Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 Next
Comments 19601 to 19650:
-
knaugle at 03:31 AM on 7 June 2017Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
#20The UN estimates of 4,000 deaths from Chernobyl are over the next 50 years AND are possibly on the high side. Bophal, the 10,000 deaths were in the course of an hour, and they definitely are not comparable. Also, advances in radiation health physics have if anything, led to a reduction in the dangers posed by accute and certainly low level radiation. However, face it. We don't store low level RAM in our garage, we fear it, and it's illegal for that matter. But I would not be surprised if most of us have glyphosate, carbaryl, and malathion in the garage. That was my point, and I think you kind of proved it.
Besides, I could with research get the NAME of every person killed at Bophal. You would be hard pressed to identify any of the supposed 4,000 deaths at Chernobyl (beyond the ones killed that first month), because it is just a statistical estimate.
-
knaugle at 03:22 AM on 7 June 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #22
#1
There is a clear misconception among many that its the INCREASE in fossil fuel emissions that is causing CO2 to increase. However, if tomorrow emissions were cut in half, it simply means the year over year increase in CO2 would decline to about 1 ppm/yr from 2 ppm/yr. That's because, correct me if I'm wrong, burning coal and oil and nat'l gas is not part of the natural carbon cycle when viewed in human time frames. So there is only a small connection to El Nino. Test this by removing the El Nino and La Nina years from the data and noting that not much changes in the past 50 years. The Keeling curve remains pretty steady. -
RedBaron at 03:08 AM on 7 June 2017The day after withdrawing from Paris, Trump declared a flooding disaster in Missouri
As usual the article completely ignored the simple fact that the flood and AGW are both symptoms of the very same thing. There is too much carbon in the atmosphere and not enough in the soil. In fact there is more carbon missing from the soil than extra in the atmosphere. That's why AGW mitigation and adaptation is exactly the same... and completely ignored by John Abraham.
-
ubrew12 at 02:39 AM on 7 June 2017The day after withdrawing from Paris, Trump declared a flooding disaster in Missouri
It's Missouri: The flooding will continue until the gays stop getting married (/s).
Not to hijack the conversation, but deniers often claim that a 2 C anomaly is 'not a big deal'. I think the proper metric to mention, as to whether it is or not, is the temperature difference between our Holoscene and a full-blown ice age. Because this is only 3 C (or 5.4 F). Hence, as we are 1 C above pre-industrial, it may be helpful to state that as 'one-third of the way toward an ice age, but in the opposite direction'. And a 2 C anomaly is 'two-thirds of the way'. It's a way to make the temperature change visceral, because everybody knows that an ice age is completely different from the planet we're accustomed to: with ice sheets covering the entire Northern Hemisphere, and sea levels 300 feet lower than is current.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:59 AM on 7 June 2017Reflections on the politics of climate change
A follow-up on my comment@21
Mill's thoughts On Liberty were developed during a time when peer pressure among the successful and influential in England were winning things like the end of slavery. The push by Puritans for power in America, with their dogmatic beliefs in the unacceptability of harmless enjoyment of life through activities like music and dance and consumption of alcohol, was also happening. Mill's thoughts are the thoughts from early 1800's England, a time and place dominated by the Culture of Character.
As Susan Cain points out in “Quiet - The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking”, after “On Liberty” was published (but not because the Essay was published), there was a shift of what was considered to be the desired traits of a successful person. Susan Cain's book includes information about the change in America in the late 1800s from a Culture of Character to a Culture of Personality (potentially influenced as a response to the Puritan push) - both terms are originated/presented by historian Warren Sussman - with the primary perceptions of a successful person, described in books recommending how a person can improve themselves, shifting from “Citizenship, Duty, Work, Golden deeds, Honour, Reputation, Morals, Manners, Integrity” to “Magnetic, Fascinating, Stunning, Attractive, Glowing, Dominant, Forceful, Energetic”.
Though the change of focus about what is perceived to be a successful person has merit as a response to the stifling dogmatism of the Puritans, it also diminished the value of thoughtful reasoned consideration of actions. A result has been the failure to ensure that 'people perceived to be successful were Responsible Adults (rather than people who grow up mere children, incapable of being acted on by rational consideration of distant motives - Mill's description).
That can be understood to have been a Bad/Unhelpful change. It resulted in the increased honouring/Winning of Dogmatism (though not the Puritan Dogmatism) and Demagoguery that undeniably needs to be undone.
The continued reasoned presentation of the constantly improving understanding of climate science is an important part of getting that change to happen. Reason based arguments for all of the other Sustainable Development Goals would also help. And co-supporting and cross-selling those reasons can also be helpful.
Everyone who has an interest in pursuing any one of the Sustainable Development Goals can be helped to understand that it is essential to understand the reasons behind all of the goals. Only people who play-pretend and self-proclaim they support any of those Goals to try to Win Support will refuse to better understand the importance of changing their minds. Everyone else can see who those trouble-making people are by their resistance to understanding climate science, or any of the other reason based 17 goals. Those people denying climate science also typically denigrate the related actions to have the people who got more wealth by burning more fossil fuels transfer a portion of their wealth to help the less fortunate who suffer consequences of the impacts of the burning of the fossil fuels. They are people who admire Characters without Character who present appealing Made-up (dogmatic) Claims that cannot be defended against Rational Reasoning (leading them to resort to more Dogmatic claims that will appeal to, is further delude, their faithful fearful followers).
-
Eclectic at 00:29 AM on 7 June 2017There is no consensus
True, CycleGeek @752, there are people who are so divorced from reality as to believe what they want to believe, in defiance of the actual state of affairs.
If you yourself are not one of these people, then you will now (having read so many pages) be able to give a brief summary of the "legitimate arguments" against the existence of the scientific consensus.
Reading this thread, and using the most strenuous skepticism, I have been unable to find any such "legitimate arguments" — so I very much look forward to being enlightened by your reply (assuming you can find any arguments that are not simply delusional and unrealistic as Monckton's ).
-
bvangerven at 00:08 AM on 7 June 2017Donald Trump vs Paris Climate Agreement
A polluter is caught in the action of polluting. He himself may determine the height of the fine he has to pay. Worse, if he doesn’t pay at all, he cannot be legally prosecuted. That’s basically the content of the Paris agreement.
Imagine the same principle would be applied for paying taxes: you can choose the amount of taxes you pay, and if you don’t pay a cent nobody will bother you. Does anybody with one healthy brain cell left believe that this way the government would receive enough money to cover their expenses ?
