Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 Next
Comments 42451 to 42500:
-
MrGibbage at 02:32 AM on 12 September 2013It hasn't warmed since 1998
Can anyone point out the errors in this recent paper?
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/new-paper-finds-climate-models-have.html
For the most part it looks like another rehashing of the "we are actually cooling (or staying steady)" argument.
-
John Hartz at 00:50 AM on 12 September 2013Renewables can't provide baseload power
All: I have deleted JvD's most recent post because it was sloganeering and repetitive.
-
Renewables can't provide baseload power
JvD - "...since the external cost of nuclear energy is negligable (which Budischak confirms)"
I'll simply note that for the Budischack et al paper the externalities of nuclear power were not part of the study. That doesn't mean they don't exist - waste disposal/storage, carbon cost of low-density fuel extraction (excavation isn't free), and the cleanup of nuclear accidents; difficult to quantify as those accidents are rare events, significant because they are very very expensive.
What would be your estimated external cost for the evacuation of an entire city, over 150,000 people, for a period of decades? As at Fukushima? Your claims that nuclear power has no external costs is disingenuous in the extreme - nothing is free.
That doesn't mean that nuclear power isn't a viable option. It does mean, however, that your arguments in support of nuclear power, for example this matter of externalities and your claim that the 1950's 'truck reactor' was a potentially usable design, are unbalanced and one-sided cheerleading.
-
VeryTallGuy at 23:02 PM on 11 September 2013Renewables can't provide baseload power
JvD,
a few points from someone who is broadly speaking, a supporter of nuclear.
1) Your tone is aggressive, and counterproductive.
2) (-snip-).
3) (-snip-).
4) (-snip-).
5) (-snip-).
Tom Curtis's suggestion that you submit a post is excellent.
Moderator Response:[DB] Off-topic snipped.
-
John Mason at 22:32 PM on 11 September 2013Arctic sea-ice 'growth', a manufactured IPCC 'crisis' and more: David Rose is at it again
Thanks for that Baerbel. I have added the press-release to the bottom of the post for the sake of completeness.
-
Tom Curtis at 22:11 PM on 11 September 2013Renewables can't provide baseload power
(-snip-)
Moderator Response:[DB] Off-topic snipped.
-
Renewables can't provide baseload power
(-snip-)
Moderator Response:[DB] Off-topic snipped.
-
Renewables can't provide baseload power
"As you have already been invited to do, you are quite welcome to write a post making the case for a nuclear future to mitigate climate change."
It's already been done. I posted the article by Barry Brooks. There is nothing I could or would want to add to it.
(-snip-)
Moderator Response:[DB] Sloganeering and moderation complaints snipped.
-
Tom Curtis at 21:12 PM on 11 September 2013Renewables can't provide baseload power
Further to JvD @90:
"Budischak's conclusion is that a renewables electricity system would cost about 10 ct/kWh more than a nuclear-based electricity system, since the external cost of nuclear energy is negligable (which Budischak confirms)." (My emphasis)
Tell that to the people of Okuma, Fukushima.
I do have one more relevant opinion about nulear power. That is that the announcements of overwhelming safety by people who favour nuclear power are simply not to be trusted. Do not misundertand me. The catastrophe at Fukushima is small scale compared to the prospect of global warming. If the price of stopping global warming is a Fukushima a decade, and we cannot do it any other way, that is a price we ought to pay. But the people who tell us the nuclear power is risk free, and (even more unbelievably) external cost free are the same people who were making jokes immediately after Fukushima about how the radiation release was less than the dose from eating a banana a year - until the real figures started leaking out.
They were so confident about the safety of nuclear power that they did not recognize a genuine, and major emergency when it occurred.
And yet they expect us to accept their blandishments about the safety of nuclear power as gospel.
So when JvD asserts that "the external cost of nuclear energy is negligable" all that tells me is that his opinion on the safety of nuclear power is not to be trusted.
Moderator Response:[DB] All parties should confine comments about nuclear power to the pertinent and relevant areas of supplying baseload power. The negatives of nuclear power, a la Fukushima, while pertinent in the real world and relevant in terms of being inclusive negative externalities of nuclear power, do not fall under the aegis of this thread and are thus off-topic from this point forward.
This thread is about the ability of renewables to supply baseload power. As such, discussions of nuclear power in a direct capacity are off-topic on this thread as well.
-
BaerbelW at 21:11 PM on 11 September 2013Arctic sea-ice 'growth', a manufactured IPCC 'crisis' and more: David Rose is at it again
The IPCC published a press-release setting the record straight about the end of September meeting:
-
pvincell at 21:08 PM on 11 September 2013Debunking 97% Climate Consensus Denial
One often-unsaid aspect of the public discussion on whether human-induced climate change is real, is ideology. Several months ago, the University of Kentucky hosted of forum on climate change with three excellent speakers who were all self-described conservatives. Liberals reported how they better understand that there are thoughtful conservative perspectives on, and solutions to, climate change, thus allowing for a broadened public discussion. In turn, conservatives in attendance learned the same thing. You can watch the recording of this event at http://bit.ly/135gvNa. The starting time for each speaker is noted at this page, so you can listen to the speakers of greatest interest to you.
