Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 Next
Comments 45901 to 45950:
-
student28 at 06:02 AM on 27 April 2013Food Security - What Security?
The effect of extreme weather events in the context of food production scares me. If our population will be over 10 billion by the year 2065, how is it possible to shy away from industrial produced agriculture? The prices will sky rocket with drought looming ahead. How can sustainable food growth make its way back into the market when there are so many people to feed, many of which go hungry every day. Population seems to be the largest causal factor, in my opinion, when it comes to climate change. As this post shows, we are already seeing droughts, floods, and heat waves decrease the stability of mass food production and infrastructure (which is seen to be essential in transportation of crops.)It is hard not to feel despair when information is presented to me like this. I try to feel empowered, because I am gifted with this knowledge and can pass it on to others who might not realize the many effects that climate change has on the security of our lives.
-
John Hartz at 05:07 AM on 27 April 2013Be part of a landmark citizen science paper on consensus
Many thanks to all who contributed.
PS - I am particularly anxious to see how much George Soros donated.
-
Andy Skuce at 04:24 AM on 27 April 2013Global Warming: Not Reversible, But Stoppable
grindupBaker:
I agree that we should be more careful in how we use "global warming" in a casual way to refer to warming of the surface temperatures and/or warming of the oceans, particularly the deep oceans. This is especially true now, as more research indicates that the recent slowdown in the rate of surface temperature increase is more than fully compensated for by warming in the oceans.
On the other hand, I think that "heat up the planet" is fine in non-technical discourse, since everyone can safely assume that, since we are talking about climate change, the 'planet" means the bits we and other life forms inhabit and that we are not particularly concerned with the warming effect on the solid, rocky Earth. Neither should we object to casual use of "heat up the planet" on the grounds that parts of the atmosphere, like the stratosphere, are experiencing anthropogenic cooling.
-
empirical_bayes at 02:44 AM on 27 April 2013Be part of a landmark citizen science paper on consensus
Congrats! I'd chip in, too, but didn't see it 'til now.
-
jdixon1980 at 00:55 AM on 27 April 2013Be part of a landmark citizen science paper on consensus
I'm with Philippe - just clicked on the post this morning!
-
EliRabett at 23:42 PM on 26 April 2013Malaria: biting into the climate change debate
There is an important point missing her. Malaria has two reservoirs, mosquitos and people. You can wipe it out in an area by decimating the parasite in EITHER of the two.
Artemisinin triple combination therapy can wipe it out in humans before it ping pongs back to the bugs, but there are more pressing issues than climate change at this time. First, Artemisinin resistant strains are starting to appear mostly in SE Asia, probably associated with "cut" drugs. Second, we need a cheap test for infection because right now the more expensive Artemisinin based therapy is being over used.
(snip)
Moderator Response:[Sph] Agreed, but still a violation of the comments policy.
-
grindupBaker at 17:16 PM on 26 April 2013Global Warming: Not Reversible, But Stoppable
My prior post would have better said example +0.9 degrees C since that is the red line value. Example value makes no difference to the comment text though.
-
Paul D at 17:12 PM on 26 April 2013Be part of a landmark citizen science paper on consensus
That is very impressive fund raising!
Three cheers for those that dug deep.
-
grindupBaker at 17:12 PM on 26 April 2013Global Warming: Not Reversible, But Stoppable
I disagree with point (2). Even if the graph C red line with flat temp next 300 yrs was correct I would disagree because "Global Warming" isn't changes in surface temperature, it's increase in the ocean heat content. Dr. Trenberth says in lecture 2 yrs ago there's 0.9+/-0.4 wm**-2 radiation imbalance and I believe him to be likely close enough because he seems knowledgeable. If temperature goes flat it's just because ocean mixing happens to match radiation imbalance. It would even be possible for radiation imbalance and temperature change both to be ~0 as much as is noticeable with "Global Warming" continuing, the heat just passes through unobtrusively (depending on the superbness of instrumentation & theory). As example only, if +1.5 degrees C happens to be the final average surface temperature then I see no reason why "Global Warming" would stop until the deep oceans entirely are +1.5 degrees C than they were a hundred years ago, or whatever is the base line for this. Furthermore, I think it's important not to mix'n'match phrases like "heat up" and "Global Warming" and also the trite ones bandied about (not in this post or comments) because that's going to confuse the heck out of non-scientists - when you say "heat up the planet" they'll think temperature of the bits they see. And "the planet" has a middley bit you know, apparently there's some molten rock. Shouldn't be calling "the ecosphere" "the planet". It really needs mention of the ecosphere, perhaps even some reference as to how deep in the earth and oceans is being considered.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 15:47 PM on 26 April 2013Be part of a landmark citizen science paper on consensus
Dang! This was so quick that I didn't even see the original post, only the amended one with the "goal reached" update!!!