Now why would we believe that in case of climate change this deal will make a difference ? it is exactly because it is an agreement without teeth that the fossil fuel industry allowed it to pass. Exxonmobile even urged Trump to stay in the climate agreement.
But dumbass Trump pulls out of the Paris climate agreement. Imo in that case al deals are off the table. If you refuse an amicable settlement, it is back to a full blown lawsuit in which the extent of the caused damage is established by experts and the full indemnity must be paid. The human rights should provide enough of a basis for a lawsuit.
-
MVW at 23:49 PM on 6 June 2017Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
Thanks Tom. This is helpful. A couple additional thoughts. As you note, the purely radiative model will produce a surface temperature that is 30 degrees warmer than a more complete model. Just applying a simple energy balance model to Venus gives a surface temperature that is cooler. I just now found a paper by Titov and others "Radiation in the Atmosphere" and they noted (as does original article here) that very little of the NISR reaches the surface of Venus. It struct me that Venus is heated from the top rather than the bottom, so it is more like the ocean than the atmospheric situation on Earth. But that is just a thought.
Mike
-
dfwlms at 23:44 PM on 6 June 2017Donald Trump vs Paris Climate Agreement
President Trump's responsibilities are to the American people. There has always been and will always be competition among nations. This is not a bad thing as long as the competition has a moral and legal basis. We should not be too critical of the President because of his singular personality and what seems to be, on the surface, a good measure of immaturity. Just wait and see.
Equality among nations is a pipe dream, unrealizable and undesirable. And the climate-change theories are sort of like the Piltdown-Man theory when scientists accepted, for more than 40 years, that a monkey's bone was that of a human ancestor.
Moderator Response:[DB] Please review this venue's Comments Policy and construct future comments to comply with it.
Ideology and sloganeering snipped.
-
L'Schoo at 23:08 PM on 6 June 2017Donald Trump vs Paris Climate Agreement
Great points! But whenever you're dealing with Trump you're also dealing with a master chisler and charlatan. So in those terms, what he's done is very predictable. The US is littered with millions upon millions of climate change deniers. I would go so as far to say there are more climate deniers in a few US states than the entire country of Canada. That being said, Trump is playing to his base (politically) which, "shockedface" has a great deal of self imposed ignorance in-bred into their clique. This may sound overly harsh but in reality this point is sadly more true than many Amercians are willing to admit. They are no longer are the "home of the brave and land of the free". Trump does in fact reflect the views of over 60 million Amercian voters.
-
chriskoz at 23:05 PM on 6 June 2017Donald Trump just cemented his legacy as America’s worst-ever president
While it's true that T-man's latest action is just a symbolic gesture with no consequneces nor real difference to the level of mitigation in US, this gesture has a very strong stmbolic meaning that may influence the attitude of others. People are even affraid that the precedence of such unconditional exit of the biggest emitter from Paris accord may incline other nations to follow, including the dissolution of the entire agreement. But I hope other nation leaders are not as silly as not to see through the moronic principles ans behaviour of this Clown-In-Chief.
Note that T-man, as he appears in the video, he really seems to believe that this decision is "the most important in the world". In his egotic self-glorification, he seriously thinks he's on a mission to "make America great", while people are, behind his back sometime even openly, laughing at his silly and empty proclamations. So, in this context, this latest action of T-man is just another such silly proclamation. No doubt as pationate move as his earlier moves, its destructive power though, lurks in his followers' minds. Like them or not, call them confused or "deplorables", he has many millions of followers who voted him in. Unfortunately his passion is very contagious and his followers believe what he says because they do not apply any scrutiny to his words like we do here. That process, which can be called deception on a massve scale (intentionally or not performed by T-man) is a dangerous process and it needs to be stopped or at least contained. And the strong symbolism of Paris feeds into that process. That's why I think Dana's article, including it's title is important as a rebutal of T-man's deceptive actions, even though eccesiasticaly the article and the title does make little sense.
-
SirCharles at 22:49 PM on 6 June 2017Donald Trump vs Paris Climate Agreement
-
CycleGeek at 22:08 PM on 6 June 2017There is no consensus
After reading way to many pages of this threads, one thing is certain, too many people are simply going to believe what they want to believe. To deny that there are legitimate arguments on both sides is dishonest simply dishonest.
Moderator Response:[DB] You are invited to pick the "legitimate argument" you feel the strongest about, and bring the citational evidence to support it, and post it on the most relevant thread here at SkS.
[PS] You will do everyone a favour if you check your "legitimate argument" is not:
- a strawman (ie check what science actually does say in eg IPCC WG1, rather than what someone tells you it says)
- cherry picking data. The other common denier tactic.
You might also like to run your argument against this list here. If you still think you have a good argument, then please comment on the appropriate thread. Given USA pull out of Paris, some good news would be welcome.
-
nigelj at 14:22 PM on 6 June 2017Reflections on the politics of climate change
Factotum @20, I sympathise but republicans don't really want to pollute the planet. The problem is they don't want to do much about people who do pollute the planet, so the end result is probably the same.
-
nigelj at 14:13 PM on 6 June 2017Reflections on the politics of climate change
One Planet makes some interesting points, and does a fine job not politicising this. There is something true about the spoilt child syndrome evident in some adults, and its associated lack of long term horizons, lack of rationality, and its ego centric nature.
In my observation certain individuals and groups are very belief focussed, and are taking increasingly entrenched positions. Some people hang onto beliefs, and need them to centre their lives, more so than other people. The problem being beliefs are sometimes found to be wrong or untenable any more, and this can be terrifying. Maybe substitute sustainable development goals, for some of those tired, old beliefs
-
nigelj at 13:40 PM on 6 June 2017Donald Trump vs Paris Climate Agreement
Well said young guy. So much more mature and thoughtful than what we are getting from certain other people.
Trump's main objection appears to be that China is allowed to continue with coal power for some years and this is an unfair deal.
My immediate reaction is this is not unfair to America or other countries like mine. America has contributed more per per capita to emissions than China (as has my country) so I dont see this as an unfair deal for China to get an exemption for a limited period.
Even if Trump can argue that there is some unfairness, or something less than ideal, it just seems so petty, and like the complaining of a spoilt child.
It's also better to keep China in the agreement, and this justifies treading carefully with China. America should see this as a win for America, by having a big nation in the agreement, because it will ultimately be of benefit to future generations of americans. This justifies the negotiated deal with China.
And basically cuts are voluntary and no special or excessive requirements were put on America. So all this looks suspiciously like more anti China thinking from Trump.
