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 04:10 AM on 17 December 2013Behind the Lines: Herschel's Discovery of Infra-Red
The strength of Methane vis a vis Carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas is 20 0r 30 times as much only if you include the phrase "on a 100 year basis". It's actual strength is somewhere around 100 times that of Carbon dioxide and hence the approximately 2ppm methane in the atmosphere has the same effect as 200ppm Carbon dioxide. I reverse engineered the figure using a half life of 7 years and a relative strength of 20 on a 100 year basis and got x140. Does anyone know where the original work is that worked out the actual relative strengths. In the NSIDC web site, they recently used a figure of x86.
http://mtkass.blogspot.co.nz/2013/03/the-real-strength-of-methane.html
wlhgmk@gmail.com
-
wili at 23:40 PM on 16 December 2013South Scores 11th-Hour Win on Climate Loss and Damage
Thanks, Tony. The analogy that comes to my mind is someone who has gangrene (or some similar spreading infection). At first it is just at the tip of one toe, and he is told that very minor surgery will take care of it. But he's in denial that there is any rot on his wonderful body and that it could ever be a real threat, so he ignores the advise. Next it's the whole toe that has to go, and he can't imagine parting with so precious a thing. Then the whole foot has to go, and that he certainly can't abide...you get the idea.
We are certainly at or past the toe stage, hopefully not to the stage of having to lose a leg or more, but hard to tell.
W -
TonyW at 14:55 PM on 16 December 2013South Scores 11th-Hour Win on Climate Loss and Damage
Yes, wili, Hansen's latest paper provides a strong argument for keeping warming to 1C, though his plan has a brief overshoot to 1.1C. The continued notion that 2C isn't too bad has surely been shot to smithereens, but even apparently well read journalists still talk about 2C as though that would be OK (even though commitments, if met - which is very doubtful - would only give a modest chance of keeping within 2C). Hansen thinks 6% across the board reductions per year (starting now), along with an aggressive reforestation plan would get atmospheric concentration down to about 350 ppm before the end of the century and keep the temperature roughly within the Holocene range.We're not going to get 6% global reduction per year from this year or starting at any point the near future, so even higher rates of reduction will be needed, which would then be even more unlikely, and so ad infinitum. It's funny how some people on the train can see the crash coming, clear as day, whilst others on the train can only see the train keeping on track for ever. -
wili at 14:17 PM on 16 December 2013South Scores 11th-Hour Win on Climate Loss and Damage
TC, thanks for the response. What is your source for 3%? Hansen's latest paper comes up with at least 6% global annual reductions. I'm not sure I follow your trade scheme, and I'm afraid any such is certain to become hopelessly manipulated by the banksters that specialized in that sort of thing.
Good points on voting. But of course you need more than "a few" people for that to be effective, just as you do ultimately for direct action. And one does not preclude the other. But looking at how effective, for example, the NRA has been at keeping representatives in line may be a good model, in some ways.
-
Tom Curtis at 12:19 PM on 16 December 2013South Scores 11th-Hour Win on Climate Loss and Damage
wili @6, the article quotes Kevin Anderson claiming that 10% reductions per annum by developed nations, not the entire world, are necessary. In fact reductions on that scale are simply not achievable. Global reductions at 3% per annum, on the other hand, are sufficient for a 2 C target and are achievable. They are best achieved by an equal global per capita emissions quota per nation, benchmarked for each nation against the population in a given year, declining by 3% per annum for each nation - and made tradable so that developed nations can purchase excess emissions allowances from under developed nations as they phase down to the quota and the underdeveloped nations initially rise to, and then fall with the quota. As it is, international negotiations bog down because western nations insist undeveloped nations reduce emissions at the same rate they do, thereby insisting that unequal wealth distribution be locked into the global economy as a condition for tackling global warming.
The best thing people can do to tackle global warming at the moment is make it clear to politicians, and to the media by writting letters stating that you want, as a first priority of government that there be a rapid reduction in carbon emissions, and that you want a fair - ie, one person, one value - international agreement to accomplish that. You should indicate, and this should be, that this is should be your highest electoral priority. Make it clear that this, above all other issues, will decide your vote in future elections.
Civil disobedience will be dismissed as the actions of a few, unrepresentative radicals and will not change the policies of government. Clearly indicated voting intentions which are followed through, however, will send a clear signal. It will be ignored only if, as unfortunately seems likely, the demos of our democracies have chosen long term doom over short term inconvenience.
