Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 Next
Comments 19701 to 19750:
-
scaddenp at 06:57 AM on 2 June 2017Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
To all commentators - Keep this on topic.
The topic concerns abuse of science, poor logic, and a variety of techniques used to bolster anti-science positions by various groups. Discussions about use or otherwise of these faults by groups is on topic.
However this is not place for discussion of pros and cons of GMO, vaccines or anything else. Only for the types of arguments that might used to support those positions.
Thank you for your consideration of the moderators.
-
nigelj at 06:30 AM on 2 June 2017Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
Marco @13
"Contamination of "natural crops" by these new varieties (of natural crops) will also take place."
Yes of course you are right, but this is not really the issue. People should have a choice between gmo crops and crops developed through traditional breeding. At least this is what the consumer is asking for. There is a big difference between traditional breeding and gmos, in terms of gmos produce radical changes immediately and involve delivery mechanisms in how new genes are spliced in.
"Finally, to the best of my knowledge GMOs have to be tested for safety, whereas those new plant varieties produced through conventional breeding do not"
Yes but there are reasons for this. Traditional breeding has been used for decades, in fact centuries and at a time when safety testing was not feasible, but with the passage of time no evidence has emerged of significant safety concerns. In effect the system has been proven to be safe by the passage of time. In comparison gmo's are a new system of crop development, so in our hopefully enlightened age should be safety tested before it is widely implimented.
I'm not saying gmo's are suspect and should be banned. In fact the science obviously has potential. I am saying I'm they need to be rigorously tested and the testing by industry itself has a track record of at least some problems, as they are driven by financial circumstances to cut corners. There is also some independent testing of gmo's, but when you read about this there's evidence of conflicts of interest etc. It needs to be much better,as the stakes are high with gmo crops, obviously if something goes wrong it will affect huge numbers of people. Yes I know you are splicing genes and this is claimed to be inherently safe as it simply mimics a natural process, but there is the question of the delivery mechanism etc.
We also have other concerns about Monsanto having the characteristics of a monopoly, and the ability to dominate the market and make farmers very dependent on it's seeds. This has been documented many times so no need to go into details, other than to say it is self evidently a concerning issue.
These are not illogical or unreasonable criticisms of gmo crops. Nobody is alleging a conspiracy, or cherry picking unusual studies that support their view, or quoting fake experts etc. Most of the comments made criticising gmo crops above are perfectly reasonable and deserve meticulous and utterly proven responses.
I just think the gmo issue is huge. It may have a great future, but we need to be very careful.
I read some of the articles on recent meta studies on safety and crop yields and performance. Gmo's dont radically increase yields or profits etc. The gains are certianly significant, but often rather modest. This has to be weighed against concerns about these crops. All I ask is do this very carefully and transparently, and with studies free of industry bias, and of serious depth.
-
Lancifer at 06:19 AM on 2 June 2017Donald Trump just cemented his legacy as America’s worst-ever president
Trump ended the US participation in the charade that is the Paris Climate Accord. Even if the US and other signatories fulfilled their commitments it would make less than a 0.3 degrees Celcius difference by 2100, assuming one believes the models that have failed to reflect reality.
The agreement requires no commitment at all from the world's number one emitter of CO2, China, until 2030. Trump is quite correct; The Paris Accord was a very poor deal for the US, even if you think increasing a benefial trace gas by one part in ten thousand is a problem.Moderator Response:[DB] This venue has a Comments Policy that all participants implicitly agree to abide by. Please read it at length and formulate future comments to adhere to it. Thanks!
Sloganeering snipped.
-
bjchip at 05:07 AM on 2 June 2017Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
swampfoxh - this sounds like an excuse for us to all sit around drinking beer. I have to like it :-)
-
bjchip at 05:06 AM on 2 June 2017Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
#9 gingcko
this is not unique to GE crops; almost all seeds purchased by farmers are patented and licensed.
Maybe... but they aren't for sterile plants, and the farmers here make a substantial effort to keep seed costs down ... but the point is not about the purchasing, it is about who benefits from taking a risk when deploying a new species. The risk is public, the profits are private.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted
https://www.ecowatch.com/organic-farmer-dealt-final-blow-in-landmark-lawsuit-over-monsantos-gmo-1882173163.html
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/11/11/how-monsanto-controls-the-future-of-food.aspx
(( I have doubts about that last one... some of the points are variable depending on the reason for working with GE and there are some good reasons to work with GE - "roundup-ready" is not among them))
how?!? it's not like these plants will take over the world; agricultural varieties fare notoriously poorly without the extra care from farmers
The nature of the crops means that "isolating" the various genes is not as simple as not planting them next year. The likelihood of being able to grow real "non-GMO" corn in a country where adjacent fields are using it, is small. Not the willingness, the ability.
For a country like NZ - going to GMO is a one-way-street. We would not be able to un-release anything once it is planted in the wild. It may be useful for heat-tolerance and drought tolerance in the future... but to allow it to be done for profit?
The attitudes and abuses of the in this respect, and the willingness to deal with GMO as a means of breeding roundup-ready superweeds is not something to just ignore.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/oct/19/gm-crops-insecurity-superweeds-pesticides
http://www.nature.com/news/genetically-modified-crops-pass-benefits-to-weeds-1.13517
It may be true that the GE crop doesn't make the weeds adapt any more quickly, but the additional herbicides definitely do... and the profits are in the sale of the herbicides
... which aren't good for human consumption.
Much of the difficulty comes from this herbicide-friendly, not disease-resistant approach to the GM that is done.
The point I make and insist on, is that this is a tool, and it is not a tool that can simply be handed over to any corporation to be used to "make money". That is a lot of my resistance to GMO, and it isn't a total rejection of GMO.
The point that I am making is that the science isn't the issue, the politics of profit are the issue.
There are damned few absolutes in science. The abuse of the commons as a result of the pursuit of profit is however, absolutely predictable human behaviour.
-
rocketeer at 04:10 AM on 2 June 2017Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
@knaugle the UN estimates 4000 deaths from Chernobyl ("Chernobyl: the true scale of the accident". WHO. WHO/IAEA/UNDP) so it seems to be in the same league as Bhopol. Chernobyl and Fukushima also caused created evaculation zones covering hundreds of square miles shich are still not safely inhabitable. We can argue whether these disasters were worse or better than Bhopal, but they certainly don't make the case for nuclear power being safe.