Congratulations John and team. For one like me who has followed SkS since the early beginning, the evolution of the site is quite impressive. The collective publication record of the contributors is starting to add up too.
-
dana1981 at 14:48 PM on 26 April 2013Announcement: New Guardian Blog by Dana Nuccitelli and John Abraham
Agnostic @16 - I believe you do. I certainly did! Probably several dozen commenters linking to a terrible cherry picking blog post response by Tisdale on WUWT.
Ironically cherry picking was the main subject I raised in my first Guardian blog post, and WUWT and Tisdale respond by...cherry picking data.
-
dana1981 at 14:46 PM on 26 April 2013Be part of a landmark citizen science paper on consensus
The paper will be published in a couple weeks. We'll have a whole lot more to say about it then.
-
DSL at 13:20 PM on 26 April 2013Be part of a landmark citizen science paper on consensus
Oh yah: congratulations, well done, etc. What's next?
-
DSL at 13:19 PM on 26 April 2013Be part of a landmark citizen science paper on consensus
What a hoot. I was thinking, "Well, I'll have to wait till May 1, and then I'll pitch in." Yah, so much for that.
-
Riduna at 12:28 PM on 26 April 2013Announcement: New Guardian Blog by Dana Nuccitelli and John Abraham
Congratulations! By any standards, impressive. Do I hear expressions of fury from the region of WUWT?
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 10:49 AM on 26 April 2013Be part of a landmark citizen science paper on consensus
Thanks for all the support guys. 9 hours! Awesome
The paper will be worth it. Hopefully JC will have more details on publication date soon.
-
dana1981 at 10:26 AM on 26 April 2013Be part of a landmark citizen science paper on consensus
Thanks to all who donated! Very cool to have a citizen science paper open access-funded via crowd sourcing, and within 9 hours! Great to see so much support of this important work. I think everyone will be very pleased with the quality of the research and conclusions.
-
John Cook at 10:16 AM on 26 April 2013Be part of a landmark citizen science paper on consensus
Just letting you all know our goal of $1,600 was met. As Dana published this blog post at 1am my time, we got halfway while I was blissfully sleeping. While I was on the train to campus, the donors quickly got us fully over the line. Thanks to all the donors, I'm blown away by the generosity and passion shown by SkS readers. Will publish a blog post with more details soon.
-
John Hartz at 10:08 AM on 26 April 20132013 SkS News Bulletin #8: Alberta Tar Sands and Keystone XL Pipeline
Synapsid:
The environmental/progressive community in the US and Canada is fully engaged in a multi-faceted effort to slow and eventually halt the extraction of fossil fuels in North America. It is quite capable of adressing coal, oil, and natural simultaneously.
-
chriskoz at 09:49 AM on 26 April 2013Be part of a landmark citizen science paper on consensus
You don't need to complain about the donation being in AUD if you live in OZ such as in my case.The AUD go far better than they used to 15 or even 10yago, because of massively favourable exchange rate. Minor 2-3% exchange fees don't change this big picture, that donation is now far easier than ever for me.
-
Andy Skuce at 09:21 AM on 26 April 2013Global Warming: Not Reversible, But Stoppable
Mark Bahner@40
I don't want to have to guess what you mean, could you be more specific? I am not sure what premise Matthews and Solomon could have made that would be demolished by asking, or even answering, such a question about the economics of the far future.
I don't think that anyone has the slightest clue what world GDP will be in several centuries' time. It depends on so many variables, among them population, technology, resources, plagues and, yes, even climate change.
-
Andy Skuce at 09:05 AM on 26 April 2013Global Warming: Not Reversible, But Stoppable
wili@41
Thanks.
Yes, I do believe that we should follow the science, wherever it leads and however gloomy the prospect is. Frankly, I find the whole prospect of climate change and our response to it a rather uncomfortable and gloomy one. However, I have spoken to individuals who are very depressed because they believe that we are already on an unstoppable path to disaster; that climate feedbacks are out of control and will continue to worsen, no matter what we do. That is not (yet) correct and, as a misconception, could be taken to mean that resistance is useless, a somewhat self-fulfilling prophecy.