-
wili at 09:35 AM on 16 December 2013South Scores 11th-Hour Win on Climate Loss and Damage
Good corrections everyone. Now can we get back to the contents of the article?
Besides the immediate need for 10% annual reductions of C emissions, the guts of this article seem to me to be here:
"'Democracy has been stolen by corporations,' Naidoo told IPS. 'While activists and protesters are arrested, the real hooligans are the CEOs of fossil fuel companies.'
The only avenue left to people is civil disobedience and 2014 will be the year of climate activism, he said.
'Now is the time to put our lives on the line and face jail time,' Naidoo said."
There is precisely no time left for anything but demanding immediate action now on a level that actually has some remote chance of avoiding the worst levels of catastrophe.
What are the good posters here willing to commit to? What are the most effective actions to take at this point?
-
scaddenp at 13:27 PM on 15 December 2013Why is Antarctic sea ice growing?
Well some of the reasons for increasing Antarctica seaice such as ozone depletion, circum polar circulation, do operate by reducing temperature. However, whatever an average satellite tropospheric temperature shows, Antarctica is also warming around the edges (note the decrease in land ice as well the temperature trends) which does imply the increased sea ices is not because it is getting colder.
-
Enginerd at 10:00 AM on 15 December 2013Why is Antarctic sea ice growing?
Thanks for the response, Scaddenp. I wasn't wondering why the temperature trend is different at the poles. I was wondering why the notable difference in the temperature trends might explain part of the notable difference in the sea ice trends (i.e., why Arctic sea ice is decreasing so rapidly and why Antarctic sea ice isn't). For what it's worth, UAH temperature for the "North Pole" and "South Pole" represent 60-85 degrees latitude, which is why I referred to them in quotes. I think the trend for that region is relevant.
-
wili at 08:11 AM on 15 December 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #50B
Thanks for linking to the article on the Tyndall conference: "Scientists explore paths to ‘radical’ emissions reductions."
Here's the direct link to the conference and a good interview with K. Anderson. http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/radical-emission-reduction-conference-10-11-december-2013
What among these or other initiatives seem like the best way forward to the good posters on this site? As pointed out, given the continuing incease in C emissions, what people have been doing so far clearly has not yet worked.
Moderator Response:[JH] You're welcome and thank you for the link to the conference.
-
scaddenp at 05:50 AM on 15 December 2013Why is Antarctic sea ice growing?
Enginerd - why tropospheric temperature trends are different is interesting and discussed elsewhere. However, sea ice in Antarctica only grows a long way from pole (though still within the circumpolar circulation).
-
DSL at 05:18 AM on 15 December 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #50A
Bad news: November GIS L-OTI is out: 0.77C, a record for Novembers. It's also tied for the 5th warmest of any months in the GIS series. That sets up 2013 to be the 3rd warmest year on record, and it will have occurred in ENSO net negative conditions.
-
Doug Bostrom at 05:02 AM on 15 December 2013Behind the Lines: Herschel's Discovery of Infra-Red
Too easy to forget the beauty of the basics! What a nice article.
-
Why is Antarctic sea ice growing?
#9 Glenn Tamblyn:
"The second largest rebound after 1996. But nowhere near 60%"
That's not entirely correct, Glenn.
According to PIOMAS the September sea ice volume in Arctic was 3300 km3 in 2012 and 4900 km3 in 2013, pretty close to a 50% increase, and by far the largest relative increase from one year to the next. This also tells us that the average ice thickness was more or less the same these two years.
The problem of course (for the deniers and the Arctic sea ice itself) is that the 1600 km3 of absolute increase is tiny compared to the 13,600 km3 of ice loss from 1979 to 2012. The downward trend is still crystal clear, and there is no reason to believe this "recovery" will be more than a temporary one.
-
Enginerd at 04:34 AM on 15 December 2013Why is Antarctic sea ice growing?
