Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 Next
Comments 40851 to 40900:
-
funglestrumpet at 07:19 AM on 10 November 20132013 Gap Report Strengthens Case for Wide-Ranging Global Action to Close Emissions Gap
Perhaps all that there is left is for the scientific community to do is to wash its hands en masse of the IPCC, while expressing the sentiment that there is no longer any point in informing a political class that clearly has no intention of behaving in a responsible manner as far as climate change is concerned.
If they refused to attend any congressional or parliamentary hearings, ignored all requests for interviews and only continue their scientific exploration of climate change in order to provide future generations with an measure of what was known and therefore the enormity of the irresponsibility that the failure to act represents. In addition, they will see the enormity of the crime collectively committed by Inhofe, Monckton, Lawson and their like. The archives will show the almost complete failure of the media to behave responsibly and do what society rewards them handsomely to do, namely inform the public. They can have no defence when public opinion is so divided on the issue while there is an overwhelming scientific consensus. While these people might escape public opprobrium today, I imagine their heirs would be subject to some attention by those most afflicted by climate change as Mother Nature gets into her stride in turning up the thermostat. Who knows, they might even be stripped of their inherited wealth, especially if there is good reason to suspect that that wealth has at least in part been funded by the fossil fuel industry. One thing we can be sure of is that society will not be genteel in the conditions that it seems are inevitable.
Or we can carry on with the 'same old same old', wring our hands, gnash our teeth and achieve about as much as has been achieved thus far, i.e. precious little. Let’s be honest with ourselves at least. We know where climate change is headed, we know what needs to be done and we know that without something very dramatic happening, that our heirs are in for a very poor time of it because nothing is going to be done.
Perhaps an en masse resignation from the IPCC might be a step too far, but a week long strike on the part of all climate scientists would grab the attention of the politicians, especially the threat of longer strikes if the politicians continue to only give lip service to the problem. I suspect that it would come as a surprise to the general public to learn just how much they rely on climate science for their day to day needs, especially weather forecasts that are based on exactly the same science that climate forecasts well into the future also rely on. The public need to be made aware of the commonality between the two.
The fossil fuel industry has shown a ready willingness to play hard ball. Perhaps the time has come for the science community to do likewise. In fact, perhaps there is no perhaps about it.
-
william5331 at 04:30 AM on 10 November 2013Climate contrarians are more celebrity than scientist
I just don't understand the right wing of various countries and especially those in the US of A. By and large, the Republicans and their nutty fringe, the Tea Party, seem to contain a huge proportion of religious fundamentalists. By contrast, the Democrats, the left wing, seem rather rich in atheists and agnostics. I mean, can you imagine someone like Bill Maher in the US or Richard Dawkins in the UK belonging to the right wing. Not on your Nelly.
In the good book that the Religious right constantly harks back to, god gave us dominion over the beasts in the fields, the birds in the Air and the fish in the sea. Dad was passing on the family business to us. He didn't specifically say, "take care of it" but I think we would be justified in assuming that was his intention.
Why is it then that by and large, the religious right that wants to drill, mine, log fish, and exploit the environment with no thought for the future while the agnostic left wants to preserve gods bounty.
*Senator Joe Barton of Texas just tried to deny climate change by saying that the biblical flood was an indication of climate change before there was any significant increase in CO2. Jeeessssh!!
**Read Farley Mowat's book, Sea of Slaughter.
Moderator Response:[JH] Correction. Joe Barton is a member of the U.S. House of Representatives. He is not a member of the U.S. Senate.
-
shoyemore at 21:01 PM on 9 November 2013Just Deserts: Winning the 2011 Eureka Prize
Congrats from Ireland, John, to all the SkS team!
-
TonyW at 13:23 PM on 9 November 20132013 Gap Report Strengthens Case for Wide-Ranging Global Action to Close Emissions Gap
Strengthening pledges will do nothing to reduce emissions. Only actions can do that. I see no evidence of any likelihood that governments will even begin to take the actions necessary. When you add to that that 2C is probably too high of a limit (as Kevin Anderson has mentioned) and 450ppm is probably too high of a limit (as James Hansen has mentioned), we had better prepare ourselves (individually) for a huge change in the future. The best I can hope for is that the deterioration isn't too great for the next 30 years, which would likely see me out) but my kids (and theirs) are going to get it in the neck. -
scaddenp at 09:11 AM on 9 November 20132013 Gap Report Strengthens Case for Wide-Ranging Global Action to Close Emissions Gap
"relationship between the small generator and the big power company". The trouble I think is in expectations. Why should a power company be expected to buy from the big generators at one price but have to pay effectively much higher retail price when buying from home producers? And yet, this is often what grid-feed solar installers often seem to think is their entitlement. Furthermore, the network provider is more or less forced to take the power since home producers dont participate in the generation market bidding.
