/her values and policy choices explicit;
- make sure to distinguish his/her personal conclusions from the scientific consensus;
- acknowledge that people with different values would have different policy choices; and
- be aware of how his/her values might impact objectivity, and be vigilant.Irresponsible advocacy, on the other hand, can be recognized through a handful of clues. Among these:
- Individuals misrepresent and hide their values.
- The basis of their policy choices is unclear.
- There’s an untested presumption that the individual’s personal scientific conclusions are widely held.”These are excellent rules for all of us to follow and consider.
However, when important public policies are being discussed, it is often very difficult to differentiate between data, information, and interpretation, i.e., there are few instances when science can be separated from advocacy.
Advocacy is not a bad thing, but when science is used to support government policy, NGO advocacy, or business operations, the scientists who interpret the scientific information, or indeed construct the scientific experiments, are engaged in advocacy. They should also follow these rules.
Too often businesses, governments, and organizations gloss over the very critical values that are used to frame their scientific work, analysis, interpretation, and communication.
So broadening the scope of these rules:
Responsible advocacy is characterized by a handful of principles … . The individual or organization (government, non-government, or business) should:
- communicate his/her and the organization's values fairly and truthfully;
- make the connections between his/her and the organization’s values and policy choices explicit;
- make sure to distinguish his/her personal and the organization’s conclusions from the scientific consensus;
- acknowledge that people and organizations with different values would have different policy choices; and
- be aware of how his/her and the organization's values might impact objectivity, and be vigilant.Irresponsible advocacy, on the other hand, can be recognized through a handful of clues. Among these:
- Individuals or organizations misrepresent and hide their values.
- The basis of their or the organization’s policy choices is unclear.
- There’s an untested presumption that the individual’s personal or the organization’s scientific conclusions are widely held. -
Eric Grimsrud at 03:59 AM on 22 December 2013Gavin Schmidt … Speaking up and Speaking Out
A suggestion here for increased communications between scientists with friends and associates: I am a retired analytical chemist who spend a considerable portion of my research on problems related to the atmosphere. Upon retirement I started a web site (ericgrimsrud.com) and associated blog (ericgrimsrud.wordpress.com) on which I write about one post per week followed by a heads up to my friends and associates on my personal mailing list. My blog constitutes an additional layer of simplified representation of the things I read. Many of my ideas come either from Skeptical Science or Climate Progress with links to those more in depth articles. These posts seem to go over quite well and seem to be read by most on my mailing list. The cost of running my blog at wordpress is nothing at all. One can be set up and used as I do by anyone for free. I happen to like to write so this also provided me with one of my main retirement "hobbies" - while doing what I can to help "save the world". There are many other ways for retired scientists to help, of course. We have the great gift of free time and hopefully still carry some credibility at least with our friends and associates.
-
PhilMorris at 03:48 AM on 22 December 2013Gavin Schmidt … Speaking up and Speaking Out
wpokeland@9: I
really like how you provide references to peer reviewed journals substantiating your statements. Oh, sorry, I read your comments so quickly I didn't realize that you hadn’t provided any such references. You are, of course, simply stating results from real research, but forgot to include them, right? No? Are you quoting from newspaper articles, then? Or certain blog posts (numerous ones come to mind...)? Hm, perhaps its what you feel intuitively has to be the case then? Perhaps reading some of this site, or any of the other sites that have real science, would help clarify the true situation for you - one can but hope! In the meantime let me tell you about two physicis items...
1. CO2 absorbs infrared. See http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=200
2. CO2 absorption of infrared predicts that the troposphere will warm and the stratosphere will cool. And we have satellite evidence that this is happening. See "Human and natural influences on the changing thermal structure of the atmosphere", PNAS, Aug 2013.
-
kmalpede at 03:33 AM on 22 December 2013Gavin Schmidt … Speaking up and Speaking Out
I had an interesting and disheartening experience at an event with artists and scientists held through the Columbia Earth Science PositiveFeedback program. When I mentioned my play "Extreme Whether" and said it had elements in common with Henrik Ibsen's "An Enemy of the People", most of the scientists I spoke with had never read Ibsen's great play, or even heard of it. Are science and the humanties really so far apart? Art and literature give us insight but also courage. As a theater writer writing about climate change, as a college teacher who teaches literature and also gives students scientific papers to read and discuss, I would urge scientists to read--at least read "An Enemy of the People"...it is a great play and is directly related to the topic under discussion here.
-
wpsokeland at 02:38 AM on 22 December 2013Gavin Schmidt … Speaking up and Speaking Out
“Scientists should communicate more about what they do and find.”