Thank you for this post. Over the years, I've seen many mechanisms mentioned as possibly explaining the different trends observed between Arctic and Antarctic sea ice, but I rarely hear people mention average tropospheric temperature. According to the UAH data set, the tropospheric temperatures in the "North Pole" region from 1978-2013 increased at a rate more than 3 times the global average; while in the "South Pole" region, the tropospheric temperatures over the same time frame have a net trend of *zero*. Might this explain some of the very different longer-term behavior observed across the two poles? I'm not suggesting that the other hypotheses listed in the post aren't important. I am just wondering why tropospheric temperature never seems to get mentioned when evaluating the differences between the two poles.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 00:37 AM on 15 December 2013South Scores 11th-Hour Win on Climate Loss and Damage
Poster@3, Peak 1 minute wind speed or hourly avearge wind speed could be used to rank wind events producing very different results. Another factor would be the specific location hit by the event. As an example, if Katrina had made landfall just a little west of where it actually did, the effect on New Orleans would have increased dramatically.
There is more than wind speed to consider. The amount of moisture dropped by a weak cyclone can be more damaging than the peak wind speed of a stronger cyclone. Many events around the world are indicating a trend toward larger amounts of moisture in extreme events. Perhaps even the recent significant amount of snow in the Middle East was due to significantly more moisture being in the air when a cold event occurred.
-
michael sweet at 23:20 PM on 14 December 2013Super Typhoon Haiyan: Realities of a Warmed World and Need for Immediate Climate Action
Poster,
If you want to learn about hurricanes you should read Jeff Masters blog since he is a specialist on hurricanes and can sort through the different measurements. Here is Dr. Masters last comments on Haiyan and Chris Burt weather historian at Wunderground comments are also valuable. You often post links to unreliable sites like the WSJ for easily available scientific information.
It was interesting that the WSJ list of hurricanes in the Philippines is different from Tom's list from the original source. Can you explain why your source appears to be mistaken? If you cannot you should consider not using the WSJ as a source any more since they have been shown to be unreliable. Perhaps you should rethink why your sources are frequently unreliable.
-
Tom Curtis at 22:49 PM on 14 December 2013South Scores 11th-Hour Win on Climate Loss and Damage
Poster @3, significant confusion reigns about the ranking of Typhoon Haiyan because peak wind velocities have been reported in two different ways, with the JTWC reporting 1 minute sustained speeds and PAGASA reporting 10 minute sustained speeds. That confusion has been increased by the WSJ which reports a list of the seven strongest cyclones to strike the Phillipines. Oddly, only two of the cyclones on the WSJ list are on PAGASA's list of the 5 strongest cyclones to strike the Phillipines, and those two both have inflated windspeeds relative to the PAGASA list. Given that the WSJ cites PAGASA as the source of its list, that is odd to say the least. The cyclone that heads the PAGASA list, Typhoon Durian, is shown has having much lower wind speeds than Haiyan on wikipedia, but a higher peak wind gust by PAGASA.
Going through the WSJ list, it includes (in WSJ order of wind speed):
1) Typhoon Joan (175 mph 1 minute sustained wind speed);
2) Typhoon Betty (165 mph 1 minute sustained wind speed, wind speed at land fall 136 mph);
3) Typhoon Ruth (165 mph peak wind speed, wind speed at landfall 125 mph);
4) Typhoon Imra (160 mph peak wind speed, land fall as category 2);
5) Typhoon Dot (175 mph 1 minute sustained wind speed, intensity fell prior to landfall);
6) Typhoon Mike (175 mph 1 minute sustained wind speed, wind speed of 140 mph at landfall).
Finally, and in seventh spot according to the WSJ is Typhoon Haiyan, with 195 mph 1 minute sustained windspeeds at landfall.
May I suggest that you cease trusting the WSJ as a reliable reporter on climate (it isn't); and if you wish to discuss this further, do so on a page explicitly adressing Tyhpoon Haiyan (first or last links above).
-
Poster9662 at 20:08 PM on 14 December 2013South Scores 11th-Hour Win on Climate Loss and Damage
As typhoon Haiyan (aka Yolanda) is only the seventh strongest typhoon to make landfall in the Philippines (http://blogs.wsj.com/searealtime/2013/11/14/is-typhoon-haiyan-the-strongest-storm-ever/), is the catastrophic destruction due more to infrastrucure/habitat changes occcurring since the stongest typhoon, typhoon Seding (aka typhoon Joan), made landfall in 1970?
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 15:38 PM on 14 December 2013Why is Antarctic sea ice growing?