The science says that we need not feel fatalisitic, but neither can we afford to wait. Of course, this prescription will change the longer we procrastinate.
-
Jonas at 08:44 AM on 26 April 2013Be part of a landmark citizen science paper on consensus
I usually give to SkS at the end/beginning of the year. A paper that more thorrowly investigates the consensus (the biggest attack point of big oil/coal) makes me exceed my planned giving budgets ... we need this paper, and we need it free.
-
nealjking at 08:35 AM on 26 April 2013Be part of a landmark citizen science paper on consensus
If we save 2% by reducing one step of currency conversion, then over the whole amount of $1,600 we will have saved $32. This hardly seems worth all the extra set-up trouble in terms of multiple sub-accounts for different currencies.
-
Synapsid at 08:18 AM on 26 April 20132013 SkS News Bulletin #8: Alberta Tar Sands and Keystone XL Pipeline
John Hartz:
"...walking and working hand-in-hand...one of the biggest ecological disasters ever to have been created by the human race...continuing to develop a world-wide coalition of organizations dedicated to creating a grassroots (!) movement...campaign to get universities and colleges to disinvest in the fossil fuel industry..."
More power to them all; every bit helps.
My belief that Bill McKibben is focusing all of his time and energy on stopping the Keystone pipeline--I'm unaware of that belief. I mentioned the attention McKibben has managed to focus on Keystone XL. He has done that. The rest of the statement comes from you.
Ranking ecological disasters is a fool's game. Mining the Athabasca oil sands has had ghastly effects over a large area. Right up there with what coal mining has done over large areas of Kentucky and West Virginia and Wyoming and Montana, with what the US Army Corps of Engineers has been told to do to natural drainage in Florida, with what Glen Canyon Dam has done to a chunk of southern Utah, with what has been done to the East Coast from New Jersey south (with the exception of North Carolina), with what the Aswan High Dam has done to Egypt...there's no end to the list. I don't support any of it. I'm pointing at coal and saying that the problem it represents needs much more visibility, and I'm doing that because the potential damage from utilization of coal is of a higher order of magnitude than is the damage from oil, bad as that is. There are vast reserves of coal, and they're found in many parts of the world, and the demand for energy in countries with large and growing populations that want a Western lifestyle--that demand will grow and grow. (The US and Australia are among the largest exporters of coal helping to meet that demand.) Coal is and will continue to be the favored energy source in those countries, starting with China and India and their 2.5 billion people. Coal production can be ramped up several fold but oil production cannot. Got that last part? If we don't tackle that, every way we can, with much greater effort and visibility than we have so far, then all the other efforts to cut back fossil fuels will be undermined even more than they are now.
Want a mantra? Here: Coal is the climate killer. Snappy; might have legs.
The disinvesting campaign will likely do some good, but have you looked into how much money China has put into the oil sands? China's first-right-of-refusal agreements for Venezuela's oil? Similar moves in Brazil (China might come to regret those)? Disinvest in fossil fuels, for good and worthy reasons, and you will send a message all right, and China will respond with, as they say, alacrity. That's the downside we can't avoid.
Let's give this a rest, out of consideration for the other readers on SKS. I'm repeating my repetitions, and hearing about coalitions of organizations dedicated to_______________(fill in the blank) lost my sympathy decades ago. May those folks all prosper and have daughters.
-
ianw01 at 07:28 AM on 26 April 2013Be part of a landmark citizen science paper on consensus
In my experience PayPal will let you set up several currency-specific accounts within your main account. So for example we have CAD, USD and EUR sections to our account. In the PayPal web site go to "My Account" > "My Profile" > "My money" and in the "PayPal balance" section click "Currencies". Then you (SkS) can add a new currency.
It would seem to make sense to receive the donations in the donator's currency and only convert once you know what currency you will be paying with. Note that money laundering laws prevent (or so PayPal claims) you from depositing foreign currency into a bank in your own country, even if that account is in the the foreign currency. But PayPal will convert it for you at their going fee and allow you to then put the (remaining) equivalent in your domestic bank account.
