Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 Next
Comments 18851 to 18900:
-
nigelj at 11:36 AM on 18 July 2017Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
JW Rebel @6,
I agree totally, but everything you mention comes back to fear of something. For example it is exaggerated fear of government, fear of rules applying to business, fear of loss of power or privilege, paranoid fear of loss of individual rights. All this can obviously become excessive and deluded.
Individual rights are obviously important, but self evidently do not give people the right to damage the environment or harm the community or expect government to ignore environmental matters.. That sort of world can’t work and we don’t have to put up with it. People promoting it are ultimately toxic.
-
Bob Loblaw at 11:01 AM on 18 July 2017Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
The aspect of fear applies to the followers more than the leaders. Some people have a real knack for scaring the $#!^ out of people, and then reassuring them that they will be saved if only they follow the One True Path.
A long but very interesting read on the psychology of much of this is Bob Altemeyer's The Authoritarians. (Free download at the web page I have linked.)
A shorter, less-scholastic blog post is The Long Con. Also very interesting.
-
Funkypants at 10:11 AM on 18 July 2017Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
Ironically, when people like Al Gore, Michael Mann or Bill Nye expound the impending dangers of AGW they get howled down as Alarmists & Fear Mongers.
-
JWRebel at 09:57 AM on 18 July 2017Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
Mixing in Trump, Russiagate, and electoral fraud in a "false facts" narrative does help the case. Not all false claims are related, and many false narratives have been propagated on many fronts historically, and often refuse to die, like zombies, no matter how fastidiously they have been debunked. Russiagate has no publicly verifiable facts, and there is a decades old literature on electoral fraud in the USA. Contrary to accepted opinion, US elections do not set a standard of democratic integrity for the rest of the world; on the contrary, basic controls are so poor or even absent that monitoring organisations state that it is not even possible to monitor US elections, putting them behind monitored elections in Kazakhstan or Syria. Americans do not seem capable of enacting electoral reforms.
-
JWRebel at 09:45 AM on 18 July 2017Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
I agree that fear is an underlying ground for much denialism — many scientists were also reluctant to accept the magnitude of the problem as it became clearer and clearer the past 50 years.
But there are other important aspects. One is international context. Vociferous denialism seems a peculiarly Ango-Saxon disease. Why would that be?
- The concentration of news into the hands of the likes of Rupert Murdoch, always printing ammunition for "scepticism".
- Corporate disinformation and ideological think tanks.
- The strong anti-governmet anti-left narrative that has taken hold since Reagan was president. Don't forget that Reagan won by scuttling Carter's energy policy, telling Americans they were great, and everything would go back to how it was in the fifties — without all these perplexing modern problems.
These factors play much less of a role in most other countries of the world.
A further factor is group loyalties. Many people's views on many subjects are informed by loyalty to their tribe and how the tribe has decided to view the matter. Loyalty is a big part of conservative and religious denialism, but it is precisely this loyalty that can be used to change the narrative [loyalty also means not running down the family farm before handing it to your children].
As for people like James Delingpole, there have always been a small number of irredeemable miscreants who find their claim to fame in serving evil.
-
scaddenp at 08:25 AM on 18 July 2017Those 80 graphs that got used for climate myths
I cant access the full paper but since the subject about methodology for reconstructing the temperature records from water isotope proxies, I am guessing the original graph showed one methodology compared to "actual" data (the BEST global record from of weather stations worldwide). I would suspect from conclusions, that this was showing the that methodology has limited skill in global reconstructions of temperature.
The denier arguments obviously believes that an inferred temperature scale based on water isotopes from a very limited no. of ice cores with poor spatial resolution is a better record for temperatures than actual thermometers from 1000s of weather stations.
-
Doug_C at 08:15 AM on 18 July 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #28
It is amazing how these changes are playing out across the globe, I'm still trying to get my head around how heat is both trapped within the atmosphere, how that is mostly downloaded into the oceans and how that is affecting circulation patterns and things like ocean-atmosphere coupled systems like El Nino/La Nina which influences climate around the globe.
My niece married an Auzzie and they both live in Texas so I get first hand accounts of what it was like living on that continent and how chaotic weather can become in some areas like Texas. They have been through both tornadoes and hurricanes. There does seem to be a much higher frequency of the super-cell systems that spawn tornadoes in the US south and midwest.
My sense is that climate science and scientists have slowly been chipping away at the artificially created roadblocks erected by the fossil fuel sector in its interests alone to deny the science of climate change and delay mitigation for as long as possible. The level of genuine doubt for most people is disappearing and when it goes I think the changes will come quite suddenly compaired to how long it had taken to get effective action.
Here in BC there was a lot of denial and the main economic initiative of the last government which was just defeated in election was a massive fracking program in the BC NE with LNG plants and terminals all along our coast. I think that will change.
I've also spent a lot of time learning about the alternative technology to replace fossil fuels and with abundant power from things like thorium power molten salt reactors, there's no question in my mind at all that we could build within decades completely viable, dynamic, innovative and most importantly sustainble economies and societies. We don't even have to do away with internal combustion powered transportation as we can make diesel, octane and other fuels directly from air with electricity and the addition of carbon and other readily available materials. Technology like thermal depolymerization allows us to turn any long chain carbon molecules to short chain organic material very similar to light crude in a matter of hours. Add in all the other alternatives like solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, etc... and there is simply no reason at all to keep investing billions of dollars on a fossil fuel powered future that by all indications ends in catastrophe.
When the turn comes - and I'm confident it will, even if I have down moments like right now when climate change is in the face of thousands of us here - it will be because of people like the ones who have created and populated this site with facts presented in a professional and endlessly patient manner that I do think is in fact wearing down the denial movement.
