Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 Next
Comments 4601 to 4650:
-
Santalives at 14:09 PM on 25 February 2022Video series: The science of Cranky Uncle
Is there a plan B? Given the geopolitical crises and the fact Russia and China generally ignore then IPCC, it is more then probable that the rate of emissions may increase in spite of climate change policies elsewhere. So what is the solution?
Moderator Response:[BL] Your rhetorical posturing by Just Asking Questions has worn thin. Unless you actually provide substantive commentary on the blog posts you are responding to, expect to see such questions deleted in their entirety.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 12:20 PM on 25 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
Here is a recent CBC News item that presents the current day reality of relocating homes out of potential climate change impacted areas and areas already impacted by climate change.
"Cities are abandoning homes that will be destroyed by climate change"
Note that something similar happened in Calgary after the 2013 flood. The option for people to move out of flood risk zones and have the property remain undeveloped was the course of action. And because there was so much development at risk the offer was only available to a few properties 'most at risk'. And property owners who chose to rebuild rather than be bought out had to renovate to have no basement developments at risk of flood damage and main floors raised above established flood risk levels.
So, many developed areas in wealthy nations are already paying the price of the impacts due to previous generations refusing to give up on benefiting from harmful ways of living.
-
blaisct at 09:33 AM on 25 February 2022It's albedo
I don't know what went wrong but I tested these; Online psychrometric chart and Tutorial
Please except my assumption and online calculator results in the summary of the three conditions, they are only examples.
Doing some further research on the clouds I found this site Cloud Ceiling Calc that had a correlation used by airplane pilots to predict cloud celling.Cloud ceiling (m) = (ground temp. – ground dew point)/2.6 *1000*0.3084
The base case is virgin land with lots of trees and vegetation, and is simulated by adding water to the online psychrometric chart calculator. The water added (22% of total water) is typical of data for rain forest type land.
I have added the cloud ceiling calculation to the summary to show that the LHAC cases increase the cloud ceiling no matter what the albedo is. The high albedo case is 20% higher albedo than the base case and much greater than your chart on W/m^2 vs time. The emphasis of the LHAC theory is that cities and cropland do not put as much water into the atmosphere as the orginal virgin land and this lack of water can reduce the cloud cover.
Summary of these cases:
Base case: 29.2’C and 70% RH with 23.3 dew point calculating 701 m ceiling
Low albedo: 33.4’C and 47% RH with 21.4 dew point calculating 1543 m ceiling
High albedo: 31.5’C and 55.5% RH with 21.4 dew point calculating 1171 m ceiling
Cloud ceiling and cloud cover should have a correlation. -
One Planet Only Forever at 09:00 AM on 25 February 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7
Philippe @15,
I encounter a similar problem regarding the use of the term Ethical.
Seems that these days some people consider Ethical to mean "complying with 'their' interpretations of a set of rules, with or without a version of the word 'ethical' in the title of the rules".
People also claim that if something cannot be proven "conclusively to their satisaction" to have been done or harmful then it wasn't done or harmful. And when they are presented (confronted from their perspective) with evidence of harm done that they want to excuse, they will argue that their perception of the benefits obtained outweights 'their perception of the harm done'. That is the classic flawed utilitarian argument that the Greater Good is being achieved "as they see it". And everybody's perception is an equally valid alternative perception will be claimed if necessary. ANd the need to compromise understanding to suit everyone's perception becomes the 'pragmatic centrist' thing to do.
That leads to needing "alternative facts", or whatever else needs to be claimed to maintain the harmful misunderstandings that excuse the harmful actions they have developed a liking for.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:23 AM on 25 February 2022Video series: The science of Cranky Uncle
I noticed something else misleading and concerning about the "Global Warming Petition Project" that should raise doubts and concerns about it and its signatories and its developers and promoters.
The Petition wording is very questionable. It states: "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of [ghgs] is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating ...". The term "catastrophic" is misleading and open to interpretation. And the term "human release" could be interpreted as only being human breath, burps and farts. And what exactly is the "foreseeable future"?
The Petition also states that "... proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment." Anyone claiming to seriously believe that point has more questionable mental capability than the point that they lack direct climate science experience.
Post-secondary education is not required to see how questionable the posed Petition is. People should really be concerned about the potential that the people who signed such a misleading vague and incorrect claim as if it was a legitimate understanding could have responsible 'public safety related' roles in society. Perhaps the signatories should not be doing the jobs they are doing.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:58 AM on 25 February 2022Video series: The science of Cranky Uncle
This set of 3 videos is a great presentation of the problem of misinformation and effective solutions.
When dealing with a person claiming that 'global warming isn't happening because it is cold' I like to try to further than pointing out the fallacy of believing that since it is cold somewhere at some time during the year global warming is not occurring. I like to ask them if they are aware of how much 'average global surface temperature warming' has been measured in the past century (today vs the 1910s). The answer is that the warming has been about 1 degree C through the past 100 years. That leads to the question "Would 1 degree C warmer be expected to mean there would be no more cold days anywhere?"
The SkS Temperature Trend Calculator is very helpful if the person questions, or is unsure of, this point. It shows that:
from 1910 to 1920 the global data sets indicate an average of about -0.4C with variations ranging from -0.1C to -0.5C.
from 2010 to 2020 the global data sets indicate an average of about +0.75C with variations ranging from +1.1C to +0.6C.If they let me show them the SkS Temperature Trends, I also point out that the trend of temperatures during 1910 to 1920 is a significantly slower increase than 2010 to 2020. Which is consistent with the knowledge that human activity was causing global warming impacts at a slower rate 100 years ago. And the atmospheric CO2 levels support that understanding. And if they are willing to learn more I show them the NOAA Global Monitoring Laboratory website CO2 Animation ... and that can lead to more learning about ghgs.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 04:55 AM on 25 February 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7
When I see "alternative facts," the reasoning of the one using the concept immediately falls under suspicion. How did that even become a concept? There are facts. Some are important, others not. They can be relevant, or not, are part of a context, but how can they be alternative? The bullshit wars have taken a toll...
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:58 AM on 25 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
Evan (and Eclectic),
Everyone's situation will result in different sensible actions they can take to reduce how harmful their way of living and earning a living is.
Their transportation choices are an example. Choosing the method of transportation that is the least harmful involves far more consideration than the amount of CO2 produced by the energy it requires. But a more significant consideration is the choice of where they live to reduce how much energy they need for their transportation requirements.