-
wili at 05:44 AM on 26 April 2013Global Warming: Not Reversible, But Stoppable
Andy, thanks for this great piece. One quible: In the second full paragraph, you say:
"many mistakenly believe that the climate system is going to send more warming our way no matter what we choose to do. Taken to an extreme, that viewpoint can lead to a fatalistic approach, in which efforts to mitigate climate change by cutting emissions are seen as futile"
My concern for now is not how valid various run-away gw scenarios may or may not be (I may get to that in a seperate post). But how you stated this sounds (though it may not be your intention) as if you think we should not consider valid any science that might make us feel sad or dispondent, since it may prevent people from taking effective action.
It seems to me that this is essentially what Inhofe and others do when they admit that they accepted climate science until they started considering what tax or other policy consequences of accepting the science might be.
The science is the science. We need to evaluate it on its own merits, not on what we think people's reactions to it might be or what politicies might be implemented because of it.
Would you agree that we should look at the science, even if it does take us into places we may be emotionally and politically uncomfortable with?
(Again, I think I am reacting to how some may interpret what you said as you stated it, more than what I would like to assume you actually think. Just looking for some clarity.)
-
shoyemore at 05:11 AM on 26 April 2013Announcement: New Guardian Blog by Dana Nuccitelli and John Abraham
Congratulations, John and Dana.
I look forward to more.
-
Andy Skuce at 05:03 AM on 26 April 2013Be part of a landmark citizen science paper on consensus
The Journal's publication fee page is given here. They may bill SkS in UK Pounds (1000), Euros (1200) or US dollars (1600). Since the payment will coming from an Australian account, it will have to be converted into one of those currencies from Australian dollars. It would not have been practical to set up a foreign currency account in Australia just for this purpose.
When you pay amount X in AUD, PayPal will tell you how much that is your local currency before you finalize the payment and you will be able to go back and change it if you want to.
If you have any comments about anonymity or anything else, you have the option to "add special instructions to the seller". Alternatively, you can email John Cook at: john@skepticalscience.com
-
john mfrilett at 04:27 AM on 26 April 2013Be part of a landmark citizen science paper on consensus
I want to donate but why not let me donate in US$ since that is the currancy you want? Donation will be converted to AUD then back to US$. I didn't see any way to donate in US$.
John
Moderator Response:[JH] Paypal
-
John Hartz at 04:23 AM on 26 April 20132013 SkS News Bulletin #8: Alberta Tar Sands and Keystone XL Pipeline
@Synapsid #12:
You need to better understand the breadth and depth of the international coalition that has been created around the Stop Keystone Movement. The leadership of the Sierra Club is walking and working hand-in-hand with Bill McKibben and a myriad of others on this effort.
Leaving aside the impact that the burning of petroleum products derived from the Alberta Tar Sands has on greenhouse gas emissions, the mining of the tar sands is one of the biggest ecological disasters ever to have been created by the human race. There are a myriad of environmental reasons why the mining of the Tar Sands should be brought to a halt.
Your belief that the Stop the Keystone movement is diverting significant resources away from other ongoing campaigns to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in North America is simply wrong.
Your belief that Bill McKibben is focusing all of his time and energy on stopping the Keystone pipeline is also wrong. He and his colleagues in 350.org are continuing to develop a world-wide coalition of organizations dedicated to creating a grassroots movement focused on climate change. He and his colleagues are continuing their campaign to get universities and colleges to disinvest in the fossil fuel industry.
-
CBDunkerson at 03:58 AM on 26 April 2013Announcement: New Guardian Blog by Dana Nuccitelli and John Abraham
jdixon1980, I wouldn't have expected it to remain the top link indefinitely... though I do still see it on the first page of results with a 'highly cited' tag. Clearly getting a lot of traffic and attention.
-
Synapsid at 03:30 AM on 26 April 20132013 SkS News Bulletin #8: Alberta Tar Sands and Keystone XL Pipeline
John Hartz:
Sure, the Sierra Club and Greenpeace and other organizations are doing their bit, and none of them are getting the attention that Bill McKibben has managed to focus on Keystone XL, more's the pity.
I was a member of the Sierra Club for 24 years myself.
-
Tom Dayton at 03:26 AM on 26 April 2013We're heading into an ice age
Tzedakis et al. (2012), "Can We Predict the Duration of an Interglacial?" mentions the end of the current interglacial only insofar as saying "We should also be able to predict the duration of the current interglacial in the absence of anthropogenic interference," and "glacial inception is possible despite the subdued insolation forcing, if CO2 concentrations were 240±5ppmv (Tzedakis et al., 2012)." [Emphasis is mine.]