I agree! Higher than normal energy input from solar storms that spawn hurricanes has caused the average global temperature to increase over the last 30 years. The convection of energy by the north Atlantic current from the tropics to the arctic has caused the sea ice to melt and produce a minimum area of sea ice as a result. The number of hurricanes were a minimum this season, 2013, and as a result; the area of sea ice at the northern ice cap will increase and the average global temperature will drop.
The average solar energy input to our planet by radiation is a constant over the period of one year. If Carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases were continually increasing and the power source is a constant, the average temperature of the earth would be continually increasing. This is not what is observed in the average temperature data; therefore, the radiation from the sun is not the only energy source. The incoming severe weather from solar storms is a variable and the average global temperature will increase and decrease on a yearly basis as a function of the severe weather energy input to our atmosphere.
Moderator Response:[TD] I'll point you to just a starter set of factual rebuttals to just a few of your claims, in addition to what PhilMorris pointed you to:
- CO2 is Not the Only Driver of Climate, so you are incorrect that if the Sun's energy hitting the Earth is constant and greenhouse gases increase then temperature must increase at an identical rate.
- The Earth has not cooled nor even paused in warming, when you look at total energy content instead of only at the surface temperature, and even when you look only at the surface temperature but you do so over a legitimately long time span.
-
climatelurker at 01:54 AM on 22 December 2013Gavin Schmidt … Speaking up and Speaking Out
I've always wondered how individual scientists who 'hide' their views on hot topics (...one particular scientist comes to mind...) can think that's the same thing as being neutral. It's not. Nobody can divorce themselves from their human nature, even scientists. Way better to be honest, so that your peers, and yourself, can see your biases and handle them accordingly.
Not to mention we are citizens first. Why shouldn't we have opinions about policy? Why should Joe Plumber's opinions about climate change policy be more acceptable to express than a climate scientists' opinion about it? Scientists live in this world just the same as everyone else. Which means we scientists suffer the consequences just the same. Why would anyone want to prevent a citizen from exercising his or her right to be a part of society? We can vote, but we can't ever say out loud what we think? How dumb is that?
(I'm no climate scientist, just speaking about scientists in general.)
Moderator Response:[RH] Corrected typing error.
-
BaerbelW at 23:42 PM on 21 December 2013Gavin Schmidt … Speaking up and Speaking Out
Gavin Schmidt's lecture is now available on AGU's Youtube Channel:
-
wili at 22:24 PM on 21 December 2013Gavin Schmidt … Speaking up and Speaking Out
"Nor should we assume that such a tax would be sufficient to solve the climate crisis. In my opinion, this would only be a good start, we'll need lots of regulations..."
That's my sense, too. When something is causing actual harm, we don't usually just tax it to make people less likely to buy it. We ban it, or put severe restrictions on it. If someone sold childrens toys that would spontaneously blow up and take off kids' hands and feet, I hope we wouldn't just put a high tax on it to encourage parents not to buy it.
I tend to trust scientists most when they are issuing warnings; often less so when they are saying to trust some technology or other. Nuclear is a tought sell after Fukushima, rightly so imho.
What needs to be given up is the idea of limitless growth. Shortening the work week and reconsidering the mad rush to automate everything will go a longer way to full employment than continually chasing the impossibility of endless economic growth.
What we have to hear very clearly from Hansen is his call for six percent or more decrease in C emissions immediately and Kevin Anderson's call for 10% or more reductions from industrialized countries. These are arguably the top climatologists in the world.
Neither nukes nor alternatives can be built fast enough to accommodate those kinds of cuts--cuts needed if we are going to have even the mere posibility of a livable world. Only 'demand side' can possibly respond that fast.
These scientists have bravely told us the truth--the situation is beyond crisis level now. If we don't immediately turn the ship around we are going over the falls. The job of the rest of us is to telegraph that extreme level of urgency to our fellow citizens and to our 'leaders.' -
Andy Skuce at 13:52 PM on 21 December 2013Gavin Schmidt … Speaking up and Speaking Out
I suspect Eli was influenced by Hansen's AGU presidential address. Hansen was very clear for the first part of his talk when he described the physics of climate change. It is obvious that he has a solid grasp of this, because he can explain it in a rational and logical manner, as well or better than anyone. On the moral imperative, he was also very convincing, speaking from the heart and with everything based on moral principles that he holds and that most of us share.
However, at the end of his talk, he drifted into a bit of an incoherent ramble. He is clearly a skeptic of the potential of renewable energy to power our economy and an enthusiast for nuclear power. I hesitantly lean that way, too, but it's a difficult case that needs to be made with detailed arguments and data, not just assertions and appeals to common sense.