As for GMOs, they are neither inherently safe or dangerous. (if you splice genes coding for puffer fish toxin into a tomato, I don't think anyone would say it is safe.) More relevantly, GMO crops modified to be tolerant of herbicides may be safe, but the heavy applications of herbicide that inevitably follow may not be. I am also leary about these modifications giving huge corporations undue influence over our food supply. Making rice with vitamin A is fine. As with many technologies, it is what you do with it that matters.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:58 AM on 2 June 2017Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
In my comment@18 I meant to say: "...the future difficulty curtailing profitable and popular "New Developments"..."
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:54 AM on 2 June 2017Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
Marco@13,
I agree. It is the pursuit of limited personal benefit by the people developing a new plant, GMO or Otherwise, that is the problem. And no amount of safety testing will test and expose what actually happens when the new plant is "Freed into the complexity of the entire envirionment", especially if the developer and hoped to be beneficiary is trusted to do the testing and reporting.
And once some amount of benefit is being obtained by some people from the "New thing that is being done", evidence that it is harmful often fails to change "their" minds about what they try to benefit from.
The same thing can be seen in the actions of poeple who like to benefit from burning fossil fuels. Many people deliberately resist accepting new evidence and better understanding because it is contrary to their established personal interest (even if, perhaps especially if, it can be understood that they have over-developed perceptions of prosperity and opportunity away from, or detrimental to, a sustainable better future for humanity).
It is true that some "purist, anti-new things" over-react to new developments. But the massive previous history of the future difficulty curtailing profitable and profitable "New Developments", or attempting to undo the damage done by development (especially over-development), in the wrong or damaging direction, would mean many of those "purists" are simply being cautious (truly conservative) about what potentially less considerate people (people who prefer to believe whatever they want and do as they please) may try to get away with personally benefiting from.
-
rocketeer at 03:52 AM on 2 June 2017Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
Need to add a column for Creationists.
-
knaugle at 03:44 AM on 2 June 2017Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
From a scientific standpoint, there is little in GMO food that causes me alarm. If one identifies a problem, like vitamin A deficiency in the far East, and solves it with a GMO rice that makes extra carotine? Problem solved, hurray! In a similar vein, if I had a dollar for everyone I've encountered who says nuclear power is "unsafe", I'd have hundreds of dollars for sure. Yet in order to talk safety, you have to have some idea what the real risks are. The actual damage caused by TMI-2, Chernobyl, and Fukushima combined, pales in comparison to the carnage of the Bophal, India Union Carbide accident that killed 10,000 people. Yet people need their chemicals ...
In a sense, to me anyway, climate science differs from other things people choose to fear. The Deniers actively reject that there are any risks at all. Where in other forms of science rejection, people blow all things out of proportion, the anti-AGW folk seem intent on keeping the science all bottled up.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 03:38 AM on 2 June 2017Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
swampfoxh... Surely you grasp that your personal experience cannot possibly be validated. You're coming to sweeping conclusions based on one data point: You.
It would require a full study involving 100's, and preferably 1000's, of subjects over many years to see if there was any validity to your claim.
-
swampfoxh at 03:05 AM on 2 June 2017Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
Okay, explain this: I've been drinking cheap beer for 50 years. Walk into any store today and the cheapest beer is mostly coors, busch, miller, etc. About three years ago, I started noticing that when I drink cheap beer, I suffer from anal wetness. That's right! I dirty my pants with liquified feces. Not a lot, maybe a teaspoon, but enough to keep me out of the public until I have a shower. I never had this problem before (I'm 74), so I talk to my guy friends about it and viola! They (most of them) have the same problem with cheap beer. We all laugh about it and most of us have stopped buying cheap beer although sometimes you try a new cheap beer on the premise that maybe it won't make you defecate in your pants, but some do, some don't. Then a couple of us science types delve into what the cheap beer companies are using for their brew and what do we discover? Cheap beer is cheap because it containes GMO grains!!! and it has been being made with GMO grains for about the last three years!!! Can you imagine? No Sh--! GMO beer is cheaper to make so its cheaper to buy. So if GMO are "safe"...safe for whom? If GMO beer makes my underwear "distasteful" what else is it doing to my body? Nobody knows. And "Nobody" includes the scientists that are telling us that GMOs are "safe".
Moderator Response:[DB] Your entire comment devolves to an argument from your personal incredulity. Please read this venue's Comments Policy and construct future comments to comply with it. Thanks!
-
Marco at 02:17 AM on 2 June 2017Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
@bvangerven and others,
Yes, you are using invalid arguments. What most people seem to not know is that new varieties made through conventional breeding techniques are usually protected by IPR, too. In fact, the so-called PVRs (plant variety rights) are often of longer(!) duration than the protection of GMOs, which can only be patented. Contamination of "natural crops" by these new varieties will also take place.
In other words, the objections to GMOs offered here are actually not objections to GMOs.
Finally, to the best of my knowledge GMOs have to be tested for safety, whereas those new plant varieties produced through conventional breeding do not (maybe there are some countries where it is required? Anyone know?). That is, the potential toxicity of GMOs may very well apply to, and maybe to an even larger extent, to those non-GMO new varieties, but we don't know, because they need not be tested for safety!
-
bvangerven at 17:33 PM on 1 June 2017Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
I am against GMOs and all for taking climate action. Am I reproaching climate change deniers for using arguments that I use against GMOs ? I don't think so.
I don’t think that all genetic scientists in the world are bought off by Monsanto, however I am convinced that studies funded by Monsanto are not neutral. Studies funded by industries never are, this has become clear from numerous examples from the past.
A similar argument in the climate debate is not that climate scientists have been bought off, but that climate change deniers have been bought off by the fossil fuel industry. After all, who would buy off thousands of climate scientists to come up with a false global warming story, and where would the money come from ? There is a renewables industry now but there was scarcely one 20 years ago, so they wouldn’t have the money to pay for a “big scam” like that. The fossil fuel industry, on the other hand is the biggest in the world, worth about 5 trillion dollars. Denialist think thanks have been proven to be sponsored by fossil fuel companies.