-
william5331 at 12:00 PM on 6 June 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #22
Without America to drag us down and constantly spend our time trying to convince, the rest of us can get on with it. Besides anyone who voices doubts about climate change will be labeled as a Trumpite. Not a nice thing to be labeled with.
-
Tom Curtis at 10:44 AM on 6 June 2017Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
Qwertie @78, the first figure you show appears to be a close up of this graph from the IPCC AR4:
You will note that the coloured lines represent reconstructions, not proxies. The difference is that a proxy is the data from a single core or tree ring record that is expected to covary with temperature. Tree ring records will typically be taken from multiple trees within a small region, including dead or fossil trees which are used to extend the record back in time beyond the lifespan of an individual tree. The reconstructions differ from each other because of different methodologies and/or data sets. In all cases they have a small number of proxies - typically in the tens to low hundreds. This contrasts with the thousands of thermometer records used in determining the Global Mean Surface Temperature. Because each thermometer/proxy only records. To get some idea of the impact of using a small number of proxies,
is a comparison of the land surface record (CRUTem3) with just 61 long record rural stations:
In addition to the limited number of proxies, reconstructions also face difficulties because the proxies do not follow temperature perfectly. High latitude or altitude tree rings are significantly impacted by temperature, but they are also effected by precipitation, cloud cover and no doubt other effects. Using multiple proxies will average out these effects to get a better temperature signal than from any single proxy, but again reconstructions will not be perfect as a result. There are further difficulties because not all proxies have records over the full period. In particular, records only extend to the period in which they where collected, often in the 1980s or earlier. Consequently reconstructions face a drop of accuracy in the final few decades of the reconstruction.
Finally, here is a reconstruction of GMST from 1880-2010 using 173 temperature sensitive proxies, compared to the NOAA NCDC Merged Land Ocean Surface Temperature record (MLOST):
As you can see the warming trend in the paleo record continues after 1980.
-
Tom Curtis at 10:18 AM on 6 June 2017Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
MVW @216:
1) The runaway greenhouse effect is premised on two essential facts. First, increasing water vapour in the atmosphere, as with any GHG, decreases the total amount of Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) for a given Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST). Second, if OLR is less than the Net Incoming Solar Radiation (NISR), surface temperatures will increase. The way the runaway greenhouse effect works is that, for a given atmospheric pressure, and GMST, as surface temperature increases the amount of evaporated H2O increases at a sufficient rate that the OLR stays constant. Because it stays constant, the gap between OLR and NISR cannot be closed while this situation occurs, and the temperatures must keep on increasing.
Eventually, of course, if this situation arises, the oceans will boil dry. At that point, the gap between OLR and will still exist, but can begin to close. That is, the system is not in a state of equilibrium at that point, but can finally achieve it over the course of time. (Technically it does not achieve equilibrium, but quasi equilibrium, ie, equilibrium approximated over a short time period of at least a year, given that solar insolation is not constant throughout the year.)
2) Energy transfers within the atmosphere are not restricted to just radiation. Therefore a model of atmospheric temperature that relies solely on radiative energy transfers will not accurately estimate surface temperatures. This was first shown by Manabe and Strickler (1964), from whom this figure comes:
As you can see, using a simple, one dimensional model they showed that if radiative transfers within the atmosphere were the sole source of energy transfers, that would result in a much warmer surface temperature (approx 30oC warmer). For Earth, energy transfers by convection and latent heat need to be accounted for in addition to those by radiation. On Venus, because of the absence of water vapour, only energy transfers by convection and radiation need to be accounted for. In a full Global Circulation Model, lateral energy tranfers also need to be accounted for.
The temperature profile of Venus atmosphere has been modeled. As one example, here is a one dimensional model equivalent to that from Manabe and Strickler from Tomasko et al (1980):
For what it is worth, here is a 2017 paper on a full Venus GCM (pay wall for full paper), and a 2017 update on another full Venus GCM.
-
JWRebel at 09:52 AM on 6 June 2017Milankovitch Cycles
I know it's an old thread. Huyber and Denton point out that when the NH is intense, the SH summer is longer, and that longer radiation is relatively more effective on the radiative balance when it is colder. Thus the second effect acts at the SH and ties this in to the effects on the NH.
Myself, I have never been able to find a completely satisfactory explanation of the 19 23 41 95 125 413 Kyr cycles, alternatively listed as 21 26 41 96 100 105 108 400, probably varying with orientation to either the eliptical orbit or to the azimuth, etc., but for me incomprehensible.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:45 AM on 6 June 2017Reflections on the politics of climate change
After reading and pondering the OP and comments I offer the following:
- using Terms without defining the term can result in unfortunate misunderstanding.
- points about True Libertarians, Good Objectives, and the necessity of Winners to have to prove they deserve to be Winners.
The term Religion/Religious needs to be clarified when used. The Concise Oxford Dictionary 7th ed. 1982 includes the potential definition “... 3. thing that a person is devoted to or is bound to do”. However, the main definitions of religion relate to spiritual beliefs. Therefore, without defining the intended meaning of the term “religion” it would incorrectly apply to anyone with a Spiritual belief, even though having Spiritual beliefs does not stop a person from accepting better understanding that develops because of things that can actually be reasoned with a basis of observation/sensing/experience (the Pope and so many others are proof of this).
I suggest that the term Dogma/Dogmatic would be more appropriate (and even that term may require clarification of its intended meaning).
Every Winner of leadership in business or government should have to prove that they are doing things for Good Reasons, and that they are willing to develop increased awareness and better understanding, even if (especially when) rational experience and observation based arguments are presented to them contrary to their initial Dogmatically (not religiously) Held Beliefs. If they fail to prove that, then they should legally be removed from power and influence.
The acceptance of what can be “sensed or observed” is an important point. My recent re-read of “On Liberty” makes me pretty certain that John Stuart Mill would expect Libertarians to limit the defence of Liberty of thought/opinion to personal preference opinions (matters without any reason based on observation/sense/experience - matters of personal preference with no potential impact on others if the opinion is expressed or acted on - matters like entertainment preferences or spiritual beliefs including atheism). They would not defend freedom of opinion and action on matters that have reasoned explanations based on observations and experience/experimentation, especially if the reasoning shows that potential harm is being done to others (and future generations are Others).
However, Mill would blame the society for failing to properly raise and educate such people. To Quote Mill, “If society lets a considerable number of its members grow up mere children, incapable of being acted on by rational consideration of distant motives, society has itself to blame for the consequences.”