-
Tom Curtis at 21:00 PM on 11 September 2013Renewables can't provide baseload power
JvD @90, SkS does not "agree" with anything. That is because SkS is a website, not a person. The website is run by a number of volunteers who agree and disagree about many different things. As you have already been invited to do, you are quite welcome to write a post making the case for a nuclear future to mitigate climate change. Such a post will undergo the normal SkS "peer review" process, ie, any volunteers who are interested will look at the post, make comments about how it can be improved, and/or recommend it to be published, or not published. Should it be published, it will not be the SkS view, but the opinion of JvD published on SkS (just as my posts on SkS are not the "SkS view", but just my opinions published on SkS). However, if you are not prepared to put that effort in, you have no right to complain about the absence of such a post. You will also have no right to complain if your repetitive brow beating is ruled off topic under other posts (as it mostly is - not to mention tedious).
FYI, I have virtually no opinion on nuclear energy. I am quite happy to have nuclear power as one of the options, but will not impede the already difficult political fight to do something effective about global warming by tying it to a nuclear agenda. Beyond that, I am quite happy to just put a price on carbon and let the people actually building the power plants decide which will generate most efficiently and hence give them the greater profit.
-
Renewables can't provide baseload power
@Michael,
"Industry brag sheets?"
I posted a peer-reviewed scientific article written up by the respectable Barry Brooks!
And the video of Hansen I posted is relevant, because it directly contradicts the contents of the above article (and other articles on SkS) which is supposed to be part of the 'myth busting' series of SkS. You clearly don't like that, which is why you have now stated that James Hansen is wrong about renewables, nuclear and solving climate change, but you do not support your opinion. On the contrary, you turn around on and accuse me of not supporting my opinion! Even while I have presented clear arguments and provided literature supporting my views.
-
Renewables can't provide baseload power
Lastly, and that will be it for me unless I'm challenged to explain myself again. I realise that the nuclear energy issue is being prohibited from discussions about solving the climate crisis on certain discussion boards. I consider SkS better than that. Interestingly, James Hansen actually has an important thing to say about why actual solution to climate change (such as nuclear power) are often disparaged and ignored, here:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110729_BabyLauren.pdf
The Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy
The insightful cynic will note: "Now I understand all the fossil fuel ads with windmills and solar panels – fossil fuel moguls know that renewables are no threat to the fossil fuel business." The tragedy is that many environmentalists line up on the side of the fossil fuel industry, advocating renewables as if they, plus energy efficiency, would solve the global climate change matter.
Can renewable energies provide all of society's energy needs in the foreseeable future? It is
conceivable in a few places, such as New Zealand and Norway. But suggesting that renewables
will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy. -
michael sweet at 20:00 PM on 11 September 2013Renewables can't provide baseload power
JvD,
SkS does not have a position on nuclear. SkS exists to document and counter misconceptions about human caused global warming. SkS takes the consensus position on issues where a consensus exists. Hansen's position is an outlier, not a consensus position, and is not directly related to SkS goal of countering false information about global warming. For those reasons SkS does not take a position on Hansens issue. Without asking, I am sure that the people who post on SkS have a variety of opinions about your pet peeve, some support you and some do not. You are not convincing anyone to support your position by constantly nagging others to do your work for you. For example, I am agnostic about nuclear but you have labeled me as an extreme enviro against all nuclear. Why are you so incorrect in your assessment of me? It is due to your posting style which alienates even those who might support you.
As has been pointed out to you many times before, SkS is run by volunteers who write the posts. You are welcome to do the work and write a detailed post about nuclear supported by peer reviewed science, Industry brag sheets are not generally considered peer reviewed, nor are online videos. These types of posts come on SkS occasionally, like the one we are currently posting on, so it is likely to be posted. Since you are unwilling to do the work to support your position you should stop complaining about others not doing your work for you. By constantly repeating yourself you are sloganeering which is against the comments policy.
Moderator: if my comments about SkS policy are incorrect please delete this post, since I do not represent SkS.
-
Renewables can't provide baseload power
@Michael,
There is ample literature that supports my view. For example:
http://www.350.me.uk/TR/Hansen/BarryBrook.pdf
Meanwhile, I notice that you have now stated that - according to you - James Hansen's opinion on renewables, nuclear power, and solving the climate crisis are wrong.
It would be nice if you did your homework can proved that Hansen it wrong. Or do you suggest that I trust your private opinions on the subject at face value, rather than James Hansens!? ;)
-
Renewables can't provide baseload power
Technically, as discussed in the opening post, renewables are capable of baseload power, and are likely to be economical for that in many regions, with Budischak et al 2013 ("Cost-minimized combinations of wind power, solar power and electrochemical storage, powering the grid up to 99.9% of the time") a good example of actually running the numbers.
I think you are minunderstanding Budischak's paper. Budischak concludes that it would not be economical at all!
