Arguments
Recent Comments
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Comments 1 to 50:
-
Eric (skeptic) at 03:06 AM on 31 March 2025Climate skeptics have new favorite graph; it shows the opposite of what they claim
Evan, your comment #3 is valid, that the effects matter more than the magnitude of warming or the rate of warming. But then in comment #5 you make a million year claim about warming (rate or magnitude or both). That claim is based on a single location using a single ice core, and there are many counterexamples like this:sa.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/Evidence%20for%20warmer%20interglacials%20in%20East%20Antarctic.pdf
I have some issues with Holocene reconstructions that nigelj is alluding to in #4 but those quibbles (regarding spatial and temporal resolution) are not pertinent to the curve argument that this posting is about.
In general longer term claims like Post made (Post authors, not the scientists) such the 450 million year curve compared to present rate of warming are abstractions. They sound impressive until they are given a bit of scrutiny and then are very easily dismissed. Instead I would use a combo of your #3 and nigelj's #4.
-
Bob Loblaw at 01:05 AM on 31 March 2025Greenhouse effect has been falsified
Charlie_Brown @ 189:
That's a useful addition to the discussion. Humpty Dumpty may hold the point of view that "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less”, but in communications it is desirable that people agree on meanings. And when you start to run into technical jargon, there can be a barrier to understanding if the audience is not familiar with the jargon. You then need to explain that jargon in words that the audience does understand. That explanation can vary widely, depending on the background of the audience.
Even an object as familiar as a dictionary needs to follow this rule: you can't explain the meaning of words by using the same words. When trying to explain what a frobnitz gleabinator is, you can't just tell someone "that's a device that will gleabinate your frobnitz". If they don't know what a frobnitz is, or what gleabinating does, they are still lost.
(Homework: try grabbing your favourite dictionary and looking up the word "dictionary", to see how it manages to avoid a circular reference.)
(Homework 2: if you don't know what a "circular reference" is, try looking it up under "reference, circular".)
Reed Coray has utterly failed to explain the distinction between his undesirable "trap heat" and his preferred "warm the Earth's surface". To a lay person, these look pretty much the same. Well, to pretty much anyone, I expect they mean pretty much the same thing. Unless Reed Coray can provide a reasonable explanation of the difference, he is (as I said before) just playing word games.
The OP even goes into the inaccuracies of the term "greenhouse". (You need to read the Intermediate tab to see it.) It mentions the role of blocking convection rather than radiation in the glass greenhouse. It does not mention that plastic greenhouses can do this just as well - even though they are transparent to IR. It also doesn't point out that glass (or plastic) greenhouses also only work because they let sunlight in - just as the atmosphere does. A "greenhouse" that does not have a clear roof is just a house - and doesn't heat up the same way a greenhouse does (even though a house does block convection).
In spite of the differences between a glass greenhouse and the atmospheric "greenhouse" effect, both require the use of the physics of radiation transfer and the physics of convection in explaining how they cause warming. The analogy (look that up in your dictionary!) is useful, although the two situations are not identical.
Reed Coray's argument is a pig in a poke. He's making a mountain out of a molehill. He's making a federal case out of a trivial issue. He's sweating the small stuff. He's blowing things out of proportion. It's a tempest in a teapot. It's much ado about nothing. He's giving us a song and dance. He's laying it on thick. [Aren't dictionaries fun?]
-
Evan at 22:17 PM on 30 March 2025Climate skeptics have new favorite graph; it shows the opposite of what they claim
prove we are smart@7
I do not disagree with your assessment that our capitalistic desires drive overconsumption.
But I think that even if you removed the capitalistic drive for overconsumption, there would remain a problem of nearly insurmountable size. Our natural, healthy desires to feed, clothe and shelter ourselves and to look after our children would be enough to cause environmental stress. It is a personal opinion, but I think that if we removed our insatiable capitalistic desires, AND turned down the global population from over 8 billion to something like 80 million, that then, and only then could we live in harmony with nature.
I feel this way because I am trying to live a sustainable life, but I am nowhere near sustainability and I don't know how to get there. Many of the things that make life worth living, such as hobbies and getting together with friends, increases GHG emissions. Should I give up that which makes life rich and fulfilling in the pursuit of reducing GHG emissions? Shall I become a hermit to reduce GHG emissions? Even writing this comment incurs GHG emissions. Every time I refresh my browser to read the responses to my comments I incur GHG emissions.
There are no easy answers.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:28 PM on 30 March 2025Climate skeptics have new favorite graph; it shows the opposite of what they claim
I am not surprised that the paper’s presentation of 485 million years of temperature history was irrationally misinterpreted. Some people desperately seek any excuse to maintain their harmfully incorrect beliefs about climate science, and many other matters. They can be especially desperate to prolong or increase the benefits they can get from delaying the ‘responsible, ethical and moral’ corrections of harmful developed human beliefs and behaviour that climate science has identified.
The fact that human civilization has only existed in the last 10,000 years (less than 0.002% of the length of the chart) has to be ignored by some people to maintain their desired misunderstandings.
It took me less than a minute to find the following Phys.org report from 2021: Global temperatures over last 24,000 years show today's warming 'unprecedented'. It presents details of the temperatures in that tiny right-hand end of the misunderstood chart from the 485-million-year paper. (Note that the title includes a term that some people attempt to claim does not apply to the results of modern-day human impacts on the planet).
Undeniably, many people are easily tempted to believe misunderstandings about research results like this report. And, unfortunately, some people are so passionately emotionally invested in their misunderstandings that they powerfully resist attempts to get them to care to learn that their beliefs are ‘harmfully incorrect’.
Harmfully misleading pursuers of popularity and profit like Joe Rogan (and like Musk, and Trump, and all the people who bought memberships in Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Cult) are unlikely to be influenced by efforts to get them to learn that their preferred beliefs are harmful incorrect. They will behave like the following quote from this re-posted Climate Brink story.
The furor over the graph reached its apogee in January when Joe Rogan showed it in a podcast interview with Mel Gibson, saying that “If you believe these silly people, way before human beings had ever existed, there's always this rise and fall. And this idea that the whole thing is based on carbon emissions from human beings is total bullshit. It's not true. Right. We might be having an effect, but we're having a small effect, a very small effect.”
It is tempting to say that ‘all people in a democracy’ are to blame for the results of their collective leadership elections. But that is disrespectful of everyone who tried to help others learn to be less harmful and more helpful to Others. And it excuses the harmful misleading actions of the likes of Joe Rogan (and the likes of Donald Trump and Elon Musk).
It is important to understand that ‘pure democracy’ would result in the interests of ‘the controlling majority’ being justified regardless of the undeniable harms caused by those interests. Regardless of the socioeconomic-political system, there is a significant risk of harmful abusive actions dominating (winning) unless everyone is effectively governed by learning to be less harmful and more helpful to Others.
Ideally everyone would responsibly self-govern to be less harmful and more helpful to Others. But there will always be some people who need to be ‘governed by Others’.