William
Cryosphere II may not be available for 2013 but PIOMAS is:
From here:
The second largest rebound after 1996. But nowhere near 60%
-
One Planet Only Forever at 13:37 PM on 14 December 2013South Scores 11th-Hour Win on Climate Loss and Damage
@ wili,
The scientifically established 'temperature increase of significant concern' is 1.5 degrees C above the pre-industrial levels (the 1800s).
In Copenhagen the global leaders signed on to the limit of 2 degrees because it was clear that the lack of action over the previous decades by the highest per-capita emitter to change their ways had made it 'impossible' to meet the 1.5 degree limit.
As mentioned, because of the continued deliberate lack of action by the largest per-capita emitters since 2009 it is now very challenging to meet the 2 degree limit.
Nero fiddling while Rome burns is nothing compared to what the people benefiting the most from the burning of fossil fuels and tearing down of forests are doing to the planet. They are basically like Nero gaining wealth and enjoyment from dropping napalm on a burning planet.
And the most absurd aspect of this is that the burning of non-renewable fossil fuels ultimately cannot be continued anyway. Humanity has a few billion years of living to look forward to on this amazing planet. For the sake of the future of humanity, and all other life, this lazy wasteful damaging moment in human history needs to be ended sooner rather than just a little later.
The popularity of benefiting without the consequences is a real sweet deal…for the ones who win the wars and battles to get to benefit the most. It is a very rotten deal for the rest of the current population and for all the future generations of humanity.
-
william5331 at 06:09 AM on 14 December 2013Why is Antarctic sea ice growing?
You mention Cryosat-ll. As far as I can find, they still haven't reported the ice volume for Sept 2013 so that we can compare it with Sept 2012 and see if ice volume has also increased 60% as did ice extent. I understand there is some problem with September associated with ponding water on top of the ice but even the figures for August and October for 2012 and 2013 would give us an approximate figure to compare. Why does the ESA (European Space Agency) which operates Cryosat-ll not produce daily updates for volume as does NSIDC for extent. If the satellite is in the normal 90 min orbit, that means that it passes over the Arctic 16 times a day, each time over a different path. Surly that is enough to give a pretty good estimate of ice volume in real time.
-
Mal Adapted at 06:07 AM on 14 December 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #50A
BTW, Composer99, there's a preview button on the Basic comment form. It looks like a magnifying glass over a page.
-
Mal Adapted at 06:05 AM on 14 December 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #50A
To add to Composer99's comments: individuals who are reducing their carbon footprints are to be applauded, but won't by themselves solve the AGW problem. That's because AGW is a Tragedy of the Commons. As Composer99 suggests, lifestyles will change sufficiently, only when burning fossil fuels is made un-economic by government regulation and/or taxation.
-
wili at 04:37 AM on 14 December 2013South Scores 11th-Hour Win on Climate Loss and Damage
"To have a good chance at staying under two degrees C, industrialised countries need to crash their CO2 emissions 10 percent per year starting in 2014, said Kevin Anderson of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of Manchester.'
And, of course, 2 degrees C is way too high. So what is the level of emissions reduction required to avoid, say, 1.5 degrees?
-
Rob Honeycutt at 03:59 AM on 14 December 2013Why is Antarctic sea ice growing?
meb58... Yes, WV is a stronger greenhouse gas but it's presense is temperature dependent. I don't believe the ice melting would be what would increase WV, but rather the rising temperature. Freshwater evaporates faster (or requires less energy to evaporate) than saltwater, but I would imagine the difference is probably minimal enough to not have a significant impact on the process.
-
meb58 at 01:55 AM on 14 December 2013Why is Antarctic sea ice growing?
...from a non-scientist...as I understand it, water vapor is a more powerful green house gas than CO2 or methane? If so, does fresh water or highly diluted sea water evaporate faster than 'typical' sea water? The rapid artic ice melt is alarming, but doesn't some of the melt water feed back as water vapor at some point in the hydrlogic cycle?
-
Rob Painting at 19:32 PM on 13 December 2013Why is Antarctic sea ice growing?
I would add too, that the current behaviour of the Antarctic sea ice is influenced by the present state of the ocean-atmosphere circulation. The current negative (cool) phase of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO) is likely assisting the growth of sea ice, but may reverse when the IPO moves to its positive (warm) phase. This can be seen in the modelled trends from Meehl (2013):
.......and the models vs observations from the UK Met Office:
-
nigelj at 12:47 PM on 13 December 2013Why is Antarctic sea ice growing?