Given the large proportion of electrcity from renewable sources in NZ, home solar power isnt as environmentally friendly as in say Germany (where the alternative is nuclear, gas or coal). At least until electric cars are common.
What would make sense for encouraging more solar power, would be targeted rates available to people wanting to install solar and in situations where there is say 3000-4000 hours of sunshine a year. This ties the capital cost (and its repayment) to the house rather than the person.
-
Alexandre at 07:00 AM on 9 November 2013Climate contrarians are more celebrity than scientist
It is weird to see religion get so involved in this anti-science fight. My hunch is that this is mainly a by-product of anti-regulation lobbies that end up using religion to manipulate people against science.
I'm no fierce defender of my homeland Brazil - plenty of dumb problems and avoidable errors here - but here there's no debate, for example, whether evolution should be taught in schools. It simply is, as it should be. In general, science does not bother the Church (mainly Catholic here) and vice versa. I consider myself to be a fairly good catholic and no scientific knowledge bothers my faith.
Religious right-wing politicians here (in turn mainly protestant) usually lobby against things like abortion, or gay marriage, or noise restrictions (because of loud services...) I'm not with them on these issues, but at least I think they make sense - I think that's what concerns religion.
Religious people should not let their causes be hijacked by destructive, selfish, and utterly non-religious motives. Man, religion against environmentalism? Really?
-
dhogaza at 06:30 AM on 9 November 2013Climate contrarians are more celebrity than scientist
The sagebrush rebellion itself was for the most part a genuine grass-roots movement. It lost steam after ronald reagan was elected in part because of his endorsement of one of the goals of the movement: the ceding to the states of most federal BLM grazing lands. Unfortunately for the ranchers involved in the sagebrush rebellion, Reagan embraced it partially for economic reasons: getting rid of federal grazing lands would lead to an end of federal subsidies to ranchers who graze on federal lands. And western states, for the most part, weren't (and aren't) nearly as generous in doling out public funds to ranchers who graze on state lands. Once ranchers understood that winning their battle against federal control of most of western grazing lands meant they'd lose their substantial subsidy (by various measures federal grazing permits were priced anywhere from $2 to $6 per "animal grazing unit" (cow-calf pair) under market value, it's even more extreme now), their interest in seeing the feds shed these lands waned.
The "wise use" movement has largely been an astroturf affair, as mentioned. Lots of money from large mining companies, in particular gold mining (fighting looming regulations on cyanide heap leach technology, which was mostly unregulated in the 1980s).
-
william5331 at 04:26 AM on 9 November 20132013 Gap Report Strengthens Case for Wide-Ranging Global Action to Close Emissions Gap
The only way we are going to reduce carbon emissions is if/when renewable energy is less expensive than fossil fuel energy. We are very likely there already with solar-electric but what is missing is a legislated relationship between the small generator and the big power company which is fair to both and for governments to stop trying to milk the adoption of solar energy for revenue. Wind power is also there but here the governments must give a hand proving or disproving the allegations of the anti-wind loby and if any true negative effects are found, help to mitigate them. We are at the point where the problems are human/political/greed, not technical.
http://mtkass.blogspot.co.nz/2013/10/solar-power-and-ratchet.html
http://mtkass.blogspot.co.nz/2013/06/solar-electric-not-worth-it.html
http://mtkass.blogspot.co.nz/2013/04/solar-electric-whats-missing.html
-
Dikran Marsupial at 03:43 AM on 9 November 2013Hans Rosling:
200300 years of global change
He says: "There is a myth that humans used to live in ecological balance ... they died in ecological balance".
I think Malthus addressed that myth some time ago!
The point about us having reached "peak child" is not completely good news. As the population becomes more heavily skewed towards the old it means that either the elderly need to work to support themselves, or those of working age will have to work harder to support those who can no longer support themselves. As pension funds are already under strain, this is bad news even for the west. It is a good thing if global population is kept within the bounds that the Earths resources can actually support, but the transition would not be comfortable even in the absence of climate change.
-
Doug Bostrom at 16:49 PM on 8 November 2013Climate contrarians are more celebrity than scientist
Speaking from his uniquely, ironically qualified perspective, Richard Lindzen:
"When an issue like global warming is around for over twenty years, numerous agendas are developed to exploit the issue."
Dr. Lindzen liked the sound of that piece so well that he offered it to two different publishers, with each accepting it. One of those publishers appears to have made an exception to accomodate the duplication, taking it on over 2 years after it was originally published.