That latter citation is of "Determining the Natural Length of the Current Interglacial," which says "No glacial inception is projected to occur at the current atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 390 ppmv. ... The end of the current interglacial would occur within the next 1500 years, if atmospheric CO2 concentrations did not exceed 240±5 ppmv." [Emphasis is mine.]
Of course there is no chance at all of CO2 falling that low for the next several hundreds and probably not for the next several thousands of years (see Figure A in another post), so we're not getting a new "Ice Age" for a really, really long time.
-
LarryM at 03:20 AM on 26 April 2013Be part of a landmark citizen science paper on consensus
FYI, about exchange rates. The donation form is in terms of Australian dollars (AUD). If one googles "exchange rate", there is a handy converter at the top of the results page. It shows, for example, that 1AUD = 1.03 USD (or 1 USD = 0.97 AUD), and 1 AUD = 0.79 Euro. However, Paypal adds a 2.5% currency conversion fee, so the end result today through Paypal is that 1USD = 0. 945830 AUD (or 1 AUD = 1.057272 USD).
-
jsam at 03:07 AM on 26 April 2013Be part of a landmark citizen science paper on consensus
Ah, I'd been expecting a special "donations" form. The only spot I could find to leave a note was under "Add special instructions to the seller". At the time I decided "nope, that can't be it" so I've left no message. Is that where you want people to indicate anonymity or otherwise? Or have I missed the point altogether?
-
jdixon1980 at 02:21 AM on 26 April 2013Announcement: New Guardian Blog by Dana Nuccitelli and John Abraham
Congrats, Dana; love the title ;)
CBDunkerson @1, sadly, when I just checked "global warming" in Google News, the top link is a denier article from the so-called "Washington Times Communities" with a big Washington Times logo at the top, and you have to read the fine print to see that "The opinions of Communities writers do not necessarily reflect nor are they endorsed by the Washington Times."
Then, the biggest, boldest headline is a James Taylor column in Forbes talking about how the "warmists" are resorting to their "last line of defense" - that the warming has gone to the "Bermuda triangle," i.e., the deep oceans, "you know, that part of our planet where we really can’t measure or find anything" . . . that is, unless you count the more than 3,000 Argo floats that have been recording data up to 2 kilometers deep in the ocean for the past six years!
Reminds of Bill O'Reilly's repeated mantra on TV, "tide comes in, tide goes out, no one can explain the tides..." The Daily Show nailed him on that with a guest appearance by Neil deGrasse Tyson, who is admittedly perhaps just a little overqualified to explain the concept that the tides are caused by the moon's gravitational pull...
-
Nick Palmer at 01:44 AM on 26 April 2013Announcement: New Guardian Blog by Dana Nuccitelli and John Abraham
Great news. We were thinking of changing our Sunday paper in any case. This might just tip the balance.
-
MA Rodger at 01:13 AM on 26 April 2013The anthropogenic global warming rate: Is it steady for the last 100 years?
While we are awaiting KK Tung's second post, it may be worth considering what the thesis presented by Tung & Chou 2013 ought to be establishing.
Here in this post, the consequence presented by the thesis was that of the 'flat' forcing profile. Although no supporting evidence for such a 'flat' profile has been offered, our inability to quantify negative forcings with any useful accuracy does not preclude such 'flatness'. Perhaps the strongest argument that it may be 'flat' is the rise in global temperatures 1910-1940. Attributing natural or human forcing to this rise has not been entirely convincing leaving the door open for T&C13 to suggest natural variation as a cause while pointing at the AMO as chief suspect.
Myself, I am tempted to suggest that the human input remains yet to be fully researched. For instance, 1910-40 was overwhelmingly fuelled by coal yet it also saw the rise of the electrical grid which as today must surely have greatly impacted the levels of pollution per ton of coal burnt. Such consideration I have not seen mentioned for early 20th century climate forcing.The second post we eagerly await will presumably lead to discussion of the proportion of AGW present within the AMO signal (and the flip-side of that - how much AMO is present in the global temperature record). This does need to be fully addressed to prevent accusations of curve-fitting.