Budischak monetized and included the external cost of energy in order to arrive at the conclusion that a high-penetration renewables energy system would not be more expensive that today's energy including externalities. He uses a figure of about 10 ct/kWh for the cost of these externalities in today's mix. In other words: Budischak's conclusion is that a renewables electricity system would cost about 10 ct/kWh more than a nuclear-based electricity system, since the external cost of nuclear energy is negligable (which Budischak confirms). Budischak even includes expected future cost reductions of renewable energy systems, which means that using today's technology would be even more expensive.
The correct conclusion to be drawn from Budischak is that nuclear is far more economical than renewables, because it does not have the negative externalities that fossil fuels have, nor does it have the high internal costs of renewables. That is why James Hansen is adamant that nuclear power will be crucial in trying to solve the climate change problem. If we don't use nuclear, then society will be locked into fossil fuels, because we can monitize externalities in our desk studies 'till hell freezes over, but societies are extremely unlikely to monitize them, except in the richest regions where these externalities are likely to draw the needed political support for increasing the cost of energy by 10 ct/kWh.
To decarbonise the entire system, it is nuclear or bust, because nuclear is cheap and clean, while renewables are merely clean! Budischak's study results confirms this, if anything.
Now to get back to my original question, which has not been answered. Does SkS agree with James Hansen or not (see the above short video I linked which lays out James' position)? You either agree, or you don't agree, IMHO. I take it you don't agree with Hansen?
-
Grumpy_Dude at 15:33 PM on 11 September 2013Arctic sea-ice 'growth', a manufactured IPCC 'crisis' and more: David Rose is at it again
Another article not from David Rose...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10294082/Global-warming-No-actually-were-cooling-claim-scientists.html
-
Bernard J. at 13:22 PM on 11 September 2013Arctic sea-ice 'growth', a manufactured IPCC 'crisis' and more: David Rose is at it again
The truly sad thing about all this is that people such as David Rose are fully and consciously aware that they are lying to the public, but that this deliberate misrepresentation of the science works spectacularly well to achieve their goals.
In Australia the most conspicuous contemporary example of this is the Coalition's intention to repeal the price on carbon pollution. Every scientist and objective economist understands that a market-based approach is the most effective mechanism for acheiving emissions reduction in a democracy (and even the Coalition's leader Tony Abbott and climate spokesman Greg Hunt understood this up to the time that the carbon "tax" was introduced), but between them the conservative body politic and the conservative media understand that all one has to do to see fruittion of rationally-untenable but desired outcomes is to repeat memes that appeal to the ideological ignorance of a large section of the self-indulgent Western middle class. It doesn't need to be true - just true in the minds of sufficient people.
We've long passed the point where simply being right and pointing out that the denialist industry is wrong is sufficient to make the case. If it was otherwise we'd live in a world where singnificant and tangible changes to emissions were already in train. David Rose and the rest of the denialist movement well know that they can spout any scientifically-preposterous clap-trap that they like, and all they have to do it to persist in repeating it for the truth to be eroded in the minds of sufficient members of the public that the end result is the same - and that they make a tidy living in the process.
It took decades to overturn the ideological inertia of the asbestos and the tobacco industries, and even today their acknowledgement of the harm of their products is only effectively manifested in the First World, and even then only incompletely. The fossil fuel industry is vastly more profitable than either of the former two, however, and the impacts of the fossil fuel industry materialise over centuries and millenia rather than decades, which makes the tangibility of the consequences that much more difficulkt to communicate, so any hope of an eleventh-hour salvaging of even some prospect of effective mitigation will require a much more concerted and substantively different approach to the one that has largely been followed to date.
As a consequence of a compliant media manifesting the thinking of people such as Rose, and of an ideologically-motivated conservative government as has just been elected, Australia is putting the cause of carbon emissions reduction behind by decades and the effects will ripple beyond Australia and around the world.
Our best last chance is the wording of the upcoming AR5. If the conclusions from this report cannot galvanise governments around the world to act, then any further reporting by the IPCC or by national scientific bodies will be little more than plotting points on a graph and hand-wringing whimperings of "we told you so".
I wish that it was otherwise, but I've watched for almost a decade as the David Roses, Anthony Watts, and Christopher Moncktons of the world have been debunked at every turn, time after time, but the effectiveness of their fallacious nonsense continues to maintain the status quo.
People will believe an easy lie over the hard truth. And for the last 15 to 20 years lies and deceipt have won at every turn. As long as this remains the case David Rose and his ilk will continue to publish this type of bilge, and it will continue to have a significant effect to delay action to far beyond the point where the best outcomes can be realised.
-
chriskoz at 09:11 AM on 11 September 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #36B
Well, the huge fire in SF and another one in Sydney? Wait a moment, it's supposed to be winter down under... Apparently, we alredy have summer here, so no surprise. Fire seasons on both sides of equator, previously disjoint, start to overlap.
-
Ed Seedhouse at 07:45 AM on 11 September 2013Arctic sea-ice 'growth', a manufactured IPCC 'crisis' and more: David Rose is at it again
Since the heights of summer have passed at my latitude some say that the days have been trending cooler and there are even some people who claim that it is going to get quite cold in the coming months due to something they call "winter". However, today it is quite a bit warmer than yesterday, so surely this must prove that "winter" is just a hoax.