Like you and Eclectic I evaluated the variety of personal vehicle options. I settled on a hybrid sedan, and not a plug-in. My evaluation concluded that the regional electricity generation in Alberta would produce more harm than burning gasoline to power my hybrid. So a plug-in was worse that an efficient hybrid (not all hybrids are the same). A more important decision was choosing to live in the city close to regularly visited amenities and to public transit. That maximized my walking, biking and public transit use.
The recent discovery of how much 'fugitive methane emissions' are associated with natural gas operations makes the use of electricity in Alberta even worse. That also made me feel better about having already upgraded the windows, furnace and water heater of my 35 year old home. Another action I had taken was to buy a smaller home than I could afford but to pay more to buy a reasonably well built one (6 inch thick insulated exterior walls and thick attic insulation).
Another thing I learned when investigating my vehicle options was that having Renewable electricity generation capacity does not mean it will be used. Alberta has lots of wind generation capacity. But the Alberta grid does not maximize the generation and use of wind power. It maximizes the use of the base load coal power generation. And the conversion of that coal power generation to natural gas generation is not much of an improvement, especially considering the fugitive methane reality.
In closing, I agree with the value of focusing on the Keeling Curve. Increased CO2 is the most significant human ghg impact. But it is important to point out that the other ghgs of concern, identified and presented in the IPCC reports, are additional harmful results of human economic competition. That insatiable pursuit of More Impressions of Superiority, with the related need to create and disseminate More Misleading Marketing to increase the popularity of harmful misunderstandings that excuse the harmful pursuits of More, is the root 'systemic problem' that needs to be Governed by the persistent pursuit of increased awareness and improved understanding applied to limit harm done and help sustainably improve the future for all of humanity.
The developed popularity and profit based 'competitions for perceptions of superiority relative to Others' is tragically harmful in many more ways than the powerful misleading resistance to giving up the 'climate change impacting' developed ways of benefiting that SkS strives to correct.
-
Evan at 21:13 PM on 24 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
I see the feedback message as simply informing the power company that they can increase their renewable power generation up one notch. It's no secret that we need to match storage with renewable energy generation. Even thought we may need to rebuild the grid to do this effectively, we still need that market signal from consumers to power providers to get things rolling.
Plug-in hybrids are fine. My preference against them is not because of carbon emissions during manufacturing, but simply because of upkeep and repairs. EV's are conceptually much simpler than hybrids and sshould be cheaper and simpler to repair. But I understand the attraction of plug-in hybrids as the "best" of both worlds.
For us the V2H capability is much more emotionally attractive. We lose power about 4 times/year. I can only imagine that getting worse, not better. Again, it's a perfect match between the size of EV batteries and typical home power requirements. Most US houses use about 30 kWh/day, and EV's typical have batters in the 40-100 kWh range.
But for now we are still firing up a gas burner when the power goes out. :-(
-
MA Rodger at 21:08 PM on 24 February 2022It's albedo
blaisct @125,
Your URLs don't work but...
I assume when you say @123 that "the psychometric chart in @106 shows the math" you mean that this Free Online Interactive Psychrometric Chart for HVAC engineers does the aritmentic. The "math" is your own. And I would suggest it includes questionable assumptions as well as error and is incomplete. Certainly the contradiction I posed @122 (that Costa et al [2007] showed increasing albedo rather than the required decreasing albedo yet still showed warming temperatures) remains unexplained.
-
Eclectic at 11:21 AM on 24 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
Fair enough, Evan. (+ I'm sorry to be intruding on your thread so often)
My local electricity retailers do offer a guaranteed renewable [unquote] package, but I've never taken them up on it. I figure it was a zero-sum game, and what I used would simply be deducted from someone else.
It's a tricky one. Perhaps in Minnesota, it sends a signal to the power generators that customers are interested in an increase in renewable power (and a signal to politicians that voters are interested, too). But on the other hand, it could all blow back if the power companies & politicians see that only a tiny percentage of customers go that way. The best, perhaps, is if the small number of customers is showing a steady upward trend?
As you say, a car battery with V2H capability is emotionally attractive, for people do worry about power outages . . . and do like to feel they have some sort of control. Even if it doesn't actually amount to much, in real terms (on an hours per year basis). And for myself, I would love to have a car with 1000-1500 watt AC output ~ when I go camping out in the sticks. Can see myself "glamping" it up, with micro-wave oven & a coffee-maker. Decadent.
A further point on plug-in hybrids : although they are in a sense doubly complex, does this make any major difference to their carbon input for manufacture? Note that some of these plug-ins have no mechanical transmission (and that's another saving on carbon input). And with a V2H plug-in hybrid in your garage, you can run it and keep topping up the fuel tank during really prolonged outages of electricity supply.
-
Evan at 10:40 AM on 24 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
Eclectic@97 When we bought our Tesla the local power company had a deal where they guaranteed that the power we use to charge our car comes from wind power, basically using credits for that. I have no illusion that my buying a Tesla will save the world, but we drive about 25,000 miles/year. My wife worked at a rollerrink that was a 50 mile roundtrip. We could have taken the philosophy of her quiting her job was better than driving any car that far of a commute, but she was working with children, the leaders of the next age. I figured she was doing good for society working with kids, so it alleviated my guilt to know we were driving a EV powered by wind.
Yes, it will take much much more than EV's. But it;s a start.
We also have a 20-year old truck that we will use for hauling. It gets driven maybe 200 miles/year. Obviously there is no sense trading it in for a "greener" vehicle, because we would never work off the carbon used to make it.
I prefer to bypass plug-in hybrids because you have all the complexity of gas engines plus all the electric components. The Tesla is a great car and I'm confident the Fords will be as well. The only thing I'm frustrated with on the Tesla is no vehicle-to-home capability. It is a bummer to have that big battery that cannot be tapped. Ford definitely did good by providing power outlets and the ability to plug it into the house out of the box.
But the bottom line is that EV's are simply great cars to drive: stable, no transmission, quiet, and the best of all in Minnesota, they start every day, no matter how cold it is outside. :-)
-
blaisct at 07:35 AM on 24 February 2022It's albedo
Rodger @122
To show that albedo differences are not that significant, let’s do three examples on the psychometric chart. 1) the land the UHI/cropland was on before. 2) the UHI/cropland with decrease albedo 3) the UHI/land with increased albedo. In event 1 of the LHAC theory we have two things going on: one, the pure albedo effect that is about 0.08W/m^2 for a 0.05 albedo change (not very much), and two the total heat from the sun (about 177 W/m^2) is generating hot low RH air. We will use the psychometric chart to calculate the difference in the “cloud killing” capability of this air in the three cases. You chart at @124 is clearer than mine at @106 but does not show that the yellow lines (wet bulb lines) are constant enthalpy lines (on a dry air basis), constant flux (W/m^2) or the albedo over time transferred to the air (W-hr/m^3 or kJ/kg(dry air)). (if you were an air-conditioner installer this would be related to the HP or tons of your unit, in our case it is the sun’s energy.) We need to get to these units to calculate how much cloud cover this hot low RH air can destroy or prevent, then we can go back to W/m^2.