I believe that the likes of Mill would be even more disappointed in a society that 'allowed members who grow up mere children' to Win competitions for impressions of success and leadership responsibility. They would be appalled that a nation that failed to reliably produce responsible adults had maintained significant global influence even though it had gone so far wrong as to elect those type of people to its Congress for decades, and ultimately elect such a 'grown-up mere child' to be its President.
My observation is that many 'perceived to be Advanced or Developed nations' also fail to raise mature responsible members of global society. It is a fatal flaw of many Modern societies.
Aboriginal societies have/had clear transitions into adulthood. The New Adult is made aware of their responsibility to help protect and improve the future of all its members.
As a Professional Engineer in Canada I was made aware of my obligation to vigilance and constant learning to honour my responsibility to protect the public from potential harm caused by pursuers of profit. My pursuit and application of the best understanding of what is going on means never allowing factors like Cheaper, Quicker or Easier to compromise the achievement of better safer results.
Humanity has been understood to be a global society for many decades. But it has not yet developed the global ability to ensure that 'members who grow up mere children' do not Win competitions or influence the thoughts and actions of responsible adults. Past generations had regionally established or Faith based rules to live by. They were typically presented in religious/spiritual texts (or passed down through generations verbally). The Old Testament Book of Leviticus is an example. It includes many “rules” that are now better understood and no longer followed, like the rule about the observation of mould in a home requiring a religious leader to inspect the mould, close the home for 7 days, and then reinspect for mould. If the mould remained after the seven days the home was to be demolished. That and many other “Dogmatically Established Rules” that were/are adhered to out of Faith and Fear have been reasonably corrected over time by developed better understanding (meeting with denial and attacks from dogmatic faithful followers).
Religious followers of almost all the developed faiths/belief systems should be striving to help others, particularly helping the poorest on the planet develop up to a sustainable better life. And they should strive to improve the future for everyone. Those are requirements in almost all of the religious texts, and many aboriginal value systems. They are also expectations of the thoughts and actions of Libertarians.
Global humanity has collectively developed a current better understanding of the measure of acceptability of the thoughts and actions of responsible adults (Leaders). Responsible adults would help achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. These goals are reason and experience based. Therefore, they are open to improvement, but only if a better experience based reason is developed.
The internationally agreed Sustainable Development Goals should be accepted as the current best global score card by everyone, the Spiritually inclined as well as atheist inclined.
Almost every sustainable development goal can be seen to match a requirement in almost every religion, with some new better understanding incorporated like the requirement for women to actually be considered equal to men. And it is clear that they all need tobe achieved, not just a selection of them.
So the bottom line is that the USA and many other nations have devolved into a damaging and ultimately unsustainable state. The failure of the USA has been evident for a while. The USA has a considerable number of its members growing up mere children, incapable of being acted on by rational consideration of distant good motives (more inclined to hold onto dogmatic beliefs). The climate science issue has exposed just how devolved the USA has become (and other nations). Winning leaders of government and leaders of business who have proven they will not be acted on by rational consideration of distant motives have been allowed to remain in their positions of power and influence. The recent winning of the Presidency of the USA by such a person is evidence that things are definitely far from Good in the USA.
Changing what has developed is clearly beyond what climate science communication can do. But climate science is undeniably the major Touchstone exposing the Changes required for Global Humanity to achieve and improve important reason-based objectives like the Sustainable Development Goals. And everyone including religious minded and Libertarians can understand the importance of meeting those objectives. The people who have grown up mere children, incapable of being acted on by rational consideration of distant good motives, need to be helped to change their minds or be kept from having their actions be of any significant consequence.
-
factotum at 09:01 AM on 6 June 2017Reflections on the politics of climate change
"This is a real tragedy because Republicans don’t want to pollute the planet. They don’t want to screw things up for our future generations."
Oh really??? and you have evidence to support this? Maybe, back in the Days of Richard Nixon, but today most republicans who are wealthy would cheerfully sell their children if it would improve their bottom line. And clearly they have no problems poisoning other peoples children if they can make a profit in the process. Or stealing their land through eminent domain. Just ask Mr. Trump
Moderator Response:[PS] Understandable but way over the line. Please ensure your comments comply with our comments policy.
-
DPiepgrass at 08:33 AM on 6 June 2017Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
A skeptic site claims that "almost all" proxy data diverges from the temperature record, and that therefore (1) the temperature record is wrong - too hot - and (2) the proxy record is misinterpreted, i.e. it was hotter in the past. They show this graph:
This particular graph doesn't seem to show even a single proxy matching the instrumental record.
SkS says that in fact some tree ring proxies still track the temperature record accurately, and I assume there are other proxies tracking accurately as well. I have some questions:
1. Can I get a graph of all the proxies "trusted by scientists" that zooms in on the period where an instrumental record exists (150 years) rather than the usual 1000+ years (assuming that's not too much to show on one chart)? (Btw - I assume some proxies apply only to certain latitudes, so maybe what is needed is a series of proxy-vs-instrumental-record charts, each for a different latitude range...)
2. Other than southern tree rings, which proxies are tracking accurately?
3. Are there proxies other than northern tree rings that are no longer tracking the instrumental record? If so, which ones? If they are no longer tracking now, then why would scientists have confidence in past readings?
4. The SkS argument list doesn't mention proxies at all, so you guys should add a general page about proxy myths. For instance, global warming diverges by latitude - and some proxies are only available at certain latitudes, which implies that in fact those proxies that "diverge" from the global temperature record are not necessarily diverging at all, but are doing exactly what scientists expect.
Moderator Response:[PS] See this page for list of proxy datasets used for paleoclimatology. If deniers are pushing some myth around proxies, then we would address it but there are other sites eg here dealing with summarizing the complex problems of paleoclimatology.
[RH] Fixed image width that was breaking page format. Try to keep your images 500px wide or less.
-
DPiepgrass at 07:52 AM on 6 June 2017It's Not About The Hockey Stick!
The video is invisible to me, I see blank white space. Tried two browsers. (Location: Philippines)
-
MVW at 06:57 AM on 6 June 2017Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
John and Others: I apologize - this may already be answered in the 5 pages of posts, but that is rough sledding.
I have read a number of papers on the runaway greenhouse effect (Hastings, 1988 and others) and can see how water vapor plays a role in spinning up the temps – a fascinating process. However, once the water is expensed, is the system left in a state of equilibrium? I asked because I tried to apply a simple one-layer equilibrium energy balance model to Venus. The TOA is fine, but I am not even in the ballpark on the surface temperature. A full radiative transfer model will likely get to a better answer, but I am wonder if you have any idea what assumptions or basic physics is missing from those models that they don’t hold on Venus?