Similarly, he wants to see a revenue-neutral carbon tax introduced, but it's not enough for him simply to say that such a policy is self-evidently the best one, although I would agree that it probably is. Nor should we assume that such a tax would be sufficient to solve the climate crisis. In my opinion, this would only be a good start, we'll need lots of regulations, plenty of government support for research and development and a change in the culture of consumerism and growth.
Hansen shows both the positive and negative cases for scientists becoming advocates.
-
Paul W at 10:50 AM on 21 December 2013Gavin Schmidt … Speaking up and Speaking Out
Just as a question to EliRabett @3. Why do you need to be careful about assiging expertise to people like Hansen?
I've found his public statements to be very well thought through and backed by data that is sound science.
-
EliRabett at 09:04 AM on 21 December 2013Gavin Schmidt … Speaking up and Speaking Out
The key to understanding what Gavin said is to figure out who benefits if scientists can be kept from commenting on policy implications of the science. Now true one has to be extremely careful of assigning expertise to the policy statements of people like Hansen, but one also need be careful of anything said by those who try and control the dialog.
-
ubrew12 at 07:42 AM on 21 December 2013Gavin Schmidt … Speaking up and Speaking Out
Scientists have an obligation to communicate effectively to the public one aspect of AGW in particular: the delay between human action and planetary response. The public has gadgets that respond instantly to commands, we order something and expect it yesterday, our media is '150 channels and nothin's on'. 'Change is here, now' is every politicians soundbite, and our motto is 'I want it now'.
This culture is in no way prepared to take hard, revolutionary action on Climate Change and find the Planet indifferent to that sacrifice for up to half a century. Halt all CO2 emissions forever, starting today, and the Planet will cheerily continue warming for 40 years or more. And IN that 40 year window of Planetary indifference, the Arctic will continue melting and absorbing more sunlight, the permafrost will continue melting and venting CO2: processes will be unleashed that could make a MOCKERY of our sacrifice. This aspect of this slow-rolling tragedy is just not understood by the general public, afflicted as it is with 'short-attention-span' disease, and I fault the Scientists, in part, for not making that plainer.
-
Alexandre at 04:10 AM on 21 December 2013South Scores 11th-Hour Win on Climate Loss and Damage
Tom Curtis at 18:58 PM on 20 December, 2013
Actually, I think GDP is a good measure of economic growth. The problem is more that often economic growth is a lousy proxy to well being, sustainability or wealth distribution.
-
Alexandre at 03:54 AM on 21 December 2013Gavin Schmidt … Speaking up and Speaking Out
"That's the responsibility of having eyes when others have lost theirs."
Jose Saramago
-
Tom Curtis at 18:58 PM on 20 December 2013South Scores 11th-Hour Win on Climate Loss and Damage
Stephen Leahy @20, I agree that GDP is a poor measure of economic growth. Unfortunately it is not clear that there is a better one, and certainly not one that is agreed to by a consensus of economists. Further, it is almost impossible to find general statistics for historical periods for other measures.
Further, I agree with you that our economic system sucks in a variety of ways. One of those ways is the dependence on growth for economic stability. However, I think it is a grave strategic mistake to tie those issues together with global warming. First, it is a much bigger ask to both convert the economy to a new basis and to tackle global warming at the same time, then to do each separately. Further, and more important, tying the two together ensures that those with a conservative political leaning will oppose actions to tackle global warming because they will see them as actions designed to overthrow an economic system they still value. There is enough resistance from conservatives to tackling global warming from the myth spread by deniers that AGW is a stalking horse for ending capitalism. We have no chance of tacking global warming if we turn that myth into a truth.
Like it or not, tackling AGW is too important to tie it up with other political issues. That means we will need a solution to AGW that is economically conservative, that does not threaten capitalism of free markets, and that is consistent ongoing economic growth for developed nations. If we cannot find such a solution, we will only tackle global warming very late, at great cost, not just in GDP, but in real and personal terms.
-
Stephen Leahy at 11:53 AM on 20 December 2013South Scores 11th-Hour Win on Climate Loss and Damage
TC@19 thanks for correcting the links.
Economic growth is bit of red herring since it is such a vague concept in real terms. Growth for who and what exactly? A country's GDP can triple and the total number of people in poverty increase, levels of education go down and overall health decline. This is the pattern for most petrostates, incl Canada.
De-growth isn't all that scary since our economic system sucks.
Quoting UK economist Tim Jackson: "It's blindingly obvious that our economic system is failing us." Climate change, pollution, damaged ecosystems, record species extinctions, and unsustainable resource use are all clear symptoms of a dysfunctional economic system, Jackson, author of the report and book Prosperity Without Growth, told IPS
-
KiwiInOz at 09:08 AM on 20 December 2013Climate and economic models – birds of a different feather
Ah yes, the old conversation of mass issue.
Prev 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 Next
