Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 Next
Comments 4551 to 4600:
-
scaddenp at 08:56 AM on 21 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
I think there is something in the Y2K analogy. Experts see a problem and make warning. Coders look at code and go "uh-oh". Large no. of $$ fixing the problem and things went well. Also, doom merchants and the uninformed-but-like-publicity getting lots of media hype. There is some of that with AGW but with both, what the experts said is what is worth noticing. (ie, for AGW, read the IPCC reports).
Was Y2K a real problem, well geez, you just needed a programmer to show you production code and see what would happen to it if not fixed. I was also involved with Y2L, fixing for power stations code and consequences of not fixing there were control systems failing.
Like Y2K, we can minimize AGW by taking action in advance. Unlike Y2K, we didnt start soon enough and we are already coping some major downsides.
-
Eclectic at 08:51 AM on 21 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
Getting back On Topic . . .
Evan , your Lead Article is excellent and perceptive. Yes, there are so many sociological hindrances & constraints ~ far more formidable to overcome, than the technological ones. Yet we progress. But it is like wading through honey. The pious wish of carbon neutrality by 2050 , is only half-achievable (short of a miracle) . . . but is at least a worthy target to be steering towards. In this regard, the world is still due for many cuts and bruises for the remainder of this century.
The forces of stupidity are still strong ~ coming both from the intellectual troglodytes and the elites. ( I had the pleasure of reading a recent public speech by the eminent emeritus Dr William Happer, on climate. Oh me, oh my. As Professor Carlo Cipolla has pointed out, it is the intelligent but irrationally stupid people who do the most damage in this world. )
Speaking of which ~ leads me back to the observation of the trolls who frequently crop up in the threads of SkS. Evan, I hope you will forgive me for engaging with them. The trolls are a fine example of one of the sociological "push backs" you mention.
At the same time, the trolls provide entertainment & amusement in the comments columns. Remarkable, how they seem to enjoy embarrassing themselves in public. IMO it is their unacknowledged anger issues motivating them. And they are like a child who rushes to the top of a tiny hillock, plants his "flag" and proclaims loudly: "I'm the king of the castle and you're the dirty rascals!"
Should a troll be ignored on his hillock? No, of course not. We should patiently point out his errors/stupidities, and point out that his childish "flag" is in reality just a square of dirty toilet paper. And the exercise does serve to re-illuminate some climate information.
Plus, trolls are interesting to observe, in themselves! At first , the reader thinks: could this just be an ill-informed person who is seeking knowledge? But almost immediately, the aroma of troll emerges ~ however skilfully & subtly he tries to conceal it. Interesting to observe the different levels of skill there ~ the troll is like a classic actor wearing a "persona" mask. Interesting, to observe how the mask slips a bit, from time to time. Or the troll churns through goalposts/arguments ~ so interesting, to see how the troll is a chameleon trying to change colors frequently : or wear different colors at the same time !
But eventually the troll gets tired and goes away (sometimes, after several pages). Or disappears when the Moderator hammer comes down (on the most obnoxiously repetitious trolls . . . in their various sockpuppet forms). Yet the trolls do provide amusement.
( Nigelj , my above comments will perhaps interest you more than they interest Evan. )
-
nigelj at 05:56 AM on 21 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
Santalives claimed he was a sceptic, not a climate denialist. So I asked him what parts of the AGW theory / consensus he accepted. Presumably if hes not a denialist he much accept at least some parts. He didn't answer. I wonder why that would be (sarcasm)
----------------------------
Eclectic @66. Yes eclectic it can be enjoyable debating with denialists and similar characters, but I get a bit annoyed with them. Like badly behaved children they sometimes need some verbal punishment.
And they do not appear to apply much scepticism to their preferred sources of information, ironically.
-
Evan at 23:42 PM on 20 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
Mikel@65 Thanks for your thoughts. We are volunteers here at SkS working hard to connect with people like yourself. There are many objectives of this site. Mine is to educate people like yourself about the science and what is happening so that you can make better, informed decisions.
But I learn from the comments that come back. Keep reading this and other climate sites and please continue to share your thoughts in these comment threads. I read them all and often incorporate ideas shared here in future postings.
-
MA Rodger at 23:33 PM on 20 February 2022It's albedo
blaist @121
I had the impression the Order of the Day set out @111 was "small bites" but @121 you appear to be serving up a giant five-course meal.You seem to be proposing a driver of AGW with a mechanism initiated by (1) a decrease in surface albedo due to the spread of urban areas leading to (2) a rise in surface temperature which in turn leads to (3) reduced relative humidity which leads to (4) reduced cloud cover which then amplifies the warming due to (5) a reduction in cloud albedo. Do correct me if I have misunderstood your proposed mechanism.
Yet if this suggestion is to hold water, how does it reconcile with the 'Amazonia report' you cite, Costa et al (2007) which (as you describe) "showed that in despite of an increase in albedo from rain forest to crop/pasture, the temperature increased." And this increase in surface albedo with land-use-change is global and has been on-going since 1700 according to your other citation Ghimire et al (2014) whose Fig 2 is pasted below showing a cooling radiative forcing (inset rising albedo).
So if there is an increase in surface albedo, what is it causing the increasing global temperature and thus kicking-off your proposed mechanism, (1) to (5) above? Why would we be experiencing warming if globally surface albedo has been increasing since 1700? -
Evan at 21:42 PM on 20 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
Santalives you ask "... is there a problem here?"
Coming out of the last ice-age cycle temperature rose 5C, causing a sea-level rise of 400'. Temperatures have already risen 1.2C and there is enough carbon in the atmosphere, already, to take us to 1.7C. There is over 200' of sea-level rise locked up in the world's ice.
We know that ice melts when it gets warmer and scientists are witnessind destabilization of the big ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland.
More carbon -> higher temperatures -> more ice melting -> higher sea-level rise -> problem
This is just one of many problems.
-
Eclectic at 19:18 PM on 20 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
Santalives @62 , since you mention me, I'll give my 2 cents, too.
The Y2K threat, as an analogy? Love it. Very droll of you.
But no real parallel, at all. And so poster John Mason @61 will still be waiting to see if you express your actual emotional motivation for you doubting the laws of physics. Will Newton's famous apple fall downward, or upward? Gosh, what a problem to solve.