My main objection against GMOs is: agriculture is the most decentralized industry on earth. Anyone with a couple of seeds can grow food, and that fact is the best protection against famine. Corporations like Monsanto want to monopolize this industry, and they do that by pushing patented seeds on the market. In the end every farmer would have to pay Monsanto, year after year, just for the right to sow a crop.
Once GMOs are widespread, nothing can prevent cross-breeding. Natural crops will get genetically contaminated, and this process is irreversible. Eventually farmers won’t even have the choice anymore to grow natural crops. So giving some farmers the freedom to use GMOs is taking the freedom of others away to use uncontaminated seeds.
Am I using invalid arguments ?
Moderator Response:[DB] Sloganeering snipped. Please revue this venue's Comments Policy. Thanks!
-
Ian Forrester at 15:13 PM on 1 June 2017Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
I wondered how long it would take for a GMO apologist to show up. He just shows that GMO apologists act in the same way as AGW deniers. They can't provide any evidence but use ad hominem comments and use of the F word fraud and fraudulent. I wish they would actually show how Arpad Pusztai's work is fraudulent. He was a well-respected scientist and was chosen with two other groups to set up safety protocols for GMO organisms by the UK Government.
Some of the anti-science tactics of the GMO shills and apologists can be found here:There is plenty of evidence of fraud in the testing of chemicals and pesticides, all paid for by the companies producing the tested products. Check out the history of Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories and Craven Laboratories whose pricipals were sent to jail for fraud. To compare respected scientsts with those criminals just shows how low the GMO apologists will go.
Moderator Response:[DB] Inflammatory rhetoric snipped. Please comport and construct all comments in accordance with this venue's Comments Policy.
Also, please link citations as I have done for you; thanks!
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:59 PM on 1 June 2017Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
I also question the inclusion of anti-GMO activists as a category. While I am a supporter of the development of GMO items, like the many varieties of wheat that Canadian researchers developed through interbreeding, I am skeptical of profit and popularity motivated GMO development.
If the developer/maker of a GMO crop had to be the owner of every farm it was grown on, and be responsible to ensure the GMO crop did not contaminate any adjacent owner land (with very steep penalties if cntamination occurred), and suffer any lack of actual economic merit (rather than just pocket the profit from the seeds and the chemicals it is designed to work with), then there may be less reason to be skeptical of GMO development.
Organic crop growers can be disqualified from that desired classification if their crop is "potentially" contaminated by a GMO. Yet the laws of Free Trade have been globally abused to penalize a farmer whose field has been contaminated, claiming the farmer stole the legally protected GMO item.
Actually, it is probably necessary to deem GMO development to be a public service, not allowed to be owned by any entity or nation (not allowed to be pursued for profit). There would still be concerns about the true safety of the Globally collectively Government funded University researched and developed items interacting with "all of nature", something that is virtually impossible to test in advance of releasing it (similar to the way it is not possible to test run a global anti-warming system).
Humans really need to stop playing around with artificial creations and focus on getting better at understanding the real world that exists (and try to re-establish aspects of the environment and robust diversity of living things that human artificial industrial over-development in the wrong directions has unintentionally compromised or eliminated), and collectively figure out the diversity of regionally specific ways humans can best sustainably be a part of this amazing planet.
Technological developments may create perceptions of prosperity and opportunity. But their development have failed to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (a developed better understanding that has significant merit as the basis for determining what is acceptable and what needs to be discouraged, though it can still be improved). It is time to accept that "freer pursuit of popularity and profitability will develop sustainable good things making the future better" is flawed economic thinking.
Global GDP and other measures of wealth have grown faster than global population. And there is more than enough food produced for the entire current population to eat a nutritious adequate diet. Yet many people still suffer a horrible brief existence. And the ability of pursuers of profit to create new artificial GMO foods will not change that. The required change is unlikely to occur if profitability and popularity remain as the basis for justifying an action (a related example of the problem of profitability and popularity is that plastic debris in the oceans would never be cleaned up unless someone can make a profit from doing the clean-up. Popularity has limited the clean up to locations where it bothers wealthy people.).
The games humans play need to change into ones that robustly support the disruptive changes required to bring about the Sustainable Development Goals. Concurrent action is required on all of them in every part of the planet, including actions on climate change and the elimination of poverty, even if actions contrary to those goals are temporarily regionally profitable or if pursuing the goals is regionally temporarily unpopular.
Popularity and profitability clearly need to be kept from damaging or interfering with humanity's advance to a better future. And pursuers of popularity and profitability any way they can get away with clearly cannot be relied on to make that happen. Unhelpful influence has to be separated from leadership (leadership is about deciding what to encourage and what to discourage, in business and government).
This climate science issue exposes the requirement for disruptive change that makes real science and constantly improved understanding Win everywhere, the sooner the better.
-
ginckgo at 13:58 PM on 1 June 2017Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
Seems like we hit a raw nerve in including GMO opposition in this group. People seem to completely miss the point, and resort to motivated reasoning to insist 'skepticism' about GMOs is not the same. Well it is EXACTLY the same for several reasons nicely illustrated in the above comments:
#2 bjchip: "There are aspects to the GMO issue that aren't addressed by science. One is the matter of ownership and for whose benefit the technology is deployed."
this is not unique to GE crops; almost all seeds purchased by farmers are patented and licensed.
"Once deployed non-GMO is no longer a choice that is available to the consumer."
how?!? it's not like these plants will take over the world; agricultural varieties fare notoriously poorly without the extra care from farmers. They will not turn into weeds just because they have a few pest resistant genes inserted.
#3 JWRebel: “People have ample reason to doubt studies carried out or funded (no matter how remote the connection) by Monsanto or big Pharma, just as there is ample cause to doubt climate change impact studies by Exon or the IEA. . Climate change science is "open source": the model is sharing all available data and knowledge and peer review. The model pursued by bigPharma and Monsanto is proprietary and closed: Instead of sharing the available data and knowledge, their model is to guard their secrets and to exploit patents and knowledge as long as possible.”
wait, either we can see the studies published in order to doubt them, or they are closed and hidden and we don’t have anything to critique
“with respect to what is a healthy diet the science in not settled”
that is irrelevant, as the GE foods are not different to other varieties. Unless you believe inserting a single gene that codes for glyphosate tolerance somehow affects the whole genome?
