Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 Next
Comments 12601 to 12650:
-
nigelj at 04:56 AM on 31 December 2018Greta Thunberg's TEDx talk
The climate problem is a classic tragedy of the commons problem, just on a grand scale. Lets not complicate it beyond this. Everything OPOF says is true but is a subset of the essential problem.
Such problems happen in freemarket economies and even centrally planned economies. Markets are very clumsy and slow at fixing such problems if they fix them at all, so solutions have to be imposed on market participants by participants agreeing on an appropriate solution. You can call this tweaking the market if you want.
Solutions can involve court actions (costly and only the lawyers really win), government regulations, cap and trade schemes, taxes, or government infrastructure projects. All these leave markets free to make decisions so free markets are preserved, with the exception of government infrastructure projects are more of an imposition.
The difficulty with the climate problem has clearly been identifying the best solution. The next difficulty is people who dont believe in any solution, other than court action (and even that only reluctantly).
Nick palmers idea sounds ok. Cap and trade and carbon taxes hit manufacturers with dirty products dont they? The problem is mostly political, how to convince libertarians and conservatives to get on board. The $64,000 question.
-
Sunspot at 04:40 AM on 31 December 2018Global warming ‘hiatus’ is the climate change myth that refuses to die
Interesting discussion. But, for me, religion is totally devoid of evidence. I understand that many people have had personal experiences that lead them to religious beliefs, but are any of these experiences objectively verifiable? I think about the commonality of near-death experiences, but is this something more than a dying brain trying to make sense of the situation? I need a scientific examination of religion, but I don't think such a thing is possible. Beliefs are simply not available for objective examination. I guess this means to some that belief is just somehow special, but to my way of thinking it simply makes belief irrelevant.
Maybe the world would be a better place if we all agreed on the same set of religious beliefs. But what I see is that differing religious beliefs just establish a chasm between people that can seldom be breached, there are no objective facts to agree on. And now we are faced with seemingly intelligent people who somehow dismiss science altogether, which is of course ridiculous unless you live in a cave. What I see is people replacing evidence with belief. It simply doesn't work. Science is what built our civilization. Dismissing science can destroy it.
If we had a few worlds to experiment with, I'd like to try one without any form of religion, or "spirituality", at all. Just the facts. People working together to make life better for us all. Not just for those who agree with a particular view of some invisible man in the sky who watches everything we do (Carlin).
I absolutely agree that there should be freedon of religion. Believe whatever you want. But I want freedom FROM religion. Because that is true freedom, to choose to believe or not. Religion is getting too involved in how we run our society, and there are too many who would force their views on others. I do take "The Handmaid's Tale" seriously.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:02 AM on 31 December 2018Global warming ‘hiatus’ is the climate change myth that refuses to die
A fun follow-on about Flat-Earthers. A Flat-Earher may actually be very supportive of correcting the harmful developed burning of fossil fuels. The shape of the planet does not affect the understanding of the link between the massive burning of fossil fuels and harmful climate change impacts.
-
Evan at 02:55 AM on 31 December 2018Global warming ‘hiatus’ is the climate change myth that refuses to die
OPOF, I think there is more common ground in our views than different.
"An Inconvenient Truth" is a brilliant title for the following reason. If AGW is not occurring, then the people being afflicted by AGW are being afflicted by an act of god over which we have no control, and all that we are required to do is to pray for them and to send some money to help. If, however, people accept AGW as originating from our lifestyle, then instead of just praying for these afflicted people (an activity that can co-exist with an otherwise wasteful western existence), we have the inconvenient reality that we need to change our lifestyle. I think this is at the heart of the Christian resistance to accepting AGW, as much as it is about not wanting to be under a set of UN-mandated policies (whether or not it would come to that).
By the way, for those reading, I am not selling myself as a theologian nor as a philosopher. But this dialogue does help me understand how others view the problem and helps develop talking points. I don't mean to be argumentative, and I do appreciate all of the great comments.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:38 AM on 31 December 2018Global warming ‘hiatus’ is the climate change myth that refuses to die
Evan @27 and 28,
You appear to be unnecessarily conflating Religion with Spirituality. I separate the two for very Good Helpful Altruistic Reason. I have presented some of them in my earlier comments.
People can be harmfully Religious about things that have nothing to do with Spirituality. And people can be Helpfully Religious related to Spirituality.
People can also abuse the potential human desire to be part of a Tribe and become harmful Religious followers of a set of unjustified beliefs.
The real focus needs to be understanding that the most important actions for anyone are to help by improving awareness and understanding and applying that improved correct learning to actually sustainably develop a better future for humanity, achieve and improve the Sustainabel Development Goals, especially the Climate Action Goal.
That focus identifies the harmful people in politics, businesses, and religions. It also divides/polarizes the actions of people in politics, business and religion into helpful and harmful people.