Let me stand back and look at the overall problem. You, as an intelligent inquirer about climate . . . you have of course learnt about the 100,000-year Milankovitch cycles of warming/cooling of this planet. So you know that things have been gradually cooling ( around 0.7 degreesC over 4000 years, until about 1850 A.D. ) . . . which would naturally lead to a new "Ice Age" setting in around 16,000 - 20,000 years in the future.
Except now ~ for the past 170-ish years ~ the planet's temperature has reversed direction, is now going upward a at a rapid rate of knots (geologically speaking). The ocean is warming; the sea level is rising; and the planetary ice is melting rather than increasing.
In fact, the surface temperature is about 1.1 degreesC hotter than the mid-1800's (and it's slightly hotter than the plateau peak of the Holocene era, 5-10.000 years ago ~ according to the expert scientists who study past temperatures).
And the temperature is still rising rapidly ~ because physics. You know ~ Newton, Maxwell, Einstein . . . them guys. So the climate scientists of the past 100 years have predicted it would get warmer, and it's very clearly been getting warmer . . . and is continuing to do so. (Sorry Santalives ~ there's no contradictory observations there ~ and the ice and oceans don't lie to us.)
Climate predictions accurate enough for practical purposes? Check! World continuing to get warmer? Check! Scientists understand the reasons causing it? Check!
Sorry Santalives, but you've struck out: Three Times. And your batting average is still zero. Next innings better, perhaps? Seems unlikely, going on track record.
If you want a stretched analogy, Santalives (but not as stretched as your Y2K analogy) . . . then think about that old joke of the guy who fell off the top of the Empire State Building. Yeah, he was an optimist, saying:- 32 floors and okay so far . . . 45 floors and okay so far . . . 62 floors and okay so far . . .
For me, Santalives, I'm not such an optimist as you are. You, as a skeptic (aka science-denier) want to wait for the clear-cut splat onto the pavement. Me, I go with the scientific evidence, and vote for pulling the ripcord on the parachute [yeah, I know, that wasn't in the original joke . . . but you know what I am alluding to] .
In tally : climate predictions ~ Scientists 1 , Santalives 0 .
And real world observations ~ Scientists 1 , Santalives 0 .
Next innings please.
And a pleasure to talk with you, Santalives. Entertaining !
-
Mikel at 19:11 PM on 20 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
I thought this is a very good post from Sks but am very disappointed to see the comment thread get hijacked.
i don't have any good suggestions to make. I feel quite conflicted about various measures which can probably be summed up as the need to end the pursuit of perpetual economic growth and consequences from both success and failure to meet that objective.
-
BaerbelW at 17:59 PM on 20 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
@Santalives #62
I was actively involved in fixing issues related to Y2K and know first hand that there was a lot of potential for things to go wrong if they were not fixed ahead of time, simply because a two-digit year of "00" would obviously be earlier than "99" even though "2000" was in fact later than "1999". Nothing much happened on Jan 1, 2000 because a lot of code had been fixed in the years and months earlier. Apparently you lacked that undertanding then as you lack it now regarding human-caused climate change.
-
nigelj at 17:25 PM on 20 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
Santalives
So your logic is Y2K was over hyped so climate change is over hyped. Experts have been wrong about some things. That doesn't mean they are wrong about everything. The issues between computer chips and climate science are obviously also quite different. You have posted another nonsensical denialist talking point. Are you going to ignore your doctors advice because doctors have not always got things right?
"So it brings us back to the basic question is there a problem here? So far climate predictions have not really what you call acurrate"
Just blatantly false, unsubstantiated statements. Warming predictions have been quite accurate refer here:
www.science.org/content/article/even-50-year-old-climate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming
www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/02/another-dot-on-the-graphs-part-ii/
Go away and waste someone elses time. You could find this information yourself, troll.
-
Santalives at 16:15 PM on 20 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
@eclectic 60 and John 61. I am not trying to find the piece of evidence that overturns all climate science, but I am interested in the evidence that proves it.
What motivates me is I have seen this before. In 1998 I was a senior exec in a very large IT firm, the Y2K was just gaining traction and the press were ramping up the rethoric. In late 1998, government steps in and tells everyone to have a Y2K plan, undertake remediation. At this point we actually hadn't proven a problem. I was in charge of 100,s of people spending millions $ a week chasing the Y2K bug. Nobody stopped to ask is there a real problem, we were all making serious money no questions asked. I actually did believe in it for a while, that planes would fall out of the sky, power grids and water supply would collapse and we had to save civilisation as we new it. To cut this short after spending tens of millions $, I realised that the Y2K bug was real, but would have zero impact on anything. In short the reason was date fields in particular YY had zero impact on the code running critical systems. I resigned my job in Oct 99 and I realised we were all a bunch a sheep going along with a consensus and to be honest the money was the thing that kept it all going. I never saw so many 20,year old IT guys buying sports cars at any time in my career.
So it brings us back to the basic question is there a problem here? So far climate predictions have not really what you call acurrate and real, world observations contradictory.
Moderator Response:[DB] Ideology, sloganeering and made-up assertions snipped.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly posts in violation of and ignoring the Comments Policy. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
John Mason at 11:51 AM on 20 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
I guess the thing that interests me, @Santalives, is the motivation. I've read all of your posts in this thread and I'm simply left with that one question: what motivates you here? Genuinely. Like a drowning man in a flooding river you grasp at bits of driftwood bobbing by, when the best advice all along was to stay away from the water because there was a flood coming.
I've also seen a lot of this type of reasoning with regard to COVID 19. Remarkably so, in fact. Is this the bargaining stage of grief? -
Eclectic at 11:49 AM on 20 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
Santalives , perhaps I can give you some helpful hints :
If you wish to discover some major flaw in the conventional climate science ~ something which will overthrow the consensus ~ then you will really need to sit down and put on your Thinking Cap.
Since no-one yet has managed to discover any major error in today's climate science, then obviously it will need you to achieve a huge stroke of inspired genius. You will need to think outside the box. Some thunderbolt of deep insightful & groundbreaking discovery about physics will be necessary. Just like Einstein had, when riding that tram in Vienna.
Achieve that, Santalives , and fame and fortune will fall into your lap. The Nobel Committee will award you a small fortune of cash, and the world's fossil fuel companies will give you much bigger bucketloads of money. Very nice !
Yes, it is a bit daunting that for the past 125 years or so, no-one at all has achieved what you are looking for. But that is why you need to make a completely novel approach to such a quest.