Yet I don't think that is the primary requirement for T&C13. The thesis stands more strongly than say Asakofu (which is simple curve-fitting). T&C13 does more than just assert that the global climate, as exemplified by the AMO, is ringing like a bell and that it has done so for the last few centuries. T&C13 presents evidence for this 'ringing bell'. If compelling evidence for the 'ringing bell' exists, it doesn't really matter if it is driven by AMO, PDO, ENSO, AO or smelly BO.
It is thus evidence of the 'ringing bell' that I consider the most important question, be it within AMO reconstructions or the CET record. -
VoxRat at 00:11 AM on 26 April 2013Malaria: biting into the climate change debate
Very good point, Tom Curtis. Thank you.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 23:14 PM on 25 April 2013Announcement: New Guardian Blog by Dana Nuccitelli and John Abraham
Congrats Dana and John, I'm looking forward to reading more from you. I was not following the Guardian much before and that might change.
-
CBDunkerson at 21:27 PM on 25 April 2013Malaria: biting into the climate change debate
Mark Bahner wrote: "I think he's [Reiter] "polemical" for the same reason Roger Pielke Jr. is "polemical" about climate change and weather disasters (in particular hurricanes) and Jesse Ausubel is "polemical" about trends in carbon dioxide emissions."Yep, sounds about right. All three staked out a position and have continued to hold to it despite solid evidence to the contrary. Global warming is already increasing malaria infections and weather disasters, and Ausubel's insistence that we don't need to worry about AGW because the global economy is decarbonizing is perhaps the most insane of the three in the face of ever rising CO2 emissions.Also, for the record, the only 'science' Pielke Jr has studied is political science. He's more a political commentator on science than a 'scientist'. -
JohnB6223 at 21:00 PM on 25 April 2013Announcement: New Guardian Blog by Dana Nuccitelli and John Abraham
Great work Dana et al.
Am looking forward to the publishing of the Australian edition of the Guardian -but I understand that won't happen before October.
A market penetration opportunity is being lost in not publishing before/during Australia's pre-election period.
Australia desperatley needs some honesty and integrity in news media- lets hope the Guardian can provide this.
-
chriskoz at 19:48 PM on 25 April 20132013 SkS Weekly Digest #16
If you live in Australia, you might be happy looking at the title of recent smh article:
Electricity prices set to drop in OZ
But you will be disappointed if you read inside:
The main driver of the decline in 2015-16 is linking the carbon price with the European price...
...which crashed. I expected the reason would be rather due to renewables successfuly competing with coal, rather than cheaper C tax. What a joke: a bad news transformed for good news for greedy people who cares about their pockets only rather than a big picture.
We are long way from fixing the planet and after this article, the way becomes longer. If C trading scheme does not work on the long run, why not replace it with Jim Hansen's fee and dividend scheme? I guess people are not ready to accept such scheme.
-
Cornelius Breadbasket at 18:45 PM on 25 April 2013Announcement: New Guardian Blog by Dana Nuccitelli and John Abraham
Excellent - as a UK resident and a Guardian reader myself I'm thrilled with your appointment.
A considered and intellegent response to the UKIP document <a href="http://ukip.org/media/policies/energy.pdf" target="_blank">Keeping the Lights On</a> woulkd be of great interest to readers.
UKIP are the UK Independence Party - the UKs only real party in denial about Climate Change.
-
Doug Hutcheson at 17:28 PM on 25 April 2013Announcement: New Guardian Blog by Dana Nuccitelli and John Abraham
... and I'm delighted that the denier swarm has not succeeded in derailing the conversation over there! The few who push the denier agenda have been sent packing with sensible, logical argument. Good to see.
-
Doug Hutcheson at 16:39 PM on 25 April 2013Announcement: New Guardian Blog by Dana Nuccitelli and John Abraham
Well done, Dana. Keep up the good work.
-
bill4344 at 14:45 PM on 25 April 2013Announcement: New Guardian Blog by Dana Nuccitelli and John Abraham
Congrats indeed on a gig at the Graun! That's impressive!
And riling up the CiF trolls is a sure sign you're on the right track...
-
Bruce Caithness at 13:01 PM on 25 April 2013Rogues or respectable? How climate change sceptics spread doubt and denial
Some thoughts triggered by Garth Paltridges "The Climate Caper" (2010):
Hermann Hesse wrote a poem that is included in his novel "The Glass Bead Game. It is called "A Compromise" and it opens:
"The men of principled simplicity
Will have no traffic with our subtle doubt.
The world is flat, they tell us, and they shout:
The myth of depth is an absurdity!"