“doubts about the wisdom of interference in very complex ecologies”
how can most GE crops interfere with ecology though, especially in ways that other varieties don’t? Golden Rice or drought resistant crops will not have any impact on environment.
“GMO crops reduce resiliency, increase the demand for pesticides and fertilizer, and impoverish the soil”
now you’re clutching at straws. Define this ‘resilience’, and of what? GE crops actually tend to reduce pesticide and fertilised use, and don’t have a more detrimental effect on soil than other crops.
#4 “people who oppose the unrestricted use of GMOs is wrong.”
GE crops are literally the most regulated food industry out there. If traditionally bred crops were subjected to this level of testing probably a good proportion wouldn’t make the cut.
“To claim that there are no papers showing deleterious health effects from eating GMOs is just a blatant lie”
every single one of those has turned out to be flawed at best, and literally fraudulent at worst
-
Trevor_S at 12:50 PM on 1 June 2017Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
I object to GMO's not because of the Science but because of the ridiclious nature of IP and Patent law. I don't see how that's the same as vax and climate denial ?
-
RedBaron at 12:03 PM on 1 June 2017Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
I would have to agree here with the commenters objecting to a parallel with anti-GMO activism.
Genetic Engineering technology is a tool. Like all tools, it can be put to good use or bad. In the case of medicine more often than not good use. But in agriculture, more often than not bad use. I would like to see better use of the tech. Sadly though we generally don't see it, partly because of the plutocrasy.
That's the big difference between the two. The big money is on Climate Denial and GMOs. Often the same money too, as by far the majority of plant GMOs were designed for use in fossil fuel guzzling industrialized AG models of production.
-
nigelj at 07:25 AM on 1 June 2017Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
Well said in the main. I have often observed anti science people using the same range of logically flawed arguments. It's poor quality scepticism, known as sophistry, as opposed to a more penetrating and healthy, rational scepticism. At the risk of stating the obvious, we do need some healthy and logical scepticism.
Certainly the case for agw climate change and the safety of vaccines is well supported by the weight of evidence. The remaining scepticism is more denialism, and completey illogical.
However I do have some lingering doubts about gmo crops and whether testing on safety is adequate, and also testing on yeilds etc. When testing is done by industry, they do cheat at times, possibly due to pressures of keeping companies profitable. In comparison scientists employed by government agencies are in my view less likely to be under cost pressures to find certain results.
The so called independent testing of gmo crops appears to be minimal, or not as independent as often claimed from what I have read. I'm not saying it's an evil conspiracy or corrupted, but we better be really sure we get gmo's right, because a hidden problem could affect billions of people, and it will be hard to go back to traditional crops. Testing needs to be 'extremely' independent and rigorous.
-
Tadaaa at 06:51 AM on 1 June 2017Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
"Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same"
hence the joke
a climate change denier, Agenda 21 conspiracy theorist, Anti Vaxxer and 911 twoofer walk into a bar
he orders a drink !!!!
the technical term is "crank magnatism" - it has a wiki page
-
HK at 06:22 AM on 1 June 2017Temp record is unreliable
Tom:
It’s also worth noting that the land only temperature record from Berkeley Earth shows slightly more overall warming than NASA!
Data sources here and here.
-
Ian Forrester at 04:25 AM on 1 June 2017Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
I don't know who wrote this but just about everything they have said about people who oppose the unrestricted use of GMOs is wrong. One just has to look at climate change deniers and GMO apologists to see that they are cut from the same cloth and are often the same people e.g. Matt Ridley, Dennis Avery et al.
To claim that there are no papers showing deleterious health effects from eating GMOs is just a blatant lie. There are a number of papers showing exactly that. However, the GMO apologists come out in force using ad hominem comments and lies to discredit the scientists producing those reports. One can start off by reading up on the treatment of Arpad Pusztai at the Rowett Institute in Aberdeen Scotland to find the anti-science virulence aimed at a respected scientist whose results showed negative health effects.
Skeptical Science deserves better than the nonsense written by that anonymous poster. GMO apologists are exactly the same as AGW deniers and use the same tactics.
Moderator Response:[DB] "There are a number of papers showing exactly that"
Feel free to cite them, then. Otherwise, please comport and construct your comments in accordance with this venue's Comments Policy and subject matter relevant to the OP of this thread.
"GMO apologists come out in force using ad hominem comments"
All participants in this venue are subject to this venue's Comments Policy. yes, even members of the author team.
-
JWRebel at 03:54 AM on 1 June 2017Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
The author is presenting a false equivalency. People have ample reason to doubt studies carried out or funded (no matter how remote the connection) by Monsanto or big Pharma, just as there is ample cause to doubt climate change impact studies by Exon or the IEA. Climate change science is "open source": the model is sharing all available data and knowledge and peer review. The model pursued by bigPharma and Monsanto is proprietary and closed: Instead of sharing the available data and knowledge, their model is to guard their secrets and to exploit patents and knowledge as long as possible. The temptation to insert false data/interpretation is much greater in view of the stakes. Knowledge here advances via proprietary investments, not through sharing.
Software, science, and universities show us that "open source" is the better model: Advances are quicker, quality is higher, and the benefits go to humanity, not just a few owners.
Certainly with respect to what is a healthy diet the science in not settled, and controversy and parochial proprietary industry interests prevail. There is more than enough reason to have doubts as to the quality of many studies, for instance, about the efficacy and long-term implications of using SSRI's (big Pharma) or statins or ritalin, or a host of other issues, medical and health related. Orthodoxies are still regularly being overturned.
Having doubts about GMO food is not science denial: One can readily acknowledge that GMO seeds produce crops, and that the crops are not toxic or possess commercial advantages, and still have doubts about the wisdom of interference in very complex ecologies. The science is far from complete. Climate change denialistas, on the other hand, literally doubt the physics of CO² and the temperature measurements.
There is every reason to think that GMO crops reduce resiliency, increase the demand for pesticides and fertilizer, and impoverish the soil. There are enough parties with expertise who argue that long-term sustainability implies moving away from industrial agriculture towards more ecologically balanced approaches.