Moderator Response:[DB] "how that is mostly downloaded into the oceans"
Your answer is here (in short, the energy goes directly into the oceans from the sun, but its exit path back to space is slowed by rising levels of CO2).
-
scaddenp at 08:10 AM on 18 July 2017Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
Sadly, CAIT doesnt seem to supply anymore. Try here for what it looked like.
-
nigelj at 07:24 AM on 18 July 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #28
Doug_C @22, interesting points.
Australia appears to be at particularly high risk from climate change, particularly forest fires. As you probably know they have a hot, dry, drought prone climate that can also be quite windy. They have many houses among forests of gum trees which appear particularly susceptible to fire, however they are also big coal producers, and this lobby is powerful. Their response to climate change has been mixed at best, although they have made some decent progress with wind power. It all seems to depend on who is in government.
I live in New Zealand, and we are affected quite differently, but almost as badly. We are an island nation in the path of a system of frequent low and high pressure systems, and tend to have a rather wet, mild, cooler, windy climate, actually rather more like British Columbia. Climate change has made droughts slightly worse, but the most obvious impacts are more rainfall, all in exactly the wrong places. It's predicted we will get more stormy weather possibly quite severe cyclones from the north, serious sea level rise, more droughts and forest fires. However given our wet, slightly cooler climate forest fires are not quite the major concern Australia has.
But it shows how the same warming climate can effect different geographies, and still in negative ways.
I try to read something on the climate issue. I find it a very interesting issue, because it reflects a whole range of personal interests of mine including earth sciences, politics, economics, human psychology.
I haven't done any advanced physics, however I did several papers in physical geography at university, and they covered an introduction to the theory of weather and climate. I also did some basic maths, and chemistry and psychology.
I think websites like this are good because they promote the science in a authoritative logical way and without catastrophising. They also deal with denialist myths very well. I actaully think the majority do understand broadly whats happening, confirmed by polls in my country showing over 70% acceptance of the science (although it fluctuates weirdly), but its important to get that number higher.
The real sticking point is poor leadership to politicians, who look to be captive to various industry lobby groups, and wealthy donors sceptical of climate science. It would be great to get this money out of politics, and at the very least voters need to put pressure on politicians.
-
nigelj at 06:36 AM on 18 July 2017Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
I agree fear sums the issue up quite well. I would take it further and say "fear of change". However this doesn't get us too far, because simply saying be less afraid isn't going to do much.
Take a step back. I look at climate denialists and I see evidence of vested interests, addiction to big v8 cars, jobs in the fossil fuel industry, dislike of big government, religious factors, and conservatism. I think it makes them deny the science, or issues around renewable energy, even although the denial is clearly illogical and contradictory etc.
All these are fear of something, whether loss of jobs, petrol prices going up, government rules, beliefs being challenged, change in general. These are real and should be acknowledged, even although they are generally missplaced fears. For example renewable energy is actually creating jobs, electric cars are cheap to run, all governments have laws, etc.
I think if we own this, it becomes easier to see a way forwards in terms of convincing people and addressing specific fears. We won't convince everyone, for example look at tobacco, vaccines, or evolution which are also issues revolving around various fears, addictions, etc, but it should be possible to convince the overwhelming majority, and that is what is important.
-
silence at 06:10 AM on 18 July 2017Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
The graph in the "Further reading" section appears to be broken.
-
ubrew12 at 05:37 AM on 18 July 2017Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
If this is fear, then good news on non-fossil energy is the antidote. It may do more to emphasize the enormous strides being made in renewable power lately, than to prove conclusively to someone immune to proof that the 'hiatus' never happened.
Big fossils likes to preach its captive audience that if they go with alternatives, the 'big government gulags' will not be far behind. Stories that tell the truth may matter here: that alternatives are largely being fought by utilities which, as government-granted monopolies, are the very epitome of 'big government'. It should sway some minds to realize that Joe Libertarian, in fighting renewable power, is fighting on the same side as a state-sponsored monopoly that thinks it 'owns' the right to sell him electricity, to the exclusion of all other sources in an open market.
-
bjchip at 05:18 AM on 18 July 2017Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
I disagree that it is "fear" - at least to the degree that is presented.
If you consider at the same time that these people are almost entirely in the "extremely conservative" subset of humans, AND you add the knowledge that extreme views are often accompanied by supreme confidence in in ones own opinion - we can conclude that the contradictory evidence is being rejected out of hand because it would mean that the person at the extreme is in fact wrong and has to accept that they were wrong.
For most people this isn't a big deal. For someone on the extremes who relies on his/her own opinion and knowledge more, and on other people's opinions less, finding out they made a mistake is a near death experience.
So while there is a "fear factor" involved (as is likely )
We cannot discount the likelihood that it is fear of being wrong, in someone who cannot afford to have their worldview shaken in such manner.
Note that this sort of avoidance occurs in extreme liberals as well. Just not in the area of climate. Consider instead the arguments around nature vs nurture and the evidence for a genetic basis for intelligence.
It gets iffy out there on the edges. :-)
-
ianw01 at 05:11 AM on 18 July 2017Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
Fear is an interesting way to frame it, but to me it is not quite broad enough to catch those who are driven by pure short term economic self-interest or those with a natural predisposition to contradict experts just for the sake of it.
-
wili at 04:42 AM on 18 July 2017Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
I generally agree here...and with pretty much everything our wonderful JA has ever said or published '-). But the problem with dismissing political ideology or religion as a major factor here is the high correlation of those who deny GW with those who identify as politically conservative and religiously fundamentalist. Are those ideologies just more likely to have very fearful people in them? That's what you would seem to have to claim, as far as I can see. I'm not sure how one would independently test such a hypothesis, but it might be interesting to try.
And if John's hypothesis is true, what does that mean about Climate Communication? You can't really talk honestly for very long about the certain or even likely consequences of CC with out bringing up stuff that is going to make rational people somewhat or very afraid. Right?
Connected to the whole issue of the role of fear and CC communications:
Eric Holthaus writes, in part:
"My advice for climate journalists going forward:
1. Don't hold back. Readers can take it. (As long as it's rigorously grounded in the science, of course.)
2. The weird shit that climate change could cause—the tail risks, the megastorms, the blinking out of entire ecosystems—is compelling.
3. Climate journalists should find those stories—things scientists wouldn't bother with b/c they're unlikely—& report the hell out of them.
4. AND THEN (this is the most important part) you plant the seed of possibility at the end & invite the reader to become part of the story.Because that's the reality: We are all part of this story. This is our story, we are shaping it every day."
-
Doug_C at 02:32 AM on 18 July 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #28
nigelj
I know Australia has been hit hard by wildfires in recent years with mass evacuations and loss of life as well as property. We haven't seen the loss of life yet, just hundreds of homes burned and many more to come.
Some of the fires have been caused by people, but the majority have been lightening strikes on very dry forests. An eyewitness account from someone driving south through the Cariboo District where most of these fires are said it a surreal experience as he saw lightening strike after strike that was followed by an immediate fire.
I'm just frustrated, I'm also semi-retired and have spent the last decade informing myself of the true dimensions of this subject learning as much as I could in a bunch of different subject including some quantum mechanics, atmospheric circulation, lots of biology, ocean currents and more. There's no question I find what is going on deeply distrubing, reading up on the Permian and other climate change related extinction events is sobering, now we're starting to connect them to what we doing on both scale and timeline is frightening.
I'm all for making changes in a way that doesn't turn society and the economy on its head creating its own form of disaster, the thing that really concerns me as a Canadian is that we're not even making any real attempt. Our PM went to the Paris climate conference - which James Hansen has called a fraud because it doesn't create the conditions to make all fossil fuels uneconomical - and because we were part of a political agreement to deal with issue acts as if the problem is solved. While having exactly the same emissions as the last federal government here which openly denied climate change, refused to be part of any international agreement, censored science and even went as far as to burn scientific libraries with data that went back over a century and were priceless in scientific terms.
Meanwhile much of this province burns and we're already being told here this is the new normal. Which is only going to get worse, James Hansen has stated explicitly that if the billions of barrels of tar sands crude is sent to market and burned then climate change will be unmanagable. But that is still the central policy of the Canadian government, the Alberta government and until the last election here this spring the BC government was in full compliance with allowing pipelines and tanker trains to carry over 1,000,000 barrels of bitumen through BC a day.
I don't know what the answer is, I've been coming to this site for years and truly believing that if people were presenting the science in such a clear and effective manner not just here but many other places then it must take effect soon.
But that isn't happening and now I'm watching much of what I've grown up calling home being burned up, climate change is very real here at this moment, it's not something abstract that will happen in a couple of decades.
BC is also highly dependent on the water provided by major rivers that originate with glacial melt in the Rookies. Not only will massive wildfires become a frequent summer event, in coming years we have water scarcity to look forward to as those too disappear.
-
HK at 23:07 PM on 17 July 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #28
This may be off-topic, but it may also be related to global warming.
Last night I saw the brightest and most extensive noctilucent clouds I have seen so far this summer. Here in south-eastern Norway the sun is only about 8-9° below the horizon at midnight right now, so these very thin ice crystal clouds in the upper mesosphere (75-85 km altitude) remain illuminated by the sun throughout the night. It appears that these clouds, which were unknown to the science before 1885, have become more common during the 20th century (I have seen them several times in recent years), so they may be linked to global warming.
One possible link is that the increased greenhouse effect cools the stratosphere and mesosphere, making one of the necessary conditions (temperatures below -120°C) more common than before. Another possible link is increased amount of water vapour formed by the oxidation of methane, since methane can easily reach that altitude because it doesn’t condense anywhere in the Earth’s atmosphere.
The Wikipedia article has several nice pictures of noctilucent clouds, but the ones I saw last night were most similar to these from Estonia in July 2009:
BTW, this last night was also the first after summer solstice that I was able to barely see Polaris and several of the stars in the Big Dipper ("Karlsvogna" in Norwegian).
-
carn at 19:16 PM on 17 July 2017It's too hard
@Eclectic 68
I have nothing in principle against subsidies; but too early and too much subsidy to have a technology on the market, that is too far away from cost efficiency, is a mistake.
For such technologies one only needs subsidies too such extent, that development continues.
Regarding hydro potential, i maybe have not specified enough, what i mean with chenging "ecological protection laws"; for example, i would want to have that thing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marble_Canyon_Dam
in operation within 15 years. Forget about "The lower dam would have flooded a number of natural features, including Redwall Cavern and Vasey's Paradise." Human lives are at stake due to global warming, so nobody should care about that stuff.
Just look at all conservation areas; there is some potential for a hydro increase.
"the OECD and World Nuclear Association expect that they would achieve a "too little, too late" result by 2050 (in reducing world CO2 emissions)"
"Private company investors are running for cover, when it comes to the suggestion of financing nuclear power plants."
Based on current rules and handling, yes. Therefore they would have to change.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#Development
"Installed nuclear capacity initially rose relatively quickly, rising from less than 1 gigawatt (GW) in 1960 to 100 GW in the late 1970s, and 300 GW in the late 1980s. Since the late 1980s worldwide capacity has risen much more slowly, reaching 366 GW in 2005."
Get the speed of the 60s and you have 150 GW per decade. Nuclear power was throttled late 70s onwards with superflous burden; of course with that superflous burden still mostly in place, OECD is correct to estimate, that nuclear cannot do much. Therfore, one needs to change things so that build up can again be done with the speed of the 60s.
"And similarly with large-scale solar plants. And solar power is cheap enough now for private individuals to install their own roof panels — again without subsidy."
From the calculations i know, no, not yet. Especially comparing generating electricity for one's own household to buying electricity with taxes, regulations and power grid costs, is an error. Solar is not more cost efficient than coal or nuclear. Its more cost efficient than taxes; not a useful criteria for technical efficiency.
"One guy I know says (only half-jokingly) that the entire costs of the USN Fifth Fleet over past decades should have been added to the per-gallon price of gasoline."
Fine, but do not forget to also calculate the cost increases caused by superflous envirmental regulations and activities. It is just completely crazy to pay billions and billions to backward regimes for oil and another billions and billions for military equipment to keep them in check, but leave a single drop of oil at home unused cause some birds or fish might die.
Effectively, US politics in part sacrificed human lives - mostly in the middle east - so ecos could be pleased at home and some animals saved. Despicable.
-
nigelj at 16:53 PM on 17 July 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #28
Doug_C @20, numbers of forest fires certainly have increased in recent decades, in America and Canada as below:
www.dw.com/en/how-climate-change-is-increasing-forest-fires-around-the-world/a-19465490
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161012141702.htm
So your suspicions are not just anecdotal or locally based. Somehow I doubt numbers of arsons have inceased, and anyway there are also changes in area and intensity. Looks mostly like global warming.
I'm not sure if this has happened in NZ, but we have seen increased levels of rainfall, in recent decades, according to our climate minotoring agency NIWA, and this has been mostly on the west coast, which is already very wet. It's not happening where it would be useful to agriculture or hydo power.
You ask why people can't see all this or are complacent? It's probably hard for people to get their heads around the full scale, or even keep up with it. I'm semi retired, so have a bit of time to read.
Maybe people also feel overwhelmed. I feel torn in two directions, one direction that we should actually be a bit alarmist about it, the other that too much alarmism, catastrophising, and despondency won't help.
-
Doug_C at 16:21 PM on 17 July 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #28
Here's what a realy hot summer can look like where I live.
The town of 11,000 where I grew up has been evacuated and there are major fires all around it. That is just one small area of central BC which is covered in fires.
I stopped thinking that climate change was an academic issues years ago, watching this happen is like being in a disaster movie as a participant not a spectator. Talking on the phone with my elderly mother, she suddenly began weeping for all that is being lost.
It's insane that we're all basically sitting back and watching this happen... and keep in mind this is the opening stages in a process that will become increasingly catastrophic taking out entire ecosystems. Coral reefs are already well on their way to being mostly gone, likely by mid century.
How is it more people don't get that at some point this wave will wash right over them. In Florida it was an unspoken rule created by the governor that public employees not mention climate change because of the implications of a rising sea level for a state much of which is barely above sea level now.
Warmer summers is just the tip of this "iceberg"...
-
anticorncob6 at 15:05 PM on 17 July 2017Those 80 graphs that got used for climate myths
Can someone explain why the blue line in the first graph (with reconstruction) does not show warming?
-
nigelj at 14:12 PM on 17 July 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #28
I would just add the lakes issue, and other permafrost issues, sinkholes, etc all do definitely look like troubling developments.
-
nigelj at 14:06 PM on 17 July 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #28
Wili @17, yes fair enough. To add to your research link, here's an interesting very recent article and photo on holes and mounds in the sub arctic releasing methane etc.
www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4335386/7-000-underground-methane-gas-bubbles-Russia.html
However I was really wondering the following if anyone knows. We have these very recent lake issues, sinkholes and methane bubbles in the subarctic releasing methane, and is this more than the slow / limited release the research done over the last ten years was predicting?
-
wili at 13:20 PM on 17 July 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #28
nigel wrote: "not massive or catastrophic"
well...pretty massive, at least in terms of actual carbon, equivalent to more than all the carbon in all of life on earth. But we don't know how much of that will emerge as methane. And yes, most recent studies conclude it won't come out suddenly (which word Wells-Wallace never actually used).
But here's a somewhat troubling development: High methane emissions from thermokarst lakes in subarctic peatlands
-
nigelj at 12:42 PM on 17 July 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #28
My understanding is the research says arctic and siberian methane is a problem, but not massive or catastrophic. However this research appears to be based on theory and projections.
However over the last couple of years various holes have appeared in siberia and northern regions, belching methane, as the permafrost melts and things collapse. Question: Does this mean the research is too conservative?
-
Doug_C at 12:20 PM on 17 July 2017Toward Improved Discussions of Methane & Climate
Daniel Bailey
Thanks for responding.
I wasn't really thinking in terms of a massive pulse of Arctic methane from destalization in the next few years or decades. I was thinking in terms of the next century or longer and how records from past rapid warming events as a result of quickly increasing atmospheric CO2 levels indicate there were pulses of methane that kicked warming from CO2 into a much more powerful forcing.
In recent geological time the conditions have favoured the creation of more methane hydrates as the planet has in general been cooler with ice ages and the gradual drawdown of CO2 levels. This would seem to pose an even greater possibility of methane release on shorter time scales than earlier events when the base "stable" state was from a much warmer planet with little or no permanent ice cover.
I also seriously question trying to project anything this complex and poorly understood decades into the future. As we saw with something that should have been relatively simple to project in the Larsen B iceshelf breakdown, dynamic forces quickly turned a massive sheet of very thick ice into a highly unstable formation that broke apart.
One paper from Hansen et. al. from a number of years ago - sorry I can't find it now - seemed to indicate that as a Earth warmed, deep water submergence transitioned from the polar regions to much lower latitudes, smething of that nature would completely reorder how heat is distributed and could possibly introduce much warmer water into the deep ocean.
It's the scale of this we should always consider and the potential for feedback and impacts that are going to be next to impossible to fully predict or model because we simply don't have the information.
And I realize that being in an environment where much of what I've called home for over 50 years is on fire and some of my family are now short term climate change refugees makes this a much more immediate issue for me.
The methane is there, the conditions are chaotic to say the least and the deep geological record says beware.
At a time when this country - Canada - is still fully committed to burning billions of tons of the least sustainable fossil fuel for decades.
As I said, thanks for the response and I'll dig deeper into this, but I am viewing climate change and our certainty of how it is going to unfold with less and less confidence all the time. At a time when the impacts are becoming the most serious most of society will be in emergency mode just as this entire province is at the moment meaning even monitoring changes effectively could be compromised.
Forget any hope of mitigation at that point.
-
wili at 09:02 AM on 17 July 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #28
DB, in your links you write: "...the bad news is that the already difficult task of keeping warming under 2°C becomes much harder once we face up to the consequences of Arctic permafrost feedbacks."
I think we can all agree on that, and I will point out, contrary to what some might have concluded if they only read reviews of it and not the article itself, that Wells-Wallace, whatever else his faults may be, never uses the words 'bomb' or 'sudden' with regards to permafrost or methane. -
Daniel Bailey at 08:42 AM on 17 July 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #28
@Doug_C:
I have responded to you on this post. Please read the post in full, and the comments underneath it, before then proceeding to my updated material on it. If you have any questions, please place them there, and not here. Thanks!
-
Daniel Bailey at 08:39 AM on 17 July 2017Toward Improved Discussions of Methane & Climate
User Doug_C asks:
"Do you know something we don't because trillions of tons of methane in unstable frozen deposits in a rapidly warming world seems like the definition of catastrophic to me"
Please read the OP of this post and the comments above this one in full. Here's some updated material:
"Climate change and permafrost thaw have been suggested to increase high latitude methane emissions that could potentially represent a strong feedback to the climate system. Using an integrated earth-system model framework, we examine the degradation of near-surface permafrost, temporal dynamics of inundation (lakes and wetlands) induced by hydro-climatic change, subsequent methane emission, and potential climate feedback.
We find that increases in atmospheric CH4 and its radiative forcing, which result from the thawed, inundated emission sources, are small, particularly when weighed against human emissions. The additional warming, across the range of climate policy and uncertainties in the climate-system response, would be no greater than 0.1° C by 2100.
Further, for this temperature feedback to be doubled (to approximately 0.2° C) by 2100, at least a 25-fold increase in the methane emission that results from the estimated permafrost degradation would be required.
Overall, this biogeochemical global climate-warming feedback is relatively small whether or not humans choose to constrain global emissions."
And, as the Gao et al paper I linked to notes, CH4 from permafrost will drive an expected temperature increase by 2100 of about 0.1 C. Schaefer et al 2014 now calculates a total temperature rise contribution from ALL permafrost carbon stocks (CO2 AND CH4) by 2100 of about 0.29 ± 0.21 (0.08-0.5 C).
Per Berndt et al 2014 - Temporal Constraints on Hydrate-Controlled Methane Seepage off Svalbard
"Strong emissions of methane have recently been observed from shallow sediments in Arctic seas...such emissions have been present for at least 3000 years, the result of normal seasonal fluctuations of bottom waters"
Per Schuur et al 2015, an abrupt permafrost climate feedback is unlikely, according to the experts, but the bad news is that the already difficult task of keeping warming under 2°C becomes much harder once we face up to the consequences of Arctic permafrost feedbacks.
This just in, per Myhre et al 2016: METHANE NOT ESCAPING INTO THE ATMOSPHERE FROM ARCTIC OCEAN
"Methane gas released from the Arctic seabed during the summer months leads to an increased methane concentration in the ocean. But surprisingly, very little of the climate gas rising up through the sea reaches the atmosphere.
As of today, three independent models employing the marine and atmospheric measurements show that the methane emissions from the sea bed in the area did not significantly affect the atmosphere."Shocker.
And there ensued much gnashing of teeth and hissing in frustration from AMEG, Arctic-News (dot) blogspot, the Scribbler-of-fiction, Paul Beckwith and Guy McPherson.
"Data show no sign of methane boost from thawing permafrost"
And
"Decades of atmospheric measurements from a site in northern Alaska show that rapidly rising temperatures there have not significantly increased methane emissions from the neighboring permafrost-covered landscape"
Also on that paper
And even more on it"We find that, at present, fluxes of dissolved methane are significantly moderated by anaerobic and aerobic oxidation of methane"
And
"Our review reveals that increased observations around especially the anaerobic and aerobic oxidation of methane, bubble transport, and the effects of ice cover, are required to fully understand the linkages and feedback pathways between climate warming and release of methane from marine sediments"
And
"a recent study (Dmitrenko et al. 2011) suggests that degradation of subsea permafrost is primarily related to warming initiated by permafrost submergence about 8000 yr ago, rather than recent Arctic warming"
[here's the relevant info from Dmitrenko et al 2011, below]
"the observed increase in temperature does not lead to a destabilization of methane-bearing subsea permafrost or to an increase in methane emission. The CH4 supersaturation, recently reported from the eastern Siberian shelf, is believed to be the result of the degradation of subsea permafrost that is due to the long-lasting warming initiated by permafrost submergence about 8000 years ago rather than from those triggered by recent Arctic climate changes"
And
"A significant degradation of subsea permafrost is expected to be detectable at the beginning of the next millennium. Until that time, the simulated permafrost table shows a deepening down to ∼70 m below the seafloor that is considered to be important for the stability of the subsea permafrost and the permafrost-related gas hydrate stability zone"
"The breakdown of methane hydrates due to warming climate is unlikely to lead to massive amounts of methane being released to the atmosphere"
And
"not only are the annual emissions of methane to the ocean from degrading gas hydrates far smaller than greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere from human activities, but most of the methane released by gas hydrates never reaches the atmosphere"
More on that paper, here.
-
JeffDylan at 08:07 AM on 17 July 2017Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
Mal Adapted @294
Please just can the sarcasm! Scientific theories come and go all of the time. If some "illuminati" is using Svante Arrhenius' work now, it is probably because they dug it up recently and is not part of some conspiracy spanning two centuries. BTW, I thought there were rules against conspiracy theories on these postings, or at least that's what I get held to.
Moderator Response:[DB] This user, yet another sock puppet of spammer cosmoswarrior, has outlived its usefulness and will no longer participate in this forum, where genuine people genuinely seek to promote actual and active dialogue and learning.
-
scaddenp at 08:01 AM on 17 July 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #28
Consensus appears to be that methane risks are being overstated by some commentators. See here and perhaps look at recent cites for more context; and also the FAQ 6.1 of latest IPCC WG1 report.
-
Doug_C at 07:21 AM on 17 July 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #28
Danial Bailey @ 11
Do you know something we don't because trillions of tons of methane in unstable frozen deposits in a rapidly warming world seems like the definition of catastrophic to me.
Just a small fraction of that has to be released into the atmosphere to have a significant impact on the current positive forcings, which would in turn create further positive feedbacks.
It would seem any critical analysis would indicate we are in fact creating a situation that at some point will rapidly run away from the current conditions.
Leaving us in a true doomsday scenario where few species will be left due to conditions so hostile that only the most robust species with the lowest nutrional and oxygen requirements survive.
Keep in mind that climate change is just one of a host of impacts that are rapidly alterning the entire planet in a way that leaves fewer and fewer species in habitats that are being designed to meet short term economic needs not long term biological imperatives.
-
nigelj at 07:12 AM on 17 July 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #28
This is an interesting eye opener, related to the coal issue:
www.pressreader.com/new-zealand/new-zealand-listener/20170714/textview
The relevant article in the link is "The new war on carbon". It starts with the views of Mark Carney, (governer bank of england), it discusses how much carbon can be burned / needs to be left in the ground, the known reserves on fossil fuel companies balance sheets, the risks of this with stranded assets.
This is slightly old material, but whats more interesting is the recent response of the corporate, financial and investment community, and how they are already starting to pull investments out of fossil fuel companies. Shareholders are starting to exert pressure on boards, and where they put investments.
And related / similar articles:
www.ft.com/content/622de3da-66e6-11e5-97d0-1456a776a4f5
www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/speeches/2015/844.aspx
-
Daniel Bailey at 06:24 AM on 17 July 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #28
"see the more evenhanded treatment of the back and forth here"
Given the Scribbler-of-Fiction's own propensity towards methane doomporn, that's hardly a credible source.
-
Mal Adapted at 05:07 AM on 17 July 2017Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
By extension: see how absurd it is to suspect a hoax launched at least 190 years ago by wholly self-interested yet superhumanly far-sighted illuminati, who then enlisted thousands of scientists illustrious and obscure from around the world, all with the superhuman discipline to keep the secret to the present day?
-
Doug_C at 05:00 AM on 17 July 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #28
I find this easy to believe based on recent summers here. I live in southern BC with family just across the border in Washington state.
In 2015 my relatives in Washington were on evacution notice for two months as there were massive wildfires surrounding the town where they lived. The largest just to the south of them was over 200,000 acres. The smoke from those fires blew up into Canada and was so dense at times it was like fog. It made life very difficult and most people spent as little time outdoors as possible.
I spent most of my youth in central BC and now watch as much of that territory is on fire. I can go on the BC Forest Service wildfire maps and check homes where I used to live which may not be there much longer. My brother and his family along with 17,000 other people in BC have been evacuated and may not have a home to go back to.
This is the new "normal" and the very scary thing is that it will keep getting worse as we continue to burn even more fossil fuels and force the climate into an even more hostile state.
At the same time all this is happening the federal Trudeau government has approved the twinning of the Kinder Morgan pipeline from Alberta to Burrard inlet in Vancouver which will be able to carry 800,000 barrels of dilbit a day. Allowing almost 300,000,000 barrels a year of tar sands crude to be sent to market and burned by this one route alone. This being allowed by a national leader who claims to understand the science and risk of climate change and agrees that we need mitigation.
The power of carbon dioxide to alter a planets surface conditions is incredible, our twin planet just a few tens of millions of miles closer to the Sun has the hottest planetary surface in the solar system almost certainly due to its 97% CO2 atmosphere.
But we don't need to get anywhere close to that to make the Earth unihabitable for most of the life here. Just change the climate faster than most species can adapt or migrate and trigger the kind of changes in the oceans that have led to massive dieoffs both in the sea and on land.
Massive forest fires on land will be the least of our worries if in the future the oceans go anoxic and begin producing the kind of poison gases that likely occurred during the Permian and possibly other extinction level events.
For an existential emergency, so many appear to be incredibly complacent.
-
wili at 03:56 AM on 17 July 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #28
And see the more evenhanded treatment of the back and forth here:
-
Mal Adapted at 03:53 AM on 17 July 2017Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
Glenn Tamblyn, for JeffDylan:
The starting point in considering this is the observed fact that water vapour content in the atmosphere is governed by temperature. This is simply an everyday meteorological observation.
And via the aforementioned Clausius-Clapeyron relation that formalized this everyday meteorological observation, established by 1850, Arrhenius was able to derive the first CO2 'greenhouse' climate model, which he laboriously worked through on paper and published in 1896. His estimate of ECS after CO2 forcing and H20 feedback (among other feedbacks) is no more than a factor of 2 higher than current estimates.
With all due respect to Swedish chemist and Nobelist Svante Arrhenius: do you see how easy this is?
-
wili at 03:50 AM on 17 July 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #28
Thanks for including the M. Mann piece about the NYMagazine article. J. Mitchell takes it pretty thoroughly apart here: forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2101.msg121078.html#msg121078
(Lots of other good discussion there from various non-denialist perspectives, too.)
-
Mal Adapted at 03:19 AM on 17 July 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #28
chriskoz:
Read about Coral Reef expert Charlie Veron dire-environmental-prognosis unnecessary gloom but a good description how earth scientists do feel when faced with silly denial.
Aldo Leopold famously said:
One of the penalties of an ecological education is that one lives alone in a world of wounds. Much of the damage inflicted on land is quite invisible to laymen. An ecologist must either harden his shell and make believe that the consequences of science are none of his business, or he must be the doctor who sees the marks of death in a community that believes itself well and does not want to be told otherwise.
Ecology can be said to be a synthesis of the earth and biological sciences. Ecologists can see wounds that even other trained scientists can't 8^(. Regardless, in these times as none before, scientists who study the Earth and its life must feel their shells inexorably hardening, when the only apparent alternative is to surrender to grief.
-
chriskoz at 19:53 PM on 16 July 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #28
Thank you John for posting Brian Kahn's article from Climate Central about GHG latest evolution. It's worth noting that in 2016, human forcing since 1750 exceeded 3W/sqm. IPCC AR5 not so long ago put that number at 2.2
-
chriskoz at 19:36 PM on 16 July 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #28
Chief denier in Congress has visited Arctic to experiance global warming:
Interestingly, it was almost s "top sercet" visit in May, and we're learning about it now, about 2 months later. What do you think of that?
-
chriskoz at 18:25 PM on 16 July 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #28
Read about Coral Reef expert Charlie Veron dire-environmental-prognosis unnecessary gloom but a good description how earth scientists do feel when faced with silly denial.
He's probably the best living marine expert (he changed his first name from John because he's perceived to be contemporary Darwin), author of reticulate evolution, among other works. I find it interesting to learn Charlie's personality quite resembles mine. I too, hate stupidity and hypocrysy. Although I don't share Charlie's opinion that we are "f..d" because of climate change I'm as angry as he's at politicians who do everything to delay mitigation action when alarm bells are already ringing loud. The final funniest thing is that I'm not a biologist, but a computer scientist - one of those people Charlie hates.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 16:26 PM on 16 July 2017Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
JeffDylan
From your earlier comment.
"It is the greenhouse heating from water vapor driving the water vapor feedback that actually dominates the greenhouse effect."
The starting point in considering this is the observed fact that water vapour content in the atmosphere is governed by temperature. This is simply an everyday meteorological observation.
So imagine the atmosphere in a particular state, at some sort of equilibrium. So certain amounts of CO2 and H2O contributing to the GHE in this equilibrium state.
Now perturb this by adding some CO2. Temperature rises due to the CO2.
So water content now rises. The rapid turn-over time for water in the atmosphere is what ensures that a strong, quick response occurs.
Then a further temperature rise occurs. Lets call this the initial feedback response of water to the initial CO2 perturbation.
But this water response has raised temperature by some further amount, resulting in a further increase in water content. Now this additional water is acting as a feedback to the initial water feedback raising temperatures further. Feedbacks on feedbacks. And this will continue, like a number series, feedbacks on feedbacks on feedbacks...So what would happen, eventually? If the gain of the water feedback were greater than 1, then each increment of warming would produce greater warming and this would be a runaway positive feedback leading to runaway warming. So too any initial cooling would produce runaway cooling.
In short the weather system (because the short residence time of water in the atmosphere ensures rapid responses so we are talking about weather timescales) would be totally unstable. Even a gain = 1 would still diverge rapidly.
Which doesn't happen - we would notice that I think.
So our daily experience shows that the gain on the water feedback is <1. And any such feedback converges on a final value, like a number series that converges to a value.
So although some part of the water feedback is in response to prior water feedbacks, ultimately the total of the water vapor response to a perturbation is finite. And this water feedback cannot occur without the initial perturbation.
Although the total response to a perturbation is more than a simple single feedback, ultimately the total water feedback to a perturbation , including feedbacks on feedbacks etc, is finite. To me this says that water acts only as a feedback to exernal perturbations, even though the magnitude of the feedback is more than just the simpleinitial response.
If we consider the frozen world scenario. Progressively remove CO2. This lowers temperatures and water content in the atmosphere.
The approximate change, from the Clausius-Clapyeron eqn is that a 1 C change changes water content by 7%. Taking Tom Curtis's earlier figure of -8.9C temperature drop just from removal of CO2,that would result in a decline in water in the atmosphere of 0.93^8.9 or down to 52% of current water values. Add in removal of the other minor GH gases, the decline in cloud contribution to the GH effect as well and you will have an even larger decline.