Rob Honeycutt @3, I agree. The antarctic sea ice is essentially climate neutral, but the arctic certainly isnt. People with open minds can see the antarctic sea ice issue is a very weak sceptical argument, so people who persist with it must have ulterior motives.
On your comment about the arctic, this is a big sort of regional heating effect. I believe the northern hemisphere is also warming more than the southern. Im no climate expert and this may be a naieve comment, but as far as Im aware these temperature differentials can alter pressure systems, winds and currents.
Arent we altering virtually everything? I dont beleive you can actually fully model something so complex. I think its madness to invite changing these patterns.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 06:12 AM on 13 December 2013Why is Antarctic sea ice growing?
The other big difference between the Arctic and Antarctic has to do with albedo effect. The change in planetary albedo that comes with Arctic sea ice loss is significant, and it's something to be very concerned about. But there is almost no change in the Antarctic sea ice minimum, and thus there is little to no change in planetary albedo at the south pole, positive or negative.
Deniers keep focusing on the Antarctic sea ice maximum as if it actually means anything at all. The maximum occurs during the late southern winter when there is very little sunlight hitting the pole, and thus any increase has a very small albedo effect related to it.
Something I've never seen is a chart of planetary albedo over time.
-
ubrew12 at 06:11 AM on 13 December 2013Why is Antarctic sea ice growing?
Is it acceptable to claim that Antarctic sea ice is 'increasing' from zero? Prior to 1979, when NASA begins its accounting, reconstructed sea ice was much higher than after 1979. As Arctic sea ice extent has been collapsing in extent in the last 30 years, Antarctic sea ice extent mostly collapsed in the 30 years prior to 1980. In any case, that's what I'm pulling away from this article by Tamino, in which he reconstructs both Polar sea ice extents all the way back to 1880::
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/10/16/history-of-arctic-and-antarctic-sea-ice-part-1/
Moderator Response:[RH] Hotlinked URL.
-
OPatrick at 05:49 AM on 13 December 2013Why is Antarctic sea ice growing?
Here, there is a much stronger seasonal ebb and flow to sea ice coverage as over 80% of the sea ice area grows each autumn-winter and decays each spring-summer.
With the recent drastic reduction in summer Arctic sea ice extent isn't this contrast now outdated? Last year the summer ice in the Arctic was below 25% of the winter extent.
-
Composer99 at 00:57 AM on 13 December 2013Past 150,000 Years of Sea Level History Suggests High Rates of Future Sea Level Rise
To take scaddenp's comment and elaborate it a bit, in no way do we need to view global warming as civilization-threatening to be motivated, even strongly motivated, to take action to mitigate it at a global level.
All we need is to have the following convictions:
- That mitigating warming, and preventing future warming, by emissions reductions, etc., is less expensive than adaptation/coping with the consequences of warming. Personally speaking, based on the probable consequences between 2050 and 2100, as far as I am concerned we have surpassed that point. Thus, mitigation/prevention, even very rapid mitigation/prevention, is the preferable course of action.
- That, if we are willing to consider the interests of others (in securing the basic necessities of life in a stable manner, and in securing occasional or intermittent access to luxuries) as being equal to our own, we have a moral obligation to reduce emissions in order to reduce the severity of the consequences of warming, which the evidence so far quite clearly shows will fall most heavily upon those least able to adapt to them.
I do not think either of these are in any way radical notions.
(Not to say that global warming could not be civilization-threatening if left unchecked; it very well could. My point is that you don't have to see it that way in order to support taking action on a society-wide scale.)
-
David Kirtley at 12:49 PM on 12 December 2013Behind the Lines: Herschel's Discovery of Infra-Red
Very interesting post! I love learning more about scientific discoveries of the past. Looking forward to more posts in this series.
-
scaddenp at 12:47 PM on 12 December 2013Past 150,000 Years of Sea Level History Suggests High Rates of Future Sea Level Rise
At no point before Bill chimed in, did anyone suggest climate would end civilization. He begins by attacking a strawman argument. It is a bizarre position to suggest that we should only take action on climate change if it was a threat to civilization (which his scenario over say 100 years would be, but still...). We should take action because it is the rational thing to do from point of view of both cost and risk. It is also the appropriate moral action from the point that those most affected by change are not the ones who are causing it.