-
MA Rodger at 07:14 AM on 11 September 2013Arctic sea-ice 'growth', a manufactured IPCC 'crisis' and more: David Rose is at it again
For those curious about the arithmetical incompetence of the Daily Rail's top investigitive reporter David Ruse, it is worth noting that he does offer his credulous readers two values for the growth of Arctic ice 2012-3. That is 60% and 920,000 sq miles. Thus the areas he has in mind are roughly 2012 = 1,530,000 sq mile (3.9m km^2), 2013 = 2.450,000 sq miles (6.3m km^2). How did he manage to arrive at these values? Would anybody really care? Psychiatrists perhaps?
-
John Mason at 03:45 AM on 11 September 2013Arctic sea-ice 'growth', a manufactured IPCC 'crisis' and more: David Rose is at it again
Yeah - it's incredible. I think the IPCC nonsense is the most blatant bit, but the "growth" meme is the most disingenuous and clearly designed to be repeated by laypersons. Talk about an insult to people's intelligence.
-
Albatross at 03:27 AM on 11 September 2013Arctic sea-ice 'growth', a manufactured IPCC 'crisis' and more: David Rose is at it again
Composer99 and John Hartz,
Indeed. Rose seems to have even invented/fabricated the rebound number of 60% for his cherry pick! I double checked the numbers (funny Curry ert al. didn't do the same, so much for being true skeptics):
JAXA extent on 31 August 2012 (km2) : 3.51x106
JAXA extent on 31 August 2013: 5.05x106
Increase: 44%
NSIDC extent mean August (km2) 2012: 4.71x106
NSIDC extent mean August 2013: 6.09x106
Increase: 29%
NSIDC area mean August 2012 (km2): 2.56x106
NSIDC area mean August 2013: 3.83x106
Increase: 49.6%
-
Alexandre at 02:17 AM on 11 September 2013Arctic sea-ice 'growth', a manufactured IPCC 'crisis' and more: David Rose is at it again
over and over again... Boring!
Watts in 2009: Arctic Sea Ice Increases at a Record Rate
Arctic Sea ice never shrinks, but recovers all the time.
-
Renewables can't provide baseload power
JvD - You seem to be presenting a False Dichotomy in your post. Technically, as discussed in the opening post, renewables are capable of baseload power, and are likely to be economical for that in many regions, with Budischak et al 2013 ("Cost-minimized combinations of wind power, solar power and electrochemical storage, powering the grid up to 99.9% of the time") a good example of actually running the numbers. On the other hand, there will be regions such as the UK where land area and energy density limits might make nuclear more economical, a decision dependent on a region by region basis.
You are demanding an either/or approach, and that (IMO) is an inaccurate representation of the topic. Mitigation and adaptation to climate change are going to require flexibility.
-
John Hartz at 02:13 AM on 11 September 2013Arctic sea-ice 'growth', a manufactured IPCC 'crisis' and more: David Rose is at it again
The following addresses how much the August Arctic sea ice coverage was this year.
On Monday, the lead scientist at the NSIDC, based at the University of Colorado in Boulder, blasted the articles on Monday for "playing games" with world opinion.
"It was very irresponsible reporting on their part," said Ted Scambos, a glaciologist with the ice center. "They know what they're saying and how they are saying it, and to say what they said they had to cherry pick facts."
Scambos said the Arctic this summer was 2 to 3 degrees cooler than average, and the extent of sea ice in August was a "big increase" for a year-to-year jump. The sea ice was about the size of four Alaskas, at 2.35 million square miles, a 45 percent increase from the same time last year.
Source: Global cooling? London newspapers having a row over climate change in the Arctic by Alex DeMarban, Alaska Dispatch, Sep 9, 2013
-
Composer99 at 01:22 AM on 11 September 2013Arctic sea-ice 'growth', a manufactured IPCC 'crisis' and more: David Rose is at it again
Rose then triumphantly states in one year the ice grew by 60%.
This is so egregious a misrepresentation of the reality that I cannot accurately describe it without being snipped.
Rose is really scraping the bottom of the barrel here.
-
michael sweet at 00:49 AM on 11 September 2013Renewables can't provide baseload power
JvD,
I see that you are unwilling to write up an article to support your position. Come back when you are ready to do the hard work. Instead you criticize others for not doing your work for you. You would be better off on a site that discusses solutions to AGW (that you have been referred to before) rather than criticizing SkS for not doing something that is not their purpose.
It is impossible for me to "deny" Hansens position since it is only his opinion and not a consensus position of scientists. You are being deliberately provocative which is against the comments policy. Frankly, Hansen is an extreme position on this issue. The tide of opinion is going against Nuclear. I was pro nuclear 5 years ago before the recent, multiple disasters.
It is a waste of SkS space to discuss nuclear further, you have provided no new data to support your position. Nuclear is not allowed on Real Climate because of people like you.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 23:50 PM on 10 September 2013Debunking 97% Climate Consensus Denial
"Lord" Monckton is another unreasonable economist who likes to play the game the way Lomborg does (my earlier comment @21), and he was even able to partcicipate in ruling England for a while.
-
Renewables can't provide baseload power
"What is your response to this boots on the ground truth?"