Mankind has introduced hundreds of thousands of new compounds to the environment. Few of these have been given a clean bill of health, and even fewer have been studied exhaustively for long term impacts. Recent history is rife with stories about compounds which turned out to have negative effects that only came to light in often not very subtle ways after the public had been assured that all is well.
There is every reason to doubt our complete understanding of the interaction between certain compounds or food stuffs with human subects that each have their individual biome and flora and unique immune system. Of course, denying that starvation/malnutrition is related to the food stuffs ingested would be unreasonable.
Moderator Response:[DB] "People have ample reason to doubt studies"
People are welcome to doubt evidence, but they are not welcome to deny it. Om threads of this nature, the rules of evidence and this venue's Comments Policy still apply. At least as far as "big Pharma" is concerned, published studies are still published studies, subject to replication by others, should they be inclined to spend their research dollars to do so.
If you have specifics to cite, then support them with links to such credible evidence. Otherwise, much of your comment falls under the Sloganeering section of the Comments Policy (i.e., "The science is far from complete").
Note that this applies equally to all participants on this thread.
-
bjchip at 03:18 AM on 1 June 2017Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
There are aspects to the GMO issue that aren't addressed by science. One is the matter of ownership and for whose benefit the technology is deployed. Another is choice. Once deployed non-GMO is no longer a choice that is available to the consumer. There is a case to be made for GMO technology, but it is a lot like nuclear energy, there is a much higher risk to the society when it is allowed to be done for profit. Neither of these things is "science". Like Fracking it can be done safely. Who controls it? If the corporations and the profit motive control, then the nation and the society are at risk. Not scientific arguments at all.
-
ubrew12 at 01:52 AM on 1 June 2017Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
The difference between climate-denial and GMO-denial isn't the Science, its the 'Agency'. Decades of climate denial by Americans and who pays for it? Some subsistence farmer in India or reef fisherman in the South Pacific. And they'll pay, in many cases, by dying. But if you choose to eat organic free-range daisies, that's your problem, and yours alone (vaccines fall somewhere in-between). GMO is not a Science, it's a technology. New technologies are often shunned, and sometimes not without reason. Nobody bought the first automobiles, or dared step foot in the first airplanes. But I think GMO has a huge future. Eventually, I think it'll allow people to grow food without pesticides or other chemical applications: it'll be safer than traditionally grown food. Maybe that's already true. But I really don't blame people for shunning GMO food. They pay more, but they also call attention to the fact that when it comes to food, variety is the spice of life.
-
Evan at 00:56 AM on 1 June 2017SkS Analogy 6 - Speakers, tuning forks, and global warming
DeCadillac@16. Tuning forks produce sound waves in a very narrow frequency range. CO2 lasers produce infrared waves in a very narrow frequency range. That is the similarity, and I expect that for many people that in itself is something they did not consider. The problem with analogies is that technical people can easily pick them apart. Non-technical people are the ones that tend to learn the most, because they don't necessarily think beyond the intended scope of the analogy.
You point is otherwise well taken, because good analogies require framing so that the intended scope is well defined.
-
DeCadillac at 00:07 AM on 1 June 2017SkS Analogy 6 - Speakers, tuning forks, and global warming
I think the laser analogy is very bad.
If I think about a laser, I think about molecules absorbing energy to emit energy as infrared waves. In this case, I don't think that the amount of total energy in the system is lost; if anything, I think that the system will emit more infrared waves from excited CO2 molecules, and thus will cool down (or at least stay the same) - as the Earth loses heat to space only through radiation.
At the very least, the laser analogy is very counterintuitive.
-
Tom Curtis at 21:26 PM on 31 May 2017Temp record is unreliable
landdownunder @413:
1) Tony Heller (aka Steven Goddard), producer of the www.realclimatescience.com website is not a climate scientist, former or otherwise. His qualifications are a Bachelors degree in Geology, and a Masters in Electrical Engineering. So far as I can determine, he has never published a peer reviewed paper of any description. He is well known as a serial misreprenter of data, a prime example of which is the gif which he produced, and you show.
2) 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. An honest presentation of the data would have plotted both on the same axis, and ideally on one graph to allow direct comparison, like this:
(Source)
As can easily be seen, the temperature trend between 1980 and 2000 is nearly the same in all versions, and has certainly not doubled. In fact, the GIFF is doubling misleading. The 1998, 2000, 2012 and 2016 versions of the NASA GISS Meteorological Stations only temperature index are downloadable here (as also for the Land Ocean Temperature Index). the 1979-1998 trends are, respectively 0.184, 0.134, 0.169 and 0.177 oC/decade. You will notice that largest change is the 27.2% reduction in the trend from the 1998 to the 2000 version, followed by the 26.1% increase from 2000 to 2012.
Clearly the history of changes is not one sided, indicating the scientists concerned are following the data. Equally obvious is that Tony Heller has cherry picked an interval to show a rise in trend, even though the available history of adjustments results in a net reduction in the trend of the last two decades of the 20th century, not an increase.
Returning to cosmoswarrior's specific claim, a 32.1% increase in the trend (2000-2016) is not a doubling of the trend. Not even close, so even on your generous interpretation, that remains a gross error.
3) Unlike the AGW "skeptics", who focus on the facts of the changes without regard to the reasons, actual climate scientists focus on the reasons, which they detail in peer reviewed publications, and in the case of GISS, on site as well (see prior link). One main contributor to the change in trend from for the meteorological stations index has been the increase in the number of stations. The first version of GISS (1981) relied on just 1000 stations. That increased to 2200 in 1987, and to 7200 in 1999 (between the 1998 and 2000 versions). In 2005, a small number of stations in Antarctica were introduced, which was not a major increase in number, but very significant in improved coverage. Finally, in 2016 the number of stations jumped to 26000.
There have also been significant improvements in techniques, as detailed by GISS:
"We have gone through the archives to show exactly how these estimates have changed over time and why. Since 1981 the following aspects of the temperature analysis have changed:
- The simple procedure used in 1981 was refined as documented in Hansen and Lebedeff (1987), using 8000 grid boxes to allow mapping and analysis of regional patterns.