-
Charlie_Brown at 11:56 AM on 30 March 2025Greenhouse effect has been falsified
Reed Coray @ 180 writes: “This almost ubiquitously used claim (“the Earth's surface is warmed by-heat-trapping greenhouse gases”) is invalid because heat cannot be trapped—i.e., an adiabatic wall does not exist in nature. If heat can’t be trapped, any and all claims that rely on the existence of heat-trapping material or trapped heat constitute misinformation.” In my opinion, those two sentences are misinformation. It sets up a hurdle for GHG theory to be described with technical accuracy with a few words, or else it is “invalid.” I believe my comments are consistent with others. I intend to be reinforcing and apologize if they are repetitive.
It not possible to convey the concept of how increasing GHG concentration “traps heat” with technical accuracy to those who do not understand fundamental principles of an energy balance, the atmospheric profile, and radiant energy transfer. For the lay person, “traps heat” is sufficiently descriptive. Technically it is not inaccurate, so it is not “untrue.” A “trap” does not have to be an adiabatic wall. Maybe one could say partial trap. It can be accurately described as a partial radiant energy trap. Let’s not get lost in the semantics of dictionary definition. I prefer to add a few words: “Increasing GHG behaves as a cold trap for certain wavelengths of infrared energy that reduces energy loss to space and upsetting the steady state energy balance.” It could be shortened to “It is a cold trap that reduces energy loss to space.”
Reed Coray’s short description @182 “Surface Warming Occurs To Establish Energy Rate Equilibrium (ERE) Within The Earth/Earth-atmosphere System” also is incomplete. It leaves out the role of increasing GHG as well as the cold layer at the top of the radiant atmosphere.
Another short description I use is that it is a 3-step process: 1) Increasing GHG reduces energy loss to space. 2) Energy accumulates in the global system. 3) Surface temperature increases until radiant energy balance is restored.
Global warming theory should be described at the appropriate level for the audience to understand the overarching concept. It bothers me when someone says they believe in global warming, because it is not a belief, it is based on fundamental physics. If someone wants more information to better understand the concepts without understanding the physics, it should be provided. The audience does not need to know all the technical details to know that global warming theory is solid science. I find the technical details to be fascinating, so I am happy to dig into them and share the knowledge at whatever level the listener would like to engage.
-
prove we are smart at 09:29 AM on 30 March 2025Climate skeptics have new favorite graph; it shows the opposite of what they claim
"The root of the problem still lies with us and the choices we make." and there's the crux of the issue- You would surely think where are the mass protests against this guaranteed existential threat from a too rapidly ever warming planet? The increasing instability to our food and water systems- the insurance/financial- political- pandemics and on and on. The flora and fauna are victims as too the human pollutors.
People dont want to lose their choices- the cars we drive, with the increasing "features"-the ailes in supermarkets for toothpastes or pet food or breakfast cereal-the endless fashion loop of clothing-the overwhelming desire for your children to become adults with a good job and a comfortable lifestyle and on and on. I cannot remember where I copied this next quote from but it describes some of my thoughts..
"Capitalism is not about a natural supply and demand. Capitalism is about MANUFACTURED demand, for which those who manufacture such demand, also "happen" to have a supply. There is little demand for weapons until the capitalists manufacture an international conflict. Most individuals don't need the vast majority of things they are told they should buy, so capitalists manufacture an insecurity in them so they feel inadequate without these trinkets.Bingo. And that "manufactured demand" is not only putting us in danger of serious military conflict, it's also RUINING the planet because we arent managing finite resources smartly.
-
Evan at 21:25 PM on 29 March 2025Climate skeptics have new favorite graph; it shows the opposite of what they claim
Nigelj@4, we love to rail at politicians, but remember that in countries with freely-elected leaders, we elect these people. The root of the problem still lies with us and the choices we make.
-
Evan at 21:24 PM on 29 March 2025Climate skeptics have new favorite graph; it shows the opposite of what they claim
Nigelj@4, I'm sure you're aware that using ice-core data, we have sufficient data going back more than a million years to say that the current warming is unprecedented back that far.
The reason that is important is that coming out of ice-age cycles (i.e., during deglaciation), warming occurs at a rate to which most of the biosphere can adapt. With the current warming occurring about 100 times faster than that deglaciation rate, many species will not be able to adapt fast enough. The faster we change temperature, the more stress it puts on the biosphere.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 06:30 AM on 29 March 2025China will need 10,000GW of wind and solar by 2060
wilddouglascounty,
Good questions.
I am a civil/structural engineer with an MBA. I have confidence in the use of models to analyze and evaluate plans. The same is done for engineered items and business opportunities. Today’s socioeconomic models are quite advanced. My university engineering education in the 1970s included a course on ‘Technology and Society’ where we used socioeconomic computer analysis models to investigate different approaches to socioeconomic development (using ‘state-of-the-art’ keyboards with dot-matrix printers as the interface devices).
My main question is: What specific monitoring will be performed to ensure that things happen as planned? When planning structures and business opportunities the model analysis is important. But it is more important to monitor, and enforce corrections as required, to ensure that the plan is being diligently and successfully turned into the desired reality. The article mentions the need for a ‘new legal system’. ‘New legal systems’ do not guarantee effective monitoring and correction (evading legal consequences is a proven ‘strategy for success’).
Indeed, it is challenging for Western socioeconomic political systems (systems based fundamentally on competition for profit and popularity with freedom of actions) to produce a collaboratively developed plan that is effectively monitored and corrected as required to ensure that ‘the desired result’ develops. It is especially difficult if the path to the desired result could be ‘less profitable or less popular’. But that monitoring and enforcement of compliance can also be hard to do in a socioeconomic system like the one in China that interacts with the world system (It is not an isolated stand-alone system).
The following additional questions came to mind as I read the article:
The plan is stated to be ‘net-zero’ before 2060. But the plan still has a significant amount of fossil fuel use in 2060. What is the plan to effectively neutralize the energy system emissions in 2060 (to be ‘net-zero’)? Note that CCS reduces ghg impacts, but does not make them zero. What are the plans for neutralizing ghg impacts of other activities in China like agriculture (also needed for China to be net-zero)?
A significant challenge for effectively limiting harm done by activities under the control of China’s leadership, or any other leadership group, is: Getting all of the most powerful and influential players to learn to be less harmful and more helpful to Others even if that 'learning' compromises their potential opportunity for benefit.
-
nigelj at 05:35 AM on 29 March 2025Climate skeptics have new favorite graph; it shows the opposite of what they claim
I agree with Eric that we dont have enough data points hundreds of millions of years ago to know if there was a single century or two of warming of several degrees. However the current rate of warming is unprecedented in the last 2,000 years and probably the last 10,000 years. We have enough fine grain detail and data points to know this and numerous studies on it. And its the stability of this period that human civilisation developed within. Billions people and their agiculture and infrastructure are most likely very reliant on this relative stability.
This is all being put at risk by politicians and other people that deny the climate problem and place their personal and unlimited wealth accumulation and tax cuts for millionaires and already profitable corporations above literally all other considerations. If this isn't an addiction, then what is?
-
Bob Loblaw at 04:41 AM on 29 March 2025Greenhouse effect has been falsified
Reed Coray @ 187:
Your assertion that you "can't trap heat" and that using the phrase "trap heat" is "not true" only makes sense if you create such a strict literal meaning to the words "trap heat" that is unjustified. In that context, nothing at all anyone ever says anywhere is "true".