I take it that you deny Hansen's position. You do this by cherry-picking a single failed nuclear project, which is exactly the kind of wrong approach Hansen talks about in the video. Hansen says that we shouldn't discard nuclear power because of single instances of failure (such as Fukushima), in the same way that we don't discard air travel due to a single airplane crash.
Did you even watch the video? It's not long.
Anyway, my response is irrelevant. My question concerns whether SkS accepts or denies Dr. James Hansen's position on nuclear power, renewables and combatting climate change. I've already discussed this issue with you in the past, and you are the kind of environmentalist that James Hansen is particularly concerned about. If you don't mind, I'll your claims for what they are.
Moderator Response:[JMH] You are skating on the thin ice of excessive repetition and sloganeering -- both of which are prohibited by the SkS Comment Policy. Please cease and desist or face the consequences.
-
michael sweet at 20:08 PM on 10 September 2013Renewables can't provide baseload power
JvD,
Perhaps the issue is that no-one wants to volunteer the time to write a paper supporting nuclear power. You are welcome to write such a paper and submit it to SkS. I have submitted papers in the past, it is not hard. Such a paper would undoubtedly get a lot of comments. It is not the job of other SkS volunteers to support your private opinions. In general, SkS does not go deeply into solutions, that is left to other venues.
Hansen has supported nuclear for a long time. Nuclear requires another $100 billion or more to develop it into a solution for AGW, if it turns out that it can provide the necessary power. India does not seem to be getting very far with their nuclear efforts. Perhaps if we build a reactor in Syria they will have less troubles, or maybe it will melt down during the war. On the other hand, new wind is currently cheaper than coal and nuclear and is ready for deployment. Syria can use wind without risking nuclear holocast.
In my part of Florida we have the highest rates for electricity in Florida because of failed nulcear power plants. What is your response to this boots on the ground truth?
-
Renewables can't provide baseload power
Has anyone at SKS registered the fact that Dr. James Hansen has been coming out ever more strongly in recent years in support of nuclear power? To be sure, Dr. James Hansen would not agree with the content of this article. At all. According to Hansen, renewables are *not* up to the task. James Hansen is saying very clearly that nuclear power will be necessary in order to combat climate change effectively:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZExWtXAZ7M
Is SkS going to be a climate change science platform that keeps distancing itself from James Hansen? It would be nice to see a firm statement by SkS that leaves no doubt, so readers of this website know how to judge the ideology and politics of this website. Either one of the following statements will make it clear for readers what the position of SkS is. Please choose one or suggest a better statement?
Option 1: "SkS denies that Dr. James Hansen knows what he is talking about, concerning renewables and nuclear power with respect to combatting climate change. SkS confirms that Hansen is utterly mistaken and misinformed about this subject."
Option 2: "SkS agrees with Dr. James Hansen and will update it's articles to correctly reflect Dr. Hansen's informed position on renewables and nuclear power, in regard to combatting global warming."
I hope SkS will take the time to clarify it's position in regard to Dr. James Hansen's conclusions on nuclear power, renewables and combatting climate change, clearly for all readers, since this issue is crucial.
Thank you,
Joris
-
dvaytw at 18:42 PM on 10 September 2013Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle
I'm debating a Watt-bot and he's claiming that Arctic ice decline is all due to changes in wind patterns. He's posted several articles, but the broadest claims are made here:
Wind contributing to Arctic sea ice loss, study finds
Anything in the article that points out this doesn't question climate change's role he describes as spin - even though the study itself only seems to attribute 30-50% of the ice loss to changing wind patterns, according to the article.
Apparently this line is the dominant response to Arctic ice loss at WUWT other than the occasional rallying cry of "Recovery" (such as we are currently hearing). Any thoughts on this?
-
dvaytw at 18:22 PM on 10 September 2013Arctic Sea Ice Hockey Stick: Melt Unprecedented in Last 1,450 years
Thanks as usual, KR!
And Mod, I hate to look a gift-horse in the mouth as it were (this site has already been a God-send to me!), but I think you guys might want to get that changed. I think it would very positively facilitate continued discussion. I've made posts to threads that died down several years ago, but if you had that function, people who participated (and are thus interested) would know the thread is active again. I don't know much about programming, but given it's such a common function of Internet forums, it can't be too difficult. Just my two cents...
Moderator Response:[DB] The majority of regular users follow the Recent Comments thread, so they will always see any new comments regardless of whatever thread (of the many thousand) they are placed on. Thus, no thread at SkS is by definition "dead", but many are just temporarily inactive.
-
Tom Curtis at 14:49 PM on 10 September 2013Debunking 97% Climate Consensus Denial
I note that Chris G @17 more than adequately answers Charlie A @12.
I will note that one of the most damning facts about critics of Cook et al is that they do not employ one of the best, and well known, surveys of the opinions of climate scientists as a counter argument. Bray and von Storch (2010) explicitly asked a broad range of climate scientists, "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" (Question 21). On a scale of 1-7, with 1 being "not at all convinced" and 7 being "very much convinced", 83.51% responded 5 or higher, while only 11.081% responded 3 or less.