- Surface air temperature anomalies above the ocean were estimated using sea surface temperatures from ships and buoys starting in 1995 as documented in Hansen et al. (1996).
- Starting in the 1990s, the methodology took into account documented non-climatic biases in the raw data (e.g. station moves) and eliminated or corrected unrealistic outliers (Hansen et al., 1999).
- Areas with missing data were filled in — using means over large zonal bands — rather than restricting the averaging to areas with a defined temperature change (Hansen et al., 1999).
- A method was devised in 1998 and refined in 2000 to adjust urban time series to match the long term mean trend of the surrounding rural stations, Hansen et al. (1999, 2001). This adjustment uses the full data series to make the best estimate of the rural/urban difference and so can change as the time-series are extended (and more data comparisons are available). Starting in 2010 night-light radiance rather than population data were used to classify stations (Hansen et al., 2010).
- Usage of water temperatures as proxy for air temperatures was more accurately restricted to areas without sea ice starting in April 2006."
The merits of these changes in method can be argued, although they all seem like eminently reasonable improvements to me. But if you object to them, you have to make that argument. You cannot simply say that you do not like the result and therefore the methods are wrong - still less that they are fraudulent. The later, however, is the method employed charlatans like Tony Heller.
4) The involvement of politicians in challenging the adjustments is in no way evidence of the scientific invalidity or otherwise of the adjustments. It is evidence of where politicians think they can get political milage, either with there base or with their donors. Curiously, the second largest category of donors of Lamar Smith, who led the congressional inquisition on Karl et al, was from the Oil and Gas industry. Lamar Smith is not alone. In 2016, the Oil and Gas industry made political donations to the tune of $103 million dollars, 88% of which went to Republicans.
5) Finally, you quote Zeke Hausfather as saying:
"... they increased the amounts of warming that we have experienced pretty significantly. They roughly doubled the temperature trend since 1998 compared to the old versions of the datasets"
and go on to suggest, "...is also consistent with cosmoswarrior's statement". However, cosmoswarrior's statement was explicitly about the last two decades of the 20th century (1981-2000), not the interval from 1998-2012 that Zeke Hausfather was talking about. His comment was, therefore, entirely irrelevant to cosmoswarrior's eggregiously false claim. More importantly, the 1998-2012 trend "roughly doubled" not because there was a large increase in the trend, but because the trend was low. The change in trend over that period was from 0.039 C per decade to 0.86 C/decade, a change of approximately half (63.5%) of one standard deviation of the error of the new trend as determined on the SKS trend calculator.
Following the logic of the advocates of the existence of a "hiatus", that is no change at all.
Moderator Response:[PS] This excellent rebuttal of Goddard's nonsense stands. However, for those confused by its context, it was a response to yet another sockpuppet of comicwarrior et al which has been deleted. This denier's comprehension skills dont extend a comments policy let alone serious science so unfortunately I think Tom's points will have been lost on him/her completely. Other visitors might find this response useful however.
-
Evan at 12:34 PM on 31 May 2017SkS Analogy 6 - Speakers, tuning forks, and global warming
AmericanIdle@14. Thanks. I fixed the link.
-
AmericanIdle at 12:29 PM on 31 May 2017SkS Analogy 6 - Speakers, tuning forks, and global warming
Perfect analogy. "The History of Climate Science" link address is incorrent.
-
Tom Curtis at 11:09 AM on 31 May 2017It's the sun
cready @1236, if the data is not directly available, sending them an email requesting it may help. They may, however, refer you to another source.
Alternatively, you can read the caption of the figure, which lists all of the original sources. Following them up may well provide you with the data. I'm not certain, but the data for the first panel may be that in the xcel spreadsheet downloadable at the bottom of this page, for example. You need to be careful about version when going this route. The Lisiecki and Raymo data (sea level) has "...calibrated to global average eustatic sea level (Naish and Wilson, 2009; Miller et al., 2012a)" which may mean you need to go to either of those papers, or perform the recalibration yourself based on those papers.
-
Evan at 09:54 AM on 31 May 2017SkS Analogy 6 - Speakers, tuning forks, and global warming
Nigel@12. Great thoughts. Thanks.
William@11. Great article comparing the Sun's greenhouse effect to the Earth's. Thanks for sharing.
-
nigelj at 09:50 AM on 31 May 2017SkS Analogy 6 - Speakers, tuning forks, and global warming
Evan @10
"We write to help people who are honestly searching and trying to understand. We are not trying to convert the deniers."
Yes this seems the best approach to me. There is a good sized group of people in the middle on scientific debates, and politics, the rational moderates, and they should generally be your target. I have thought the same for some time. There are others, the deniers that are so intransigent they wont ever change. You see the same with the tocacco issue and other issues, but what I find positive is over time, most people accepted the science on tobacco, or at least more and more did over time. In reality even if you target people want to learn, you will reach at least some of the deniers anyway.
Also regarding the American election. In todays world you have a smallish group of swing voters, and they need to be the target, and so you need to understand how they think. Clinton was probably on the right track with these people, but got broadsided by certain other events.
I think there are several reasons for climate denialism to do with politics and world views, vested interests, personal reliance on oil (and its almost a type of addiction or at least a habit), poor quality thinking, and human psychology. I went through a brief sceptical phase myself, and it took a careful look at the detail to persuade me otherwise. The devil is in the detail on the climate debates to some extent. I think you have to just chip away at the climate denial theories.
Maybe the best way to handle analogies is don't get carried away with them, or regularly make them the centre piece, or leading element of discussion. Dont go crazy with them or use silly analogies. Use them when really needed, and generally keep them simple because complex analogies will go over most peoples heads, and your target audience on climate science tends to have an average education in the main. This is all the traditional way analogies have been used anyway, and I would be loathe to change this.
But I do strongly think analogies can certainly sometimes be very powerful. I think the rational moderates in the middle would respond to analogies, but I admit this is just based on my personal observations, and I'm not sure how deep it would go.