Needless to say, you would be wasting your time in searching through the old, established scientific papers . . . or searching through WattsUpWithThat and all the other denialist/contrarian blogs & videos. They have never found anything ~ otherwise, they would already have received all those awards I mentioned. No, you need a fresh start, entirely based on your own stroke of genius.
(btw, if you are successful, then please consider a small ex-gratia payment to me.)
-
Evan at 11:35 AM on 20 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
Santalive@57, one of your comments, originally numbered 52, disappeared. I wrote my response (#54), but by the time I posted it responding to your #52 comment, your's was gone. I don't think you did anything wrong, but somehow one of your comments disappeared.
-
Eclectic at 10:12 AM on 20 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
Santalives, the good Prof. Kilty and some others, have pointed out flaws with the containment and sensor readings situation, plus some heavy hints about why the experiment ~ even if redesigned ~ would be a waste of time.
Speaking of which . . . did you want to try Ball Three ?
Something, anything at all, which disproves the consensus climate science? For years I have been hoping there might be such disproof. Never found any. But perhaps you are the Einstein genius who can discover it? Best of luck with your search !
-
Santalives at 10:11 AM on 20 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
@Evan 55... What's with vanishing coments?
Moderator Response:[DB] This is a moderated forum. You have made a number of comments here constructed in violation of this site's Comments Policy, which applies equally to all. As a newcomer, latitude was given and allowances were made, but that grace period is over. A comment was removed because the bulk of it was unfounded assertions with no factual backing that amounted to PRATT (points refuted a thousand times), violations falling under the prohibition against sloganeering. A continuance of this behavior will see further enforcement of the commenting guidelines listed in the Comments Policy (a prescription for quality conversations that the vast majority of participants at this venue have do difficulties adhering to).
-
Santalives at 09:55 AM on 20 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
@nigelj @51. Yes have read the critique and all 130 comments, it's good but for all the faults in the experiment it does not explain how for all 3 gases you get basically the same temperature profile? That's strange. Second why simply not point to an experiment showing the expected results.
-
Evan at 09:48 AM on 20 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
Yes, my response was also to a now vanished response.
-
Evan at 09:46 AM on 20 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
We're running that experiment right now. Is it your suggestion that we continue with this global experiment until the atmospheric CO2 concentration recahes 560 ppm so that we can verify what the climate sensitivity is? Of course, if the world leaders listen to your suggestion, we will then be stuck with 560 ppm CO2, because it ain't easy to remove once it's in the atmosphere.
I vote we rely on the well-developed physics and skip your suggested atmospheric experiment.
By the way, filling a container with air and CO2 is not the same as filling the atmosphere with air and CO2. There are a few differences.
-
Eclectic at 09:46 AM on 20 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
Oops, sorry Nigelj , it appears that Santalives's reply (@52) has vanished.
But he wasn't really replying to you ~ just raising more rubbish.
Moderator Response:[DB] The missing comment in question was removed because the bulk of it consisted of PRATT (points refuted thousands of times).
-
Eclectic at 09:39 AM on 20 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
Yes, Nigelj @51 , the good Professor Kevin Kilty's review of Santalives's paper (the paper by Seim & Olsen) was quite damning of the thing. Kilty was being polite, but in essence he said that the Seim & Olsen's paper was crap. Rubbish. Junk science.
It is somewhat amusing that Santalives picked such a piece of rubbish, in trying to show that all the world's scientists were wrong about climate. Perhaps Santalives can be forgiven, since he seems (or pretends) to be so clueless about science and the Greenhouse Effect.
But it is sadly beyond amusing, that those academics Seim and Olsen are themselves so clueless about Greenhouse, that they designed an experiment that was completely useless from the very start.
As you say, Nigelj , even the WUWT mob were blowing raspberries at the paper. Well, half of them were. The other half were so desperate to find anything, however much of a crappy Fail, which they could close their eyes about and pretend was somehow part of the "debate".
But there is a minor mystery ~ who is feeding all this rubbish to Santalives? And why does Santalives (@52) think that anybody could do total atmosphere experimentation in a plastic bag full of CO2 ? (Ah, this is a distinctly amusiing thread ! )
-
nigelj at 07:48 AM on 20 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
For information. "Review of Seim and Olsen paper: “The influence of IR Absorption and Backscatter Radiation from CO2…”
wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/18/review-of-seim-and-olsen-paper/
Comprehensively debunked on WUWT. If those guys are debunking the paper it must be incredibly bad! Not sure why Santilves couldn't find this review because it only took me a few seconds. I wonder if he will argue with the review, or move on and just go onto dumping more junk science onto this website?
I think hes a hard core denialist like I originally stated. He mostly doesnt address specific points people raise. He uses all the usual denialist arguments one after the other. Perhaps he could tell us in unequivocal language what aspects of the AGW issue he accepts? What would change his mind? But no, we will probably just get another flood of denialism.
Time to disengage with him. He has all the factual information he needs. People here have done their bit. If he wont accept it that is his problem.
-
blaisct at 07:28 AM on 20 February 2022It's albedo
MA Rodger @112
Before I answer your question on whether there is something other than AGW causing global warming. Let me clarify that I am not a skeptic on Anthropical Global Warming, AGW, I firmly believe that man’s activities are causing AGW. The paper Dubal & Vahrenholt expressed doubt that the 20 years of CERES data showed significant evidence of GHG caused AGW and that clouds were the significant factor. How is cloud cover related to AGW? The Skeptical web site seems to be committed to evaluating theories. Here is the answer to your question:
The data I have looked at (below) suggest that AGW is not cause by one thing but a series of interactive events starting with land albedo and ending with ocean/land albedo and relative humidity (not specific humidity) in the middle. You will see (below) that this cycle of events is a known cycle in weather and that man’s activities have interfered with the cycle to cause AGW. For lack of a better name, I will call the cycle of events the “Low Humidity Albedo Cycle”, LHAC. The LHAC cycle back in the 1700-1800 (with low man-made albedo change) was:
Event 1: Over land on sunny days the temperature rises and the relative humidity, RH, drops through the day no matter what the albedo of the land is. How much the RH drops depends on availability of water from liquid water evaporation or plant transpiration. If no water is added to this daily event the specific humidity, SH, will remain constant while the RH drops. With water available the RH does not drop as much and the SH increase. The energy fueling this event (sunny days) depends on the albedo and latitude of the land, the lower the albedo and the closer to the equator the stronger this event. Clouds greatly dampen this event.