-
Tom Curtis at 12:21 PM on 12 December 2013Past 150,000 Years of Sea Level History Suggests High Rates of Future Sea Level Rise
Bob Lacatena @29, you are correct about the balkanization of knowledge which is characteristic of our age, and that it makes us more vulnerable to a breakdown in society. I think you are incorrect in your estimate of the population loss that would be required to bring about that catastrophe. Except in areas of cutting edge research, the knowledge base is duplicated across several major nations, or groups of nations. Specifically, the US, Europe, Russia, Japan, and now China and India all now have sufficient knowledge to allow for the recovery of civilization without much loss of current knowledge if any of them survive largely intact. What is more, as casualties from global warming will be predominantly in poor, underdeveloped nations, they are also the nations (or groups of nations) most likely to survive with few casualties. If 10 or 20% of the world's population is lost, most of the losses will be in Africa with least in the most developed nations. Further, the missing knowledge, if any, following a 10% populatin loss, will be highly specialized, and consequently have marginal impact on world economic production.
The same cannot be said for a 90% loss, which of necissity must hit all nations very hard. Therefore, a 90% loss - ignoring the other impacts - does have the potential to end our civilization. Never-the-less I think sufficient knowledge would remain even then to survive as a civilization, if not at the advanced levels previously achieved, then at least at a technological level equivalent to that of the 1950s.
I think the far greater threat actually comes from the risk of sustained economic decline; and the end of substantial trade. Our civilization is critically dependent on complex trade networks. If these collapse, so will also the high standard of living that allows so many of us to devote so much time to learning. If all must grub for food in subsistence, or near subsistence farms, there will be no engineers or scientists to sustain the knowledge. Any event, particularly an ongoing even such as OA, ocean anoxia, and sustained very high temperatures which can knock out >20% of the population is also likely to knock us into sustained (multidecadal) negative economic growth, and potentially knock out the majority of the trade network, forcing each region to sustain its own population. The problem will not just be in the population loss, but in the ongoing conditions that caused that loss in the first place.
The end product may well be a fall back to a medieval level of technology, with a few advanced holdouts. Whether that counts as the end of our civilization or not, I think, is academic.
Further, I think that any event that can so stress the worlds nations is also a substantial risk of triggering major wars and potentially an all out nuclear exchange. In that respect, economic stress without population decline presents a greater risk. An all out nuclear exchange represents, of course, and a very high threat of extinction for our species.
Finally, although I regard Bill's comments as panglossian, I do not think it is fair to characterize him as a dissmissive. There are a range of rational views on climate change, from those that consider it a major problem but not a threat to our civilization or species, to those that consider it a threat to both. The threats to the later are, given the present state of knowledge, risks - not certainties.
-
Jonas at 12:14 PM on 12 December 2013Behind the Lines: Herschel's Discovery of Infra-Red
I am very grateful for all of the graphics done/presented on sks:
I reposted them many times over: 1 illustration can tell so much ...
(I wish I were a millionaire: then I could donate more to sks ...). -
Bob Lacatena at 07:21 AM on 12 December 2013Past 150,000 Years of Sea Level History Suggests High Rates of Future Sea Level Rise
Bill, you missed my point.
If you actually think the world can recover from the loss of 90% of the population, you need to re-evaluate things. I don't think we could recover from the loss of 20%, maybe even 10%.
Modern society is like a hive mind. Very intricate knowledge is squirrelled away in various people, and passed on in a stuttering variation on an oral tradition. Through schooling, apprenticing, trial and error, and experience, people get to understand one minute facet of how our society works, from international finance to aerospace engineering to oncology.
If you remove too much of that at once, basic services, like power, food production, processing and transport, and other things will devolve, and people won't be able to handle it. I think that far, far less than a 90% population loss will be needed to cripple civilization because of how very complex our society and its use of technology has become.
But even if you don't agree with that... you are a dismissive, even if you don't think that you are. If you have no sense of fear or urgency, because you beleive that we can overcome everything, simply because history shows that for the past 100 years we have done so, then... you are a dismissive. You dismiss the problem, not because you don't believe it exists, but because you believe it isn't large enough to worry you.
That is a serious problem that is facing us all, because there is a time limit, and there is a point after which it will be too late to take relevant action. More importantly, every year's delay makes the action that we will ultimately have to take than much more painful.
It just astounds me that dismissives are guaranteeing the one outcome that frightens them most, and are avoiding the path of rewarding (both economically and socially) growth that renewables and a say-no-to-fossil-fuels would bring.