I will be honest with you; I use a free online calculator for these charts at Online Interactive Psychrometric ChartThe site Tutorial is a good tutorial.
The following is from the interactive site;
1) For virgin land let’s pick 25’C and 80% relative humidity a little after the sun rises on a clear day, that will put us on the constant specific humidity, SH, line of about 16 g/kg(dry air), the web site call this “Humid.Ratio”. To simulate an sensible heat rise over the course of the day, move right on the constant 16g/kg(dry air) SH line for this example we will stop at 52% RH and 32.5’C (this would be the conditions with no water added) (The 52% RH will match the 8.0 kJ/kg(da)(differences between starting conditions and end of day enthalpy conditions needed to match most cities temp vs RH line, I am sorry this is a trial and error procedure). We will also assume that vegetation and other water sources add water to 18 g/kg(dry air)(22% increase in SH, this is equivalent to one example I found- not much data out there on this) results in an adiabatic cooling (follow yellow line back to right) to 29.2’C and 70% RH on the 18g/kg line.
2) For decrease in albedo, we will assume 20% higher energy than case 1, or 9.7kJ/kg(da) (this was in range of city data I found), and we will start at the same RH of 80% and 25’C. The trial-and-error calculation yields 33.4’C and 47% RH.
3) For increase in albedo, we will assume 20% lower energy than case 1, or 6.4kJ/kg(da). The trial-and-error calculation yields 55.5% RH and 31.5’C.
Note: the temp vs RH for most cities I plotted match the no water added lines in the psychrometric chart.
Summary of these cases: all cases start at 25'C and 80% RH.
Base case: 29.2’C and 70% RH water added
Low albedo: 33.4’C and 47% RH
High albedo: 31.5’C and 55.5% RH
The base case is just into the cloud killing/prevention range of 80% and the other two cases are well into the cloud killing/prevention area. This is only an example not a conclusion.
The next question is how much of the hot low RH air is produced and how much makes it to cloud destruction/prevention. We know from the plume described in Figure 3 of @121 that it is 2-4 X the area of the UHI/cropland. This calculation would require more expertise than I have. I have looked at some very rough numbers (without mixing and pressure change) and get a significant percentage (4%-45%) of the atmosphere that could be affected not counting the probability of getting a chance at cloud destruction/prevention.
The IPCC has very good mixing and thermo models that should be able to do this. -
Eclectic at 05:12 AM on 24 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
Your next article will be most welcome, Evan.
The Keeling Curve will be stuck in its upslope for decades to come. We are blowing straight past 1.5 degreesC, and reaching 2.5 C looks a more likely peaking point. On the plus side ~ by that stage, the voters (and shareholders) will be clamoring for stricter measures . . . and most of the hard-core denialists will have died off.
But to cheer you up ~ my local story is different from yours. No tar sands here. Natural gas combined-cycle turbines provide the bedrock foundation of electrical power. We are not up to Denmark's standard yet . . . but domestic rooftop solar panels are sprouting everywhere in the suburbs, and in the country the wind turbines are claiming more and more hilltops.
My computer has a permanent tab open, showing the local electrical power generation. The picture shows gas/renewables at 50/50 at midnight (those windfarms do quite well on average). During the day, it shows 70-90% renewables, depending on wind and cloud. And so I try to limit my domestic heating/airconditioning to the peak-renewables times.
Tesla is a rare bird here ~ envied, but not copied much. Yes, everyone wants SUV's. For myself, I follow the "sunk cost" theory, and drive a 20-year-old diesel, and plan to run it into the ground. Not sure if that is the best policy, but I can make a good case for it (at present).
For Minnesota, a plug-in hybrid, surely !
Green electricity is fine, but at this stage, massive hydrocarbon fuels are needed ~ and we need a green source for those, too.
-
Evan at 21:49 PM on 23 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
Eclectic@93 Thanks for your comments and glad you liked the article.
We are making "progress", and I, like you, am impressed with the Ford Lightning. We bought one of those "trendy" Teslas, not because we could afford it, but because it is hard for me to live with the knowledge I have about the Climate Crisis and not do anything. Five years ago Tesla was the only serious game in town. If it was today, likely I would buy a Ford. Also, in Minnesota about 90% of the gas we burn comes from tar-sands oil. I was having a difficult time living with that knowledge as well. So we bought a Tesla instead of waiting. The cost of the car hurt, but it eased my mind.
However, in my articles I draw people back again and again to the Keeling Curve. The reason is that people get excited about this bit of news or that, but nothing we've done, absolutely nothing has had any effect on the Keeling Curve's upward acceleration. Even though we have enough carbon in the atmosphere to take us to 1.7C, we're told there are plans to hold the warming at 1.5C. IF this miracle is to happen, it must happen so soon and with such effect that we should see the effect in the Keeling Curve within a few years. I have posts coming up on this with my thoughts, so I won't belabor it here.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:59 AM on 23 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
This is the UN webpage for the series of Conferences that started with the 1972 Stockholm Conference (50th anniversary this year) that I mention in my comment @92.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:51 AM on 23 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
My apologies for using 'his' in reference to Santalives in the opening statement of my comment @92. I should have used 'their'.
-
Eclectic at 07:49 AM on 23 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
Historical note for future readers of this thread :
the good Santalives has simpy transferred his circular and repetitive non-arguments to other threads.
- - - - - - -
Evan , allow me to repeat: your Lead Article is perceptive, and the analogy you draw is apt. The sociological impediments are large indeed, and yet progress is being made.
One example, IMO , is the new model Ford pickup truck, the Ford "F150 Lightning Electric". Not yet "on the streets" in numbers ~ but the advance orders are huge, and the Ford company is struggling to ramp up its production facilities. It is a large and impressive vehicle ( not a trendie greenie pricey Tesla sedan car ) , with impressively brisk acceleration, with extensive AC power outlets for tradesman's tools, and with substantial Vehicle-2-Home capability (which is a strong emotional point in its favor).