Event 2: The air above this land is hot and dryer and it rises all day long, creating a plume of rising hot low humidity air. That plume of air moves with the prevailing winds usually to the east in a circling pattern due to the Corellas effect.
Event 3: This hot low RH air is hungry for water. If this air finds clouds it eats away at them until the air is saturated with water, this process cools the air and raises the SH and RH. If this hot low RH air does not find a cloud it can cool as the pressure drops at the higher altitudes or it can serve as a deterrent to cloud formation. In all cases it reaches saturation.
Event 4: With fewer clouds more sun can reach the earth and warm the land and oceans, this is the final albedo decrease event. This last albedo event is the strongest because the change in albedo in the greatest with no clouds in the way of direct sun light. The warmer oceans store some of this energy and evaporate more water - find cold air and make more clouds.
This natural LHAC cycle of event will remain stable if the albedo and moisture availability remain constant. Let’s take each event and look at its contribution to the total AGW since 1880:
Event 1: Since 1700-1880 man has made some small changes in land use albedo but a large change in the land area. Most of these albedo changes came along with a decrease in moisture availability. UHI’s are most noted, with albedo changes between 0 and 0.2 depending on what the city replaced. I don’t have a source for the average, I will assume 0.05 average albedo change. The urban area has increased to about 3% of the earth’s land mass for all cities. I have no trouble doubling that to 6% for all man-made structures, rural + urban, they all have lower albedos and generate heat. Go to any city at Climate data and you can find the daytime data for temperature vs RH, in the morning the RH is high and as the day progress the temperature rises and the RH drops sometimes to 40% RH or lower, this is a normal psychometric thermodynamic process. Figure 1 is an example of daily RH from Beijing and is typical of most cities (just focus on the day time).
Figure 1
The change in albedo flux of all the earth’s cities is estimated at 0.08W/m^2 (assuming 177W/m^2 sun to the city, 50% cloud cover, 0.05 albedo change, 3% of land mass cities). Even if we make larger assumptions, we still can’t get to the 2.2W/m^2 we are looking for to account for all the AGW since 1880 or the 1.3 W/m^2 in Dubal & Vahrenholt . These cities can have daily temperature rise of up to 8’C. A large part of this temperature rise is due to the psychometric rise, PR, in temperature while the RH drops at a constant energy input (albedo). Looking at temperature anomalies, SH, and RH all plotted together vs time, Figure 2, we see they are all correlated (Temp and SH positively, and Temp and RH negatively).
Figure 2
If PR were not occurring on a global basis the RH and SH would both have a positive slope. Using the psychometric chart in @106 we can get the average temperature rise per % RH of -0.15 ‘C/%RH. The slope of the RH data in (2) is 0.16%RH/decade, for the 40 years of the chart this is 0.6% change in RH, giving a PR temp rise of 0.1’C for the 40 years vs the 0.7’C observed, small but not insignificant. This hot low RH air has no W/m^2 flux as it leaves the UHI; but, the hot low RH air has potential energy gain in getting saturated with water. Let’s add the crop/pasture land albedo changes to the UHI's. Globally the change since 1880 from virgin land to crop/pasture was about 6% with little change in albedo (Global albedo change); but, with low moisture change. The most notable of these changes was the deforestation of the Amazonian rain forest to make crop and pasture land Amazonia report (and @106). Amazonia report showed that in despite of an increase in albedo from rain forest to crop/pasture the temperature increased, the RH deceased, the cloud cover decreased, and the rain decreased. Classic example of psychometric temperature and RH behavior. Most likely all of this global 6% increase in crop/pasture land is producing hot low RH air just like the UHI’s. Combining the UHI and crop/pasture land changes we get 9% of the earth’s land mass producing more hot low RH air than 1880.
Event 2: This hot low relative humidity air rises and goes downwind from the UHI or changed crop/pasture land. The picture from (6) shows the extent of the UHI plume from Chicago, Il.
Figure 3
This is a computer model tuned with real data and calculates the extent of the plume to be 2 to 4 time the area of the UHI. The model also predicts the shape of the plume, rising to where some clouds could be. Using 3 times as the average extent of the plume we now get 27% of the land mass (7.8% of the earth) being affected by plumes like the one in Figure 3.
Event 3: Cloud destruction/prevention is the closest target for the hot low RH plume; but, if clouds are not available the lower pressure will saturate it or it will mix with cooler air. When this plume of hot low RH air increases its RH to 80% it is no longer is a threat to clouds or cloud prevention. Clouds and RH observations are that almost no clouds can form below 60% RH and significant reductions will occur below 80% RH.
Figure 4
Data shown in the figure 4 shows a 41%/decade decrease in clouds over 40 years. Dubal & Vahrenholt Figure 9 show about 0.57%/decade decrease, this data can be correlated to Figure 2 RH data and get 2.7% change in cloudiness/change in RH (R^2 =0.63). Not the best correlation but shows there is a relationship.
Event 4: The reduce cloud cover exposes more land and ocean to the sun. This land and ocean are located in the middle 75% of the earth where the cloud cover is about 50% vs about 60% for the whole earth, also assuming albedo of clouds is 50%. The sun’s flux to this exposed area is the cloud free flux of 342 W/m^2 (1367/4). Dubal & Vahrenholt suggest this energy is split 85% over ocean (0.05 albedo) and remainder over land (0.15 albedo). Using 40%/decade cloud cover for 2 decades of CERES data we get -1.6W/m^2 change in incoming SW [ 342W/m^2*0.8% cloud cover change*(85% *(1-0.05)+(1-80%)*(1-0.15))]. A little greater than the -1.3 W/m^2 observed; but close enough to show that the LHAC theory is plausible. -
Evan at 07:11 AM on 20 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
In the 1850's John Tyndall showed that CO2 in the presence of infrared radiation causes heating.
In the 1890's Svante Arrhenius calculated how much the Earth would warm if we doubled CO2 concentrations.
The value that Arrhenius got using pencil and paper is within the range estimated by current scientists.
This is very, very old science. Well known, well established, the kind of science that is taught in college classes and no longer debated by professional climate scientists.
What is debated, if you want to debate something, is how much warming we can expect for a doubling of CO2.
But the debate about whether CO2 causes warming ended a long time ago.
-
Santalives at 06:38 AM on 20 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
@48. So far no one has answered the question, "where is the heating? ". Surely someone by now has done a controlled experiment to show that Co2 can cause warming.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:54 AM on 20 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
Santalives appears to be providing an example of what I comment on @23.