-
william5331 at 09:27 AM on 31 May 2017SkS Analogy 6 - Speakers, tuning forks, and global warming
Another possible way of understanding the green house effect
http://mtkass.blogspot.co.nz/2016/01/the-greenhouse-effect.html
-
nigelj at 09:04 AM on 31 May 2017Endorsing the Paris Agreement is Trump’s best opportunity for a big win
Economies constantly change, and this is both exhilarating, and benenficial overall, and also frightening, creating some dislocation, job pressures, and some challenges. For example fracking for gas has decimated the coal industry, right at the same time the climate issue has emerged that is also putting pressure on coal. These are the harsh realities, very hard on people, yet they are driven by capitalism, free markets, and technology, things we mostly all say are good things and they are generally good things surely? Isn't this the so called creative destruction of capitalism?
There are various ways of responding to all this. Trump is making the choice to go backwards and ignore market forces, and try to somehow preserve coal. This goes in the face of market forces, and is very state top heavy. Remember how Venezuela become so dependent on one export industry of oil, with a lot of state support for this industry, and got into huge trouble when the price collapsed. Part of this was the inflexibility of their state owned oil system, but Trump is just showing another similar form of inflexibility and is ignoring the fundamental facts about capitalism.
Of course Trump is also in total denial about the reality of climate change.
Another response to changing technology and changing environmental pressures is to help communities and ordinary people that are left behind with change. This is a more sensible idea to me and better use of government and tax money, than subsidising old industries past their use by dates, with an extended version of crony capitalism, that just tranfers public money to people who are already rich.
One of the desperate problems we have is in theory people that lose jobs due to technology change should "move to where the jobs are" but this is never so easy. People from very close community attachments. These communities may benefit from some help. As the article says, a carbon tax may help these communities branch out into new industries, renewable energy, or at least gives them money to relocate to other cities, and other options.
But you come up against the Republican antipathy towards taxes or government initiatives to help people. This leaves Trump and his alternatives of isolationism, trade protectionism or subsidising / protecting the industries of the past and ignoring environmental threats. It's a stark choice, either accept and adapt to change with some government help, or go back and hide in the past, adopt protectionism, bury your head in old industries, and ignore current realities.
-
Evan at 08:09 AM on 31 May 2017SkS Analogy 6 - Speakers, tuning forks, and global warming
Thanks Nigel@9 for the comments and the article. It is an interesting perspective. I would add the following in defense of analogies, accepting that they might invite increased criticism from deniers.
The analogies are not intended to be a better form of communication, just a different form. The hope is that the analogies will resonate with people, for whom some of the other material in SkS does not. We write to help people who are honestly searching and trying to understand. We are not trying to convert the deniers.
It is absolutely monumental what a 1% shift in voters in the last US presidential election would have made to the very direction of our efforts to combat climate change and to the direction of global politics. Look at what is happening because 1% voted for one candidate versus the other. All we needed to do was to reach 1% of the voters and sensitize them to the issue of climate change, and the outcome might have been very different. Things might have been very different. So we don't necessarily want to measure our success by 10's of percentage points, but by much more modest gains, with can have a magnified effect at the voting booth. The hope is that an increased variety of messaging methods will increase the penetration of our message.
Of course, if you feel that the analogies are hurting our messaging of the need for urgent action on climate change, then that gives me reason for being much more careful in crafting these. I am trying to create understanding that will help those honestly searching to see through the denier arguments.
Thanks again for your input Nigel@9.
-
nigelj at 06:53 AM on 31 May 2017SkS Analogy 6 - Speakers, tuning forks, and global warming
I can relate to Wol's comment that analogies create another target for denialists. I have noticed that when I use analogies in recent years, they come under a lot of attack, much of it dumb and cynical, and very annoying.
But if anything this suggests the climate denialists have come to see analogies as a big threat to their junk science, so it suggests analogies have value. Analogies have also helped me understand things. I think on balance analogies are useful.
Reading the comments, I was wondering about the history of whether analogies worked, and came across this persons personal blog which so perfectly describes the issues.
scampblog.blogspot.co.nz/2013/08/do-analogies-still-work.html
But it means analogies have to be pretty good, and carefully considered, or they will be torn apart. This creates a challenge, as the value of analogies is simplicity, but this very simplicity makes them an easy target for criticism sometimes.
-
MA Rodger at 05:21 AM on 31 May 2017It's the sun
cready @1236,
The upper panel of AR5 Fig 5.2 plots SST, SL & southern ocean dust as well as paleo CO2. If it is just the CO2 you wish to plot out, this NOAA directory may be useful. The data is a little old now (all pre-2006) but it probably provides half of the data in Fig 5.2.
-
Evan at 01:21 AM on 31 May 2017SkS Analogy 6 - Speakers, tuning forks, and global warming
Wol@6. Another point about the useful of analogies. I have often heard it said that the best learning occurs when 80% is familiar and 20% is new. The goal of analogies is to relate things that are new to things that are familiar, thereby facilitating learning. I can accept that I may be missing the mark in crafting analogies, and that these can be improved, but analogies are commonly used by most every speaker, writer, and teacher I've encountered. They therefore seem, to me anyway, to be extremely powerful tools for conveying information about subjects that are new to people.
-
cready at 01:04 AM on 31 May 2017It's the sun
Tom Curtis @1235, thanks. I did find that page, but I got horribly lost looking for the right data to reproduce that figure. I'm not really sure what I should be looking for, however. Any ideas?
-
Evan at 00:45 AM on 31 May 2017SkS Analogy 6 - Speakers, tuning forks, and global warming
One of the beauties of online publication is that we can continually improve the publications. They are not stagnant. So with the help of useful criticism, we will continue to improve the effectiveness of these analogies.
There are many deniers who simply will not change their position, yet there are others who are truly confused and trying to understand. It is to this latter group that we expend great effort to help them, and it is our hope that these analogies will help those "seekers" understand. I really don't know what formula will convert the deniers, but I am open to criticism about what will improve these analogies. Do you have a specific suggestion?
Is it by chance that nearly all Republicans oppose action on climate change and nearly all Democrates support it? Could there be something larger at play here? Should it be our goal to write analogies that will convert even the most stubborn Republican, or simply try to clarify the truth?
-
Wol at 22:59 PM on 30 May 2017SkS Analogy 6 - Speakers, tuning forks, and global warming
I'm not at all sure that these analogies are helpful in convincing anyone. They insert an extra layer of "debate" and offer yet another opportunity for deniers to fabricate "arguments".