This is an electric vehicle which will powerfully impress the friends & neighbours of its new American owners. And will help break down the extensive grass-roots opposition (in the USA) to "all that darn new-fangled stuff". Now who would have thought, 10 years ago , that a humongous Pickup would be a leader for change in social attitude?
Renewable electricity generation still lags disappointingly ~ and faces huge problems in ramping up the supply.
And there is no escaping the point: the world still has not gotten the greatly-needed supply of "renewable" liquid hydrocarbon fuel. A fuel which is usable everywhere, in large quantities ~ as we see every day, as we look around. That technological advance would win hearts-and-minds !
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:48 AM on 23 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
In response to Santalives’ questionable insistence on asking questionable questions, especially his demand for a comprehensive response to a cherry-picked questionable paper, Evan@89 has concisely and correctly asked Santalives a valid question.
I await Santalives’ thoughtfully considered comprehensive response.
However, Santalives’ responses to all other efforts to help them learn to be less harmfully misled, and every other commenter has tried to help, has prompted me to share more thoughts.
Santalives has rather conclusively proven that they are powerfully motivated to persist in harmfully misunderstanding matters that matter to the future of humanity, like many of the fans of sites like WUWT.
When I first read this item, when there were no comments, it prompted me to consider the matter and consider how I could thoughtfully respond. When I returned with some thoughts I was thrilled to see that there were already many other comments ... then I read the comments to see if they would modify my thinking. Reading the comments motivated me to make the comment I made @23. Santalives clearly did not pick-up on the hint.
My comment @48 was motivated by what continued to happen. Santalives responded @49 in a questionable way that was rapidly and effectively responded to by Evan (no need for me to respond). Santalives’ lack of a meaningful response to Evan @50 (I did not see the comment that disappeared. But I can infer from the remaining comments that Santalives’ response was more misunderstanding, adding proof of my point about them being a unique individual who shares the “anti-commonsense” “Hard of Learning – Selective Learning” characteristic (a play on “hard of hearing – selective hearing”) of fans of WUWT.
Santalives questionably asked about Newton vs. Einstein. “The Big Picture” by Sean Carroll (highly recommended reading for everyone, not just Santalives) explains that science has developed different ways of talking about similar things. Einstein’s way of talking about physics does not contradict Newton’s way of understanding what would happen to an apple when you let it go. And as a structural engineer I prefer to apply Newton’s way of describing things, even though it does not work for everything that Einstein's way does. And newer ways of describing physics are developed for newer things that Einstein was unaware of. And those newer ways of describing things are very unlikely to ‘overturn’ the fundamental understandings of Einstein. And it is highly unlikely that more in-depth pursuit of awareness and understanding regarding climate science will overturn the consensus understanding that human impacts are rapidly causing climate changes that harm the development of a sustainable improving future for humanity.
Returning to Santalives questionably asking about the motivation of people commenting on WUWT. They would each have their own motivations, beliefs and biases which have to be inferred from the patterns of their behaviour (Many situations require the development of understanding of what is going on to be inferred from observation, with the understanding that any interaction may affect the observed result. This is covered effectively by Sean Carroll in “The Big Picture”, but is more relevant to socioeconomic-political matters). Further details regarding the context for my response can be found in my comments on the three recent versions of “Analogy 1”: this one, the previous one, and the one before that.
The important question is: Is a person interested in, or willing to, learn to be less harmful and more helpful to Others. Everyone undeniably always has the ability to learn. People who can be seen to 'Resist learning to be less harmful and more helpful to Others' are harmfully motivated to harmfully misunderstand things. And competition for perceptions of superiority relative to others can produce very harmful motivations, with related harmful misunderstandings, and harmful resistance to learning to be less harmful and more helpful to Others. And competition for popularity and profit can develop harmful demands for the freedom to believe whatever excuses doing something understandably harmful that a person may hope to benefit from.
The Sustainable Development Goals are a very comprehensive presentation of the constantly improving understanding of how to be less harmful and more helpful to Others. They are the result of the efforts of thousands (perhaps millions) of people who became officially globally coordinated to collaborate by the 1972 Stockholm Conference.
Global warming related climate change (btw, As an engineer I would define “climate” as the regional climate norms - like temperature, wind, rain, snow, freezing rain - and their expected variations) is a significant impediment to Sustainable Development. The diversity of rapid climate change impacts harmfully distracts attention by forcing the pursuit of ‘adaptation attempts’ rather than the pursuit of ‘sustainable improvements’ (like the ways that a war or recovery from a natural disaster can ‘appear to improve economic performance measures like GDP’). And changes of atmospheric CO2 levels due to burning fossil fuel is a significant, but not exclusive, cause of the problems faced by global humanity into the future.
Admittedly from a ‘Sustainable Development to improve the future for humanity’ perspective there are many other harmful unsustainable ‘developed popular and profitable activities’ that are excused by harmful misunderstanding. However, this site is focused on the subset of harmful misunderstanding that relates to climate science (btw, the other human caused ghgs of concern are examples, so indeed it isn’t just CO2).
The following items are offered as further evidence of the harm being done by the popularity and profitability of harmful misunderstandings that sites like WUWT fail (potentially deliberately) to help fight against:
Sea Level Rise related to the previous versions of SkS Analogy 1.
Broader impacts of rapid human caused climate change
Regional specific impact of human caused climate change that has already happened.
-
BaerbelW at 04:17 AM on 23 February 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7
@Santalives #11
As you are commenting on one of my blog posts, I'll chime in. Skeptical Science is in the business of fact checking, hence our big list of rebuttals of often heard misinformation related to climate change. We also publish resources to give facts a fighting chance against misinformation and repost interesting articles about critical thinking from the website Thinking is Power. Give them a read, if only to avoid the pitfalls of doing your own research which you've been rather prone to thus far based on many of your comments!
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:37 AM on 23 February 2022Study: Climate-changed rainfall dampens economic growth
Santalives,
I am a professional engineer, so I have learned to pursue constant learning to limit harm done. And I have an MBA, so I am aware of the motivation of pursuit of profit and the potential for harm to be done, especially through misleading marketing. So maybe my perspective and understanding will help you better understand this matter.
Economists have no laboratory study style way to investigate their theories. They can only infer things from the observations of incredibly complex integrated systems by observing sub-sets of the incredibly complex integration of All Life on This Planet.
This study did a rigorous review of regional economic detailed data paired with regional weather data and identified statistically significant correlations. Attempting to determine the exact mechanism of the correlation is like the attempts to explain why smoking correlates to increased risk of cancer - interesting but not really relevant to the understanding of the importance of limiting smoking.