-
Bernard J. at 12:44 PM on 8 November 20132013 Gap Report Strengthens Case for Wide-Ranging Global Action to Close Emissions Gap
There's certainly much that can be done, but the elephant in the room is the collection of vested interests who have no desire to see such action and who have an unfortunate and disproportionate influence on what happens.
From Pricing carbon: the politics of climate policy in Australia:
The politics of climate change in Australia, its carbon pricing politics in particular, is subject to complex and interrelated influences, with political and economic interests largely shaping the policy agenda over the last two decades. The objection of the carbon based industrial lobby to carbon pricing has long been a significant obstacle to the adoption of a carbon tax or an ETS, as has the influence of neoliberal and conservative politics. Normative shifts have been achieved at times, however, providing fleeting windows of opportunity to act, under the Hawke and Rudd governments in particular. However, neither government was able to withstand industry pressure or to provide the leadership required to achieve change. Ironically the most successful government in terms of achieving carbon pricing was the Gillard Labor minority government, which needed to act decisively in order to honor its written agreement with its Green political supporters. The MPCCC process established as agreed between Labor and the Greens, brought in the independents, who were then involved in shaping and agreeing to the carbon pricing mechanism and its passage through parliament. The fragile politics of minority government, with its distinctive uncertainty and bargaining opportunities, has therefore led directly to carbon pricing in Australia by providing for institutional processes that were secure against industry lobbying. However, these processes cannot guarantee that the government withstands industry lobbying during the implementation of carbon pricing nor that it ultimately achieves effective emissions abatement.
(WIREs Clim Change 2013, 4:603–613. doi: 10.1002/wcc.239)
-
Andy Skuce at 08:12 AM on 8 November 2013Hans Rosling:
200300 years of global change
More Rosling quiz questions here at the BBC.
Can you do better than a chimp? Can you do better than an educated Briton?
(Chimps outperform even educated Brits, apparently.)
-
chriskoz at 06:55 AM on 8 November 2013Book review - The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars now Available in Paperback
doug_bostrom@17,
Well said. hank_@7 brought our attention to sensationalism of twitters (often distorted when re-tweeted in blogosphere) that have nothing to do with science, or even with scientists' integrity, but something to do with knee jerk reaction of eccentric people. I don't follow such stuff.
But in this case (because I called hank_ "baseless troller" which I'm backing up) I looked it up found out the "sensational" facts to be:
1. Wilson publicly called Mann's recent work "a crock of shit"
2. Mann responded by tweeting: "‘Closet #climatechange #denier Rob Wilson, comes out of the closet big time. #BadScience #DisingenuousBehavior’. But hw has deleted this twitt since.
That looks like an engagement in a "pig wrestling fight" from Mann's part, a fight started by Wilson. Everyone, including Mann, is subject to strange knee jerk reactions and I don't comment on that. When Mann realised the inappropriateness of his knee jerk reaction in public, he backed off silently. Here at SkS, we should also back off our cheers on the pig ring. Wait until the news about a validity of Wilson's critique.
-
John Hartz at 06:46 AM on 8 November 2013Book review - The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars now Available in Paperback
All:
Doug Bostrom and Rob Honeycutt have both reponded to hank_'s most recent comment. Please resist the tempatation to chime in. Dogpilling is also prohibited by the SkS Comment Policy.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 06:28 AM on 8 November 2013Book review - The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars now Available in Paperback
Hank_ @7... "He seems too petty..."
That's a fascinating comment considering the organized storm of perpetual pettiness that has be directed toward Dr Mann for a decade or more.
Why would you not be more critical of the attacks on Dr Mann? I mean, people who have little to no understanding of his research (people who've never read his papers) are still ragging on MBH98/99 when the research is now almost 15 years old. And since then his work has been confirmed by more than a dozen similar studies.
-
Doug Bostrom at 05:15 AM on 8 November 2013Book review - The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars now Available in Paperback
Pardon me, Hank. I found myself suddenly realizing that-- as is so often the case-- we found ourselves discussing Mike Mann's character.
I guess in a twisted way it's appropriate; Mann's entire book hinges on what happens when we stop talking about facts and go instead to discussing the character of the person who happens to be reporting.
-
shoyemore at 05:01 AM on 8 November 2013Book review - The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars now Available in Paperback
First book I downloaded to my Kindle last year.
Great read, however Kindle does not do do a great job of the charts.
So buy the paperback if it just a few extra dollars or euros.
-
hank_ at 04:48 AM on 8 November 2013Book review - The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars now Available in Paperback
"Come to think of it, Hank, why did you bring it up at all?"