I think this survey question poorly framed. IMO, somebody who thinks that there is a 5% probability that it will rain today and a 95% probability that it will not is not "a little convinced that it will rain". Rather, they are mostly convinced that it will not. Therefore, as the survey question is asked, anybody who responds with a value greater than 1 is at least 50/50 on the proposition, and likely much greater. Of course, people understand the context of survey questions, and will often treat the middle value as 50/50 even when the logic of the question suggests they should not. As a result, and as a result of the significant disagreement with other relevant surveys, I consider the poor framing of the question to have biased the result low.
I must recognize, however, that the 83.5% is a defensible position. Somebody arguing that Cook et al over represents the "consensus" in that Bray and von Storch show the consensus of actual scientists (as opposed to papers) to be 83.5% has an arguable case. Despite this, the fake "skeptics" do not argue this case for it would require admiting an 83.5% agreement the claim that most recent or near future warming was or will be the result of anthropogenic factors. Worse, it requires recognizing that only 1.351% of climate scientists are certain that this is wrong.
Even more troubling for the fake "skeptics", however, is that 78.92% of climate scientists are significantly convinced (>4 reponse) that "...climate change poses a very serious and dangerous threat to humanity" (question 22). "Humanity" is vague as to whether the threat is merely to very large numbers (hundreds of millions, or billions) of humans, or whether it is a species level threat, ie, a threat of extinction.
It is a difficult task you set yourself when you attempt to obfusticate and confuse the public on climate science. You must thow over even reasonable arguments that appear to support your position, for using them will let too many facts out of the bag and loose you any thoughtful people.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:39 PM on 10 September 2013Debunking 97% Climate Consensus Denial
jwhite100@ 20.
Please state your point(s) in another way. I'm not sure I know what you are trying to say.
-
dana1981 at 14:34 PM on 10 September 2013Debunking 97% Climate Consensus Denial
Charlie A @7, to quote myself from above,
"The IPCC position (humans causing most global warming) was represented in our categories 1 and 7, which include papers that explicitly endorse or reject/minimize human-caused global warming, and also quantify the human contribution. Among the relatively few abstracts (75 in total) falling in these two categories, 65 (87%) endorsed the consensus view. Among the larger sample size of author self-rated papers in categories 1 and 7 (237 in total), 228 (96%) endorsed the consensus view that humans are causing most of the current global warming."
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:24 PM on 10 September 2013Debunking 97% Climate Consensus Denial
Bjorn Lomborg is definitely not a climate scientist. He is not even a reasonable economist.
He has published comparisons of the future costs faced by future generations vs. the benefit/costs of today's generation and claims that a current generation allowed to pursue its best present for itself will develop a better future for later generations, even though the free action of the free market has never shown any inclination to do that, except by purest accident.
His evaluations overstate the "costs" that the current generations would suffer (actually not costs at all, just less benefit) if they diligently reduced their activities that create admitted negative impacts on the future. He then understates the future costs by optimistically evaluating future consequences and limiting the consequences to the ones faced by the most fortunate, and only evaluating "human related costs...no thought at all about any other life on our planet.
He then applies the famous "Net Present Value” discounting of those optimistically low future costs "because that is what you do" and compares that number with the lost benefit he determined for the current generation.
The fundamental concept of the evaluation is fatally flawed even without the distortions he incorporates. His evaluation basically says a current generation can create added costs a future generation will have to deal with as long as they think the benefit they would lose by not creating those future costs would exceed the costs they think they are creating.
These are not the thoughts of a rational reasonable person. And yet even the US government uses that same type of analysis when determining the net benefit of something they are considering allowing to be done, like a new pipeline.
-
Tom Curtis at 14:12 PM on 10 September 2013Debunking 97% Climate Consensus Denial
Charlie A @11, you cannot agree with me that Cook et al survey is difficult to interpret consistently, for I neither said, nor believe anything like that. Rather, it is impossible to interpret it consistently if you insist "AGW" refers to a theory that humans caused some, but potentially less than 50% of recent temperature rise in any rating category (1-7); but it is trivially easy to interpret it consistently if you interpret "AGW" as refering to a theory that humans caused >50% of recent warming. That you insist on retaining an interpretation of AGW which makes a consistent interpretation of the survey impossible despite the fact that the consistent interpretation is the most natural shows you are playing rhetorical games rather than making genuine inquiries.
It is easy to show that the theory endorsed by ratings 1-3 is that humans have caused >50% of global warming. The most damning evidence so far as the fake "skeptics" go is that they nearly universally so interpreted it while the survey of authors was being conducted, and in their initial attempts to criticize the results of Cook et al. There sudden fervour for an alternative interpretation gives a clear mark of how honest they are in this debate.
Further, in both the introductory remarks in the survey of authors, and in each of rating categories 2 and 3, authors are asked if their paper explicitly states, or implies that "humans are causing global warming". Natural interpretation of statements about causes requires that they be relevant. If, when asked what caused the collapse of a bridge, for example, you respond by describing a factor that only contributed 10% to the collapse, while ignoring more dominant factors, you would rightly be regarded as lying by omission. Consequently, the natural interpretation of those instructions asks whether or not humans are the dominant cause of global warming (which in context refers to the warming in the late twentieth century).