-
Evan at 07:41 AM on 30 May 2017SkS Analogy 6 - Speakers, tuning forks, and global warming
Thanks Nigel for the link. Very effective and educational.
-
nigelj at 06:42 AM on 30 May 2017SkS Analogy 6 - Speakers, tuning forks, and global warming
This article below is a simple, clear, animated version of the whole process.
agreenerfutureblog.wordpress.com/1-the-natural-greenhouse-effect/
-
ubrew12 at 05:24 AM on 30 May 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #21
Regarding Joe Romm's Alaskan Permafrost Melt report, and the Scientific feedback that called it 'alarmist', it seems to me that many of the Scientists who critiqued it wished to err on the side of Scientific conservatism. But ordinary citizens aren't Scientists. We're more like stakeholders: we care about the planet because we live here. What is 'conservative' for the people Romm is writing for is not what is 'conservative' for a Scientist. For example, one researcher stated that if the permafrost melt leads to a 10% feedback (according to him, a 'large positive feedback' for climate), then a 1 C rise in temperature will actually lead to a 1.1 C rise, and then 1.11 C, and so on, from the permafrost melt. From a Scientists viewpoint, this appears prudently conservative, but, from the point of view of Romm's readers, what if he's wrong? It's not 'conservative' then, more like outlandishly optimistic. And just casually, its not lost on many of us that if a tray of ice is brought to 1 C, it doesn't melt by 10%, it melts by 100%. So the potential for catastrophe is certainly there: Romm is correct in noting that there is twice as much carbon in permafrost as there is in our atmosphere. Certainly these Scientists can admit there is at least a possibility of a 'thermal runaway', which is a term they really want to avoid using so as not to be called 'alarmist'. But imagine, for a second, the public's response if a Scientific paper got published that definitively showed the permafrost was in 'thermal runaway'. Such a situation is unrecoverable: that's how high the stakes are. I think the public would not be impressed by some Scientists being able to claim that at least they had been 'conservative', and that is the public Romm correctly has in mind.
-
Evan at 05:21 AM on 30 May 2017SkS Analogy 6 - Speakers, tuning forks, and global warming
The main point is that with increasing CO2 concentrations, that more energy is trapped. The details of how much is retained, reradiated, etc. is another story. When you sit next to a fire, you absorb infrared radiation. This causes you to heat up, so that your surface temperature increases. Because your surface temperature increases, the amount of infrared radiation you radiate also increases. But air molecules next to your skin will heat up, because your skin is warmer. So for CO2 molecules, whatever the detailed mechanism of the fraction that is retained vs reradiated, there is some local heating in addition to the heating that occurs due to reradiation.
Another SkS article explains what I think you are getting at, that the actual mechanism of global warming is that the layer where CO2 is are saturated moves to higher altitudes as their concentration increases. By trapping an increasing fraction at higher altitudes, more energy is added to the higher altitudes, where the greenhouse effect is not yet saturated.
This is a lot of detail, an in the spirit of how Fourier looked at the problem in the early 1800's from an overall balance of the energy into and out of Earth's atmosphere, all that I am saying is that from a simple energy balance, when we put more CO2 into the atmosphere it traps more energy. The details of how that happen are slightly more complicated.
As an interesting note, there is a similar phenomenon with the sun. We all know that light coming from the surface of the sun only takes about 8.5 minutes to reach Earth, but for light to get from the center of the sun, where nuclear fushion creates the photons, to the surface, takes about 100,000 years. The atmosphere is so dense in the core of the sun that the photons bounce around from atom to atom (or whatever state the matter is in) for many millenia before making it to the surface.
-
RedBaron at 05:12 AM on 30 May 2017More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
@ahfretheim 245,
You have apparently been reading off the denial sphere. There are several inaccurate conclusions being bandied about regarding CO2 fertilization, and climate zones marching northwards.
The first important one to understand is that "greening" does not always mean increased photosynthesis. With regard to desertification just the opposite is true. Increased "greening" is a sign of a degrading grassland ecosystem that ultimately can in many cases turn to true desert.
It is counter intuitive. I understand that. But C4 grasses that produce far more photosynthesis than C3 scrub beginning to lose their dominance in a grassland biome is often the first sign on a long term trend to highly degraded land.
C4 carbon fixation - Wikipedia[1]
C4 metabolism originated when grasses migrated from the shady forest undercanopy to more open environments,[2] where the high sunlight gave it an advantage over the C3 pathway.[3]
… Today, C4 plants represent about 5% of Earth's plant biomass and 3% of its known plant species.[4][5] Despite this scarcity, they account for about 23% of terrestrial carbon fixation.[6][7] Increasing the proportion of C4 plants on earth could assist biosequestration of CO2 and represent an important climate change avoidance strategy.
The other thing they commonly "overlooked" is the angle of the sun. Just because some tundra might melt farther north doesn't mean at all that there will be anywhere near the same level of productivity. You still have the problem of no sun for 6 months! You can't grow winter wheat, winter rye, cool season crops like brassicas and peas etc... when there is no sun!
Lastly the types of plants we are seeing are not as good at building soil. The LCP is either limited or not present at all. Meaning net carbon into the soil sink decreases even when vegetative cover increases....in these cases.
-
Tom Curtis at 05:09 AM on 30 May 2017It's the sun
Cready @1234, this is a good first point of call.
-
Tom Curtis at 05:05 AM on 30 May 2017SkS Analogy 6 - Speakers, tuning forks, and global warming
sailingfree @1, actually nearly all absorbed radiation is given up as kinetic energy in collisions with other molecules in the atmosphere, most of which are to nitrogen and oxygen (N2 and O2). On the other hand, the CO2 molecules are continously being excited by those same collisions. As a result a near constant proportion of the CO2 molecules will be in an excited state, and able to radiate IR radiation at any given time. As a result, the radiation is governed by the local atmospheric temperature, not the rate of absorption of IR radiation.
The radiated IR photons can, however, go in any direction with equal probability. Because those radiated with a side ways component are matched by radiation from neighbouring parcels of gass, the energy tranfer from which effectively cancels out, the lateral components can be ignored, and the radiation treated as being radiated in equal amounts upwards and downwards.
Prev 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 Next