That division/polarization is important. It is critical to improve the awareness and understanding of who needs to be corrected. And it helps understand that the socioeconomic-political system that people develop their beliefs in may be what needs to be corrected to reduce the number of harmful people that get developed.
And the major motivation I see for resistance to accepting climate science is a powerful self-interest to keep undeserved developed perceptions of prosperity and superiority relative to others. Easily amplified by misleading marketing, that drives resistance to global efforts to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals.
System corrections are undeniably required. The systems have continued to develop inequities leaving many people destitute and starving even though the total perceived wealth of humanity has grown far faster than the total population.
Those Religiously defended systems need to be significantly corrected regardless of their power and regional tribal popularity and profitability. And the most harmful people (in politics, business and religions) need to be the focus for most urgent correction.
Raising awareness that way, identifying the harmful who need correction, should reduce the popular support for the most harmful people.
p.s. Another way to say it is that any beliefs that are not harmful to efforts to achieve and improve on the SDGs are benign or helpful and do not require a focus on correction. As an example, Flat-earthers can be left alone if they do not want to use that belief to excuse a harmful action. And they can be helpful even if they maintain that now understood to be incorrect belief.
-
michael sweet at 00:28 AM on 31 December 2018Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
MARodger,
You cite an interesting paper. It appears to me that volcanic dust and gas caused a winter effect. This is known from recent eruptions. Apparently the effect was longer than might be expected from a volcano.
In any case, the cooling effect is not caused by CO2 release. I think Ancient Nerd was asking if the volcano could have contributed to an increase in global temperatures from release of CO2. It appears to me that an increase in temperature from the CO2 did not occur. The amount of CO2 released was not measurable in the ice record. This demonstrates that release of CO2 from volcanoes, even extraordinarily large ones, does not affect climate.
-
MA Rodger at 00:19 AM on 31 December 2018Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
michael sweet @290,
I see there was a paper presented a couple of years ago attributing the Yellowstone events of 630ky bp with dropping SSTs by 3ºCa couple of times for "at least ~80 yrs" which is longer than expected for a volcanic event (they speculate that feedbacks lengthened it) but it is not very long on a graph of 800ky of climate (about a tenth the width of a pixel in your diagrm).
There is media reports of the paper on-line but they don't say much more than the paper's abstract. The full text is available but on request.
-
michael sweet at 00:17 AM on 31 December 2018Sea level rise due to floating ice?
I realized that the figure I copied does not make much sense without the caption. Here it is:
Fig. 1. Sea-level change in response to the collapse of the
WAIS computed by using (A) a standard sea-level theory (5),
which assumes a nonrotating Earth, no marine-based ice, and
shorelines that remain fixed to the present-day geometry with
time, as well as (B) a prediction based on a theory (6) that
overcomes these limitations. Both predictions are normalized by
the EEV associated with the ice collapse. In (B), the total volume
of the WAIS is used in the calculation, whereas in (A) only an
amount of ice with a volume that matches the EEV is removed
(because the latter cannot take into account the inundation of
marine-based sectors). (C) The difference between predictions
generated by using the two sea-level theories [(B) minus (A)].B is the part of the figure that relates to this discussion. source
-
michael sweet at 23:55 PM on 30 December 2018Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
Ancient Nerd: Sorry I mispelled your handle.
The source of the graph was Beretier et al linked by David Kirtley above.
-
michael sweet at 23:48 PM on 30 December 2018Sea level rise due to floating ice?
Savantking,
Please provide a reference for your claim that US sea level will not increase from ice sheet melt.
Antarctic melt causes increased sea level rise in the US:
This NASA article on sea level rise describes Greenland ice melt raising US sea level. It appears that the US rise will be about average for the world. Northern Europe will get a little less from Greenland, perhaps that is what you meant.
Both areas will get more than average from the Antarctic. I do not think that any area where people live except Greenland itself will see sea level decrease although Iceland might.
Certainly the claim that the US will luck out is deliberately false. I suggest you screen your sources better. Denier sites spread false information.
-
Evan at 23:38 PM on 30 December 2018Global warming ‘hiatus’ is the climate change myth that refuses to die
One additional comment for the die-hards still reading. Christians get beat up pretty bad for their blind faith and rejection of science. In my opinion much of this is deserved, for many Christians do show a blind allegiance to dogma. But let's not forget that this site spends a lot of its effort debunking myths put forward by ... scientists. So the ability to reject what Climate Scientists are saying is shared by Christians, athesists, agnostics, and just plain scientists.
-
michael sweet at 23:20 PM on 30 December 2018Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
Ancient Nrd,
I don't see a change in CO2 at 630 kyr.
It appears to me to be the start of a glacial period.
-
Evan at 22:35 PM on 30 December 2018Global warming ‘hiatus’ is the climate change myth that refuses to die
OPOF@23, understanding does not destroy religion. For me it strengthens it.