And the desires of people to benefit from understandably harmful activities, like selling people tobacco, leads some people to seek out and promote nonsense that appears to excuse the understandably harmful pursuit of benefit.
Please try to learn to stop attempting to find harmful misunderstandings that excuse the harmful dead-end pursuits of benefit from burning non-renewable buried ancient hydrocarbons. The activity is harmful in many more ways than the climate change harm that is being caused by the excess CO2 it forces into the environment rather than keeping that carbon locked away.
-
MA Rodger at 22:32 PM on 22 February 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7
Santalives @11,
I fear you are verging on the incoherent with this comment @11.
There are places on the internet where "censorship" is in operation (or proposed) to remove fake facts. Such removal requires "fact checking" to know what is fake and what is real. You go on to describe such "fact checking" as suppressing argument and that any use of such suppression forfeits the argument to those whose argument is thus suppressed. But such "censorship" is a very narrow interpretation of "fact checking" and your comment suggests you not only consider such "censorship" should not be used, but it cannot be used.
Rebuttal is not a "back and forth to argue our view of the facts" but a one-way process. You seem to consider that "facts" are not something that can be established but are things that could (& perhaps should) contradict each other. Thus you happily talk of "alternative facts" and of "original facts" and proclaim "I would suggest overtime they work out for themselves what is the correct facts and what is not and no amount of alternative fact propaganda will change that position permantly."
This website is called Skeptical Science because it addresses the science and in such a forum there is stuff that is obviously correct and other stuff that is plain wrong. And while there is also stuff that has not been classified yet as either correct or wrong, there is no equivalent of "a free society" where wrong stuff is acceptable.
And thus within science, "fact checking" in the form of a rebuttal (and what you might feel is "censorship") not only can be used but should be used.Finally, perhaps you should re-read "that article" Carey et al (2022) as you badly misrepresent what it says.
-
Eclectic at 21:40 PM on 22 February 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7
Santalives @11 , what is all this waffle of yours about suppression ? Facebook, Truth Socialist, Twitter, and the Prairie Home Companion Journal (headquartered at Lake Wobegon) and suchlike, are all quite irrelevant to the question you seem to be trying to ask. And when it comes to the field of science, there's no suppression in journals ~ even for complete rubbish. You've seen that evidence with your own eyes, with the case of the deluded Prof. K. (who is otherwise a nice anthropos).
Is SkS trying to suppress WUWT ? No. When the scientists at SkS look at WUWT , the only thing the scientists are trying to suppress . . . is laughter.
-
Santalives at 21:12 PM on 22 February 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7
@rodgers@9
We donot need fact checkers period, like those setup by google, Facebook and the like to supress facts based on what they decree and any contra view is disinformation and requires censorship. Rebuttal is where we go back and forth to argue our view of the facts. I am not trying to supress yours, actually I welcome it. But if you think the only way to win an argument is use a 3rd party fact checker to suppress that argument then you actually have lost.
But back to that article it makes the point if you take someone and provide them with alternative facts they will initially believe them but over time they revert back to their believe in the original facts. So why is that? I would suggest overtime they work out for themselves what is the correct facts and what is not and no amount of alternative fact propaganda will change that position permantly. So to solve that annoying problem of people thinking for themselves we insert the fact checker to supress any alternative facts. Read 1984 anyone.
Moderator Response:[DB] Sloganeering snipped.
-
Eclectic at 20:23 PM on 22 February 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7
Santalives , what is "the other side" ? (unquote). You still haven't shown you cards about that. And there doesn't seem to be any actual hint that you have any ~ not even a bulge up your sleeve.
I myself have looked for such a "side" for years, but have never found it. Nor has MA Rodger, who is far more knowledgeable & experienced in climate matters than I am.
Sorry, but it is really impossible to see unicorn poo in a mare's nest. Goshdarnit, ain't even a whiff, thar. Despite all the talk and promises.
Those "Contrarians" [polite term used by geologists for Flat-Earthers] have got nothing to back them up. Zilch. And it is passing strange that someone as clever as you, cannot recognize that. Why do you think that is?
Santalives, you'll have to do better. You've bounced onto SkS , full of ginger & self-confidence . . . and you haven't produced anything ~ no logic, no evidence, nothing, nada. And all you've given us is empty words. And you are blaming SkS for your own failures.
If you have a genuine card, then play it. What are you waiting for ?
-
MA Rodger at 20:19 PM on 22 February 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7
Santalives @8,
Before you pile too much more into this thread, can you explain the difference between this "fact checking" which you consider is unnecessary (as you "can read" and thus "can make up [your] own mind," although if you "can read" I'm not sure how "fact checking" could be construed as being "censorship") and this "specific rebuttal" which you consider is necessary.
-
Santalives at 19:30 PM on 22 February 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7
Ma Rodger @7. and eclectic @6 not sure for the pile in but I must be hitting a nerve. But staying on topic, I am not comfortable, with with fact checkers checking censoring anyone including you guys. Yes there does need to be specifc rebuttal, because if you can't argue the other sides argument you have already lost.
Moderator Response:[DB] Inflammatory and sloganeering 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.
There will be NO further warnings issued.
-
MA Rodger at 19:08 PM on 22 February 2022It's albedo
blaisct @123,
It is good we can now see clearly the mechanism (1) to (5) of your LHAC theory in which you propose a driver of increasing global temperatures.
But then we run into a problem or two.
If the driver is step (1), a decrease in surface albedo driven by spreading urban development, how can you now say "the change in albedo is not that significant"? The change in albedo is surely the driver of the process. Or is my "translation of LHAC theory" less than correct?
Perhaps the contradiction I posed @122 (that Costa et al [2007] showed increasing albedo rather than the required decreasing albedo yet still showed warming temperatures) is in some way explained but I do not see it. And identifying the driver of a process is fundamental to such theorising. It appears that has not been achieved.You also say the chart @106 shows the maths but I would disagree. The chart sinply plots temperature (aka dry-bulb teperature, aka psycometric temperature) against dew-point temperature to allow heating engineers to calculate water content etc. It does no calculating. (A clearer version of the chart may assist.)
And the process concerns changing energy fluxes. While heating engineers may work in W-hr/m^3, in climatology there are a fixed number of hours in a day and of cubic kilometres in the sky. So Wm^-2 is perfectly adequate as a measure of the proposed mechanism at work.