They appear to be powerfully motivated to resist learning. They resist developing the constantly improving common sense understanding of climate science, the consensus understanding. They appear to be motivated to prolong harmful misunderstanding, likely because they fear having to give up developed harmful actions that they benefit from.
Tragically, people like Santalives also behave that way regarding other helpful learning and corrections required to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. And people who resist unlearning harmful misunderstandings can be seen to collectively gather, and excuse or adopt each others harmful misunderstanding, in attempts to harmfully compromise leadersip action that seeks or relies on popularity or profit.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 00:12 AM on 20 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
The optical properties of CO2 have been thoroughly investigated and are well known. The effectiveness of the MODTRAN model, how tightly it is validated by measurements, and the even better HITRAN prove that beyond doubt. If Seim and Olson really believe they know better, they should put forth their own effort and create a better model than MODTRAN, then validate it. Let's see where these chips fall.
-
Eclectic at 23:17 PM on 19 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
Santalives @44 :- to reinforce BaerbelW's comment . . .
something else that is funny, is that you seem to believe that all peer review is perfect and of equal quality . . . and therefore every paper published (in any journal whatsoever) is perfect ~ and has no faults. Or perhaps you are just pretending to, in order to argue [ Never, I'm sure, eh. ;-) ]
Sorry to disillusion you , Santalives . . . but as BaerbelW says, journals range from the reputable respected ones (which only rarely publish crap) . . . through to middling journals (which more occasionally publish crap because the reviewers/editors don't recognise crap often because it's not stuff in their field of expertise). And through to journals which frequently publish any old crap, provided the authors pay enough cash. So it ain't all equal, Santalives !
As above, your Seim & Olsen paper was [politely] described as crap by Prof. Kevin Kilty (a Wyoming professor of engineering) who seems reasonably respected at WUWT ~ and despite that, I don't know anything to his discredit. From the little I've read of his, he seems to speak quite sensibly.
Santalives, until you can educate yourself to know more than Professor Kilty, then I suggest you temporarily accept his carefully considered verdict that your Seim & Olsen paper is the sort of crap which is a waste of time for everyone.
(And is also a waste of time for you . . . 'cos you're already at Strike Two.)
-
BaerbelW at 22:17 PM on 19 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
@Santalives #44
Just because a paper is peer-reviewed doesn't make it correct and others have already explained what is at the very least questionable in Seim & Olson (2020). There unfortunately are publishers out there who are more interested in making a (quick) buck than in publishing properly peer-reviewed articles. There however is a list with potentially predatory journals called Beall's List and Scientific Research (SCRIP) does make an appearance there, which is a warning flag about how much weight to give their publications.
Another such red flag is that scrolling through the paper you link to, I don't quickly see the somewhat customary information about the timeline from manuscript "received" via "accepted" to "published". For properly peer-revieved papers this tends to span several months at least but you often see it happening within a few weeks (if not days) for predatory journals. I might well have missed it for the paper in question but if not, does failing to disclose this important information increase or decrease your confidence in the publication? It sure decreases mine!
In addition, here is a link to a short article published recently by Yale Climate Connections titled "Scientists agree: Climate change is real and caused by people". It starts with this:
"The scientific consensus that climate change is happening and that it is human-caused is strong. Scientific investigation of global warming began in the 19th century, and by the early 2000s, this research began to coalesce into confidence about the reality, causes, and general range of adverse effects of global warming. This conclusion was drawn from studying air and ocean temperatures, the atmosphere’s composition, satellite records, ice cores, modeling, and more."
Last but not least, let me repeat my invitation to join our MOOC Denial101x. It explains - among other things - why a lot more than a questionable paper would be involved to overturn the scientific consensus explained in the Yale article.
-
Santalives at 21:21 PM on 19 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
@ electric42. Not sure what is funny. This is a peer reviewed Published paper on the basics physics of C02 and back scatter radiation which is the foundation stone of climate change science. The conclusions are fairly clear,
These findings might question the fundament of the forcing laws used by the IPCC.
So far no one has produced any alternative evidence to disprove this experiment, calling it complete crap is not evidence. Really it's surprising because if C02 was so effective at creating scatter radiation then it should be easily demonstrated. Maybe a skeptical scientist might think.... maybe they are onto to something.
-
MA Rodger at 21:10 PM on 19 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
Santalives @40/41,
❶ You use the term "back scatter radiation" and you may be forgiven for using it as the term even appears in the title of Seim & Olsen (2020). But the term is not correctly used. Backscatter concerns the physical reflection of radiation. The radiative effects being modelled involves only absorbtion and re-radiation. The peer review should have been down on this like a ton of bricks but evidently the paper was not properly subject to such review.
❷ You are correct that Seim & Olsen (2020) reference the IPCC (although rather sloppily) to support their description of the GH mechanism. However, Houghton et al (1997) 'An Introduction to Simple Climate Models used in the IPCC Second Assessment Report' does not provide such description (and why should it, it is desribing model representation, not what the model represents). Again, peer review should have been onto this non-reference like a ton of bricks.
There are further references provided for their description of the GH mechanism.
The first is a text book Benestad (2006) 'Solar Activity and Earth's Climate'. The full text is available on-line but not downloading for me. The content pages are available and it is Section 5.4.3 which would provide a description of the GH mechanism, but this section is not being very come-hitherish.So to the last reference provided by Seim & Olsen (2020) which is Pierrehumbert. (2011) 'Infrared Radiation and Planetary Temperature'. It is no surprise to see zero support for the Seim & Olsen (2020) description of the GH mechanism. Instead we find the following description of the GH mechanism.
"An atmospheric greenhouse gas enables a planet to radiate at a temperature lower than the ground's if there is cold air aloft. It therefore causes the surface temperature in balance with a given amount of absorbed solar radiation to be higher than would be the case if the atmosphere were transparent to IR. Adding more greenhouse gas to the atmosphere makes higher, more tenuous, formerly transparent portions of the atmosphere opaque to IR and thus increases the difference between the ground temperature and the radiating temperature. The result, once the system comes into equilibrium, is surface warming."
So yet another non-reference within Seim & Olsen (2020) has slipped through the peer review, as did the silly description provided by Seim & Olsen (2020) itself.
And if this is how the GH mechanism operates, does the wonderful experiment of Seim & Olsen (2020) in any way demonstrate the GH mechanism? Or is it just demonstrating a pair of numpties playing climate-change-denial in a lab?