...and I repeat what I said in #185: you are arguing a point that is barely mentioned in the OP. It seems as though you want to ignore the rest of the OP. You're just playing word games.
You also have ignored the part where I say that such simple explanations represent a starting point for further discussion/explanation. Such as the discussion and explanation that is contained in the rest of the OP.
Your accusations of an "intent to manipulate truth and facts" are unfounded, unsupported, and against the Comments Policy of this site. You are now cherry picking one phrase you want to use to attack the science, and using that to claim some grand conspiracy to deceive. You have now hit two more techniques of climate denial:
-
Reed Coray at 03:37 AM on 29 March 2025Greenhouse effect has been falsified
Bob Loblaw at 00:12 AM on 29 March 2025
You wrote: " Every simple explanation leaves something out, and therefore may be subject to misunderstanding (especially if someone is determined to misunderstand or misrepresent it)"
It is true that simple explanations "leave things out," and are therefore susceptible to misintrepretation. But why include in a simple explanation something that isn't true? Doing that makes it more likely that the simple explanation will be misintrepreted.
For example, why not shorten your Earth surface warming simple explanation to: "atmospheric greenhouse gases act to warm the Earth's surface?" That's an even simpler explanation and doesn't contain a statement that isn't true. What does the caveat "trapping heat" add to the simple explanation other than make it more likely to be misintrepreted?
If your answer is that it makes it more likely that a reader will accept the greenhouse effect theory because he is familiar with connotations of the word "trap," then not only is your simple explanation misinformation, it is disinformation--i.e., information that is designed to mislead others and is spread with the intent to manipulate truth and facts.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:00 AM on 29 March 2025Greenhouse effect has been falsified
Reed Coray @182,
As Bob Loblaw suspects, you have not answered my question.
In addition to the responses by Bob Loblaw and Eclectic, I observe that even the detailed explanation you provided is incomplete. It should address the source of energy input to the earth-atmosphere system and what happens to that energy within the system.
A significant percentage of incoming (entering – and there is a reason I bold this term) solar energy passes through the ‘greenhouse gases’ in the atmosphere and is absorbed or reflected by the features of the ‘surface of the planet’. The reflected solar radiation exits out to space through the atmosphere as easily as it entered. However, absorbed energy gets re-emitted in a form that is different from the solar radiation that enters the system. And the greenhouse gases make it harder for the energy emitted by the surface features to exit the system (leave out to space). Simply, and fairly accurately, greenhouse gases allow entry of the solar energy down to the surface but block the exit of heat emitted by the warmed surface back out to space.
The current on-line Oxford definition of the verb ‘trap’ is: catch (an animal) in a trap.
The related noun ‘trap’ is defined as: a device or enclosure designed to catch and retain animals, typically by allowing entry but not exit ...
Try to be more helpful and careful. “The Earth's surface is warmed by heat-trapping greenhouse gases” seems to be an accurate ‘easily understood’ description of the result of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Trying to claim that the statement is a form of misinformation does not help improve efforts to increase public awareness and understanding of the problem. And that type of ‘poorly justified claim-making’ could be understood to be a form of misinformation (something that Bob Loblaw also noted in a different way).
-
Bob Loblaw at 00:32 AM on 29 March 2025Greenhouse effect has been falsified
It's also worth noting that the word "trap" is barely used at all in the OP that we are commenting on. In the Basic tab, it appears twice. Once in relation to comparing the earth (with an atmosphere) to the moon (no atmosphere), and once in relation to the atmosphere trapping radiation. In the Intermediate tab, the word "trap" does not appear in the OP at all.
Reed Coray's complaint about overly-simplified explanations of "trapping heat" seem rather oddly placed under a blog post that gives a lengthy discussion of the greenhouse effect (which is of itself a poor term, as is explained in the OP!). Complaining that something should not be done when it does not occur in the OP starts to look like someone is complaining just for the sake of complaining.
The comments section here is intended to discuss the science presented in the original posts. This is explained at the top of the Comments Policy. As a new user, it behooves Reed Coray to actually read the posts he wants to comment on.
-
Bob Loblaw at 00:12 AM on 29 March 2025Greenhouse effect has been falsified
Reed Coray @ 180, 182...
Well, I'm pretty sure that OPOF's request for an easily understood term is not answered by an "explanation" that take some 270 words...
...but you harp on the claim that "heat can't be trapped". You go into a long monologue about the dynamics of energy transfer, the concept of dynamic equilibrium (although you do not use the word dynamic), etc. And you complain that simple explanations can be misleading or represent misinformation.
I hate to break it to you, but every simple explanation ever offered on any subject will require leaving out details. Any analogy offered to help explain a complex system to someone unfamiliar with those details wlil only be able to represent part of that complex system - the analogy will be similar in some respects, and wlll differ in others. The "simple explanation" will always be a starting point for a more detailed explanation.
For example, the "can't trap heat" argument could also be applied to any other system where energy is being added and temperature is rising. Let's take a pot on a stove, or a house heated by a furnace. Putting a lid on the pot makes the temperature rise faster. Closing the windows in the house makes the house get warmer (for the same furnace output). In each case, there is more thermal energy (AKA "heat") in the pot or house. In each case, a simplified description is that adding the lid or closing the windows "traps heat". In each case, there is more to it, but in each case the "traps heat" explanation is a reasonable starting point.
You admit that "an easily understood term" may not be possible. Yet you criticize the use of simplified explanations because they are incomplete. Every simple explanation is incomplete. Every simple explanation leaves something out, and therefore may be subject to misunderstanding (especially if someone is determined to misunderstand or misrepresent it). The same applies to complex explanations - also subject to leaving things out, possible misunderstanding or misrepresentation (especially if someone is determined to misunderstand or misrepresent it).
By setting a standard of "simple is misleading because it is simple", you are requesting perfection in the simplified presentation. This is what is known as setting impossible expectations, which is an unreasonable position to take. It is also a common one in the climate change discussion space:
Methinks thou doth protest too much.
-
Evan at 20:38 PM on 28 March 2025Climate skeptics have new favorite graph; it shows the opposite of what they claim
Eric@2, whether the label "unprecedented warming" is or is not warranted is kind of like debating whether the Category 5 Hurricane that just wiped out your town was or was not a hurricane of unprecedented strength. The current warming of 0.2C/decade (read here) is likely incompatible with organized human civilization and the well being of Earth's rich biodiversity. Let's not spend too much time debating terms and instead figure out what to do to slow down the rate of warming.
-
Eclectic at 13:23 PM on 28 March 2025Greenhouse effect has been falsified
@ 180 / 182 :
Whoa ! Whoa there, Reed Corey.
Please remember the KISS principle.
You say: "to explain ... warming to the general public ..." . But explaining to the general public ~ is not going to happen if a reference to the topic of climate change goes on to a multi-paragraph declaration of complex atmospheric physics. That would be tiresome and insulting to the general public.
"We the people" deserve a simple one-liner description (wherever that is appropriate). A "greenhouse effect trapping heat" is a fair enough and accurate enough description for those of us who use colloquial English. It is a reasonable analogy, for practical purposes.