Many thanks,
M
-
swampfoxh at 06:36 AM on 6 June 2017Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
I think it can be said that Ginko trees have existed on planet earth for an incredibly long time, even making in through the Cretaceous Extinction, the Eocene Thermal Maximum, a few dozen ice ages, etc. Does this mean that Ginko genetics are pretty well adapted to the viccitudes of global climate? What does adapted really mean? Does it have anything to do with complementary-cooperative-competitive biodiversity? If an organism arose on the planet, absent interference by humans, would it be because it was adapted to the environment in which it found itself? If a GMO is not a "natural organism" does it still have a place in the environment ? Is a GMO an alien organism? Do we chance mixing alien organisms with the planet's biodiversity and hope for the best or are we playing with an unquenchable fire? It seems to me that the proofs of anthropogenic climate change are pretty well settled and the research on vaccines takes us pretty close to accepted proofs, but is the "science" about GMO's of the same caliber?
-
nigelj at 17:38 PM on 5 June 2017Reflections on the politics of climate change
Bchip, just adding to my comment right above, I probably sound contradictory. I'm really saying countries obviously have some natural comparative advantages (eg maybe minerals) but can partly create their own comparative advantage, to an extent at least in manufacturing and services, but tariifs are maybe no longer the best way to nurture these. There are obviously other mechanisms.
-
nigelj at 17:06 PM on 5 June 2017Reflections on the politics of climate change
Bchip @17, your link is a long article, and I will definitely read it in detail later.
Just a brief response: I see comparative advantage theory as different from free trade, in the sense of tariff protection. This was really the point I was making. Comparative advantage theory is also rather debatable and simplistic, having read about half of Porters huge book on the subject. I think countries tend to make their own advantages..
I would just simplify the issue down to whether tariffs make sense in todays world, and I'm no longer convinced they do.
I also happen to live in NZ (Auckland). Small world isn't it! You are possibly an immigrant, so might not know NZs early history. NZ used to have a lot of tariff protection, and the result was high inflation, expensive imports etc. However manufacturing sector wages were good.
We got rid of those tariffs and inflation dropped, although income inequality increased. I think on balance we are better off as a nation, and inequality can be mitigated with income support (eg working for families). But I admit its hard to be 100% sure either way and there are no magic answers. I do think inequality and poor wages can become a big problem so if we go down the free trade route we have to do all we can to lift wages etc.
I do think if you do have tariffs, they need to be carefully focussed on just the areas of the economy where there's strong reasons, and not just because that area of the economy shouts loudest.
Interersting point on CO2 and exports. But that would be a problem whether we had free trade or protectionist trade. Basically NZ is so small we cant be self sufficient, so are really reliant on exports, more so than America. We have to live with that I think.
-
bjchip at 15:38 PM on 5 June 2017Reflections on the politics of climate change
One has to be careful even in international trade. "Free" trade is not easily accomplished between two nations. I submit that the complexities render it utterly impossible if the number involved is greater than two.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vladimir-a-masch/the-myth-of-comparative-a_b_581814.html
"....“Qualifications.” Almost each one is currently impossible to meet. For instance, prices of the traded products, wages, and currency rates have to be fully and instantly changeable, so that trade, in fact, becomes barter. Movement of money and technology across borders is prohibited, and so on....."
Much detail at the link.
I don't think we have ever had the sort of free trade that would actually work to benefit both nations, not anywhere, not ever. The beneficiaries are the multinational corporations that can work both sides of the deal and ship the profits to a third to escape taxes besides. I expect it can work for nations that are close, have shared borders and cheap transport between them.
NZ, where I live now, has a magnificent moat however, and its belief in free-trade is going to kill its really good trade based economy when the price of emitting CO2 starts to get built into the shipping costs. It doesn't work the same way for all nations.
-
nigelj at 12:58 PM on 5 June 2017Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
Marco @37 thanks for the comments, and there is some sense in what you say. I dont want to get offside with you as we share concerns about climate change.
But what you say sounds reassuring, until I read the comments by Jonas, who is quoting Scientific American, as opposed to some dubious anti-ge website. It proves my previous point, the gmo issue is still getting criticism that is sometimes quite compelling and reasonable. I could also list a lot of links from reputable science publications but time doesnt permit.
Monsanto still goes as far as it possibly can to get farmers to buy new seeds evey year, whether they need to or not. They sure play hardball.
I just wonder if you looked at the full costs and benefits of ge, at the widest scale, you might not find much advantage to ge. We may never know, as it seems people are determined not to find out.
-
nigelj at 07:13 AM on 5 June 2017Reflections on the politics of climate change
bchip @15, yes agreed.
Did you read my comment in 11 above on market fundamentalism being a religion? Tell me very briefly in a couple of words if you think I summed it up ok, if you have the time.
I will get to my view of how markets relate to the environment and climate change below.
Markets are certainly worshipped like a religion by some people. Its like some people put markets above all else in life, as some magical answer to everything. I see markets as more of a subset of a greater human enterprise, although a powerful and useful subset. When all is said and done, markets are just people making free agreements with each other. This is valuable and can lead to good decentralised decision making, and is compatible with the idea of competition, but markets clearly dont solve every problem. The market fundamentalists just wont acknowledge this simple fact, so we are on very opposite sides of the fence.
The extremes of communism, and lassez faire capitalism both dont make any sense to me either. They are both overly simplstic, flawed, knee jerk historical reactions to difficult historical conditions.
I like the current conventional, mainstream economic view, because its at least moderatly evidence based, and has an element of commonsense to it as well: Markets (and the private sector in general) work well for many things, but you sometimes have "market failures" and at that point the government has a role.
The environment / pollution etc is a classic case where markets dont self regulate, or provide sensible answers and most economists accept this. Therefore government needs to regulate or sometimes provide programmes like conservation estates etc.
The market, (or private sector) also struggles with provision of a police force, an army, road network planning, social security, and some elements of education and healthcare. These things are normally provided by governments and rightly so in general terms. However I dont think there is a fixed prescription for this, and obviously small countries need greater government provision of services and capital than large countries like the USA.
But free markets certainly make sense for trade and I dont think a return to protectionism makes sense.
The market fundamentalists claim government just makes things worse, but the historical evidence says otherwise, on the whole.
-
bjchip at 06:22 AM on 5 June 2017Reflections on the politics of climate change
Nigelj@13
"I would just add that moderately free markets are good, excessively free markets, deregulation, and extreme privatisation etc is bad."