-
MA Rodger at 18:43 PM on 22 February 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7
Santalives @5,
You boldly declare "I don't like the idea of anybody fact checking what I can read, I can make up my own mind ... it's not about victories but 1the search for truth."
Yet this rather contradicts all the blather you were presenting in another thread in which you kicked-off insisting "To win the argument there has to be direct rebuttal of the articles (especially the peer reviewed) that are shredding climate science as nothing more than voodoo." You then contribute a further seventeen comments which provide a further contradiction to your position @5 as they demonstrate clearly that your reading of the literature does not in any way assist a "search for truth."
-
Santalives at 18:34 PM on 22 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
Scaddenp @90. Just one. But I will say I sat through countless hours of meetings of coders demonstrating there y2k bugs. Yep there was heaps that were a problem at an annoying level, but never did we see one that was a catastrophic system failure where we could not recover. We fixed them all because we basically had unlimited money but there was never a bug that was catastrophic, unless seeing 1900 instead of 2000 on your Calendar triggers you.
-
Eclectic at 18:31 PM on 22 February 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7
Santalives @5 , it is very clear that you need to get help from the experts who study climate science for years & decades. You are failing to understand the topic.
Read as much as you like, and then consult the experts. In your heart, you know the experts are in 99+% agreement exactly because they have all of the mountain of evidence backing them.
The other <1% have zero to back them ~ all they have is unicorn poo in a mare's nest [look up mare's nest?] Yeah, they talk big and confidently, but it's all schist [geologist's term]. If someone doesn't know much about climate science and logic then you can easily have the wool pulled over your eyes [a Home Truth, eh].
It's not about "freedom & censorship & propaganda" ~ not unless you close your eyes and are desperate, really desperate, to avoid the scientifically obvious.
Beware the Dunning-Kruger attitude. Hope you don't need to look that one up ~ and yes, it does mean making a turtle fool of yourself.
Good luck with your climate search ~ and your inner search. That Dunning-Kruger attitude can be a real bitumen [geologist's term].
-
Santalives at 16:05 PM on 22 February 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7
Ah eclectic, you got me with the turtles reference, I had to look it up.
I don't like the idea of anybody fact checking what I can read, I can make up my own mind. I might get it wrong but that's what a free society is all about. Once you add in fact checkers you get censorship promoting propaganda.
it's not about victories but 1the search for truth.
-
Santalives at 15:33 PM on 22 February 2022Study: Climate-changed rainfall dampens economic growth
Really don't understand how this one got past peer review, but can anyone tell me that a whole paper based on economic cost of "wet days" is based on not an investigation of how or why but it being "plausible" "mere presence".
The study authors did not investigate why an increase in the number of wet days would hamper the economy, but Wenz suggested, “It seems plausible that the mere presence of a rainy day can have a disruptive effect on businesses, construction, transportation etc
-
Eclectic at 10:11 AM on 22 February 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7
Santalives @3 ,
if you were meaning "quis custodiet" . . . then the standard answer is:
"It's turtles all the way down!" ( I hope you remember that oldie.)
Santalives, you appear to have abandoned your old playing ground in the thread: "SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?" Perhaps it would be a good mental exercise for you, if you got your ideas in order there , before you go sighing for fresh worlds to conquer, on other threads. One victory at a time, Alexander.
-
Santalives at 09:34 AM on 22 February 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7
Eclectic @2. So who is fact checking the fact checkers?
-
scaddenp at 05:16 AM on 22 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
Santalives. "How serious was the Y2K bug, I would say close to zero, why because this was western government obsession, many counties simply didn't have the money or expertise to do any Y2K remeadation but they did ask the rich countries to pay for it however. "
I agree that there was way too much hype and doom-saying nonsense, but the problem was very real and did affect systems in unexpected ways.
Out of curiousity, how many examples of system-taking down bugs would I need to show you before you admitted that you were wrong?
-
blaisct at 03:36 AM on 22 February 2022It's albedo
Rodger @122
Yes, your translation of the LHAC theory is correct. Sorry for the whole apple, it was the only way to answer your question. One point of clarification. The production (flux over time) of hot low humidity air (through the day when the sun is shining) will occur no matter what the albedo of the UHI or cultivated land is, so the change in albedo is not that significant but the change in moisture availability is. The albedo affects how hot, water availability affects how low the RH, and area affects how much is produced over time. The Amazonia study showed this. The psychometric chart in @106 shows the math. In the LHAC theory, hot low RH air has always been a part of weather. Over time, man has changed how hot, how low the RH and how much is produced with UHI’s and new cultivated land. The generation of hot low RH air deals with W-hr/m^3 not W/m^2 and destruction of clouds should be on the same W-hr/m^3 basis.
Correction in @121
At bottom of @121 should read: we get -1.6W/m^2 change in incoming SW [ 342W/m^2*0.8% cloud cover change*(85% *(1-0.05)+(1-85%)*(1-0.15) – (1- 0.31 earth’s albedo)*(1-50% cloud albedo))] -
Evan at 21:12 PM on 21 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
Santalives. Please make specific claims from any paper you like, and we will respond. But right now you are just accusing us of being closed minded.
Tell us what point a paper makes that you thinks needs to be clarified. But don't through a paper at us and ask, :"What do you think?"
Be specific.
-
Eclectic at 18:37 PM on 21 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
MA Rodger @87 ,
no no no thanks !
Enough of the Koutsoyiannis rubbish, already.
Why should Koutsoyiannis's paper get preference over all those Flat-Earther screeds, those Anti-Evolution screeds, those Qanon screeds, or over that confirmation of Jewish Space Lasers (or was it the UFO's ?). Or of that Faked Moon Landing?
Fair's fair, MA Rodger. You should devote a full week's analysis to every bit of rubbish "out there".
Desist, sir !
Or come back in 2035, after total debunk of all Dreck.
Stop Press. Early announcement by Nobel Committee. First Greek to receive Nobel Prize for physics. Name withheld, pending dissolution of IPCC. Riots in Athens. More to come.
Er, one moment there, MA Rodger . . . I might reconsider my request.
-
MA Rodger at 17:32 PM on 21 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
Santalives @78,
You again express an interest in having Koutsoyiannis (2021) debunked for you. Such a debunk has been offered you in the past (@18 up-thread for instance) but you have failed to take them up. There are many similar papers purporting to overturn the science behind AGW and indeed you brought a second such pack-of-nonsense into this thread in the shape of Seim & Olsen (2020). The large quantity of such sub-standard publication is why a single instance of such a paper does not get coverage ar SkS but if you remain interested in seeing the nonsense within Koutsoyiannis (2021) explained to you, do say so. I am not going to bother debunking it in detail if you are not going to read the result.
-
John Mason at 17:12 PM on 21 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
@Santalives #80
"I have always thought rather than just endless debates 2 steps removed on these websites, why not a TV show where the best climate scientist debate against best deniers on these topics."
And in the studio tonight, we have an internationally acclaimed marine biologist and a very cross man who are here to debate, "are there fish?"
(wild audience applause and cheers)
That's how silly an idea it is. The role of energy-emitting atmospheric gases was guessed at in the 1820s but not demonstrated, the specific role of carbon dioxide was experimentally confirmed in the late 1850s-early 1860s by two scientists working independently and in different countries and the effect of doubling its concentration on temperature was calculated at the turn of the 20th Century. That calculation is not far from the currently-accepted value.
Today we additionally have a vast wealth of palaeodata and we far better understand Earth's slow carbon cycle, that acts as the planet's thermostat over geological timescales, and into the gears of which we have dropped a very big wrench. -
nigelj at 16:47 PM on 21 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
Santalives @80
I already said what I think drives people over at WUWT @74. I've amended it slightly here. Imho denialists seem to mostly engage in a lot of deliberate stupidity, mixed together with political and ideological motives (often libertarianism) , motivated reasoning, cherrypicking, and a tendency to see conspiracies everywhere. However some just appear naturally quite stupid (eg: JDS over at realclimate.org). There are also the scientific cranks with science degrees who just seem to like to be different and become very stubborn and narcissistic. This is my observation. I suspect you wont like this but its how they all frequently come across to me.
Regarding "Rethinking Climate, Climate Change, and Their Relationship with Water by Demetris Koutsoyiannis"
Some of his discussion is interesting and colourful. However a discussion of how to better define climate doesn't much interest me. I said before its pedantry. In no way does such a thing directly relate to or undermine findings that humans are causing a warming effect. And what we are interested in is relativities and rates of change from one period to another. You do not need a precise and perfect definition of climate to measure that. I'm sure you would get what I mean. I haven't the time to study his maths in detail and I'm rusty on some of that but I'm sure its probably correct, but it isn't relevant to the points I've just made. He himself said people will probably regard his paper as useless!
He then goes into a long discussion about water: "This idea is further expanded to establish a linear causality chain of the type: human CO2 emissions → increasing concentration of atmospheric CO2; → increasing temperature → changes in hydrological processes and water balance. This is evident in the popular practice of studying the so-called climate change impacts on hydrological processes. However, this is a naïve idea that does not correspond to physical reality.........Arguably, the fact that the CO2; has been so heavily and repeatedly studied, particularly in paleoclimatology studies (e.g., [49,51,52,53,54,55,56,57]), does not suggest that it is more important a greenhouse gas than water. Here we argue that water is the most crucial element determining climate (e.g., [58,59]), or as put by Poyet [60], “Water is the main player”. We list epigrammatically some of the reasons justifying it: (Abundance, heat storage etc.)"
The fact that water is abundant and a heat store and can be influenced by changes in solar energy and that water vapour is the more abundant a greenhouse gas is not contested or new information, and obviously does not in any way undermine the conventional idea that changes in Co2 is causally linked to increased evaporation which can cause further warming. He has conflated things, and enaged in a logical fallacy by deliberate intent or lack of awareness.
He has to be able to explain how his own theory of water would explain climate warming over the last 100 years. He provides no evidence based causal link to expalin a change in water vapour levels in the atmosphere over the period. But Co2 causing warming and evaporation and further warming explains things perfectly well and is consistent with the evidence.
Don't ask me why, how or when on all the details. I don't have the time for more. I'm giving you the essentials as I see them. To me its all fairly obvious. Think about it. I'm just an interested observer and while I enjoy discussions I dont have all day.
-
Eclectic at 16:28 PM on 21 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
Santalives @82
sorry Santalives, my lengthier (slightly humorous) post got cut off at the knees, while I was slowly composing and typing a thoughtful reply to you. So you get a severely shortened version (phew! for you)
I sincerely hope the moderators can prevail upon the site admin to allow a much longer window before time-out occurs. Can we try for a 90 minute slot?
And no, I don't see that I get any extra-special slack from moderators.
The site is actually very civilized.
You should do well, if you follow the posting rules, and avoid excessive repetition, avoid bullshitting, etc. It might be worth you giving that a try.
What is the central argument at WUWT ?
There are several :-
ABCD , also:-
99+% of climate scientist are incompetent . . . or are fabricating data . . . or are just working to milk grant money from the taxpayer's pocket . . . or are in a grand conspiracy to overthrow the American Constitution and create a communist World Government (to be led by Soros; or by International Zionists; or by Xi JinPing; or by those shape-shifting Lizard People; and so on). Also :-
There is no global warming . . . or it is very slight . . . or if it's big, then it's not caused by humans . . . or if it's big and it is caused by humans, then it will be very, very good for us.
I could give you more, Santalives ~ but I think you get the picture.
Gotta rush. Sorry.
Those High-IQ but science-denying elite at WUWT ? Yeah, very interesting . . . analysis will have to wait for a later occasion.
-
BaerbelW at 16:22 PM on 21 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
@Santalives #80
"I have always thought rather than just endless debates 2 steps removed on these websites, why not a TV show where the best climate scientist debate against best deniers on these topics."
This would be a fake debate because both "sides" are not equal when there is a scientific consensus on a topic. It just paints a very wrong and misleading picture for people watching such a fake debate on what is basically settled science. This is explained in The Consensus Handbook on pages 8 and 9 and in this sketch from John Oliver's Last Week Tonight show which is as true today as when it came out in 2014!
-
Santalives at 14:54 PM on 21 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
Eclectic @81, yes it is a lot of fun here, but I think the moderator cuts you a lot more slack than me.
I will ask you the same question as nijelj then
. what would you say is the central argument that sites like wuwt believe?
The next question is why? As I said many of these people are clearly not dummies they have Phd, s they are work at university's, doing and publishing research. I doubt many are well funded as being on the other side of the argument would not pay well.
Moderator Response:[DB] Moderation complaints snipped.
-
Eclectic at 14:06 PM on 21 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
from Santalives: < ... it is obvious that the temp has increased, that the sea level rises ...> (unquote)
"You see, my dear Santalives, but you do not observe." ~ if I may slightly misquote Sherlock Holmes ;-)
That's right, it is so ~ but the question is: Why has that happened at a time when (per Milankovitch) the temp should be falling and the sea level falling too !