This linguistic convention is very standard, and is why fake "skeptics" had no difficulty in interpreting the survey exactly as I do until it became rhetorically convenient to suggest another (unwarranted) interpretation.
Finally, the most compelling evidence relates to the logic of the various responses. It is impossible to interpret the scale (1-7) as a ranking in terms of "percentage of endorsement" where that is a ranking in terms of the percentage contribution to recent warming. If we attempt to do so, we must rank 1 as >50%, 7 as <50%, and all other values as being in the range >50% to <50%. Further, we must interpret endorsement as indicating greater than a particular value, and rejection as indicating less than. I await any attempt to interpret the scale using these restrictions that does not show ranks 2 and 3 as endorsing >50% anthropogenic warming.
The alternative interpretation is that the differences between ranks 1-3 and ranks 5-7 is not in the level of causation, but in the explicitness of the endorsement. All of 1-3 endorse >50% anthropogenic warming, but papers rated 1 are most explicit in doing so, whereas in papers rated 3 the endorsement relies on implication. The difference between ratings 1 and 2 is that supplying numbers or quantifiers removes doubt about the endorsement - not that they endorse different things.
-
jwhite100 at 14:11 PM on 10 September 2013Debunking 97% Climate Consensus Denial
If there really is a 97% consensus, it make the conspiracy among scientists many deniers believe in all the more complicated. I think too complicated to be even possibly true. Its too bad they don't just be patient wait to see if the science proves them right, instead of engaging in smears.
-
Chris G at 14:06 PM on 10 September 2013Debunking 97% Climate Consensus Denial
Charlie, one last thing, regarding : "Do you agree that a paper that states that most of recent warming has an anthropogenic cause would be classified as a Category 1 paper?"
You can't do attribution without a quantification and a model to test that quantification, and the survey of papers was not limited to papers on models. So, even assuming some agreement on what "most" means, that was not the question this paper attempted to answer. Feel free to conduct a survey papers on climate models, and let us know what the percentage fall in the category of agreeing that "most" is caused by humans.
-
Debunking 97% Climate Consensus Denial
Charlie A - So by your understanding an abstract discussion the importance of carbon sequestration in mitigating climate change (implying sequestration of CO2 to reduce climate change), with CO2 increases coming from anthropogenic emissions (more evidence than needed) is in some fashion not implicitly stating that that AGW is the major cause of recent climate change?
Please, explain - I would love to see how you justify that claim.
-
Chris G at 13:49 PM on 10 September 2013Debunking 97% Climate Consensus Denial
Charlie,
How is your reading comprehension?
Tom said, "...it is not possible to interpret the Cook et al survey consistently...without interpreting "AGW" as being a theory that implies that at least 50% of recent warming...". (my emphasis)
and you respond with, "I agree that it is difficult to interpret the Cook et al survey consistently such that each rating category is unique. That is one of the several flaws..."
Charlie, you appear to be deliberately trying to obfuscate. You are agreeing with something Tom did not say. Especially since the numbers you ask for at 2 make as much sense as asking, "How many of the papers which took no position took position A?" Yours is a nonsensical question, not because the answer can't be determined from the published paper (which it can be), but because the answer has no meaning.
Further, Tom answers your question regarding, "proportion of climate scienctists", and you counter with statements about articles. Scientists != articles. You led Tom into answering a questing about the consensus amongst scientists, and then countered with statements about articles.
In the end, what difference does it make? Any paper in categories 1-3, in conjunction with knowledge of climate change impacts, can only be interpreted to support the position that humans are better off attempting to mitigate climate change than not. I suppose that opens the door for another round of "It's not bad.", but we've been there before, and that topic is orthogonal to the topic of "Are we causing climate change?".
-
Charlie A at 13:45 PM on 10 September 2013Debunking 97% Climate Consensus Denial
#13 DSL asks "perhaps you can point to the specific paper working on sequestration"
the sequestration example is quoted directly from the Cook paper as an example of an abstract statement that would cause a paper to be classified as part of the 97% consensus.
See Table 2, which gives an example of category 3, part of the 97% consensus as " ... Carbon sequestration in the soil is important for mitigating climate change"
That is the full quote from the Cook paper, including the ellipsis.
-
Debunking 97% Climate Consensus Denial
Charlie A - If you disagree with those abstract classifications (asserting, as you seem to, that the raters for Cook et al 2013 somehow mistook papers indicating a small anthropogenic contribution as fully endorsing AGW as the primary cause, despite clear protocols and repeated statements by the authors as to their criteria), then I have a suggestion for you in order to prove your case.
Check the data yourself.
Go to the ratings page, and run through a hundred or two abstracts, rating them yourself as to endorsing/rejecting a consensus opinion of a majority contribution to global warming by AGW. Then look at your statistics - feel free to ignore the 'implicit' categories, if you like - and see just how many of the abstracts expressing an opinion endorse the consensus. I've tried it; it should require only the investment of a couple of hours to rate 100 or so.