Sure, in a scientific discussion by experts and would-be experts, you can bring in topics like lapse rates; thermalizations; entropy; heat balance; infra-red radiation; etcetera. But in common sense parlance, "trapping" heat by means of a pane of glass or a wool blanket ~ is not a misleading or dishonest analogy.
Those who choose to go deeper into the semantics and the physics . . . are free to do so, at their leisure. However, for public discussion of the practical politics of countering the modern rapid global warming ~ simplicity is a courtesy and a duty.
-
Eric (skeptic) at 13:13 PM on 28 March 2025Climate skeptics have new favorite graph; it shows the opposite of what they claim
I knew which graph just from the title after I commented on the original Washpost article here: www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2024/09/19/earth-temperature-global-warming-planet/?commentID=3e500d42-0006-4924-a353-36bd06f848fb I won't repeat all my critiques, but here's the most important one: the paper doesn't support the claim of unprecedented warming. That was invented by the Post authors. That's particularly obvious after reading the supplemental: www.science.org/doi/suppl/10.1126/science.adk3705/suppl_file/science.adk3705_sm.pdf The data points for rapid transitions are much too sparse to compare to a century or so of manmade warming.
-
Reed Coray at 11:51 AM on 28 March 2025Greenhouse effect has been falsified
One Planet Only Forever at 04:48 AM on 28 March 2025
"You wrote: Just one question ...
What 'easily understood term' do you suggest should be used to name what happens when the increased concentration of certain types of molecules in the atmosphere results in an increased temperature at the surface of the planet?"
My answer is: "I'm not sure an 'easily understood term' exists, but if I had to pick one it would be 'Surface Warming Occurs To Establish Energy Rate Equilibrium (ERE) Within The Earth/Earth-atmosphere System.'
A System is in ERE if the rate energy enters the system (or any sub-element of the system) is equal to the rate energy leaves the system (or the designated sub-element) adding. The temperature distribution of a system in ERE does not have to be uniform. The only requirement for ERE is that energy (which in the case of the Earth's surface is heat) neither accumulates nor decreases within the system or any sub-volume of the system.
Adding material (e.g., gases) to a system in ERE will likely cause temperature changes within the system. Eventually these temperature changes will reach a new ERE steady state.
In the case of the Earth/Earth-atmosphere system, to achieve a new ERE state when gases are added to the atmosphere, the temperature distribution within the system must change. One component of that temperature distribution is the Earth's surface temperature, which may go up or down. The direction and amount of temperature change can be determined either experimentally or theoretically.
If your theoretical estimate of Earth surface warming requires the existence of 'trapped heat' (i.e., your theoretical argument is that Earth surface warming will occur because some gases 'trap heat' within the lower troposphere), then your theoretical argument is nonsense because heat can't be trapped.
As I said, I'm not sure an 'easily understood term' exists for Earth surface temperature change. Because of this, I don’t like simple explanations. They are too likely to be mislead.
Reed Coray -
One Planet Only Forever at 04:48 AM on 28 March 2025Greenhouse effect has been falsified
Reed Coray @180,
Just one question ...
What 'easily understood term' do you suggest should be used to name what happens when the increased concentration of certain types of molecules in the atmosphere results in an increased temperature at the surface of the planet?
-
Reed Coray at 04:11 AM on 28 March 2025Greenhouse effect has been falsified
An argument used to explain Earth-surface/Earth-lower-troposphere warming to the general public is that some gases (called greenhouse gases) in the Earth's atmosphere "trap heat" thereby increasing temperature. In the public's mind, "trapping heat" goes hand-in-hand with increasing temperature and so the phrase serves its intended purpose: make it believable to the public that atmospheric greenhouse gases will warm the Earth's surface.
This almost ubiquitously used claim (“the Earth's surface is warmed by-heat-trapping greenhouse gases”) is invalid because heat cannot be trapped—i.e., an adiabatic wall does not exist in nature. If heat can’t be trapped, any and all claims that rely on the existence of heat-trapping material or trapped heat constitute misinformation.
I believe the phrases "trapped heat" and "heat trapping" are used to incorrectly explain a physical process in a way that will resonate with the general public. Imagine the effect on the general public if in all articles that mention "heat trapping," after every appearance of the phrase ("heat trapping" or "trapped heat") a parenthetical qualifier followed that said "heat cannot be trapped, but we use 'trapped heat' because it 'kind of' describes what is going on." Do you think such a qualifying caveat would have any effect on the public's acceptance of the greenhouse gas theory of warming?
-
Evan at 20:30 PM on 26 March 2025Climate skeptics have new favorite graph; it shows the opposite of what they claim
Great article!
The analogy I like to use to explain why the rate of warming is important is Speed Kills.
When exiting a freeway, you slow down from 60 mph (100 kmh) to rest in about 30 sec. This is a nice, reasonable rate of change. What happens if you speed up that rate of change by a factor of 100?
Moderator Response:[BL] Link fixed...
-
wilddouglascounty at 23:18 PM on 25 March 2025China will need 10,000GW of wind and solar by 2060
So China is taking a low/no carbon future seriously, if we are to take this at face value. Meanwhile, fossil fuel interests seem to be creating a pushback to such low carbon futures in many countries in the West. China is doing these responsible steps in the context of a command and control economy and a surveillance state that has questionable human rights. Can the western states provide a viable pathway to a low carbon future that does not involve these "features?"
The institutions of science clearly can operate in both scenarios; can western democracies evade the authoritarian impulses that seem to be driving them toward protecting the status quo? Can they generate good science, integrate with other disciplines to develop and partner with manufactures of low carbon technologies that also protect the environmental diversity that is essential for the functioning of the biosphere in addition to slowing/reversing the forces that are driving our climate upwards? These are the questions that come up in my mind. How about you?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 06:34 AM on 22 March 2025Do Americans really want urban sprawl?
nigelj @9,
As Eric (Skeptic) has mentioned there is complexity and nuance on many aspects of this matter.
It is probably more accurate to say “...highrise apartment living ( define it as anything above about 7 floors) will have to be very high quality and thus quite expensive to entice some middle class people away from suburban living, with its privacy and your own garden etc. Some [p]eople put considerable value on that.”
Many people ‘need’ less expensive ways of living. In the case of ‘car sprawl based development’ a lot of what was built is of little use to those people, but they pay for it because they have ‘no real choice’. Offering those people the choice of smaller less expensive housing - like affordable, but well-built, apartments that are 7 stories or less - could make ‘single family homes with big yards’ less valued if there were more lower cost alternatives.
In addition to opposition to actions that would reduce potential benefit from more fossil fuel use, the 'loss of potential value' of already built single family homes with yards would explain the misleading misunderstanding fuelled opposition to the Glenmore Landing development by councillors for other areas of Calgary (refer back to my comment @6).
Note that the council member for the community that the Glenmore Landing development affected, where it would be built, supported the development because her community member feedback was Not-NIMBY. The community supported the development. Other council members opposed it, and they repeated misleading misunderstandings as the reason for their opposition.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 05:52 AM on 22 March 2025Do Americans really want urban sprawl?
Eric (skeptic) @7,
Thanks for the response. I generally agree with your observations. However, there are some minor clarifications I would make.