-
nigelj at 04:56 AM on 12 December 2013New Video: Making the Plio Scene – What the Past tells us about Sea Level
Doug Hutcheson @2. The interesting thing is the book After the Ice is written by an archaeologist and agw sceptic, but then the sceptics will probably say hes not a "genuine" sceptic....
-
william5331 at 04:43 AM on 12 December 2013Global warming is unpaused and stuck on fast forward, new research shows
As the Arctic warms and more storms (low pressure systems) occur in the Arctic, the Arctic Oscillation will be positive more often than previously. Winds will more often be toward the Arctic rather than away. While this warms the Arctic, it takes heat away from lower latitudes which may explaing the temporary apparent cessation of warming of the atmosphere. After all, most of the sensors are in mid latitudes, not in the Arctic.
By the by, it should be amusing, the year after the year there is zero ice in September in the Arctic. There will probably be a recovery of some sort in this following year and no matter how small or big it is, the climate deniers will be able to claim an infinite ice recovery. (something divided by zero = infinity).
-
jdixon1980 at 01:57 AM on 12 December 2013Global warming is unpaused and stuck on fast forward, new research shows
Here is a direct link to the paper mentioned in the NYT article:
-
jdixon1980 at 01:55 AM on 12 December 2013Global warming is unpaused and stuck on fast forward, new research shows
I'm sorry, only the first link above has anything to do with the "pause"/"slowdown" - maybe PFTBA link should be snipped.
-
jdixon1980 at 01:53 AM on 12 December 2013Global warming is unpaused and stuck on fast forward, new research shows
Any thoughts on these recent MSM pieces on the "pause"?
A NYT article saying that the pause can be largely attributed to the phase-out of ozone depleting chemicals that also happened to be strong GHG's. Then, practically in the same breath, it goes on to say that the HFC's that replaced some of the banned/phased-out ozone depleting chemicals are also strong GHG's. The missing link that would make a cogent story is that the HFC's are not as strong GHG's as the chemicals they replaced, but confusingly, the author says nothing about that.
http://phys.org/news/2013-12-perfluorotributylamine-long-lived-greenhouse-gas.html
An article about perfluorotributylamine (PFTBA), an electronics testing / heat transfer agent chemical, which is apparently the most potent GHG of them all. I include this as MSM because I heard about it on the radio last night (I think I was listening to WBEZ, Chicago's NPR station) - it always catches my attention when I passively hear climate "news" on the radio or TV because I'm so used to seeking out most of it online. I'm having trouble figuring out if anybody knows how much PFTBA there is floating around up there. Wiley Online only seems to have Geophysical Research Letters through 16-Nov-2013, and I believe the above link says that the PFTBA article published 27-Nov-2013. I suspect the overall effect of PFTBA is probably tiny compared to that of excess CO2 because of far lower concentration in the atmosphere, but wouldn't want to assume.
-
Composer99 at 00:48 AM on 12 December 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #50A
Bother - make that appareciate appreciate. (Move along, nothing to see here.)
(If there is a list of people suggesting the addition of a "Preview" option in the comment form the next time there is a user interface upgrade here, add me to it.)
-
Composer99 at 00:44 AM on 12 December 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #50A
Trevor_S:
Widespread counter-cultural movements were launched in the 1960s & 1970s predicated on the notion that voluntary personal action/activism would be sufficient, as a substitute for the large-scale organization and legislative/regulatory efforts of trade unionists and suffragettes of prior decades, to radically transform the world.
We can say with a high degree of confidence that such efforts failed spectacularly, and follow-up efforts (e.g. punk-style activism in the 1980s, or the anti-globalization movement of the 1990s) which also avoided extensive social mobilization or any particular effort to influence the legislative or regulatory environment have also failed.
It is also clear that there are a large number of people who are making every effort to reduce their personal carbon emissions, including quite a few regular participants at Skeptical Science. Global carbon emissions continue to increase, despite their best efforts.
It is also clear that there are a large number of people who are not merely lazy or complacent while being aware of the problems posed by global warming, but apathetic or actively hostile to the notion that they ought to reduce their carbon emissions.