Because quite frankly the multiple attempts to reinterpret this paper and dismiss its results, like yours, are both tiresome and completely evidence-free. The data is sitting right there for the review. If you don't, well, to quote Christopher Hitchens,
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Lacking evidence to the contrary, Cook et al 2013 (as well as Doran et al, Anderegg, Oreskes, and similar studies) stands as correct, and the vast majority of people in the field agree that AGW is the primary cause of recent climate change.
No evidence? Then you have no case, just rather empty rhetoric.
Moderator Response:[DB] Fixed text per request.
-
Debunking 97% Climate Consensus Denial
Charlie A: "But if you look closely at what the paper actually says instead of how 3rd parties describe it, you will find that even a paper that just discusses method of carbon sequestration is considered to be part of the 97% that "endorses AGW". Clearly such a paper is NOT making a claim that greater than 1/2 of the observed warming is anthropogenic."
Few of the papers made that explicit claim, with no surprise. Only a relative handful are attribution studies. Implication, then, becomes necessary (unless you'd rather the consensus be based only on attribution studies . . . in which case we get to stop nitpicking and move on to more serious topics, because your pinhole poking project won't have anything to work with). If a paper is discussing carbon sequestration, what is the likelihood that it's simply an exercise that has no real world application? It's much more likely that the paper is examining mitigation of the developing situation. If the anthro component is not greater than 50%, then the likelihood of there actually being a problem is greatly reduced vs. the current range of attribution (75%-200%, depending on the method and period). Perhaps you can point to the specific paper working on sequestration. I suspect that it probably says nothing about attribution but does make the assumption that there is a rapid rise in atmospheric CO2 and that it is the basis of a serious, developing problem. How else would such a paper be justified for inclusion in a major journal? Given current data, the only situation in which sequestration is seriously considered is one in which CO2 continues to rise at an unprecedented rate (Honisch et al. 2012), a situation that requires the human component to have been and continue to be greater--much greater--than 50%.
-
Arctic sea ice has recovered
I doubt if climate models can explain the 2013 regression toward the mean, dadown. Why? Because big CMIP5 regime climate models aren't really designed for short-term projections. Modeling hasn't done well with Arctic sea ice in general. Note that we're a good 60 years ahead of the CMIP3 ensemble model mean for extent. In other words, Arctic sea ice could stabilize for half a century and the ice would still be ahead of its projected loss.
I'm curious, though: what does the 2013 melt season mean to you? I mean, what conclusions do you draw from it?
-
Charlie A at 12:43 PM on 10 September 2013Debunking 97% Climate Consensus Denial
@Tom Curtis, #8, You say "So, in answer to your final question, the proportion of climate scienctists who agree with the claim that most (>50%) of recent warming has an anthropogenic cause is almost certainly >90%, and probably greater than 96%."
1. Do you agree that a paper that states that most of recent warming has an anthropogenic cause would be classified as a Category 1 paper?
2. What percentage of the 12,000 abstracts reviewed were classified as Category 1?
That is a very basic, simple question that should have been clearly disclosed in the Cook paper, but was not. Perhaps you have some inside info and can report the actual category breakdown before Categories 1, 2, and 3 were merged.
-
Charlie A at 12:34 PM on 10 September 2013Debunking 97% Climate Consensus Denial
I agree that it is difficult to interpret the Cook et al survey consistently such that each rating category is unique. That is one of the several flaws in the paper that make interpretation of what the paper says somewhat vague. But if you look closely at what the paper actually says instead of how 3rd parties describe it, you will find that even a paper that just discusses method of carbon sequestration is considered to be part of the 97% that "endorses AGW". Clearly such a paper is NOT making a claim that greater than 1/2 of the observed warming is anthropogenic.
In looking at the paper itself, http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf/1748-9326_8_2_024024.pdf , Table 2 shows that there were 8 rating categories (counting 4a and 4b as two).
Category 1 is "Explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming"
Category 2 is "Explicitly states humans are causing global warming or refers to anthropogenic global warming/climate change as a known fact" and gives as an example "‘Emissions of a broad range of greenhouse gases of varying lifetimes contribute to global climate change"
The paper then merges categories and never discloses what percentage of papers were evaluated as Category 1.
In fact, the merged "endorses AGW" category includes category 3: "Implies humans are causing global warming. E.g.,research assumes greenhouse gas emissions cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause", with the example of "‘. . . carbon sequestration in soil is important for mitigating global climate change"
So, as I read the article, almost any paper that discusses mitigation was considered to be "endorsing AGW".
Clearly, a category 3 paper is NOT in any way stating an opinion that the majority of observed warming is anthropogenic.
=============================================
If you look at the SI, you will note that in Table 5, the comparison with Schulte (2008) only results for Categories 2 through 6 are reported. Category 1,
As for self rating, those are available at http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/media/erl460291datafile.txt
While there are a few category 1 self classifications, they are rare. The self classifications definitely do not support Tom Curtis's statement of "...the proportion of climate scienctists who agree with the claim that most (>50%) of recent warming has an anthropogenic cause is almost certainly >90%,".
Don't take my word for it. Go to the data file and see for yourself how few papers are category 1 --- and this is in the self-selected sample of climate scientists that chose to respond.
explicit statement that humans have caused the majority of warming, is omitted.
Prev 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 Next