Regarding $10,000 per year for car ownership:
The energy costs are indeed highly variable. However, they are only a part of the costs. A fuller understanding of the costs of car ownership is presented by RateHub.ca - What is the total cost of ownership for a car? That evaluation concludes that the average cost in Canada is $1370 per month = $16,500 Cdn per year (~ $11,500 US). The costs include the following in addition to annual fuel and maintenance costs:
- Vehicle purchase costs (loan interest or lease costs) and depreciation of value at end of use considerations
- Non-annual maintenance (items like tire replacement, brake and timing belt replacement, specialty fluid flushes and replacement)
- Licensing/registration
- Parking (at work or at an apartment)
- Insurance (a significant part of the cost)
Regarding roads:
‘Car sprawl’ cities cover larger areas per capita (they have lower population density). That requires more length of roads and other public systems per capita. Calgary has 1.4 million people living on 825 square km. For comparison, Copenhagen, considered to be reasonably walkable, is 1.4 million living on 180 square km. The length of public infrastructure items in Copenhagen is likely about 1/4 the lengths (and costs) required by Calgary.
Regarding ‘Investors’ vs ‘Speculators’:
People who buy a property that they do not intend to live in can be called ‘investors’ or ‘speculators’. The same goes for people buying stocks or being venture capitalists. They are ‘investors who are speculating’ about the amount of benefit they will get from their actions. That is different from someone who ‘invests’ in a fixed interest deposit - no speculation in that action, except for speculating that it will be better than ‘riskier’ investment options. Note that the 2008/9 financial crisis was due to speculation that home-buying with balloon mortgages would be a good investment.
Regarding sustainability of the condos being built:
The consequences of the temptation to save money on the initial build is a concern. But the shoe-boxes in question wold be the same problem even if they are better-built than the average new high-rise building.
Regarding having to use a car to get a loaf of bread or a coffee:
The point being made is that in a walkable community you can walk to get a small amount of groceries. And there would be a local coffee shop (or two) you can walk to for a visit with friends (and you could walk to your friend’s place for a visit). Being able to walk to a diversity of shops and services, and even walk to work, would be possible in a walkable community.
-
nigelj at 05:21 AM on 22 March 2025Do Americans really want urban sprawl?
OPOF @6, I will clarify what I mean about highrise living in a walkable city needing to be expensive. I just suspect highrise apartment living ( define it as anything above about 7 floors) will have to be very high quality and thus quite expensive to entice middle class people away from suburban living, with its privacy and your own garden etc. People put considerable value on that. So it might be so expensive it doesnt attract very many people even if they save on car running costs and can walk to most things.
As you say converting cities to be walkable in a meanigful way is also going to be expensive and this adds to the cost problem. And it will have to be meaningful. People are mostly not going to move and sell the car just so they can walk to get a coffee. Most things will have to be within walking distance, including most work, shops, and services. And it will need very high density living and highrise apartments otherise too many shops would be needed to be economically viable. Its obvious.
But its good some places are experimenting with walkable city living, and we will see how things develop and whether it attracts enough people. I like the idea in principle. I live ten minutes walk from the local shops and its great. I hope it would work, but we also need some healthy scepticism.
-
Mara at 01:47 AM on 22 March 2025Climate Fresk - a neat way to make the complexity of climate change less puzzling
Hello, great summary. The Climate Fresk has been so successful that many other workshops were launched to introduce people to sysemis topics using the same approach - nearly 200 to date. I created the Energy Transition Fresk (only available in French for now), which was really challenging to design as the topic has so many componants.
-
Eric (skeptic) at 00:47 AM on 22 March 2025Do Americans really want urban sprawl?
One Planet said "(internet searching will find many estimates that it costs more than $10,000 per year to be a car owner)"
Isn't that part of the same consumption problem that underlies a lot of the energy intensity of the economy? My Ford Focus has 347,000 miles and it costs about $3,600 in gas and $1,000 (give or take) in other expenses per year. 40,000 miles a year is the reason my costs are so high. Some of that mileage is to see family in New England, but some could be reduced. I know some people with lower car expenses and people with higher. The higher ones are mostly "overconsumers" IMO.
Roads for cars is indeed a problem, but you also need to consider roads for trucks including "walkable" cities. Careful design could alleviate the need for heavy trucks that wear out roads. The worst case is cement mixers with 10 tons per axle but there are alternatives if you want to be careful about road wear.
Thanks for posting the video about condo prices. It was nominally focused on "investment" when in fact all of the people involved were speculators, not investors. Also the reporter did not give a sustainability perspective. He didn't ask the question of how long hastily constructed condo buildings will last. Nor any other sustainability issues.
Your Lafluer article raises some questions when he says "There’s no reason why someone in a cul-de-sac should be forced by the zoning code to hop in his car to get a loaf of bread or grab a coffee." Why do they need a loaf of bread or coffee? Because fresh food is better tasting? People can make their own fresh bread and coffee.
The answers are pretty simple: people walk because it's healthy and it's fun to go somewhere. They might walk to get a loaf of bread in which case there are economic benefits of division of labor, energy savings (more bread from one oven), lower capital costs, etc. In my neighborhood people walk from one great view to another on a mostly wooded road.
I agree completely with Lafluer's conclusion of better planning. But planning is very complicated when you take into all life activities including the need for socializing and nature.
The first Calgary Herald article was very interesting and highlights a common problem in many older cities. Arlington Virginia is dealing with the same problem, the city leaders want more development and most residents want NIMBY. They tried ADU: www.arlnow.com/2021/06/03/accessory-dwelling-units-begin-popping-up-in-arlington-backyards/ and that didn't really work. They tried "upzoning", very similar to that CH article, with years of NIMBY pushback. The other rezoning article (Glenmore Landing) reinforces the problem: change is hard because negative impacts are easier to envision than positive ones. For example, when I walk around high rise areas in Rosslyn VA I see a lot of reflected sun. Even the simple "shade from high rise" argument against high rises is nuanced.
The "Ministry of Truth" article is of course a red herring. The issue is not true vs false, but nuance, context, and of course the big picture. Posters at meetings, two-minute speeches, and short articles in the newspaper (often just opinion pieces) mostly miss the big picture.
There are many players and interests. I consider the NIMBY arguments against rezoning to be a form of anti-growth. But they miss the big picture too because we have increasing population in most places, and real estate growth is inevitable. The most urgent need IMO is to focus on the meaning, purpose and needs of life and ignore the politicans who are in bed with the developers. I would recommend ADU (with proper inspection) and very localized redevelopment where the big developers don't participate.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 12:23 PM on 21 March 2025Do Americans really want urban sprawl?
Regarding nigelj’s comment and expanding onto other points.
Walkable development does not require expensive high-rise buildings. But it can be expensive to redevelop built cities to be walkable. However, the bigger issue is the ways that misunderstandings can be exploited by people who want to impede efforts to develop sustainable improvements.
Walkable development can be effective with multi-use buildings less than 10 stories high. The lower floors could be commercial uses with the upper floors being residential. (Note: This NFSA blog post from 2020 states that the International Building Code – It is not International. It only applies in regions of the US that choose to adopt it. But that is another matter – defines a high-rise as, “a building with an occupied floor located more than 75 feet (22,680 mm) above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access.”)