Yes. The extremes at both ends must be avoided. It is noticable that the Rand-ist Capitalism and the Marxist Communism both suffer from the same philosophical malady. They cannot be implemented by fallible and often unreasonable humans. The market has a place... but it is not appropriate everyplace.Moreover, any real democracy depends on an informed public, and when free-market principles are applied to the news media, that is lost as well.
The conclusion that there is no "free" suggests itself.
-
HK at 04:21 AM on 5 June 2017It's waste heat
I really don’t understand why we should worry about waste heat from human activity. Now and in the near future it’s negligible compared to the forcing from man-made GHGs, as the article makes crystal clear.
The chart below – one of many interesting climate and energy charts available via the site of James Hansen and Makiko Sato – shows that the global energy consumption from waste heat generating sources (fossil & nuclear) was about 12 gigatonnes of oil equivalent in 2015. One tonne of oil equivalent is 42 gigajoules, so that represents a forcing of 0.031 watts/m2, slightly more than the number given in Flanner 2009, but still negligible. If the waste heat generation increased to 0.059 watts/m2 in 2040, it still wouldn’t be more than the CO2 forcing in 1874 or methane forcing in 1891 (relative to 1850), and nobody can claim that these greenhouse gases were a serious problem at that time.
What if the waste heat increased to a level equal to the modern CO2 forcing, about 2 watts/m2 relative to 1850? That would be 6 doublings or 64 times more than the 2015 number and finally enough to have a significant impact on the global climate, but it would still be a pretty minor problem. Why?
Look at the energy consumption chart again. Since 1900 the energy consumption from fossil & nuclear has increased about 20-fold. What has all that energy done in addition to releasing a negligible amount of waste heat and a far more significant amount of GHG?It has powered almost all the human activity in this period!
That includes urbanisation, transportation, agriculture, deforestation, mining, hunting, pollution and all kinds of economic activity that have caused large scale fragmentation or complete destruction of natural habitats and an increasing rate of extinctions. This is of course possible with muscle power too, but it’s much, much easier to, say, cut down a tropical rainforest with fossil fuel powered chainsaws and machines than with muscle powered axes.
The GHG emissions from fossil fuel is definitely a serious problem, but I will claim that it pales compared to all the habitat destruction that has been made so much easier by all the energy available from fossil fuels. The fragmentation of habitats has also made the remaining pockets of nature more vulnerable to climate change, as it makes it harder for many species to adapt by migrating to other places.How can anyone imagine that it would be possible to increase this energy consumption and the related human activity by a factor 64 or even 256 (8 doublings) without completely wrecking the last remains of nature on this planet? What on Earth would we need all that energy for? An American lifestyle for hundreds of billions of humans? How should we feed them? Does anyone actually believe it would be possible to transform Earth to a global city akin to Coruscant in Star Wars without a complete destruction of all ecosystem services? A few watts of waste heat per square metre really is a trivial problem compared to this.
Believing that human waste heat could grow to a level with significant global climate impacts without far more devastating consequences for all life on Earth isn’t just unrealistic, but complete madness!
-
newryqs at 04:00 AM on 5 June 2017Milankovitch Cycles
Dan. I also looked at the Wikipedia entry and wondered about its veracity. Remember. ANYONE can edit wikipedia.
Moderator Response:[PS] You are responding to a commentator from 6 years ago. While anyone can edit Wikipedia, the entry contain an excellent set of external links to reliable sources. A google search will find many more.
-
Jonas at 23:38 PM on 4 June 2017Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
Science is a method to construct knowledge.
This depends on open information on all levels:
political context, funding, research goals, open data, reproduceability, ..For climate science, most of the research is done at universities
and state controlled space organisations. As long as they are
sufficiently funded and can work independently, it's ok.
If government defunds (like Trump) or opens the door to
"research" by the fossil industry (advisers to EPA), it's not
science and is at least suspicious, if not void.The same holds true for any other scientific domain:
do I trust Exxon on climate change? No: there is a conflict
of interest, which intrinsically makes anything void they say on climate.
Do I trust Monsanto? No: it's product development and marketing.
Do I trust a medical company on statements about it's products? No.--
See also:
".. Unfortunately, it is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised. That is because agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers.
To purchase genetically modified seeds, a customer must sign an agreement that limits what can be done with them. .."
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research/
and
".. Systematic reviews are very, very onerous. In 2003, by coincidence, two were published, both looking specifically at the question we’re interested in. They took all the studies ever published that looked at whether industry funding is associated with pro-industry results. Each took a slightly different approach to finding research papers, and both found that industry-funded trials were, overall, about four times more likely to report positive results. A further review in 2007 looked at the new studies that had been published in the four years after these two earlier reviews: it found twenty more pieces of work, and all but two showed that industry sponsored trials were more likely to report flattering results. .."
--
and:
Science has got a big blow by allowing anonymous donations via PACs:
Heartland produces a "study": we can't tell who paid for it.
If in doubt, it should be ignored: undisclosed funding is not science:
undisclosed funding usually is hiding conflicts of interest;
which are intrinsically not science, be it consciously or unconsciously. -
Daniel Bailey at 22:08 PM on 4 June 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #22
Not quite:
"With the more realistic physics in the Russell model the runaway water vapor feedback that exists with idealized concepts does not occur. However, the high climate sensitivity has implications for the habitability of the planet, should all fossil fuels actually be burned.
Furthermore, we show that the calculated climate sensitivity is consistent with global temperature and CO2 amounts that are estimated to have existed at earlier times in Earth's history when the planet was ice-free.
One implication is that if we should "succeed" in digging up and burning all fossil fuels, some parts of the planet would become literally uninhabitable, with some time in the year having wet bulb temperature exceeding 35°C.
At such temperatures, for reasons of physiology and physics, humans cannot survive, because even under ideal conditions of rest and ventilation, it is physically impossible for the environment to carry away the 100 W of metabolic heat that a human body generates when it is at rest. Thus even a person lying quietly naked in hurricane force winds would be unable to survive.
Temperatures even several degrees below this extreme limit would be sufficient to make a region practically uninhabitable for living and working.
The picture that emerges for Earth sometime in the distant future, if we should dig up and burn every fossil fuel, is thus consistent with that depicted in "Storms" — an ice-free Antarctica and a desolate planet without human inhabitants"
So no runaway. But Hansen notes that it won't take a runaway to basically completely eradicate civilization as we know it.