As far as I can see, without a change in the legislative/regulatory environment among major carbon emitters, the trajectory of carbon emissions is not going to change. Changing the regulatory environment doesn't demand lifestyle changes from the citizenry, only vocal support. The lifestyle changes will come. You don't have to accept the facts of global warming to appareciate, say, that switching to renewables for electricity will save you $$ when there's hefty carbon pricing on coal.
TL,DR: Both the article you are commenting on, and your post, appear to amount to blaming people for Wanting Nice Things. That might be satisfying, but as far as I can see it is ultimately unproductive as a method of reducing emissions on a societal scale.
-
chriskoz at 23:13 PM on 11 December 2013Global warming is unpaused and stuck on fast forward, new research shows
Time to update the top right widget guys, to 6HB/s?
It maybe a silly comment however I cannot help but saying the main science (i.e. IPCC and even widget now) underestimate AGW according to ignorant statistics. The best experts, e.g. Hansen, Stefan and now Kevin Trenberth, are saying "the better we look into the climate the more sensitive it appears to be". Even our own CW2013 provide some more evidence. Perhaps it's time to revise all Earth sensitivity parameters, less than 2 months after the releae of AR5!
-
adamski5807 at 19:26 PM on 11 December 2013Media failure on Iraq War repeated in climate change coverage
Here is a poll demonstrating the public's sheer ignorance of the facts regarding the Iraq war. On issues that challenge Power (war, climate change, alternative economic systems), educating the public on the truth is persona no grata for the 4th Estate for the Propaganda Model. Only about 6% of the UK public is aware of the Iraq death toll's order of magnitude. http://www.comres.co.uk/polls/Iraqi_death_toll_survey_June_2013.pdf -
adamski5807 at 19:03 PM on 11 December 2013Media failure on Iraq War repeated in climate change coverage
Smith @22. Big deal. Is GDP a good measure of progress? -
Trevor_S at 13:57 PM on 11 December 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #50A
From the article, "Thanks for Killing the Planet Boomers"
it’s hard to imagine our politicians coming together to make the kind of wholesale changes to our society and economic structure necessary to bring global emissions down to a sustainable level.
So he (as are many others) are continuing to prodigiously emit while they wait for others to stop them be it with law, fiscal impost or technology ?
There are plenty of things you can do to cut back considerably on your emissions now: live in a milder climate, no flying, no meat eating pets, install renewables, stop buying so much "stuff", no car, lower your beef consumption and replace it with veg, etc. I would suggest one of them would not be living in New York or Las Vegas (of all places) before that, as per the author. I shudder to think how much CO2e he outsoruces.
It seems to me comentators like this (and they are legion) are expecting some sort of devinve intervention to sort it out, refusing to moidify their lifestyle, to ameliorate their emissions. Bad enough we get the "burn, baby, burn" from deniers, let alone the equivalent action from those who understand the consequences of AGW. Buying a reusable shopping bag just doesn't cut it.
The person doing the emitting is the person looking back at you from the mirror in the morning. You stop emitting, there are less emissions. Everyone has an excuse as to why they don't reduce and this is then replicated by Government inaction.
-
Doug Hutcheson at 13:54 PM on 11 December 2013New Video: Making the Plio Scene – What the Past tells us about Sea Level
Excellent resource to link to, when fighting the blogosphere wars. Of course, the contrarians will only point to it as proof of yet another conspiracy ...
-
One Planet Only Forever at 13:51 PM on 11 December 2013Global warming is unpaused and stuck on fast forward, new research shows
Ken in Oz,
I agree with what you have said, but many would not. Not because they can justify their opinion. Just because accepting this understanding would not be in their interest.
Efforts to help people better understand any issue are indeed helpful, but there will always be a portion of the population that is unwilling to better understand something when 'it is likely not in their interest to better understand it'.
What is unfortunate is how greed can cause people to want to believe what cannot be justified. Greedy people can always find fault with 'things that would show how unacceptable their desired pursuits are'.
This issue is a great case study of the power of greed to affect the way people think, and its power to affect what they are willing to investigate more deeply and actually better understand.
There have been many excellent presentations of what is being observed (not the forecasts, just the observed facts to date), that clearly indicate the flaws of claims that are made against the need for humans to stop burning fossil fuels so rapidly. They are made here, on other websites, and are even presented in mainstream media. Yet the unjustifiable claims continue to get repeated. Popularity clearly does not correlate with rational justification. The power of greed to affect people's behaviour is very significant. That is what the really greedy people among us count on.
Prev 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 Next