Very walkable cities developed before ‘car-based sprawl’ and ‘downtowns filled with skyscrapers’ became misleading symbols of superiority.
Cities that developed based on the desire for ‘car sprawl’ and ‘downtown office skyscrapers’, like Calgary, Alberta (where I live), are very expensive to ‘re-develop to be walkable’. That is unfortunate because those cities are at a competitive cost disadvantage if they do not re-develop.
People living in ‘car-sprawl’ cities ‘need’ less expensive housing due to the high cost of ‘car ownership’ (internet searching will find many estimates that it costs more than $10,000 per year to be a car owner). Those cities also have higher costs to build and maintain their sprawling public service infrastructure (roads, water mains, sewer mains, power distribution ...).
The ‘car sprawl’ cities have also developed a cultural attitude that resists sensible changes, like the change to be ‘a more walkable city’.There is a global collective that develops misunderstandings in opposition to efforts to limit the harm done by fossil fuel use. A massive percentage of Calgary’s wealth potential is from ‘limiting the limiting of harm done by fossil fuel use’. That ‘opposition to learning to be less harmful’ includes political misleading messaging to promote misunderstandings about actions like carbon pricing. The following article presents a connection between opposition to carbon pricing and opposition to walkable cities.
There is powerful opposition in Calgary to efforts to increase density and redevelop already built areas to be more walkable and higher density. The following articles are examples. They do not represent all of the Calgary opposition to ‘learning to live less harmfully’.
Calgary Herald - Legal fight against city's blanket rezoning decision rages on, headed for appeal
CTV News Calgary - Glenmore Landing redevelopment defeated by vote at Calgary council
Note that the area councillor supported the development and mentioned her attempts to address misunderstandings. The development was opposed by councillors of other areas of the city who repeated misunderstandings about the proposed development. The following article is about a different council member attempting to more officially investigate and address those misunderstandings.
CBC News - Calgary city councillor wants review on impacts of false information
The suggestion that the popularity of misunderstandings was a serious concern prompted misunderstandings in response
Calgary Herald - Opinion: Is a Ministry of Truth coming to Calgary?
The Calgary opposition to ‘walkable 15-minute’ development is almost certainly a key part of the unjustified global collective that opposes ‘learning to be less harmful and more helpful to Others’ (a ‘big-tent’ collective of misleading promoters of a diversity of misunderstandings, including climate science misunderstandings).
And the ‘walkable 15-minute’ misunderstandings are related to efforts opposed to better understanding of climate science (refer back to The Hub article link above). More walkable implies less car use, which would mean less potential for benefit from fossil fuel use (note that the Calgary councillor also wanted misunderstanding regarding Calgary’s rapid transit system development to be investigated).
The following article mentions the international conspiracy theory promotion of misunderstandings regarding 15-minute walkable development.
And the global group coordinating that ‘opposition to learning’ is also likely heavily involved in the opposition to other harm limiting actions like New York City’s Congestion Pricing (see this NYC ABC news item - Trump administration extends deadline for New York City to end congestion pricing)
There are a multitude of problems to be addressed and corrected by efforts to develop sustainable improvements. But almost all of the problems can be understood to be parts of a global collective that wants to benefit by developing and promoting misunderstandings to limit ‘learning to be less harmful and more helpful to Others’.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:48 AM on 20 March 2025Do Americans really want urban sprawl?
In my comment @4 the presentation is by Andrew Chang not Andrew Chung.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:46 AM on 20 March 2025Do Americans really want urban sprawl?
Regarding Bob Loblaw’s comment @3,
The CBC About That presentation by Andrew Chung: Why are so many big-city condos sitting empty?, is a great presentation of what Bob shared.
-
Bob Loblaw at 00:47 AM on 20 March 2025Do Americans really want urban sprawl?
nigel's comment about people wanting decent places to live is an important one. ("Decent" is a highly-subjective concept.)
In the Canadian province where I live, the largest city is Toronto. There has been much development of condominiums in the downtown area - but there has been an ongoing trend to shoe boxes. Developers have made lots of money with this approach - in part because many of the condo developments saw brisk pre-build sales to investors. The investors paid in under the expectation that prices would rise and they'd be able to sell at a profit as soon as the development was finished (or even before...) Even if they didn't sell, rental rates were high enough to allow the investor to rent it out and cover all their costs.
Very few of the shoe-box condos were being bought by people that planned to live in them for a long time.
The market has changed. Interest rates are up, prices are down, and many investors that had bought condos via pre-build sales are finding that as the projects approach completion they will be unable to sell for what they agreed to pay - and in some cases they will be unable to get mortgages for the amount they need to close on the sale. They risk losing their deposits when they back out of the purchase - and may be liable for costs when the developer has to sell at a lower price to a different buyer. And rents are lower, so completing the sale still risks owning a money-losing property where rent does not cover the mortgage, condo fees, etc.
Developers were in the business of meeting a demand for investment property. They were not doing a good job of producing livable, decent housing that people would want to consider "home".
-
Bob Loblaw at 00:28 AM on 20 March 2025CO2 limits will harm the economy
charles125 @ 126:
The moderator has pointed out your lack of sources for data, and some inconsistencies in your brief comment. I'll point out a few more.
Your economic argument appears to make the "one cause and only one cause" error. CO2 emission are not affected only by carbon taxes - many factors come into it. For your argument (that carbon taxes had no effect on emissions) to make sense, because changes happened without them, you need to pretend that nothing else matters. To make a successful argument, you would have to show that actual emissions remained the same as they would have if there had been no carbon tax (all other factors remaining in effect). That requires a level of economic analysis that you have not provided (or given a reference to).
You also have logical inconsistencies in your short argument. At the end, you say "...they knew the economic impact carbon taxes would have." Which is it: no impact (no emission changes), or impact? You can't have it both ways.
...and you are misrepresenting the reason BC cut taxes when they introduced their carbon tax. They did so in order to make the carbon tax revenue-neutral. Their policy was to keep collecting the same total $ in taxes, but switch the means of collecting some of those dollars from income etc. to fossil fuel use. That provides an incentive to move away from fossil fuels - you only pay the carbon tax if you use fossil fuels, but everyone sees the other tax reductions (whether they use fossil fuels or not). The people that move away from fossil fuels see more money in their pockets, while the profligate fossil fuel user ends up with less in their pocket. This is exactly the sort of market-driven process that economists think is an efficient method of incentivizing innovation and individual choice in reducing fossil fuel use.
The Canadian carbon pricing scheme was also designed to be revenue-neutral. A fee was charged on fossil fuels, but taxpayers received quarterly rebates. In January, my household received $210. The rebates were set at a level so that total rebate $ were close to total carbon fee $ - but again, the family with below-average fossil fuel use still got the same rebate as everyone else, so they had more $ in their pockets. It was the high-fossil-fuel users that paid more in carbon fees than they got back. A disincentive to use fossil fuels - the invisible hand of the market at work.
Unfortunately, certain political elements beat the drum of "carbon taxes bad!". Those politicians never emphasized "we're going to axe your carbon rebates!" (many people were unaware that they even existed), and people drank the koolaid so now the political trend is to eliminate those carbon fees.