I understand your perspective, I think, but I offer the following twist. If we understood scientifically all that we see, this would not remove my faith, awe, and wonder at the creator anymore than it would if I understood everything about a smart phone. I feel that part of the problem with many people is that they have no understanding or awe of the scientific advancement that the smart phone represents. When I look at a smart phone I have respect for the creator, just as when I look at everything around us it inspires awe and admiration at the creator of the natural world. No amount of scientific explanation of the what I see around me will ever remove that awe and admiration, anymore than any amount of scientific understanding will remove the awe and admiration behind the creation of the science and technology in a smart phone.
But for some reason, as soon as someone can assign a scientific explanation to something we previously did not understand they then conclude that that understanding proves it was not created. I don't get this link. I am not defending creationists who insist the world was created in xxxx thousand years. Just saying that scientific understanding does not invalidate the concept of creation.
-
Evan at 22:12 PM on 30 December 2018Global warming ‘hiatus’ is the climate change myth that refuses to die
Sunspot, there is a way to talk to God, but it is different than the methods used in science. At least respect that people like myself, Katharine Hayhoe, John Cook, and so many other Christians are not just chasing fantasy. Nor am I trying to "convert" you. I just ask that we find common ground. I believe as you do that one of the major problems preventing significant action on climate change is the impenetrable beliefs of many Christians and other religious people, who will not consider objective facts. But that does not invalidate the experiences many religious people have had.
I find it interesting that there are scientific people who cannot understand true religion (everything must be objective), just as I find it interesting that there are religious people who cannot understand science (everything is based on belief).
I don't think we'll solve the problem in front of us unless we can find common dialogue and understanding between religion and science.
-
Sunspot at 21:19 PM on 30 December 2018Global warming ‘hiatus’ is the climate change myth that refuses to die
My bottom line just occurred to me: I came to the same conclusions Carl Sagan did when he wrote "Demon-Haunted World", so when I read it I was nodding my head so much I need a pillow. Not surprisingly, Carl got it right. So while I should maybe investigate these people who have supposedly integrated science and religion - I doubt there will be anything there that will satisfy me. No evidence. Not without having to "believe" in it. And I simply don't do belief.
-
Nick Palmer at 21:11 PM on 30 December 2018Greta Thunberg's TEDx talk
And, of course, shareholders would put immense pressure on the management to clean up their act so they could get better returns.
-
Nick Palmer at 21:10 PM on 30 December 2018Greta Thunberg's TEDx talk
OPOF
I don't think the problem is as intractable as everyone thinks. 'Tweaking' the bottom line of a company, which uses materials wastefully, discharges pollution to the environment and sources non-clean/renewable energy sources, so that its costs are higher than a responsible manufacturer, is not that hard and the products of the 'dirty' manufacturer would end up either being more expensive to buy or the manufacturer and their shareholders would make less profit. The use of peoples' tendency to want a 'bargain' would send a tsunami of change through the free market. -
Sunspot at 21:06 PM on 30 December 2018Global warming ‘hiatus’ is the climate change myth that refuses to die
"If you want to know if god exists, go talk to him".
I'm sorry, but all I hear is my own thoughts. Because that's all there is. That's what I mean by the difference between fantasy and reality. Feel free to choose your own reality. I stay with objective evidence. That is what truly changes the world. Once you are capable of believing in god, you are capable of believing anything. Powerful people and governments understand this all too well.
-
savantKing at 19:34 PM on 30 December 2018Sea level rise due to floating ice?
Oh my god. You can't say in absolute sentence that the sea level arises everywhere on earth because of melting ice! Once and for all: it depends where on earth you are.
A second thing is that ice will attract to water. So at the east coast of America there the sea level will decrease, because of the melting ice. Why? Because of the mass of ice will be significantly less because of the melting ice. so it attract less water!
Happy science
-
MA Rodger at 18:17 PM on 30 December 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #51
WayneK@27,
This page gives good advice on linking to a specific PDF page. Thus this link should take you to the final page of IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 1 'Introduction'.
-
WayneK at 14:15 PM on 30 December 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #51
Thanks. That'll save me more futile effort. It just seems odd, first, that the IPCC wouldn't provide it as a way to better get the word out, and second, that failing in that, someone else hasn't been able to create a website for this specific purpose. Maybe there are copyright issues in doing the latter.
-
scaddenp at 13:36 PM on 30 December 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #51
Sorry Wayne, we share your pain. I haven't found a solution.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 13:34 PM on 30 December 2018Global warming ‘hiatus’ is the climate change myth that refuses to die
Evan @22,
Another way to look at it is:
Spirituality is fine for any aspect of our existence that cannot be observed, tested or investigated. Being Spritual is valid in the realm of the unkowns (where any and all beliefs or faiths are equally valid). ANd thta realm will constantly be reduced by improving science.
Science is restricted to things that can be observed, tested or investigated. Being Scientific requiresacceptance of imrpoved awareness and understanding (something that some scientists struggle with when their prefered scientific understanding is challenged by an improved understanding)
Religion is a special case. It becomes irrational when the spiritual part is considered to be superior to other spiritual beliefs, or when it is cojoined with laws for human behaviour and the developed tribal group resists being corrected by improving awareness and understanding.
Neoliberalism (and to a degree, free market economics) is very much like a Religion. The harmful results of people freer to believe what they prefer as excuses for harmful selfish pursuits of benefit are not acknowledged by the faithful followers of the likes of Milton Freedman. Neoliberals are more fanatically opposed to the climate science identified corrections of developed human economic activity than the spiritually religious people generally are (religious people politically aligned with neoliberals, the United Right GOP types, are being neoliberals, not Religious, in that regard).
-
ancient_nerd at 11:49 AM on 30 December 2018Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
According to a wikipedia article, the eruption I was thinking about was at 630ky Yellowstone_Caldera. The chart in David's link shows what looks like the end of a glacial period right about then.
-
WayneK at 11:16 AM on 30 December 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #51
OK, does anyone know of a way to directly link to a particular page in an IPCC report? It'd be useful when presenting an argument if you could provide a direct link to evidence. Right now, I've been linking to the IPCC report page, then describing which chapter to download and which page to go to. That's less than ideal. Previous reports were online but you couldn't link to a page, and now it appears that the reports are download only. I've tried everything I could think of with no luck.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 10:58 AM on 30 December 2018Greta Thunberg's TEDx talk
Nick Palmer @12,
I agree that tweaking (correcting) the developed free market is required (like Herman Daly's suggestions, or Paul Hawken's in "The Ecology of Commerce", or the many others who have written about how incorrect the developed free market is - including Naomi Klein). But they will not be small tweaks. And more than a 'corrected free-market' will be required to sustainably solve the problems that need to be solved.
What is required is achieving and improving on the Sustainable Development Goals (all of them - particularly the Climate Action Goal because more aggressively achieving it makes it easier to achieve many other SDGs).
A corrected free market that did not reward unsustainable harmful activity (preferably did not even allow that type of activity to compete for popularity and profitability) would be a significant part of the solution.
But free market corrections alone are unlikely to achieve the required Climate Action corrections. The problem is that other unsustainable and harmful actions could develop to replace the targeted unsustainable and harmful activities. And reduced energy consumption is an important part of the solution. And encouraging people to stop using artificial energy in their recreational activity is unlikely to happen 'as a result of a corrected free market'.
A major issue is that the understanding of unacceptability of an activity often only occurs after it has developed to a degree that makes its harm undeniable. The activity is then more difficult to correct because of developed wealth, popularity and profitability. A damaging result would be 'for-profit' free-market global scale geoengineering actions. Global scale geoengineering should not be thought of as a Solution since learning about the unacceptability 'after-the-fact' could be more globally tragic than the resistance to accepting that burning fossil fuels was unacceptable (the unacceptability was first flagged in the 1800s). And a for-profit motivation related to geoengineering would make it worse than if it was being done Publicly for Good Intentions.
Many other actions/corrections would help alter the way that people are encouraged to develop in the socioeconomic-political systems (to reduce the number of people who are encouraged to develop narrow self-interested world-views). One of those corrections would be effective penalties for incorrect, or harmfully incomplete, marketing statements (claims that impede the achievement of the SDGs), particularly in politics, but also in Religions.
Correcting those who have developed a preference for being harmfully incorrect is the real challenge. Correcting the socioeconomic-political systems to reduce how many people develop the desires to benefit from be harmfully incorrect is also required. Tweaking the free market will help. But it will not develop all of those required corrections.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 10:07 AM on 30 December 2018Greta Thunberg's TEDx talk
william @7,
Another way of expressing my concern about political influence is to say that money influence is not the real problem. The real problem is the influence of people who are interested in self-enrichment in ways that can be understood to be contrary to achieving and improving on the Sustainable Development Goals.
A related concern is that efforts to restrict political influence could be abused (Good helpful people could be punished unjustifiably). Or the rules for restricting influence could have loopholes written in because of incorrect influence (Bad people getting influence on how the 'approved final law' is written). Or the attempts to limit influence fail because an elected official could do favours for undeserving people if they believe they may benefit after they are done in elected-office (like the way that junior executives from trading firms get 'loaned to do some public-service work at the SEC' and 'may' act in ways that benefit the trading firms).
So the problem is the socioeconomic-political systems that encourage people to develop desires for self-enrichment in ways that are contrary to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals.
-
scaddenp at 09:59 AM on 30 December 2018Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
I think the big eruption at Yellowstone was 2.2my ago. Calculations in Gerlach 2010 would have that comparable to a year of human emissions.
-
Jonas at 09:28 AM on 30 December 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #52
"Discovery of recent Antarctic ice sheet collapse raises fears of a new global flood" points to sks itself. Probably meant link:
Moderator Response:[JH] The correct link has been inserted into the OP. Thanks for bringing this glitch to our attention.
-
David Kirtley at 07:11 AM on 30 December 2018Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
@ancient_nerd, There are ice core records from Antarctica which go back that far. See Luthi et al (2008) and Bereiter et al (2015). If you look at their figures you'll see that at around 670,000 years ago the CO2 levels were quite low, below 180 ppm.
Volcanic activity does often show up in ice cores, not as elevated CO2 levels, but as ash layers, and other geochemical effects. These ash layers are often used to synchronize the cores which come from different locations.
For Yellowstone activity that would most likely stay in the northern hemisphere, so that would show up in the Greenland ice cores. Unfortunately, the deepest (oldest) cores only go back to about 150,000 years ago. So your 670,000 year event wouldn't show up.
-
WayneK at 06:53 AM on 30 December 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #51
I have a question about linking to IPCC reports but don't know where to put it to be on topic. Could someone advise?
Moderator Response:[PS] Just make your comment here and someone will advise.
-
Evan at 06:50 AM on 30 December 2018Global warming ‘hiatus’ is the climate change myth that refuses to die
Religion is based on belief. Science is based on evidence. I don't think we should try to reconcile the two using either the discipline of belief or the discipline of evidence applied to both.
If you want to know if God exists, go talk to him. The response received from such an inquiry is the basis of belief and is not easily put into words nor easily proven. For me that is the essence of belief.
Science, on the other hand, is much easier to quanity and demonstrate to others through experimentation and logical discourse, such as by using this great forum.
-
nigelj at 06:06 AM on 30 December 2018Greta Thunberg's TEDx talk
Nick Palmer @12, I agree totally. Neoliberalism on wikipedia is worth a read. There are no policies there I fundamentally disagree with in the most general terms. For example free trade is good, immigration is good, nobody wants over regulation, the government doesn't need to own everything, but the trouble is neoliberalism has been high jacked and pushed to a really damaging extreme.
Governments do have a role regulating environmental matters, and most "liberal economists" agree. Deregulation was intended to apply more to labour markets and occupational licencing.
The trouble is various business interests would prefer the free market not be tweaked, at least not in ways that upset them. They are of course utterly inconsistent in their various philosophies but they influence governments, and in some cases virtually own governments.
-
nigelj at 05:48 AM on 30 December 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #51
MAR @24 thank's for the information. Yes emissions stopped 2014 - 2017. I meant to say atmospheric "CO2 levels" have shown an acceleration in recent decades, - at first glance.
But it looks like you might be onto something and have found some decrease in the rate of acceleration. I love graphs because a picture paints 1000 words. Sorry my university math is too rusty and forgotten to add anything on the technical details, but I'm just really interested and trying to figure out where you and Mike are coming from, I think maybe his grasp of it is a bit off somewhere but he means well.
-
nigelj at 05:30 AM on 30 December 2018Global warming ‘hiatus’ is the climate change myth that refuses to die
I think some religious people do obviously reject science because of conflicts with belief, but not all do, and in fact many of the greatest scientists are religious. And theres K Hayhoe as well. But the thing is, they are intelligent and able to compartmentalise things, and lots of people struggle to do that.
And heres something quirky. Not all athiests accept the theory of evolution: "Questioning evolution is neither science denial nor the preserve of creationists"
I think Y N Hariri and S Carrol are very good. For me the athiest and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins is right. From memory he says there may be a god in the sense of some incredible power behind the universe that we don't yet understand, but there is no evidence of a god in the form described in the bible, a sort of patriachal creator god with semi human characteristics.
The ethical teachings of the new testmament are another matter and seem inspired, but incomplete and open to interpretation, suggesting human origins in the writings.
-
ancient_nerd at 05:04 AM on 30 December 2018Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
With the recent tsunami from Anak Krakatoa, there seems to be an increase in discussions of CO2 emissions from volcanoes. I have read that the 1883 Krakatoa and 1816 Tamboora eruptions did not emit enough to affect global CO2 levels in ice core measuremnts.
What about the Yellowstone eruption 670,000 years ago? Do we have any measurements with enough resolution going that far back?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:49 AM on 30 December 2018Global warming ‘hiatus’ is the climate change myth that refuses to die
I agree with Evan - for Good Helpful Altruistic Reasons (no personal benefit expected to be obtained by agreeing with Evan).
Spiritual beliefs are not a problem. Associating rules for human behaviour, or perceptions of superiority to such beliefs, is a serious problem.
That means that Religion is a problem when it is used to justify rules that have no real basis other than having been written by someone in the past. The obvious governing rule should be Good Helpful Altruistic Reasoning improving awareness and understanding and applying that learning to achieve and improve the Sustainable Development Goals (all of them).
That makes the likes of the GOP (with an influential portion of their United Group believing that the governing rules are the Written Rules of Their God - their interpretations of their preferred texts), a serious problem that undeniably needs to be corrected in order for humanity to develop a sustainable better future.
I really like the way that Yuval Noah Harari, presents the problem in his book "21 Lessons for the 21st Century". He opens Chapter 13 "God" with "Does God exist? That depends on which God you have in mind: the cosmic mystery, or the worldly lawgiver?". Later in the chapter he presents the following that I will not try to paraphrase:
"When the faithful are asked whether God really exists, they often begin by talking about the enigmatic mysteries of the universe and the limits of human understanding. “Science cannot explain the Big Bang” they exclaim, “so that must be God's doing”. Yet like a magician fooling an audience by imperceptibly replacing one card with another, the faithful quickly replace the cosmic mystery with the worldly lawgiver. After giving the name of “God” to the unknown secrets of the cosmos, they then use this to somehow condemn bikinis and divorce. “We do not understand the Big Bang - therefore you must cover your hair in public and vote against gay marriage.” Not only is there no logical connection between the two, but they are in fact contradictory. The deeper the mysteries of the universe, the less likely it is that whatever is responsible for them gives a damn about female dress codes or human sexual behaviour.”
And Yuval's presentation on God is reinforced by Sean Carroll's presentation in “The Big Picture” of how our investigation into the fundamental physics we exist in has advanced to the point of certainty that there is no physical mechanism for a God to influence things or communicate with a human mind. That means the written religious texts may provide some very good guidance for people to live by, but it is all made-up by humans and is therefore open to justified correction just like science is.
One of Sean Carroll's strongest points regarding religious writings is that if there was indeed a God that was able to influence and communicate with humans the messages received and written by such humans would not be as diverse and contradictory as religious texts are. And it is highly unlikely that such a God would have instructed three of its most popular sects (Jewish, Christians and Muslims revere different prophets of the same God) that they are superior to the others (unless the God has no desire for humanity to have a better future).
-
Nick Palmer at 02:28 AM on 30 December 2018Greta Thunberg's TEDx talk
I personally think that tweaking the 'free market' so it encourages responsible, rather than wasteful and/or irresponsible purchasing decisions by the greater mass of people is 'the answer' - not just to global warming but all the other envirnmental issues too. The 'over free' market enabled the problem. Reining it in a bit might be the solution.
Conventional economics, never mind the more exreme neo-liberal economics, takes little account of the 'externalities' - those effects caused by a product or service that somebody else ends up paying for the clean up of, rather than the manufacturer/service provider that made the product or provided the service.
More nuanced economic systems, such as Hermann Daley's ecological economics, which assign the costs of the clean up to the bottom line costing of a product, should have a very powerful effect on changing peoples' purchasing decisions - not as a result of burdensome legislation or moral crusades, but because the cleaner greener options work out cheaper!
The beauty of this is that we already know that it would work in principle because of how putting a price on acid gas pollution cleaned up industry smoke stacks rapidly and effectively in the 70s. A proper price on carbon would do the same.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Daly -
Evan at 23:14 PM on 29 December 2018Global warming ‘hiatus’ is the climate change myth that refuses to die
Fortunately we have people like Katharine Hayhoe and others who demonstrate how to merge the two. My father was a well-respected scientist and a well-respected Christian. I also merge both in my life with no problem.
So whereas I agree 100% with you Sunspot about the existence of the face-off between science and religion, there are people who merge the two. Such as John Cook, the originator of this site.
-
MA Rodger at 23:01 PM on 29 December 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #51
Nigelj @23,
You say the last 20 years of atmospheric emissions trends "are accelerating" but also that I have attempted to account for the ENSO cycle. I have elsewhere been quite strong in pointing out that "emissions" data show no increase for the period 2014-17 which would suggest no acceleration woud result within the rise of atmospheric CO2 levels (eg MLO data) for those years. This would contrast with the record since 1960 when an acceleration is evident.I have also attempted to adjust MLO CO2 data for MEI. Just as ENSO wobbles global temperature, it also wobbles the CO2 increase, the latter with an 8-month lag (with some complications that I ignore). Using MEI as a measure of ENSO, I found that the Airborne Fraction (the amount of extra CO2 in the atmosphere as a proportion of the amount of anthropogenic CO2 emitted) is boosted/reduced by 11% for a unit increase/decrease in MEI. The adjusted airborne fraction can then be used to adjust the CO2 increase, this reducing the noise within the MLO data by 50%. (Also a base MEI value of +0.1 is assumed.)
I have pondered how to best present this data, whether a simple table or with added analysis of some form. Perhaps the best presentation would be graphically with an OLS for each of the measured/adjusted data. A graph has been duly uploaded here (usually two clicks to 'download your attachment'). You may draw your own conclusions as to whether the adjusted data shows acceleration (an increase in ppm/yr) over recent years, or indeed what should constitute "recent years" in any statistically-significant analysis.
-
michael sweet at 21:15 PM on 29 December 2018Freedom of Information (FOI) requests were ignored
AFT,
In addition to the issues that Scaddenp mentioned, the UAH temperature record is of the upper atmosphere and not the surface. The TLT (temperature of the lower troposphere) is centered arond 10,000 meters up in the air. Are we interested in the surface temperature, where we live, or the temperature where airplanes fly? The other products from UAH are even higher.
UAH deals poorly with interference from the stratosphere which is well known to be cooling (scientists predicted decades ago that carbon dioxide pollution would cool the stratosphere).
It is much more difficult to measure the temperature of the atmosphere than the temperature of the surface. They use microwave emissions, not thermometers. There is a very complex model to convert the measurements into temperature. The UAH data do not agree with RSS and other evaluations of the same data. Their computer code undergoes major changes regularly (currently version 6). UAH rarely finds errors in their code and has to be corrected by other researchers. UAH does not provide a complete copy of their code to anyone. As Daniel Bailey showed, most everyone else does provide code.
By contrast, surface records are easily evaluated to generate a record (a record at least three times longer than satalite records). There have been no major changes or issues for at least 30 years in the surface record. (UAH made major changes two years ago). BEST, financed by the Koch brothers, did a major reevaluation of the surface data using very different methods of other scientists and found that existing records were correct.
The UAH record conflicts with balloon measurements. Should we believe version 6 of a computer model or actual thermometers? The scientists at RSS (an alternate satalite record) say that the surface record is better than the satalite record. The UAH record differs substantially from the other satalite records.
In my opinion, scientists would discard the UAH record because of its long standing severe problems. It is only kept around because deniers like to cite it. Scientists bend over backwards to avoid being accused of being biased.
-
Eclectic at 21:12 PM on 29 December 2018Freedom of Information (FOI) requests were ignored
AFT @11 ,
the UAH data have been "wrong" since their beginning. Basically, UAH is measuring the wrong thing.
My understanding is that the satellites were set up with the expectation that their data would be a useful addition to the surface temperature readings (which are limited in coverage ~ though still decidedly adequate, statistically speaking). Also an addition to the (at that time) very limited deeper ocean temperature readings. It ought to have been a good thing (especially for overall global coverage) . . . but turned out not to be so.
As mentioned above, UAH has had a great deal of trouble in getting their act together ~ the delays in recognizing teething problems, the delays in correcting the data, the delays in acknowledging (to politicians) the inadequacies of the UAH data.
Essentially, the UAH term "TLT" (The Lower Troposphere) is no such animal. It is a beautiful name, TLT, but misleading. Not really comparable to surface temperatures ~ the surface where we humans and the general biosphere are living [excepting the abyssal creatures below the oceanic thermocline].
UAH "TLT" has some stratospheric contamination, and contamination from mid and upper troposphere. I have heard the TLT described as being very useful if you are interested in conditions at the level of the uppermost part of Mt Everest. In other words, of little relevance to our biosphere (except for high-flying migrating geese).
But the satellites are already up there, and may as well be made some use of. But it is a pity that the UAH group has chosen to misuse the data.
-
Sunspot at 20:49 PM on 29 December 2018Global warming ‘hiatus’ is the climate change myth that refuses to die
There is a very simple explanation for why people reject science:
Religion
I know lots of people try to merge science and religion, but the hard truth is that science and religion are exact opposites. Science relies on objective evidence. Religion relies on belief. Evidence not required. Science begins when these beliefs are questioned, and when the evidence comes in, the belief vanishes into thin air. Or it should. Tyson puts it well - "The best thing about science is that it is true whether you believe in it or not".
Here's what happens though: Little Johnny goes off to school, and some atheist communist humanist science-type teacher tries to explain to him that the basis of science is the questioning of belief, and we should always demand evidence. So of course little Johnny goes home and demands that Mom and Dad show him evidence of this "god" they keep going on about. It's what the teacher said, isn't it?
But of course this scenario can't be allowed, so we can't teach the most fundamental truth about the world, the universe. Science is truth. Religion is fantasy. All religions are incorrect views of the universe. Until most of us agree that this is true, we will never make the hard decisions that could give us a chance for long-term survival. But it is clear that, as survival becomes more challenging due to the damage that we have inflicted on the planet, a great many will turn back to superstition to explain the world. Which is the problem to begin with. It's already happening. Our government now officially rejects science.
All of which seems inevitable to me. Maybe there is intelligent life somewhere in the universe, but I don't think it's here.
I don't expect this comment to be very popular. As you may have noticed, I don't care.
-
scaddenp at 13:53 PM on 29 December 2018Positive feedback means runaway warming
Climate feedback is not a simple curve. There are different feedbacks that work on different timescales. The water vapour feedback is more or less immediate while albedo feedback from melting ice and landcover changes is very slow. Again, the models are the best guide we have for forecasting the future. On the scale of centuries to millenia carbon feedbacks, (from reduced solubility of CO2 in the oceans, CH4 release from tundra) are also important (major components of the milankovitch-driven ice-age cycle) and not well-captured by models. However these are not likely to be much of a factor in next 100 years.
-
scaddenp at 13:46 PM on 29 December 2018Freedom of Information (FOI) requests were ignored
UAH is preferred by pseudo-skeptics because it has the lowest rate of warming of the available temperature series and is published by long-time climate skeptics, Spencer and Christie. Note that in past, pseudo-skeptics had been very keen on RSS for the same reason.
I dont think anyone is going to really rush in an say UAH is wrong or inferior. Like RSS, it is a record for tropospheric temperature rather than surface temperature derived from satellite MSU readings. It also has a troubled history - see here for details. It would have more credibility if the algorithms used were properly published as RSS does. The latest version is the joker in pack compared to other temperature series and appears to be also diverging from radiosonde readings. (eg see here). Time will tell.
-
SirCharles at 09:12 AM on 29 December 2018Greta Thunberg's TEDx talk
Greta's full speech at UN Climate Change COP24 Conference here => School strike for climate - save the world by changing the rules - Greta Thunberg
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:31 AM on 29 December 2018Greta Thunberg's TEDx talk
A follow-on to my comment @9,
The Story of the Week in the 2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #51, "The Green New Deal, Explained", mentions the need to correct Neoliberals.
Neoliberals like more power/freedom to make-up whatever economic related beliefs they want to excuse the pursuits of personal enrichment they have developed a liking to getting away with. And they are willing to partner with Social Conservatives (people who like the idea of more power/freedom to make-up whatever morality related beliefs they want to excuse their resistance to corrections of attitudes they developed a liking to get away with).
Advancement of humanity to a sustainable better future is contrary to those collectives that have been uniting to try to more powerfully resist economic and social and political correction.
The Uniting of the USA, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait in opposition to accepting the understanding presented by the most recent IPCC Report is an example of what I am referring to.
Australia joining that group to try to promote Coal burning is another example.
The Yellow Vester protests in France likely fueled by Le Pen's links to Russian assistance in her failed pursuit of victory in France is another example.
And the Unite the Right parties in Canada making-up claims about actions in Canada to reduce fossil fuel burning are another example. And those Unite the Right types are fond of claiming that Canada only contributes a small percentage of the global total, just as Greta has observed the similar types in Sweden do.
Anyone can claim they are not a Big problem (even Trump can claim that a collective of others is worse than he personally is). What is needed is the requirement for everyone to prove by consistent action that they are a signficant helpful part of the solution, helping to develop a sustainable better future for humanity.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:50 AM on 29 December 2018Greta Thunberg's TEDx talk
william @7,
The Citizen's United decision was indeed a harmful development that needs to be corrected.
But the system that developed that incorrect development needs to be understood to be what needs to be corrected.
Another way to say it is that the system clearly needs to be corrected so that people do not develop into the likes of the Koch Brothers (and Trump) who are not just understandably incorrect, but are difficult to keep from incorrectly becoming wealthier or more powerful.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:36 AM on 29 December 2018Greta Thunberg's TEDx talk
In fairness, Global Leaders and the global population should be talking about many more required corrections of what has developed, not just climate change impacts. So having discussions that are not about climate change is not a real serious concern.
All of the Sustainable Development Goals deserve serious discussions and actions, particularly corrective actions.
However, many of the rich and powerful people attempt to distract global efforts from those essential corrections (to protect undeserved perceptions of grandeur or superiority). That should be a major news item every day (there are many news items related to this), and be part of almost every social discussion.
The future of humanity is far more important than entertainment matters. Yet being dismissive or denying the reality of these important issues is popular and is not being bluntly declared to be incorrect (because of concerns about popularity and profitability).
It always has been harmful to try to get along with incorrect people who do understandably harmful things rather than correcting them or limiting their impacts. That is the basis of Good Engineering, and any other Good Work.
-
william5331 at 07:23 AM on 29 December 2018Greta Thunberg's TEDx talk
I've said it again and I'll say it again ad nauseum. As long as vested interests such as the Koch Bros are allowed to finance our politicians, the politicians will do their bidding. Who Pays the Piper Calls the Tune. It is that simple. What a great kid.
Prev 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 Next