Will there be some residual amount of water in the atmosphere after all the other GH gases are removed? Yes. But the temperatures will be sufficiently lower that ice is vastly more extensive, temperatures are much lower still and water much loweragain. So in an ice world water vapor levels would be very, very low.
In essence, 2 factors force water to only have a feedback role.- The gain on the water feedback must be <1 otherwise we would observe that the system is totally unstable. So water cannot indefinitely drive the response to any perturbation, even from changes in water.
- Water content in the atmosphere is totally temperature dependent. It cannot rise or fall without a prior temperature change. Therefore the GH effect of water depends on temperature.
The conclusion is that water cannot initiate a change by itself, be a forcing. Because for that to occur there needs to be an initial temperature change to trigger a change of water vapor content. Nothing can change water content without an initial temperature change. And any temperature change must force a water content change. Water can't itself perturb the system. And it must respond if there is a perturbation. Even if random variations, local weather events, El Ninos etc introduce small perturbations, triggering small water responses, when those perturbations reverse, the water response reverses.
A pure feedback-only mechanism. Water can only be a forcing, an initiator of a perturbation, if its atmospheric concentration can be changed by something other than temperature change. If it could accumulate like CO2 does for example. But it can't.
-
JeffDylan at 15:24 PM on 16 July 2017Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
Eclectic @290
I have so grasped the concept of "forcings" and "feedbacks". It doesn't mean, however, that I always agree with how they are used. It is important to realize that they are not scientific terms, but only inventions to help keep cause and effect consistent in our thinking and models. Also, there is no rule saying that the presumed cause and effect (or forcing and feedback) will always be correct.
I looked up the ACS website and found nothing new about condensible greenhouse gases. Apparently, these molecules shut down their absorption/re-emission systems as they enter the gas phase.
Moderator Response:[PS] You are straying into straight sloganeering. People are responding with evidence and references. You are so far providing nothing in support. All words are inventions, and are useful to communication when everyone uses them the same way. And you need extraordinary evidence, not speculation if you want to contradict laws of physics. So far evidence is missing from your comments, and you dont appear to be bothering to study resources people have provided - especially given your egregious final statement which no one and no resource has asserted.
-
kkraft7 at 14:42 PM on 16 July 2017There is no consensus
Unfortunately many of the links have aged out in your "Scientific organizations endorsing the consensus" section. You might want to try updating them. Although good luck with the EPA these days...
-
scaddenp at 13:26 PM on 16 July 2017Models are unreliable
Also, I wonder that put so much emphasis on prediction. Models beat reading entrails hands done, but they are not best way to test climate theory, especially such a noisy variable as surface temperature. The normal physics verifications are much better but funnily enough, not skeptic talking points.
Closer to my speciality, I am glad people can take the necessary expensive reforms required from taking earthquake science seriously without demanding prediction models match observations exactly first. Good thing ideological biases havent got in the way there.
-
Eclectic at 12:47 PM on 16 July 2017Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
JeffDylan @288 , you say you have studied climate matters for over ten years — and yet you fail to grasp the concept of "forcings"??
As an exercise, I have just googled "condensable greenhouse gases", and the very first entry gave an explanation in that regard. (See the website of the ACS : the American Chemistry Society.) Not to mention subsequent entries — including the famous R. Pierrehumbert, physicist, who publishes on such planetary matters.
Jeff, were I more cynical, I would suspect you of being disingenuous.
-
Tom Curtis at 12:17 PM on 16 July 2017Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
JeffDylan @288, if that was what you were after, perhaps you should have asked for it?
A Radiative Forcing is "...the change in the net, downward minus upward, radiative flux (expressed in W m–2) at the tropopause or top of atmosphere due to a change in an external driver of climate change, such as, for example, a change in the concentration of carbon dioxide or the output of the Sun". (My emphasis.) That is the technical definition of the term. In contrast, a climate feedback is:
"An interaction in which a perturbation in one climate quantity causes a change in a second, and the change in the second quantity ultimately leads to an additional change in the first. A negative feedback is one in which the initial perturbation is weakened by the changes it causes; a positive feedback is one in which the initial perturbation is enhanced. In this Assessment Report, a somewhat narrower definition is often used in which the climate quantity that is perturbed is the global mean surface temperature, which in turn causes changes in the global radiation budget. In either case, the initial perturbation can either be externally forced or arise as part of internal variability."
Both definitions from here.
It is very obvious that because total column water vapour (and specific humidity), and therefore the effect of water vapour on radiative forcing, vary with temperature, it is an internal driver of the net radiative flux. Consequently it is a climate feedback. The relationship between specific humidity and temperature shown in the second image in my preceding post shows conclusively that the effect of water vapour on radiative flux is a feedback, in that it depends on an internal climate state - namely, the global temperature field.
Of course, I have not been the first person to make this point. Indeed, it has been repeatedly made, and repeatedly ignored by you. Your argument, therefore, gives every appearance of a Humpty Dumpty argument, ie, you insist that water vapour is a radiative forcing, not because its concentration is not temperature dependent, but because you insist that words be used your way rather than according to the definition and usage of the community who defined and use those words.
-
JeffDylan at 11:41 AM on 16 July 2017Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
Well, I was hoping that with the climate expertise and reverence to science claimed on this site, someone here would be able to give me a clear, valid explanation as to why condensible greenhouse gases can't be a radiative forcing while they are in the gas state. Obviously, I was mistaken.
Moderator Response:[DB] You've been given explanations and citations to credible sources. You've simply ignored them and not read them.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit intentionally misleading comments or simply make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.
Prev 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 Next