And you also show a lack of knowledge of the history of carbon pricing in Ontario. Ontario used to have a cap-and-trade system in place. Not strictly a "carbon tax", but still a cost on fossil fuel use. A change in government eliminated that program. Ontario's reductions in CO2 emissions under the previous government were also partly the result of a policy to eliminate coal-powered electricity production. More than one policy. More than one factor involved in reducing CO2 emissions.
-
nigelj at 08:03 AM on 19 March 2025Do Americans really want urban sprawl?
The walkable city concept is great in theory and could work - provided it has highrise apartments that are of excellent design and reasonably spacious not shoe boxes, with nice views and very high levels of noise insulation and decent heating and cooling, and plenty of decent sized balconies, and local parks, and plenty of facilities within walking or maybe cycling distance. And that will be expensive. And that is the problem.
-
charles125 at 07:44 AM on 19 March 2025CO2 limits will harm the economy
Seeing articles like this years later is hilarious, BCs emissions since 2013 have only increased (between 2013 and 2016 they went back up to 2008 levels). Yes their emissions per capita have decreased, but that has been decreasing since before 2008, same with fuel consumption. Also Ontario's total emissions have decreased 19 percent since 2005. Ontario never had a provincial carbon tax scheme. And since the introduction of the federal scheme, emissions per GDP in Canada have only stayed the same, maybe a marginal decrease. This is big govt nonsense not based on economic reality, BC cut income taxes, precisely because they knew the economic impact carbon taxes would have.
Moderator Response:[PS] It would be helpful if you provide the source your data. At first glance, this does not seem to tie in well with data at https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/environmental-indicators/greenhouse-gas-emissions.html
You also seem to be asserting that Ontario has no carbon pricing but same source indicates a range of emission programs.
The article also makes it clear that the carbon tax is revenue neutral - ie income tax is reduced by revenue from carbon tax. -
Bob Loblaw at 23:39 PM on 18 March 2025Climate's changed before
Brainscientist @ 902:
As pointed out by Eclectic in 903, and in the moderator's comment on your comment, there are many resources where you can find out more about the topics you opine on. Here at Skeptical Science, you are expected to provide some sort of reference to claims. Sadly, your comment is short on supporting information.
You can find much information here, using the Search function on the upper left of each page, or by looking at the many topics that are presented in the Most Used Climate Myths (also linked to in the upper left of each page).
You start with an empty assertion that people "...never discuss the fact the [sic] the climate changed dramatically in the last 880ka.". "Never" is an awfully strong assertion. You say that, in spite of the fact that the Intermiediate tab of the post you are responding to has a graphic (Original source Wikimedia) showing earth temperatures over the past 500 million years. Here is the graphic again:
Your claim of "never" is so easily refuted that it makes one wonder just what sources of information you have been using.
You also use the "never" word in your third paragraph, where you say "...when in the past there has NEVER been an ocean level above 20m from present and most are less than 8m." Again, let's make use of some graphics from Wikipedia, where there is a page on Past sea level. That page has the following graphic:
Your claim of "never" includes the 542 million year period covered in that graph - unless, of course, you have some sort of special meaning for "never". For most of us, the definition of "never" is probably similar to that found in Wiktionary: "At no time; on no occasion; in no circumstance."
FYI, the peak in that graphic (400m) is a wee bit higher than your claim of 20m. Unless you also have your own definition of the mathematical meaning of "above 20m".
Skeptical Science has a nice page on the Younger Dryas.
If you really, honestly "..would like to know why..." then (as Eclectic and the moderator have pointed out) you should start with some reading (or videos such as the Potholer ones Eclectic has mentioned). Whatever sources you have been looking at appear to have seriously led you astray.
...and when you make assertions about observations or analysis, then please provide some sort of references to the sources of the material you have used to inform your opinions. Without references, all you have is empty opinions.
-
Eric (skeptic) at 23:03 PM on 18 March 2025Do Americans really want urban sprawl?
It is possible to make car-centric areas more walkable, however, Rodriguez said, offering his own community of Tysons, Virginia, a suburb of Washington, D.C., as proof.
Tysons Corner is ok Tysons Corner via Google Maps
Reston Town Center is more attractive IMO. Reston Town Center via Google Maps
Merrifield near where I used to live is another transit-oriented mixed development with less success. Merrifield
Transit hubs heading towards Rosslyn and DC get increasingly sterile. The problem in general is too much pavement. Wildlife consists of house sparrows, pigeons and periodic large flocks of starlings.
The pandemic changed things although transit is picking up again. I live in a subdivision with 5 acre lots. My nearest strip mall is about 12 miles away but it's fairly efficient to go just once a week. Work is 75 miles and I go once a week out of habit more than anything else.
It boils down to the basic human need of in-person social interaction. I know most of the neighborhood walkers and dog walkers and visit a few friends within 20 minutes. Monthly coin club meeting in person and HOA every other month. The rest is online or text and that's kind of inadequate. The reason for walkability is not because you have to but because you want to.
If you work from home here in Northern Virginia and want to be walkable but within driving distance for an occasonal commute you might choose Charlottesville or many other smaller towns away from the city.
-
Eclectic at 13:07 PM on 18 March 2025Climate's changed before
Brainscientist @902 :
You can find a vast amount of information and analysis at this SkepticalScience website, if you like reading for self-education.
For instance, the world temperatures (per proxy) show no evidence of the 'pair of "nuclear Winters" [sic]' that you mention occurring 'in the last 250 years' [unquote]. Perhaps you got that from a very unreliable source.
# Now, there have been some slight "dips" in world temperatures during the last 600 years ~ apparently caused by a combination of clusters of volcanic eruptions plus some Grand Solar Minima . . . but even these "dips" have been (globally) less than 0.5 degreesC. And even at the height of the USA/USSR Cold War panics, no-one much was afraid at the thought of a post-apocalyptic Nuclear Winter chilling effect of less than 0.5 degreesC.
And if you don't like reading but prefer viewing , then you can get a bigly amount of education by viewing the YouTuber "potholer54" who has a climate series of short videos (total 71 videos currently) that are both easy-going and mildly humorously presented. You will enjoy them, I'm sure ~ as they educate by debunking many of the absurd unscientific memes which the science-deniers so often recycle.
You will also be amused by the videos' Comments sections, where some protesters (against climate science) bring up some bigly moronic assertions. One of the most recent of these, in past months, has been commenter "OldScientist" who often copies-and-pastes his own comments. He is quite clueless about science and logic. But he is entertaining ~ if you enjoy Schadenfreude.
Moderator Response:[BL]
As an FYI, here is a link to Potholer54's Youtube channel.
-
Brainscientist at 07:12 AM on 18 March 2025Climate's changed before
All of the fear mongering about Humans changing the climate never discuss the fact the the climate changed dramatically in the last 880ka.
The Younger Dyras Impact event was AFTER the climate had warmer dramatically.
Every scientist FUNDED talks about the oceans rising 300 feet when in the past there has NEVER been an ocean level above 20m from present and most are less than 8m.
There have been 16 cataclysms that could have easily destroyed advanced civilizations, we have also had a pair of "nuclear Winters" in the last 250 years.
We might be able to track asteroids but Younger Dryas appears to be a comet impact.