I'm expressing my opinion, bro, as you have expressed yours. Is that not what we do here in the coments section?
Moderator Response:[JH] You've expressed your opinion. Please move on.
BTW, Excessive repitition is prohibited by the SKS Comment Policy.
-
Doug Bostrom at 04:14 AM on 8 November 2013Book review - The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars now Available in Paperback
Fair enough, but why try to score points on twitter by publicly spanking a collegue when an email would suffice?
Fellow A publicly calls fellow B's work "a crock of shit" but fellow B is expected to respond only privately?
That's a ridiculous proposition.
Wilson set the tone, Mann only followed the rules of the game as Wilson made them. Wilson calibrated the Golden Rule: hyperbolically denigrate others as you would have them do the same to you.
To talk about this imaginary problem at all is to buy into and feed the synthetic, expedient, fake outrage some people are desperate for us to feel against Mann. Come to think of it, Hank, why did you bring it up at all?
-
jja at 04:01 AM on 8 November 20132013 Gap Report Strengthens Case for Wide-Ranging Global Action to Close Emissions Gap
widescale installation of specific and highly subisidized efficiency products can reduce national residential electricity consumption by over 40%. Japan is projecting to install over 30 million micro Combined Heat and Power units by 2030 in preperation for a shift to a hydrogen-based economy by 2070.
The average u.s. residential solar installation is 7 kW. Typically a home can produce enough electricity to provide its entire average annual demand with a 3.5-4.5 kW system.
By shifting to comprehensive residential solar, community-sourced and municipally sourced solar, wind, micro CHP and efficiency, the u.s. carbon emissions profile can be reduced by over 80% in the next 20 years.
Europe Micro CHP trialThe Era of Air-Sourced Heat Pumps is Here
-
ubrew12 at 03:11 AM on 8 November 2013Book review - The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars now Available in Paperback
"I couldn't help wondering what the attackers thought will happen" By 'making an example of someone', you teach the population to avoid 'going there' on certain topics. Certain (Conservative) people are being taught, by example, that its OK to bully those who are concerned about Climate Change. And those who ARE concerned are taught not to vocalize their concern. Frankly, this is a highly effective tactic that is responsible for the lack of progress on a RANGE of issues, if that progress would upset someone's profit stream, not just Climate Change (Healthcare in America, Gun Control in America, Income Inequality, etc).
In Hitlers Germany, the Fascists couldn't just disagree with the communists: they had to make an example of them by attacking them in the street. Thus conditioned into silence, the population could be herded more easily into what came later.
-
hank_ at 03:09 AM on 8 November 2013Book review - The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars now Available in Paperback
@doug_bostrom
"The conversation between Mann and Wilson is a mundane academic spat.." Fair enough, but why try to score points on twitter by publicly spanking a collegue when an email would suffice? It looks bush league, imo. Righly or wrongly, he has been placed on an academic pedastel, at least in the AGW sector. And like anyone in the public eye, things like that are given added weight because of his high profile. Is that ridiculous? Maybe. But such is life in the internet age.
To many out there, Mann's Climate Wars book is one long attempt to document how others have disrespected him. IMO, if he wants respect he should exercise more care on the front lines of Twitter.
-
Doug Bostrom at 02:18 AM on 8 November 2013Book review - The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars now Available in Paperback
Everybody's perspective of Mann is distorted, through particular fault of his own beyond being curious about a particular thing at a particularly sensitive point in time. A baying pack of cranks have chosen to elevate him to demigod status and now all of us-- cranks included, of course-- expect him to behave like a saint or use his lack of saintliness as a propaganda weapon.
Mann is still the person he was before he blundered into the thing for which we chose to make him famous. Despite his peculiar circumstances Mann doesn't walk on water, he's just another person with foibles. Is he supposed to behave according to our model of his ideal, keep mum to make us happy? That's not reasonable, even if Mann had not been hounded beyond all patience.
The conversation between Mann and Wilson is a mundane academic spat that we have chosen to make important. We don't have the right to expect Mann to follow our rules. Should he not have a Twitter account, because we're afraid he'll disappoint us?
"We like it when you write a book excoriating our enemies, Dr. Mann, but you make us squeamish when you tweet rudely." Good golly, how ridiculous we've become.
-
hank_ at 01:08 AM on 8 November 2013Book review - The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars now Available in Paperback
@vrooomie - Thank you, you've explained it much better than I could have.
FaceBook is one thing, you can write a whole article there. Twitter, with it's limited text space and hair trigger response time, requires some thought before posting for those who lash out too quickly. It's beneath someone of Mann's stature to be petty on Twitter and he needs to realize that he isn't helping his image by doing so.
-
wili at 00:39 AM on 8 November 20132013 Gap Report Strengthens Case for Wide-Ranging Global Action to Close Emissions Gap
"increasing the need to rely on faster energy-efficiency improvements and biomass with carbon capture and storage"
Yes, of course, we have to push ahead on every efficiency and alternative energy program that can realistically help reduce our carbon footprint. But all these things take time, and time is what we have least of. Fast reductions now will be much more crucial than gradual reductions over years and decades for keeping atmospheric CO2 levels from skyrocketing.
It is only the demand side that can change as fast as what we need. We have to give up the idea that we have the luxury to continue to use energy (from whatever source) at the levels we are now using it. Cutting energy (and other resource use) of the wealthiest 20% in the world (who use about 80% of the same) by about 25 %, and you suddenly have a situation that looks much more favorable for scaling up renewables and efficiency fast enough to replace nearly all ff in the next few years, which is what we have to do.
Note that energy and resource use above a certain minimal level has not been shown to greatly increase happiness, so on one level this does not even require sacrifice, though it may feel like it at first.
Of course the eternal question is "Who will bell the cat."For more, do see one of Kevin Anderson's talks. He really does seem to have gotten it mostly right.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RInrvSjW90U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KumLH9kOpOI
Or his opinion piece in "Nature: Climate Change" here:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n9/full/nclimate1681.html -
vrooomie at 00:12 AM on 8 November 2013Book review - The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars now Available in Paperback
chriskoz, it's not baseless trolling: a few weeks ago, when Mann called a noted dendrochronologist (Rob Wilson) a "denier," just because Wilson critiqued Mann's tree ring work--academically, mind you--then Mann had to walk it back, is just one example.
I admire Mann, and I understand he's been a target of unrelenting *real* baseless trolling, for years: however on this and a few other circumstances, Mann *reacts* badly to anyone who critiques his work. In this example, above, Mann came off as reacticve, thin-skinned, and it was generally acknowledged to be a bad move on Mann's part. That kind of 'own goal' does not serve well the job us realists are trying to do, to overturn the fake skeptics' muddying of the waters.
-
chriskoz at 19:36 PM on 7 November 2013Book review - The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars now Available in Paperback
hank_@7,
Can you please give a specific example when Mike Mann "comes across very poorly"?
If you don't, I declare your comment baseless trolling, because myself, having read HSCW and followed MM's FB, cannot find such example.
-
hank_ at 17:00 PM on 7 November 2013Book review - The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars now Available in Paperback
I think Mike Mann could improve his image greatly and possibly lessen some of the "attacks" if he would just drop his Twitter account. He seems too petty in his responses to any dissent, even from fellow scientists, and comes across very poorly. Just my humble opinion.
-
scaddenp at 13:30 PM on 7 November 2013Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Back in 2011, DB noted on a cruzn246 post that "For the newcomers, cruzn246's last 40 comments here dating back to September 26 have all consisted of comments just like this: a derivative denial of the topic of the post, followed by other commenters chiming in to help correct the errors in his/her comments. Despite numerous pointers and links to sources, you persist in your misbeliefs. That is your right. But it is clear to all the position you come from."
Are you prepared to actually discuss and be prepared to back your assertions? If you are just criusing by making random uninformed statements, then I suggest you stop wasting peoples time. You could begin by telling which scientists have claimed to have it all figured out and what their ages are. (Experts are usually greybeards).
Your opening remarks are answered in opening really of the AR4 and 5 WG1 reports.Why dont you read them so you know what it is you are trying to critique> Eg see here. (CO2 1.68W/m2 versus -0.15 for landuse change). Quantified enough for you? Modellers are also actually very clear on what they can or cannot predict. Checked to see what these are or are you content repeating a straw man argument from some denier site?
Moderator Response:[JH] If cruzn426's future posts are like his last two, they will be promptly be deleted for violating the SkS Comment Policy.
-
Tom Curtis at 12:48 PM on 7 November 2013Book review - The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars now Available in Paperback
At some risk of piling on, Harringay's fatuous comment that "When we *do* have genuine solution(s), there will suddenly be an absence of deniers" is disproved by the number of scientific findings that do not require solutions, but still attract their share of deniers. The most obvious case is the denial of evolution by creationists, but we must not forget the denial of the curvature of the Earth, and the denial that the Sun is at the center of the solar system (both of which still attract adherents in small numbers). Cases in which solutions already exist, and are being put into practise, but in which denial still persists are also easilly found. Examples include HIV aids, CFCs, and of course, vaccination.
-
cruzn246 at 12:29 PM on 7 November 2013Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
97 of 100 is poppycock. It was 75 out of 77.
Moderator Response:[JH] Any way you slice it, 97% equals 97 out of 100.
-
cruzn246 at 12:24 PM on 7 November 2013Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
The question makes my head spin. It is loose enough for a goose. What it doesn't address is what is the specific cause and how much is man resonsible. Signicant is in the eye of the beholder. 0.1F would qualify for some.
So...... what climate scientist would think we have zero impact? Very few. We have bulldozed and burned well over 50% of the forests over the last 300 years, among other things. Of course the study doesn't go into the how much CO2 imapcts because they don't want the debate to start. It does not fit the yes/no simplicity.
I have seen quite a few of the 97%ers squirm a bit when asked how much, or whether they buy model projections. Many tend to take a "not sure how much" and "I'll wait before I endrose a model" type positions. That is what a real scientist would say. I remember seeing a few of them on a Weather Channel Special. Can you blame them? It's not warming now.
The guys who think we have it all figured out seem to be too young to know better. Science aint that easy
Moderator Response:[JH] Unsubstantiaed global assertions are akin to sloganeering which is prohibited by the SkS Comment Policy. Please read the Comment Policy and comply with it.
-
Byron Smith at 09:35 AM on 7 November 2013It's not happening
I think this answer ought to be updated with the more detailed graphic over here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=8 -
Dave123 at 09:02 AM on 7 November 2013Oceans heating up faster now than in the past 10,000 years, says new study
Chris-
I had this from CO2 Science reposted on WUWT that thrown at me yesterday:
"Was there a Medieval Warm Period somewhere in the world in addition to the area surrounding the North Atlantic Ocean, where its occurrence is uncontested?"
So you see the reframing game was begun a while ago- a deniers conned into thinking their claim was not "the MWP was just like now, only warmer" but instead "the MWP wasn't only in the area surrounding the north atlantic, so we wiiiiiin". Moving goal posts...the usual "if mainstream climate science isn't 100% right it's 100% wrong, while denier memes if 1% right are 100% right" double standard.
-
scaddenp at 08:38 AM on 7 November 2013Book review - The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars now Available in Paperback
Harraygay - Perhaps you can tell us what you mean by a "genuine" solution? A genuine solution is stop using fossil fuels. However, that obviously creates the new problem of where do we get our energy from?
There are some "genuine" solutions to this problem too, including nuclear power or using less energy.
It would appear (but please correct me if wrong) that you mean a solution that doesnt involve paying more your energy or using less energy or accepting greater risks (though that will still mean fossil fuel providers and investing continuing to deny).
What if there is no such solution? The universe is not necessarily configured to supply us with unlimited energy. Are you happy to go on warming and watch people how didnt create the problem bear the brunt of the damage? -
Don9000 at 08:07 AM on 7 November 2013Book review - The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars now Available in Paperback
Harrangay@1
I'll grant you half of your thesis--that deniers argue or think or believe "there is no problem," but I disagree with your characterization the other side or those you call "greenies." It is especially annoying to see you employ the stale denier ploy of claiming that we need to conduct more reseach and do some more research before we can "jump to a solution." That sounds to me like a denier excuse for inaction, and I'd add that no one who grasps the severity of the problem confronting us thinks we will ever be able to "jump to a solution." It is going to be a long, hard slog.
To use another old saw, advocating for inaction where global warming is concerned strikes me as being decidedly akin to strumming a lyre while your city burns down around you because you aren't quite sure if it was Mrs. O'Leary's cow that started the fire, or a bunch of disreputable Christians. -
Timothy Chase at 07:46 AM on 7 November 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #45A
Regarding "Crazy climate"... The link to the NBC website is now broken. People should instead use:'Crazy' climate re-engineering could reduce vital rains, study says by John Roach, NBC News, Nov 1, 2013
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/crazy-climate-re-engineering-could-reduce-vital-rains-study-says-8C11511636Moderator Response:[JH] Thank you for the updated link.
-
Doug Bostrom at 07:17 AM on 7 November 2013Book review - The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars now Available in Paperback
Harringray, as you imply solutions are separate from requirements. By and large, deniers are strenuously denying requirements.
"The vessel is sinking. What can we do to fix it?"
"The vessel isn't sinking. The water in the hull is part of a natural tidal cycle."
Etc.
-
Andy Skuce at 06:09 AM on 7 November 2013Book review - The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars now Available in Paperback
I am told that if you order direct from Columbia University Press and use the promo code HOCMAN then you will get a special 30% discount.
This offer is exclusively for readers of SkS and the Internet.
-
harringay at 05:20 AM on 7 November 2013Book review - The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars now Available in Paperback
Deniers: there is no problem
Greenies: we have the solution
Both are false -- there *is* a problem, but, as with all problems, but we can't jump to a solution without more thinking and research. When we *do* have genuine solution(s), there will suddenly be an absence of deniers
-
davidnewell at 03:29 AM on 7 November 2013Climate Science History - interactive style
@ One Planet Only Forever.
Right on; Agreed. The last 6 decades have seen the increasingly "effective" development of "anti-life" mechanisms, but the "seeds" were (IMHO) planted during the Renaissance, when the scientific deductive reasoning "skillset" was added to the "tools" of human development, along with an attitude towards "nature" that it was separate, and needed to have it's secrets ripped out by whatever means necessary.
I think this latter pont was explicitly state by Thomas Bacon in some diatribe or another.
Speculatively, in regard to your expression of the need for a "new age of enlightenment", I agree as well. There is at least a distant cause for hope that this may occur, since it rquires a "step back" into seeing the Creation as Holy (caps provided for clarity), combined with an appreciation that "this is all we got", and (most significantly) We are Part of It. Which your user name infers.
The fact that there are "early adopters" beginniing to express the same thing, constitutes a means for hope.
Regards..
-
chriskoz at 00:44 AM on 7 November 2013Oceans heating up faster now than in the past 10,000 years, says new study
CBDunkerson & Dave123,
I concur. We cannot make a conclusion about the total OHC based on a study from a single ocean temp proxy, even if that proxy suggests the local water temperature fell by as much as 2degrees during Holocene. Local variability of water T may seem to be higher than global average but it shoul not be indicative of global conditions. Therefore, I would not suggest the "disconnect between ocean cooling pre-1950 and rising sea levels over the same period" as barry@1 did. Besides, SLR does not depend on water temp only - a study about SLR should take into account other factors, like melting/re-freezing of icesheets, postglacial isostatic rebound.
However the conclusion than present rate of T change is unprecedented can be concluded from one proxy as in this study; moreover the current rate (about 0.18degree per century) is global. So, this globaly averaged, therefore less varying change is higher than the change recorded at the subject proxy (2degree/10ka = 0.02/century).
Not only MWP has been denounced in recent research as misnomer (because the warming was likely not universal, therfore MCA would be better name), the same applies to LIA. For example, Mike Lockwood concluded that LIA, commonly thought to be caused by Maunder Minimum, was likely a local Arctic dipole phenomenon. Mike describes his study of LIA in this blog post, written in response to silly misinterpreting spinoffs.
So, there is growing evidence, that AGW in last century is unique to Holocene. Its uniqueness evidenced by unprecedented rate of change in all climate indicators. When we look at the rate of change, AGW stands out easily. Comparing the absolute values of said indicators (i.e. arguing if MWP was warmer) does make lesser sense because AWG will not stad out beyond the uncertainties.
-
skymccain at 18:09 PM on 6 November 2013Climate Science History - interactive style
Very well done. Thanks for all the hard work.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:39 PM on 6 November 2013Climate Science History - interactive style
nrgmahtahs,
I would suggest that a better basis for the discussion, and a book, would be a presentation of all the unsustainable aspects of "industrialization and mass consumption".
The last 6 decades or so of human history (the life's work of many), will be seen as a damaging moment in the history of humanity, a moment of stupendously damaging unsustainable excess by the most fortunate, and those desperately trying to be more like those most fortunate.
Hopefully, common sense, civility and decency will prevail. And sites like this are very helpful. They provide ways to help people better understand what is going on regarding one of the many important issues highlighting the unsustainbilty of the current global economy.
We are (need to be) on the brink of a "new age of enlightenment". The current popular attitudes and pursuits of pleasure and profit are not leading to a sustainable better future for all life on this one planet we have the potential to enjoy for a few billion years. A robust diversity of life, with all humans living sustainably as part of it, is the only sustainable future on this planet, and the only economy that can sustainably grow.
-
Bernard J. at 11:08 AM on 6 November 2013How we discovered the 97% scientific consensus on man-made global warming
I'll apologise in advance if the reference to John Howard skirts too closely to the issue of being political, but today he's come out as a denier of the need to act ugently (and indeed at all, in all likelihood) in response to human-caused climate change:
It seems that the conservative arm of Australian politics is determined to go with the meme that the science is wrong, and just as determined to drag the country and the planet down a course of perpetual inaction based on this ideology.We have a profound problem in our country when even 100% agreement amongst professional scientists would be insufficient to sway the people who have their hands of the steering wheel of the nation. Something is profoundly broken in our government (whether current or recently-former) when an untrained lay person associated with vested interests would rather trust his ideologically-based "instinct" than experts who have a far better understanding of the subject.