# The job of scientists is not to marvel at these events, but to discover why they happen. And that's exactly what the scientists have done over the past 100 years or so. And sorry, simply waving your hand and saying "ain't so" . . . is laughable . . . is exactly the sort of thing science-deniers do ( er, not that you are one of those denialists, of course. We take you at your word on that ! ) And you still haven't shown the slightest evidence that the scientists are wrong.
Santalives, it sounds like you have the bug ~ no, not the Y2K bug or the Covid bug ~ but the ABCD bug. (That's "Anything But Carbon Dioxide" ~ a typical denialist plaint, where they accept any causation whatsoever, so long as it's ABCD .)
Lots of fun, here, eh !
-
Santalives at 14:06 PM on 21 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
Nigelj @79, what would you say is the central argument that sites like wuwt believe? I have spent a bit time reading and a lot of the people on there are clearly not dummies but they simply don't accept the settled science.
On prof Koutsoyiannis, to say his assumptions are nonsensical and dismiss the paper out of hand, certainly does nothing for someone like me trying to learn something and I think plays into the hand of deniers who say the other side won't debate. Evan response was an explanation of the consensus not a rebuttal.
As Evan paper is about what we do and how do we convince people to do it. I have always thought rather than just endless debates 2 steps removed on these websites, why not a TV show where the best climate scientist debate against best deniers on these topics. Especially on the settled science. It would be certainly a lot more interesting the current BBC climate programme that seems to have run out content.
-
nigelj at 13:05 PM on 21 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
Santileves @78, I have followed the global warming issue ever since James Hansens speech that we have hard evidence of a human influence on climate in the early 1990s. I was even a bit sceptical at one point in the early days, but lot of time has gone by and tens of thousands of papers have been published. If we were wrong, it would almost certainly have been found by now.
And if we are wrong, we will have built a lot of new energy infrastructure that we will need eventually anyway because fossil fuels are a very finite resource. So being wrong is not a massive problem and will not bankrupt the world economy, not even slightly. Doing nothing could be a massive problem. The worst case scenarios are very bleak and cannot be completely ruled out.
You have been given some references to proper rebuttal of one of the papers you quoted. Several people have posted comments on the paper by Prof. Demetris Koutsoyiannis. It is not necessary to go through his claims line by line when his basic assumptions are nonsensical.
Regarding y2k I agree there was some degree of hype. But using this to cast doubt on climate science is fairly weak. They are very different issues involving different people. And nobody really knew exactly what would happen after year 2000. When theres even a small chance aircraft could fall out of the sky its better to upgrade the computer chip / change the software.
The basics of climate science go back centuries. Svante Arrhenius did detailed calculations in the 1890s on the effect of industrial CO2 on the climate. He predicted a 5 degree warming in total and 1 degree c of warming in the 20th century. He worked essentially alone. He wasn't paid a fortune for this work. He had long been curious about such issues as what caused climate change. Nobody has been able to scientifically rebut his work, and obviously his prediction for the 20th century has been proven reasonably accurate. Successful predictions are good evidence a theory is on the right track.
-
Santalives at 12:33 PM on 21 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
@nijelj 69. It is obvious that that the temp has increased, that the sea level rises is ongoing and has been for thousands of years. don't know anybody who does not accept that. Except over at Elecroverse who are pushing move to somehwhere warm and learn how to grow vegetables. God help us if they are right. My skeptism is we seem to have put all our chips down on betting on c02 that produced by man is the source of our problem. Whilst I support the study of that,but we should be constantly asking what if we are wrong? As Eclectic wrote @16 I live in hope that someday, some year, WUWT will uncover some killer evidence that the mainstream climate scientists are wrong. I would have thought that would be hope of this site.
Anyway I seem to getting accused of trolling etc. But I was really hoping to see some proper rebuttal for instance the paper by Prof. Demetris Koutsoyiannis Rethinking Climate, Climate Change, and Their Relationship with Water. There has been no rebuttal of his paper other than no this is settled science. His paper is quite specific in its claims and evidence which clearly goes against the settled science. It's a question of if he is wrong where is his paper wrong.
On the Y2K analogy, I never said it was a scam. The Y2K bug was real and we still have come across it from time to time since. My analogy was trying to express the idea how singly focused we all became on something that was a theoretical problem. This focus was initiated by governments but driven by endless money. Even when we found that it was not of concern for some system at all, companies just pushed on spending money to rip out old systems for new technologies under the excuse of Y2K. We dismantled and tested everything from ATM machines to, microwave trammitters. Dragged out 80 year Cobol programmers (for a 6 figure sum for a few months work),Decommissioned more mainframes than I can remember all to prevent a perceived catastrophe.
How serious was the Y2K bug, I would say close to zero, why because this was western government obsession, many counties simply didn't have the money or expertise to do any Y2K remeadation but they did ask the rich countries to pay for it however. Nothing happened, no power grid failures, no planes crashed, banks didnt collaspe anywhere in the world. I know plenty of coders who still think we were saving the world but for me if I am upfront we all went along for the ride because it was easy to scare the people, the politicians, the CEOs to make a lot of money. Seems to be a lot of similarity to AGW.
-
Eclectic at 12:04 PM on 21 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
Evan @72 , please keep up your good work.
And I was not meaning to imply that engaging with a climate troll would bring them to their senses. Trolls are, by their very nature, impervious to sensible thinking.
As you say, it is all about the unseen audience. The troll is partly aware of that too. Yet IMO the troll's greater motivation is to "act out", to vent his anger. Trolls are angry people. They don't all go to WUWT blogsite to vent their anger ~ well, not full time anyway.
But WUWT is an interesting blogsite ~ the visible tip of an iceberg of angry people . . . angry about occult personal issues . . . crackpots whose conceptualizations are ignored by the wider world . . . conspiracy theorists who find a sympathetic echochamber reassures them of their sanity . . . political extremists who are angry about their slipping status in a changing world (and who complain of their gullible "Leftist" children). There is a certain amount of dog-whistling too . . . but to their credit, WUWT moderators & algorithms are very quick to eliminate any frankly racist comments.
WUWT is a sour, angry site, with a touch of bitterness also. Some of their funding is from a lot of general advertising ~ and to generate many clicks, the editors make sure they frequently throw red meat into the cage for their target audience to snarl over.
(Let me see . . . have I myself vented enough, about WUWT ? Hmm.... )