-
Eclectic at 19:26 PM on 19 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
Santalives @ 40/41 ,
my apologies for chiming in again so soon ~ but I am having a good laugh at the experiment / paper you link to (by Seim & Olsen).
In the words of a certain famous scientist of yore :- the experiment is so bad it is "not even wrong". And Santalives, I did warn you earlier in the thread that this paper was useless. And a million miles from overthrowing mainstream climate science.
But I am sure you would prefer to have an assessment from someone completely unconnected with SkS. But as a useless experiment / paper, it has not been so easy to find anyone who has bothered to critique such a paper. Real scientists usually don't waste their valuable time critiquing all the rubbish which is "out there".
So, for your special benefit and appreciation, Santalives, I managed to find a review of it at your spiritual home WattsUpWithThat. The reviewer said :-
"The result of this experiment seems reasonable, but it says nothing about the Greenhouse effect." And he added :-
"You cannot take the results of an experiment done wrong in a number of ways as meaning much of anything."
Which was the reviewer's polite way of saying : It's complete crap.
And Santalives, that is about the level of the evidence that you will find to challenge the consensus science. It's either crap (also see Prof. K's paper, above) or it's irrelevant to the question (like the papers you linked to about speleothem isotopes in Siberian caves & suchlike). That is why I said there is no valid evidence against mainstream climate science.
And that is why 99+% of expert scientists are in consensus about climate . . . and the remaining <1% have wacko opinions and nothing to support themselves.
Sorry, Santalives, but you have chosen to play for the wrong team.
And that is: Strike Two, against you.
-
Santalives at 16:08 PM on 19 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
Cont from 40.
..... Is far less than expected. So in terms of rebuttal is the physics wrong, the maths wrong or is the sound physics.
-
Santalives at 16:05 PM on 19 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
Thanks for all the feedback, including the moderator, I have posted 7 times on sks and been pinged 5 times. Sorry about that. Would really like to get back to the science, this I posted earlier The Influence of IR Absorption and Backscatter Radiation from CO2 on Air Temperature during Heating in a Simulated Earth/Atmosphere Experiment.
Rodger @35. Your response was the author ...... shows a complete misunderstanding of how the GH-effect works. How? His explanation of Backscatter radiation seems to be standard stuff and is referenced from the IPCC.
The experiment is a fairly straight forward test of the physical properties of c02 to produce back scatter radiation.. The conclusion is the temperature effect is far
. Esthens
Moderator Response:[DB] Moderation complaints snipped.
-
Eclectic at 10:38 AM on 19 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
Nigelj @38 :
speaking of Hockey Sticks and MWP's and vast lists of scientific papers
. . . leads us to one of PotHoler54's encounters with that well-known paragon of truthfulness, Lord Christopher Monckton :
(shown in PH54's video "Medieval Warm Period - fact vs fiction" )
Monckton speaks: "700 scientists from more than 400 institutions in more than 40 countries ... have contributed to papers that I know about, and can on notice list, saying that the Medieval Warm Period, which is well-known in history and archeology, as it is in climate science - was real, was global, and was noticeably warmer than the present."
in his video commentary, Potholer54 states :-
"Monckton was as good as his word, and when I asked him for the list, he gave it to me. Unfortunately, I am probably the only person who ever asked him - because the list doesn't live up to his claim. The 700 scientists who contribute to the papers listed, don't say the Medieval Warm Period was real, global and noticeably warmer than today - or anything like it."
Nigelj, I'm sure you won't be the least bit surprised.
[ There is more entertainment to be had, in a whole 5 (five) videos by PotHoler54, titled "Monckton Bunkum" . . . exposing Monckton's . . . er, taradiddles & self-contradictions. ]
-
nigelj at 07:10 AM on 19 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
"The list begins with 70-odd papers purportedly demonstrating "A Warmer Past: Non-Hockey Stick Reconstructions"
I came across a similar list a couple of years ago. I read through the first 20 abstracts on the basis that if there was a killer blow it would be in the first few papers. It turned out to all be studies on a few individual cities or very small regions that were warmer than recent temperatures. But we know not all cities / locations were like that and the list obviously just cherrypicked those with unusually warm temperatures. Not one of the studies was for Europe as a whole let alone the entire planet. We know from such studies that the MWP was a weak event and not truly global.
I doubt Santilves has looked at even the abstracts of such papers and just assumes they invalidate the consensus or there must be a smoking gun there. The devil is in the detail. Denialists are intellectually lazy.
-
Eclectic at 00:58 AM on 19 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
MA Rodger @35 ,
oh, by the way, you deserve a round of applause for your phrasing "mercurial argumentation".
Mercurial. So many shades of meaning. Some not entirely flattering. Confirmed per OED.
-
Eclectic at 00:23 AM on 19 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
MA Rodger @35 ,
yes, poster Santalives seems confused and muddle-headed about what he wants & where he is going. And he seems very reluctant to ask for help.
Maybe he can't recognize the difference between climate science and climate politics ~ and thinks they are exactly the same thing. Most of the denizens at WUWT blogsite have that sort of major Fail in their thinking . . . as well as their usual Fails.
His evident inability to show the science to be wrong, leads him to grasp the wrong end of the stick. (He is batting at zero because he is holding the thick end of the baseball bat . . . and he does not even look at the ball being pitched at him . . . if I may make that sports analogy.)
Yet perhaps Santalives will surprise us all, by suddenly lifting his game. He could start by by defining his words "climate crises". But I strongly suspect he has not given much thought to these matters.
-
MA Rodger at 23:44 PM on 18 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
This is a run through the input of commenter Santalives (a curious name to chose as Santa is known to be buried in Bari, Italy) down this comment-thread. It may be useful given the mercurial argumentation being presented.
@2 we are told that there are "articles (especially the peer reviewed) that are shredding climate science" although quite where these were was not made plain.
@11 we are told it is "sites like wuwt" which "publish peer reviewed climate science and debate it" and an exemplar of this literature is given - Koutsoyiannis (2021) 'Rethinking Climate, Climate Change, and Their Relationship with Water'. This paper sets out a denialist thesis and isn't worth the paper it would be written on if you bought a paper version of it.
@14 it was explained that this exemplar paper was "picked at random" but there are "literally hundreds of peer reviewed papers like this that make it very clear the science is not settled." Yet they go undebated at SkS.
@25 it is argued that branding Koutsoyiannis (2021) as nonsense is not good enough and it deserves to be properly rebutted because "science is never settled" and can be overturned by new research with the Einstein quote that "a single experiment can prove me wrong". And dozens of papers showing new research which is perhaps doing that 'overturning' is featured at NoTrickZone rather than WUWT. NTZ actually has a second half to this list here.
@28 another exemplar paper is presented Seim & Olsen (2020) 'The Influence of IR Absorption and Backscatter Radiation from CO2 on Air Temperature during Heating in a Simulated Earth/Atmosphere Experiment' (a paper that describes an experiment meant to measure the GH-effect of CO2 but shows a complete misunderstanding of how the GH-effect works. This is not a controversial rebuttal. At WUWT, a review said the paper is "not saying much about the Greenhouse effect" although a NoTricksZone review was accepting of the paper's worthless findings).
@32 it is admitted that there is no "knock out" paper (which the Einstein quote @25 requires) but that "there is an awful lot that shows we are not in a climate crises" in some crazy non-scientific collective manner.
@33 the true task of SkS is described. "If this site was really about skeptical science it would have every climate science paper."The commenter Santalives hasn't taken me up on my offer @18 of a full rebuttal of Koutsoyiannis (2021). Seim & Olsen (2020) is very obviously nonsense. As for the dozens of papers in the 2021 NoTricksZone listing, I would suggest it is from start to finish either papers that are clearly denialist nonsense or, more likely, selective quotes that misrepressent the quoted papers. The list begins with 70-odd papers purportedly demonstrating "A Warmer Past: Non-Hockey Stick Reconstructions" They will demonstrate no such thing. If any of them had established some evidence to overturn the accepted global temperature record based on proxy data, I'm sure we would soon have heard about it. I say 'from start to finish'. The first paper in this list is concerned with the SST seasonality in the South China Sea and establishing proxy methods. There is no Hockey Stick busting to be seen. And the final paper in the big long list shock-horror demonstrates "Abrupt, Degrees-Per-Decade Natural Global Warming" which is a well-known phenomenon but only found in the depths of an Ice Age. So I would suggest this NoTricksZone listing is yet more denialist nonsense.
-
Eclectic at 18:00 PM on 18 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
Santalives @32 . . . yes, very droll.
And yes, I have already noticed that those NTZ papers do not show any evidence which overthrows the consensus climate science. Despite their speleothem isotopes and strontium/calcium ratios.
Strike One, against you.
Is there any evidence ~ any at all ~ that you can produce to show that all the climate scientists are wrong? Well, it shouldn't take you more than a day or so to produce . . . for yourself, as a maven of published scientific papers !
The smart money is on : Strike Two, against you.
Let's look ahead to Ball Three (which the Moderators may suggest you play on a thread more appropriate to such discussions). And while you are having a few practice swings at home . . . I will remind you that no climate scientist has stated the world is going to end in 2030.
And remind you that your "1 minute to midnight" reference actually applied to pending nuclear warfare [readers at a later date will ~ I hope ~ have largely forgotten about the current brinkmanship of the Ukraine crisis].
But first, Santalives , you need to define what is meant by "climate crises" [unquote].
-
Santalives at 17:35 PM on 18 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
@Baerbellw. It is not the site, whether this one wuwt Or ntz its the content of peer reviewed science that is published. So far all I have seen denialism that there is any science that challenges the orthodoxy. If this site was really about skeptical science it would have every climate science paper, but it really just appears to be a echo chamber of alarmists views that refuse to even read other papers.
Moderator Response:[DB] Please refrain from name-calling and start addressing the responses of others to provide credible evidence for your claims. In this venue, ideologies are checked at the door, leaving the focus on the scientific evidence to support claims.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic comments or simply make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes without issue or complaints, then a change of venues is in the offing.Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
Santalives at 16:43 PM on 18 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
Eclectic 11 @25. Sorry Never watched a climate change video. Only take my information from Peer reviewed papers. You might notice the ntz are all peer reviewed Published papers. If you are looking for knock-out paper, it won't exist, but there is an awful lot that shows we are not in a climate crises, it's not 1 minute to midnight and the world is not going to end in 2030. I would like to see some sensible debate about the science and what it actually means.
Moderator Response:[DB] Unsubstantiated rhetoric (sloganeering) snipped.
-
Eclectic at 16:18 PM on 18 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
Santalives @28 ,
the paper you link to, does not invalidate the mainstream climate science.
Nothing new there ~ the laboratory setup does not equate to the Greenhouse Effect found in the real physical world. I won't criticize it further, than saying it was a waste of time in that respect !
Santalives , you are not "reading the room" ~ the people at SkS are very keen to see new data which could prove the climate science to be wrong. The problem there is : that no-one (even yourself) has provided any.
btw , when will you give the results of your careful survey of the handful of NTZ papers mentioned above? Evidence, please sir ! Evidence.
What the SkS people are of course not wishing to do, is waste time "debating" with Flat-Earther-types who do not supply evidence. The WUWT mob are forever claiming no-one debates them . . . but they never supply any valid evidence to back up their (many different & contradictory) ideas. They are little better than disgruntled Flat-Earthers. And what Chutzpah they have, saying that they must be right . . . 'cos those horrible scientists won't "debate".
Well this is all fun & entertainment ~ no trolling whatsoever, eh. But if you're serious, Santalives, then drop the silly rhetorical games, and get on with supplying the convincing evidence (which you believe may exist somewhere). Best of luck in your search !
-
Eclectic at 15:42 PM on 18 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
By the way, Santalives , I think you have the wrong idea about "attacks on the Man" ~ I presume you mean Prof. Koutsoyiannis. He is probably a very nice guy in private life : kind to children and animals. And presumably the good professor is definitely competent in his field of Hydrology . . . but clearly he is "out of his depth" [excuse pun] when it comes to climate science.
You should be asking: Why is he out of his depth . . . Why has he not bothered to learn the basic physics of climate?
Sadly, there is a small group of eminent scientists who speak loudly and confidently . . . but who are to a large extent clueless about the basics of climate. The marker is ~ that they never have anything of substance to back up their views. All talk, no hard evidence. They choose not to see the forest. There must be some deep emotional current within them, forcing them to embarrass themselves in public (the scientific public stage).
Yes, Santalives , you are wise not to spend much time at WUWT blogsite. The "good debates" there must be rare ~ and you must have been very lucky to have found some. For I can't recall seeing even one that had any virtue to it (but perhaps you and I have different standards, eh ).
# For my sins, I visit WUWT frequently. Partly for entertainment, and neck exercise [ shaking my head at the stupidities daily on view ]. And it helps reinforce my cynicism about the craziness that human beings are capable of . . . even including some academic professors, most of whom are not Greek.
-
BaerbelW at 15:33 PM on 18 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
@Santalives
How about you brush up your climate science knowledge by working through our MOOC "Denial101x - Making sense of climate science denial"? It should help with no longer falling prey to content published on WUWT or NTZ as we explain not just climate science basics but also how and why even those basics still get attacked and denied. We started this year's run last week and this blog post summarizes the content.
-
Santalives at 15:17 PM on 18 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
Hi Evan, interesting analogy the ball. Knowing the ball will fall does not mean you know why? Do you subscribe to Newton or Einstein theory of gravity? It's an interesting off topic discussion as now Einstein's theory is being challenged. But back to climate science if someone does an experiment that shows c02 is not as powerful a GHG as currently assumed, how do you process that information,.. Re evaluate your theory or ignore it as your assumption is its settled science so we should not be studying it. Here is such an experiment. www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=99608. I am hoping we have some real insights to this, has anyone replicated it? Have the numbers been plugged into the climate models to, assess the Impacts. I am not niave and remember the cold fusion scam that sucked in the whole world at the time. But i have been disappointed that most of the responses, on this site seem to confirm the deniers claims that Climate change advocates won't debate, won't accept new data and attack the messenger rather then message.
Moderator Response:[DB] Off-topic and sloganeering snipped.
-
Eclectic at 15:07 PM on 18 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
Santalives @25 ,
. . . as Evan says, you seem to be getting yourself bogged down with words & definitions. If the term "settled science" is something that sticks in your craw ~ then simply look at the science itself. Look at what is happening in the physical world of atoms, molecules, radiations and temperatures. The real world ~ not the rhetorical world of the propagandists & science-deniers.
# And thank you for the link to the list of papers provided by the notrickszone website (usually referred to as "NTZ").
From time to time, NTZ does come out with lists of 100's of papers, which NTZ alleges do overthrow the mainstream climate science. It is the "shotgun" approach, intended to impress the hell out of the layman who will never read anything more than the titles of the papers (if even that much). The layman who wishes to believe that all those 10,000+ scientists (worldwide) are massively wrong. The layman who doesn't wish to do some thinking (and legwork) for himself. This is very much the target audience for NTZ.
So, Santalives , please have a look in detail at about half-a-dozen of those NTZ papers, and get back to the readers here at SkS when you have identified one or two "killer arguments" from the papers (arguments or lines of evidence that the consensus climate science is wrong in some major way).
It is fair to warn you that NTZ has a track record of complete failure in this regard. (NTZ loves to "cherry-pick" ~ pick out a tree or two, while ignoring the forest.)
# Santalives , if you are not keen on doing a lot of climate reading (as is my impression so far) then you might enjoy viewing some YouTube videos by science reporter PotHoler54 who is a very knowledgeable guy ~ he debunks a lot of junk science & "fake media". His climate series (now 58 videos) range from 5 - 30 minutes. You could comfortably do one a day, and get up to speed about the climate controversies. All of the videos are informative, and most of them are amusingly humorous in parts !
One of the PotHoler54 videos from 2017 is titled: "Have 400 papers just DEBUNKED global warming?" And you guessed it ~ unsurprisingly the list of 400 papers comes via NTZ .
Another of his videos debunks Christopher Monckton's spurious claims about scientific papers regarding the Medieval Warm Period (MWP).
You will find PH54 very informative on the misrepresentations and deceptions practised by science-deniers such as Monckton, Heller, and others.
-
David-acct at 12:51 PM on 18 February 2022Update: Supreme Court to weigh EPA authority on greenhouse pollutants
Regarding Standing question.
The standing issue will be interesting. Stevens greatly expanded standing in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), while just 4 years earlier, Steven dissented in the Gratz v Bollinger (02-516) 539 U.S. 244 (2003) (UofMich undergraduate case - the companion case to Grutter).
This dichotomy presents an interesting catch 22 - how can the plaintiffs have standing in Mass v Epa and not have standing in this case. The facts in favor and against standing are very similar.
-
David-acct at 12:35 PM on 18 February 2022Update: Supreme Court to weigh EPA authority on greenhouse pollutants
as background - Under the US constitution, Article 1, Congress makes laws and under article 2, the executive executes those laws. Further under the US constition , the executive branch has no power to make law.
The major question doctrine is to what extent can the executive branch create rules with or without the explicit authority of stutory authority in the law passed by congress
The two recent Covid cases before the SC held that the the CDC/osha had to have authority under the statute to implement the policy. Those two cases were the eviction mortitorium and the osha vaccnine mandate. In both cases, the SC majority stated that the respective agencies lacked authority to implement the regulations without clear statutory language.
In a nutshell - Does the statute authorize the EPA to regulate co2. If there is not clear authority under the statute, then the answer is no.
For purposes of this post, I am taking no position on the whether regulating co2 is good policy or is bad policy. I am only giving an update on the background of the major question doctrine and recent SC cases addressing the issue.
-
Evan at 12:02 PM on 18 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
Santalives@25
Yes, some science is settled. When Apple decides how to make the iPhone14, I don't think they will entertain debates about the science of how semiconductors works. Your iPhone works because it is based on settled science. Maybe the iPhone 20 will be based on some new methods, but companies like Apple rely on using settled science to make neat gadgets.
Hold a ball in your hand. Open your hand. What will happen?
As you noted about Einstein, you cannot "prove" it will fall, but you know it will fall. Would you bet against the ball falling? Only if you're foolish. You can go into a lab day after day after day and show that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Day after day you get the same result. You can't "prove" that the next day CO2 will cause heating when illuminated by infrared radiation, but after the millionth experiment you declare this settled science.
So this is my last comment to you, because you are being led astray by slick-sounding arguments. There is settled science. It is contained in reference books that engineers use to design all the things that make our society run. Yes, there are advancements. Yes, sometimes the reference books contain errors. But by in large a scientist is one who develops new science. Engineers are the ones who apply settled science to make things.
If you believe that no science is ever settled, does that mean you will spend time reading papers that say the Earth is flat and that the Sun orbits the Earth? What self-respecting astronomy journal would publish an article questioning whether we really know if the Earth orbits the sun and if it's spherical?