Further, unlike the simple example of positive feedback we learned in high school, the increase from every round of feedback gets smaller and smaller, in the case of the enhanced greenhouse effect. It is a significant factor in the overall warming, but it does NOT lead to a "runaway" trajectory for temperature.
-
Marco at 18:44 PM on 4 June 2017Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
nigelj: the problem with traditional breeding techniques that involve production of hybrids is that these usually have very different results when going to next generations. That means farmers usually decide to buy new seeds every year, to make sure they have the same consistent quality. Moreover, most companies selling such hybrids require buyers to sign a contract that says they cannot reuse the seeds.
GMO seeds are not sterile at all - although introduction of a sterility gene has been proposed as a way to prevent them from germinating 'in the wild', but the general public didn't want this at all. Perhaps somewhat ironically, Monsanto's acquisition of a company has helped stop the commercialization of the so-called terminator genes.
Regarding the zucchini scare, just google "zucchini New Zealand toxic".
Moderator Response:[PS] Can I remind commentators again, that discussions of pro/cons of GMO is offtopic. Discussion of whether sources relied on by anti-GMO activists conform to the article characteristics of deniers are on-topic. I would note that the "NZ toxic zucchini" seems to more confirm the article rather than refute it.
-
longjohn119 at 15:13 PM on 4 June 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #22
When you denude a forest you release tons of Carbon .... when you plow fields you release tons of Carbon .... However the largest increase is likely due to thawing tundra and the release of CO2 trapped in ice that's now gone.
It's a classic positive feedback mechanism only this time it run in reverse with CO2 leading and Temperature following whereas under natural conditions the Temperature leads and the CO2 levels follow as tundra thaws and releases Carbon. The Feedback mechanism works as such More CO2 = more warming which causes more CO2 to be released which causes even more warming which causes even more CO2 to be released .... Lather rinse repeat until you go into a runaway feedback condition AKA Tipping Point or something catastrophic happens such as a large meteor strike or a shift in the Earth's axis to make break the feedback loop and lower temperatures
-
Art Vandelay at 14:37 PM on 4 June 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #22
Some good news in that data though. The annual increase is half that of the previous year, and a levelling off of global CO2 emissions means that the projected annual percentage increase will continue to decelerate.
-
bjchip at 13:59 PM on 4 June 2017Reflections on the politics of climate change
Nigelj@9
I think the point I am coming to is that the "free market fundamentalism" is in all the ways that matter, a religion. Nor would I expect an evangelical to deal well with the issue simply because the surrounding environment for that movement is so deep in denial, but I don't think it is deterministic. We see that evangelicals who DO follow the science and there are no few of them, don't have a problem.
What appears to be true of them is that they do not subscribe to that belief in the free-market solving everything. The ones who expect God to solve every problem for them are less common. The ones who take stewardship seriously I think, more common.
"Lord..I pray and I pray and I never win the lotto." and the Lord says "Meet me halfway on this and buy a ticket" :-) ...that sort of lazy.
-
nigelj at 13:33 PM on 4 June 2017Reflections on the politics of climate change
I would just add that moderately free markets are good, excessively free markets, deregulation, and extreme privatisation etc is bad.
By analogy, (since this website loves analogies) morphine or even panadols are great things, but too much and you end up dead. And the change point is quite sudden.
Just think of the GFC. The causes were partly market deregulation, and greed is good ideologies and how close that got to a terminal disaster. And who bailed out the whole mess, and the missbehaving banks? The long suffering tax payer. That's probably you and me.
-
KR at 13:18 PM on 4 June 2017Reflections on the politics of climate change
Regarding the free market mentality, I am reminded of a particular quote:
Upton Sinclair — 'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.'
-
nigelj at 12:55 PM on 4 June 2017Reflections on the politics of climate change
bchip @10, yes free market fundamentalism ( sometimes called neo liberalism or the chicago school) is definitely a religion, or very analogous to a religion. I have recently read some of Joseph Stiglitz's books, and all deal with the issue very sensibly, and nice writing style, a rare combination). You are maybe familar with his books, but I mention it anyway if anyone wants a a really good read.
I see it this way: Market fundamntalism is a belief system riddled with assumptions. It is not based on fully tested evidence, so is not science. Economics is both science and prescription, and market fundamentalism is based very much on a made up, contentious prescription, full of very dubious assumptions and value judgements many of which just happen to be of financial benefit to the economists who prepare this creed! Ha ha, like low taxes on high income earners. Mana to the Republican Party just what they want to hear. The GFC has proven some of the beliefs of market fundamentalism to be complete trash.
So with market fundamentalism you have worship of ideas that are not tangibly proven ideas, similar to belief in a god, worship of books on the subject that are often in clear contradiction with evidence in the real world, worship of guru like leaders like Friedman, Rand, Greenspan etc. There is dogma and ritual, yes very much like a religion.
In fact just for the record, I do believe in largely free markets, but there do need to be some constraints at times, and a sensible country, and sensible government, helps poor people. Of course I am also promoting what is ultimately a belief, but I can back it with obvious logical reasons, and some hard evidence and consistency of thought. In comparison, market fundamentalism is a bit nutty, and obviously very self interested, and not in a good way, and is unable to deal with changing realities in the real world in a measured way, and ends up just sloganising.
So its not entirely unexpected that some religious fundamentalists might be attracted to market fundamentalism.
I agree there are many shades of evangelical christians with different beliefs on climate and economics, so one shouldn't generalise too much, and I have seen this, but the association with climate denial, and certain types of leaders, and materialism is still so strong I just wonder if something in religious fundamentalism or evangelicism is somewhat deterministic. It's certainly a close association. Perhaps it attracts certain types of personality, but where do the characteristics of the personalities and rules and structure of the belief and chruch start and stop? They are intermingled.
-
bjchip at 12:04 PM on 4 June 2017Reflections on the politics of climate change
Nigelj@9
I think the point I am coming to is that the "free market fundamentalism" is in all the ways that matter, a religion. Nor would I expect an evangelical to deal well with the issue simply because the surrounding environment for that movement is so deep in denial, but I don't think it is deterministic. We see that evangelicals who DO follow the science and there are no few of them, don't have a problem.
What appears to be true of them is that they do not subscribe to that belief in the free-market solving everything. The ones who expect God to solve every problem for them are less common. The ones who take stewardship seriously I think, more common.
"Lord..I pray and I pray and I never win the lotto." and the Lord says "Meet me halfway on this and buy a ticket" :-) ...that sort of lazy.