The goal of science is to find satisfactory explanations for whatever we feel needs explaining. Whatever explanations we come up with in science are regarded as permanently open to criticism and refinement, but the holding of doubt is subtle, for not even the philosopher Karl Popper would suggest that theories that have survived severe testing should be readily discarded without serious consideration.
The closing sentence of Hesse's excerpt raises the issue of who are the flat-earthers, the denialists of human accentuated climate change or the proponents? It is obvious in matters of conjecture and refutation that exaggeration and dogmatism can stain all sides of the debate. If Garth Paltridge's text highlights the dangers of an excess of dogmatism, the inertia of normal science, and the dangers of herd mentality, yes even in the IPCC, it is perhaps a worthy aim, if however it subtly reinforces denialist claims that have already been falsified in peer-reviewed testing then it would be a sad legacy for his eminent and long fought career. A forward by The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley is not a good way to start a work of serious intent. Sad career finales are not without precedent, Sir Ronald Fisher, arguably the greatest statistician of the twentieth century naively stained his legacy in the final years of his life in questioning the impact of smoking for public health. Science has implications that are far from neutral or saintly in their disinterest. Do shrill, and politically correct, warnings about the dangers of tobacco look so misguided now?
Moving to specifics, Garth Paltridge in this short book does question the hockey-stick model of climate change - later studies do seem to have falsified Garth's stance or at least have made it questionable.
It is all well and good to comment on the sociology of science, to stress situational analysis and piecemeal engineering rather than big budget government social engineering. The price of liberty is indeed eternal vigilance but even piecemeal solutions can turn toxic if out of context. Climate change does present complexities of a new scale that require a diversity of opinion and robust debate, but denialism is not scepticism.
-
Tom Curtis at 12:22 PM on 25 April 2013Malaria: biting into the climate change debate
Mark Bahner @5, like Pielke Jnr (who has built a career on the assumption that improved building codes have no effect on the risk of destruction by hurricanes), it appears to me that Reiter is pulling a swifty.
Specifically, consider the following two maps:
(Source)
The bottom map shows the historical distribution of malaria, while the upper map shows the frequency distribution of sickle cell anemia alleles.
Sickle cell anemia is very interesting for the study of evolution. It is invariably lethal without intensive modern medical care (and often with it) if it is inherited from both parents. If inherited from one parent, however, it confers a large degree of immunity to malaria. It follows that high frequencies of sickle cell anemia will only occur where there are high frequencies of malarial infection (also normally fatal without modern medical care). We can infer from the map above that the distrubtion of malaria in the second map leaves out an important component - the frequency of infection:
(Source)
Buggirl provides the following translation for the medically illiterate:
"To translate: the different colors relate to the level of infection in the general population (PR, or Parasite rate). ”Endemic” means that the infection is maintained in a community at a more or less steady state.
Epidemic/Unstable means that infections break out periodically in these regions
Hypoendemic: less than 10% of the population is infected with malaria
Mesoendemic: between 10% and <50% is infected with malaria
Hyperendemic: Between 50% and75% is infected with malaria
Holoendemic: over 75% of the population is infected with malaria"As can be seen from map a in the second figure, the historical distribution of malaria is just as Reiter says; but the frequency of infection in London and lapland was very low, only occuring in occasional outbreaks. In constrast, in warm hot regions in Africa where sickle cell anemia is frequent, over 75% of the population was infected; or more correctly, 75% of the population without a sickle cell anemia allele.
High altitude, high latitude or ariddity significantly reduce rates of infection.
That picture is not complete. There is a far more extensive distribution of Thalassemia, another frequenlty fatal blood disease that is endemic in populations because it confers a partial immunity to malaria:
(Source)
You will note the complemental distribution with sickle cell anemia in areas of frequent endemic malarial infection.
So, will global warming push malaria into areas it has not occurred before? No, certainly not with modern control methods. Reiter is correct about that. But will it expand the area in which malarial infection is endemic and so frequent that having a genetic disorder that gives a 25% chance of each child dying makes good genetic sense? Absolutely. No scientist merely trying to correct the record would fail to mention the important factor of frequency of infection. Ergo Reiter's interventions are not in the interests of accuracy, but of politics.
Hopefully modern control measures can keep up with that risk, although global warming has a kicker there as well. The warmer the climate the greater the number of generations per year, and hence the quicker they will evolve immunity to various control measures.
Prev 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 Next