I'm not sure that anything could convince these people until the country and the planet are rendered essential ruined for habitation by Western human society - and even then it might be a Hy-Brazil scenario.
-
Dave123 at 09:50 AM on 6 November 2013Oceans heating up faster now than in the past 10,000 years, says new study
Having read the full paper and seen an interview with authors, it's clear that you can't make a global statement about the Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA) from a single site. Various non-synchronous changes in weather patterns were observed over several hundred "Medeival years". The PAGES2K consortium, using many more proxies concludes that there was no synchronous warming of the globe during the extended period. For there to be warming at one spot in the Pacific during that period then isn't remarkable. The authors (as well as other climate scientists) do call for more studies, and are specific about the kinds of locations needed to gather the data.
Please remember that the politics of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) is that supposedly current warming happened before during Medieval times, so the present warming is unremarkable. Present warming is distinguished from the MCA because it is global and synchronous. While much may be learned from greater details about the MCA, including any relationship between that region of the pacific and European Climate, and may promote broader understanding it is not foundational for the existence of current warming being unique.
The politics of the MWP also have a lot to do with the inflammatory charge that there this was disappeared for nefarious reasons by some climate scientists. My examination of the research record hasn't shown me any paleoclimatological work suggesting prior to (Mann 1998) a global, synchronous MWP. None. People leaped to convenient conclusions based on local, Northern European data. There was no MWP to disappear.
-
CBDunkerson at 05:18 AM on 6 November 2013Oceans heating up faster now than in the past 10,000 years, says new study
franklefkin, where exactly in that abstract do you see conclusions that the MWP & LIA were global in scope? Indeed, how would they even have arrived at such global conclusions based on their study of just a small portion of the western Pacific ocean?
As to why highlight the ocean warming rate rather than the total... the rate is more than an order of magnitude outside the range of natural variability over the past 10,000 years. That's a noteworthy finding which tells us something about what is going on. The conclusion that total OHC is currently lower than at other points in the past 10,000 years, combined with the unprecedentedly high rate of warming, would actually suggest that we will be seeing a great deal more ocean warming (and thus sea level rise) in the upcoming decades than had been projected to date.
-
franklefkin at 05:00 AM on 6 November 2013Oceans heating up faster now than in the past 10,000 years, says new study
This is the title of the post
If the latest research is correct, our oceans are heating up much faster now than they have in the past 10,000 years.
Yet this is the abstract from the paper
Observed increases in ocean heat content (OHC) and temperature are robust indicators of global warming during the past several decades. We used high-resolution proxy records from sediment cores to extend these observations in the Pacific 10,000 years beyond the instrumental record. We show that water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctic intermediate waters were warmer by 2.1 ± 0.4°C and 1.5 ± 0.4°C, respectively, during the middle Holocene Thermal Maximum than over the past century. Both water masses were ~0.9°C warmer during the Medieval Warm period than during the Little Ice Age and ~0.65° warmer than in recent decades. Although documented changes in global surface temperatures during the Holocene and Common era are relatively small, the concomitant changes in OHC are large.
I find it striking that one point of the paper, one that doesn't even make the abstract, becomes the focus of this post. This post does not even mention the conclusion that the MWP and LIA were global in scope.
-
nrgmahtahs at 02:56 AM on 6 November 2013Climate Science History - interactive style
Dare we open history's scariest can of worms: human evolution, purposeful fire, real horsepower, big industry and big population layed out for endless discussion by liberal and libertarian alike? Could be fun if well managed. Go for it Paul and then write a book..
-
jdixon1980 at 02:49 AM on 6 November 2013Oceans heating up faster now than in the past 10,000 years, says new study
On the subject of the warming oceans as an indicator that the apparent "pause" in global warming is a phenomenon limited to atmospheric surface temperatures over land, can anyone point me to a plot of recorded TOA average energy imbalance versus time, assuming there is such a thing? I find myself bringing up energy imbalance a lot in arguments with people who claim that global warming has stopped, because if there is more heat coming in than leaving, of course the Earth has to be warming as a whole, even if it is not warming uniformly.
I've been wondering why the primary focus of the discussion always seems to be on temperatures, when the global energy imbalance over time should relatively flat compared to temperature data over time, and thus simpler to interpret. Is a problem with that approach (other than the relatively short satellite record) that energy imbalance is harder to directly measure, so we don't have robust data for it? Do we not have enough satellites measuring incoming and outgoing radiation to cover enough geographic data points to extrapolate an average with a high degree of confidence? Maybe that would take so many satellites that it would be grossly impractical?
Prev 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 Next