-
Tom Curtis at 11:13 AM on 4 June 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #22
Trevor_S @1, CO2 emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels have indeed flatlined:
That does not include emissions from cement manufacture, and nor does it include emissions from LUC. It is, therefore, quite possible that total anthropogenic emissions have continued to rise. (Certainly emissions from cement manufacture are likely to have done so.)
More importantly, a plateau in emissions still means anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing. A plateau will only mean the increase is at a constant rate rather than at an accelerating rate as has been the case prior to 2014.
Finally, the three years of the fossil fuel emissions plateau have also, each set a new Global Mean Surface Temperature record. With higher temperatures comes a reduced rate of absorption of CO2 by the ocean, and consequently a rise in CO2 concentration. This factor will average out with slower rises in concentration in likely neutral or La Nina years in the near future.
-
blackhole at 11:11 AM on 4 June 2017Temp record is unreliable
I reviewed with interest the comments made to cosmoswarrior et. al. in comments 405-414. Tom Curtis points out in comment 406 that there is almost no difference between the raw and adjusted data from 1980-present for GNCNv3 data. Examining your plot, I would have to say I fully agree. Similarly, you showed plots of the new corrections, old corrections, and uncorrected NOAA temperature dataset in the figures in comment 409. Again, I would have to agree there is not much difference between three from about 1940 forward.
There is one statement you made, however, that needs correction. This is in comment 413(2) where you state:
Heller's giff does not demonstrate any significant change in values. Rather, it exhibits a change in the range of the y-axis from -0.6 to 0.8 for "NASA 2001" to approximately -0.85 to 1 for "NASA 2015". That represents a 32% increase and accounts for nearly all of the apparent change in trend - particlularly post 1980.
I downloaded this animated .gif file myself and extracted the individual images for 2001 and 2015. I then compared scales by copying and pasting the two axises from the 2015 image onto the 2001 image, and then sliding each axis from the 2015 image next to the corresponding axis of the 2001 image. It turned out that the horizontal axises of the two images were identical and the scale of the vertical 2015 image was slightly smaller than that of the 2001 image. Therefore, the actual slopes of the data plot for 2015 are slightly higher than what they appear in the plot image. I would have shown this image, but I am not sure how to do it just yet. While this data is not important for the points I want to make and carries no credibility with you, I thought I should point out the error since the topic came up recently.
From what you have pointed out in your most recent comments, it seems that you have debunked the myth about NOAA eliminating the "warming hiatus" in its paper of 2015. What happened was that we had a warming trend from about 1980 until 1998 when the warming rates were greatly reduced. We then continued on that level trend until 2015 when NOAA announced that they had shown with their "corrected" data that the warming hiatus never existed. Contrary to NOAA's claims, however, you pointed out that the corrected and uncorrected data are very nearly identical and therefore could not have eliminated the hiatus. This means, of course, that the hiatus not only existed back in 1998 but continues to this day.
So thanks for your inputs, Tom Curtis. You have been most helpful to us "climate contrarians" in making our case.
Moderator Response:[DB] Pathological liar and sock puppet of serial spammer cosmoswarrior has recused himself from further participation here in this iteration.
[PS] Also someone that seems absolutely determined that deniers have no concept of logic, critical thought or comprehension when it comes to trying to defend a preconceived position.
-
Trevor_S at 10:17 AM on 4 June 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #22
So where is all this CO2 coming from ? The IEA keeps reassuring us and folk like Stefan Rahmstorf use this data to suggest athrophogenic emisions have 'flatlined' for the last three years, for example here.. is it we're being misled about anthro emisions, as suggested here backed up by a real world example here ? or are sinks finally giving their CO2 up ie old anthro CO2 emissions coming back to haunt us, we have no El Nino to blame
-
nigelj at 09:23 AM on 4 June 2017Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
There is a real danger here that by associating silly, illogical sorts of criticisms with specific issues, that we label anyone who has any criticism of climate science, vaccines or nuclear power zealots or ideologues, even when they are asking perceptive questions. Maybe the article could have been worded just a little more sensitively or just noted that there is nothing wrong with fact based or evidence based criticism (even if it turns out to ultimately be wrong).
The article was completely right in the main though, in terms of listing the various logical fallacies, and its fair to say there seems to be a group who see almost any new science as deeply suspicious and come up with the same fallacy arguments.
I don't have a fundamnetal objection to nuclear power. If you dont have coal or oil, then you have to use what options you can find. France appears to be in that category, or was in the past, although I stand to be corrected. Or did they not want to rely on imported coal from germany?
But I wouldn't want nuclear power in my country. We have numerous other energy options, an accident would decimate our economy as it could contaminate agricultural crop exports, and we are hugely reliant on those. We also get a lot of earthquakes almost everywhere. The issue comes down to benefits versus risks and costs and every country will be different. Not all criticisms of certain issues are foolish criticisms.
-
Tom Curtis at 08:35 AM on 4 June 2017It's waste heat
green tortoise @159, that is a very valid point, and also applies to fusion power (if and when it becomes viable). However, it places a cap on fision and/or fusion power at approximately the total current human energy use, or there abouts. If the deployment rates were favourable, we would do well to transfer all human power consumption to fision and/or fusion now, and restrict future energy growth to renewables. Unfortunately the deployment rates are not favourable, so that we are better of going straight to renewables with potentially some further construction of fision and/or fusion power to meet specific needs (marine transport comes to mind).
-
green tortoise at 07:46 AM on 4 June 2017It's waste heat
The paper from Mark G. Flanner (2009) "Integrating anthropogenic heat flux with global climate models" arrives at the following numbers for:
Global "waste heat" flux: 0.028 W/m2 in 2005 and 0.059 W/m2 in 2040
Regional "waste heat flux": up to 0.68 W/m2 in 2005 and 0.89 W/m2 in 2040 (both numbers for West Europe).
In a regional to local level both greenhouse and waste heat warming can be significant, approaching the current level of greenhouse forcing (3W/m2) in some areas (table 2).
This result supports the earlier, coarser work of Chaisson (2008) , "Long-Term Global Heating from Energy Usage", that arrives at the conclusion that global warming from waste heat alone can warm the planet by 3°C in 8 doubling times of the global non-renewable energy consumption. At a 2% growth rate in energy consumption this would happen in 280 years and at 1% growth rate in 320 years.
I see no loophole in this result, indicating that carbon neutrality is a necessary, but by no means sufficient, condition to prevent overheating a planet. In the longer term, net energy neutrality is also necessary.
Renewable energy that takes energy already in the environment can do the trick, and there are lots of it. On the other hand, carbon-neutral non-renewable energy sources like nuclear or fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage do not.
Prev 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 Next