The earth has had higher levels of CO2 before are we so omniscient to know Our CO2 is the end of mankind. <yes, I have heard this bit of fear mongering from scientists).
I would like to knwo WHY the temperatures changed so dramatically on what appears to be a fairly regular but NOT in sync with any astronomical- earth wobble et al.
The impact event appears to have killed the large fauna in NA, spread a layer of ash, ended Clovis, and we do have all this troubling evidence of advanced and large populations in SA.
Fossil Fuels are made from life forms that used to be on the surface.
Exactly why should they not be brought up and put back into the mix?
I am a major skeptic of what is looking like fear-mongering science.
Moderator Response:[PS] Well you have come to the right place to find answers but you will have to spend some time actually reading the science to understand them. Please take the time to do so. Also please make a careful study of the comments policy. It is not optional.
Your position appears to be that climate has changed before, we dont know why, so we can ignore all the actual measurements of the effects of increasing CO2 on temperature. If you want to argue that, then you must provide evidence to support your assertions. eg. what evidence convinced you that milankovich forcing have not driven previous ice ages.
However, you could save everyone a lot of time if you spent just a little bit of time reading the summary of what the consensus science actually is in the IPCC reports. It always good to know exactly what you are arguing against as opposed to some strawman version of it that you read on some deniers website. -
MA Rodger at 20:45 PM on 17 March 2025Visualizing daily global temperatures
michael sweet @2,
Firstly, the methodology used to establish an anomaly base 1850-1900 is not entirely robust, given ERA5 methods only allows a full re-analysis back to 1979. Their re-analysis back to 1940 is probably reasonable but by the earlier period the different records (GISS [which they don't use], NOAA, BEST, HadCRUT) are starting to diverge. They use an annual cycle for 1850-1900 which adds an off-set to 1991-2020 daily anomalies of between +0.79°C and +0.97°C. A table of the calculated-&-smoothed monthly off-sets is provided HERE in the 'Reference periods and other time-related definitions' dropdown.
The annual off-set is given as 0.88°C (with an uncertainty range given as +0.72°C to +0.99°C). That makes the magic annual 1991-2020 threshold anomaly as +0.62°C. The running 12-month average has been above that level since the year ending Jan 2024 and well-above since March. So in terms of the threshold, that uncertainty becomes entirely academic rather quickly.
Secondly, the number of days with a +1.50°C 1850-1900 anomaly will be dependent on the size of the wobbles/noise within the daily temperatures. Adding the annual off-set cycle, the number of days shown by ClimatePulse in 2024 above the magic +1.49°C theshold was 276. So 90-ish days were recorded below the +1.50°C theshold. Your 'above +1.74°C' threshold shows 52 days above.
The monthly averages are perhaps a more meaningful measure and prior to the 2023 "bananas" event ERA5 gives 5 months above the +1.50°C theshold (Jan to Mar 2016, Jan to Feb 2020) and only one month below since July 2023 (tat month being July 2024).
-
Bob Loblaw at 23:20 PM on 14 March 2025Visualizing daily global temperatures
nigelj:
You can open the images in a new tab and see a larger version. (In Firefox, at least. Right click, open in new tab.)
-
nigelj at 09:02 AM on 14 March 2025Visualizing daily global temperatures
Great visualisation but my eyecrometer is struggling with reading the very small numbers and letters. Bigger and bolder would help.
-
michael sweet at 01:51 AM on 14 March 2025Visualizing daily global temperatures
Using my eyecrometer, it appears a large majority of days in 2024 are over 1.5 C and a sizeable proportion are over 1.75 C. Scientists try to be conservative in their comments.
-
michael sweet at 01:39 AM on 14 March 2025Skeptical Science New Research for Week #11 2025
This paper documents the hazard of increasing ground water level inland caused by sea level rise. They say this hazard has not beern considered before. Ground water inland near the sea rises when sea level rises. This can cause flooding even if sea walls or dunes are in place and can cause damage many kilometers inland. Even before areas are flooded drainage systems fail, sewage systems can flood and building foundations can be damaged.
In Florida, where I live, I have heard of large condominiums failing with loss of life and bathrooms in restaurants not flushing at high tide. Fresh water supplies are compromised in many areas.
-
RedRoseAndy at 17:47 PM on 13 March 2025Sabin 33 #19 - Are wind turbines a major threat to wildlife?
In Danny Chivers’s book: ‘Renewable Energy’ Figure 8.3 says that bird deaths per GWh for wind is 0.3, nuclear is double this, while fossil fuel is 9.4.
-
Riduna at 10:02 AM on 13 March 2025Visualizing daily global temperatures
Par Excellence!
-
BaerbelW at 06:41 AM on 3 March 20252025 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #09
OPOF @ 1 & 2
Thanks for spotting this! I perhaps shouldn't prepare the listing while not completely awake! Hope it's fixed now. I also updated the category options in the Google form.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:35 AM on 3 March 20252025 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #09
I have just noticed another minor issue.
The use of capital letters in category headings is not consistent. The following changes should be made to the Category pick list:
- Health Aspects of Climate Change
- Climate Education and Communication
- Climate Law and Justice
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:27 AM on 3 March 20252025 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #09
Something appears to be incorrect this week. And the new feature of (# article) on each category heading helped highlight it.
The category "Health aspects of climate change" indicates (1 article) but 2 are listed.
However, both articles do not appear to suit the Health aspects category. And they are both included in the more appropiate "Climate Policy and Politics" category.
-
nigelj at 10:53 AM on 1 March 2025Sabin 33 #17 - Does low-frequency noise from wind turbines cause 'wind turbine syndrome'?
Another way of looking at the wind turbine noise issue.
Low frequency noise from wind turbines needs to be put in perspective. In my view its virtually a complete non issue as follows. The worst case is turbines emit 60 - 80dbs of noise standing about 2 metres from the turbines. This is like playing music moderately loud. It includes low middle and high frequencies. I'm not sure about infrasonic frequencies (sub audible at 1 - 20 hz) but lets assume its quite high at 100 hz. But virtually nobody stands next to a turbine for long lengths of time unless its for maintenance and the turbine would likely be switched off anyway.
Less than 1% of the population live near turbines and the farm houses are typically at least 300 metres away, where noise levels drop to about 35 - 45 hz the sound level of a quiet domestic fridge or quiet conversation. Low frequencies carry a bit further than higher frequencies but not enough to be an issue. Its all clearly a non issue.
Compare this with typical automobiles. They produce 50 - 75 dbs noise in urban streets when sitting in the car, and they produce close to that level of sound when standing on the footpath. This is similar to standing next to a wind turbine. It includes middle and low frequency noise. Many automobiles produce infrasonics which can be up to 100 dbs which is loud (although they are inaudible pressure waves like you get from a big sub woofer). Houses are often about 10 - 30 metres from a road so the noise level would be about 45 - 55 dbs which is moderate conversation levels and can be annoying.
Billions of people use cars and live about 20 metres from a road. This is a much greater population exposure to noise, and to higher levels of noise than wind turbines but the complainers about turbines ignore this. If they were really worried about noise and its impacts on health and our nerves they would promote EV's which are near whisper quiet. Wind turbine noise levels:
