Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 Next
Comments 20001 to 20050:
-
Eclectic at 18:04 PM on 10 May 2017Study: to beat science denial, inoculate against misinformers' tricks
Haze @9 : what methods are you suggesting, to capture (and maintain) the professional interest of journalists and editors?
JoNova and WUWT websites' comments columns are filled with toxic vitriolic and angry comments, because that is where angry deniers go to vent their anger. They are angry people — not especially about AGW — but the AGW topic is a useful and available lightning-rod for them to express their anger about how life in general is going (and all the changes they see happening in society). As well as venting public shouts of tribal loyalty.
We would hope that journalists and editors are mostly motivated by other considerations. And something else again, applies to the Murdoch media, unfortunately !
-
Haze at 16:18 PM on 10 May 2017Study: to beat science denial, inoculate against misinformers' tricks
I wonder why sites such as this and Real Climate and Open Mind attract such relatively few commenters compared with sites such as JoNova and WUWT and Climate etc.
SkepticalScience has the headline "Explaining climate change science & rebutting global warming misinformation" But to whom are these explanations and rebuttals being made?
Commenters here are all, well virtually all, entirely convinced humans are 100% responsible for climate change and don't require any explanations or rebuttals. From time to time a denier will post but usually that post is heaviy moderated and the commenters here will rail mightily against such unwarranted and unwelcome intrusion to "their site"
Perhaps the MSM find that if they print, publish, broadcast just the pro-AGW view very few people are interested just as many fewer people are interested in sites such as Real Climate and Skeptical Science than are interested in JoNova and Climate etc. Perhaps if AGW proponents could create as much public interest in their views as the deniers manage to create in theirs, the MSM might have a higher pro-AGW /denier ratio than currently is the case.
Moderator Response:[JH] The number of comments garnered by a website does not necessarily reflect the number of people visiting a website and using the materials posted on it. Re SkS specifically, we provide the ammunition (rebuttal articles) for others to use.
-
chriskoz at 14:53 PM on 10 May 2017Study: to beat science denial, inoculate against misinformers' tricks
[JH] @6 (inset)
Does it mean that Deniersville is interested in commenting on (i.e. denying) "Global Warming" but they don't care about "Climate Change"?
As you can find in Global warming vs climate change, "Climate Change" was always the prefered scientific term by a large margin, according to google scholar. Even in popular literature, according to google books, "Climate Change" is still prefered although by small margin and was less popular only briefly in mod-1990.
So, deniers don't really know the preffered name of the phenomenon they're trying to deny? Will they ever "catch up"?
Moderator Response:[JH] I suspect that the folk in Deniersville tend to use "Global Warming" more than "Climate Change" because they love to accuse climate scientists and people who accept the overwhelming body of scientific evidence about manmade climate change to be promotors of "CAGW" (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming). They have convinced themselves that "CAGW" is a derogatory label that demeans the credibility of anyone it is applied to. In contrast, the acronym "CACC" (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change) just doesn't have the same sex appeal and name recognition as "CAGW". Likewise, the acronym “AGW” versus “ACC”.
-
nigelj at 07:07 AM on 10 May 2017Study: to beat science denial, inoculate against misinformers' tricks
I agree the best way to convince sceptics is certainly to talk about the very solid evidence for the greenhouse effect, as this is the foundation of the whole climate issue.
But I suggest also show them a big, simple graph of declining solar irradiance over the last 50 years. This shows solar energy is unlikely to be a cause of climate change, and covers the main point sceptics raise, weak though it is.
Maybe the important thing is to keep things simple. People relate to simple explanations and graphs or pictures, better than lengthy detail or complex equations, and even well educated people forget details of school or university physics unless they use it in their job every day.
It's also people of average education that dominate the ranks of sceptics. While I'm no fan of Trump and his multiple crazy ideas, he is a good communicator by keeping things simple.
I'm no climate scientist and work in a design field, but I read a lot of popular science publications out of interest and have a very broad tertiary level education. Sadly the only reading a lot of people do these days is facebook, or the life and times of Kim Kardashian.
I realise you can't over simplify some things as well, and some people do respond well to more detailed discussion.
-
dr_who1379 at 23:04 PM on 9 May 2017Study: to beat science denial, inoculate against misinformers' tricks
My Google News Alert has gone from articles about climate science to about half climate science denial. Sad really.
The feedback loops that we have already triggered (many were triggered years ago), will give all of us a front row seat of interesting events that have already started---which we hardly notice, really.
Moderator Response:[JH] The Google News Alert for "Global Warming" does contain many articles from Deniersville. On the other hand, the Google News Alert for "Climate Change" contains only a few. It appears that the the term, "Global Warming" is preferred over "Climate Change" in Deniersville - which is kind of funny when you think about it.
-
BBHY at 20:49 PM on 9 May 2017Study: to beat science denial, inoculate against misinformers' tricks
My best success talking with skeptics/deniers is when I go way back to the very, very basics.
1) CO2 absorbs infrared heat. That is a rock solid proven fact that was established over 150 years ago and has been proven over and over ever since.
2) When you add black ink to white paint it makes the paint darker, when you add sugar to water it makes the water sweeter, when you add stuff that absorbs heat to the air it makes the air absorb more heat and the air gets warmer. This is not really a difficult concept, it's not so much different than things we experience everyday.
3) They quickly concede and move on the lukewarm or "it's not harmful" arguments. At this point I move on the fact that the warming we see now was correctly predicted decades ago, so the scientists have a proven track record on this subject, and they say it's going to get much worse and it will have serious consequences. I ask them what scientific predictions they made decades ago that are now proven correct? Their arguments are weak and they know it.
-
Digby Scorgie at 16:09 PM on 9 May 2017Study: to beat science denial, inoculate against misinformers' tricks
Would the media give voice to people who say the Earth is flat?
Would the media give voice to people who say the Sun orbits the Earth?
Yet the media give voice to people who deny AGW, which is as solidly grounded in overwhelming evidence as the shape and orbit of the Earth. If they don't know this, they are incompetent. If they do know this, they are evil.
-
Tom Curtis at 14:41 PM on 9 May 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #18
nigelj @19, the paper DeanMJackson relies on is very clear:
"We have found that on global average under clear-sky conditions the OLR is reduced due to O2 by 0.11 Wm-2and due to N2 by 0.17 Wm-2."
For comparison, under the same conditions they found an OLR reduction due to CO2 of 26.8 Wm-2 (see table 1). That is 95.7 times the strength of the combined of effect O2 and N2. Further, that is 95.7 times the strength with 2,433 times the amount of gas (by volume). Contrary to his source, DeanMJackson treats the global values as being relative, which can then be adjusted for relative abundance by mass which contradicts his source.
As a side note, his source uses single factor subtraction to determine the radiative effect of each gas. The problem of that approach is that it will ignore overlaps. As a result the sum of its stated contributions (100.57 Wm-2) is substantially less than the total reduction in OLR by all gases (123 Wm-2). Some of that will be due to gases not considered, notably the chloroflourocarbons. The bulk, however, will be due to overlaps, particulary between CO2 and H2O.
Finally, I will note the absurdity of DeanMJackson calling scientists liars because in simplified explanations they call N2 (which absorbs 0.045% of upward IR radiation) and O2 (which absorbs 0.029%) transparent to IR radiation. Window glass, for comparison, has a transparency of 80-90%, and optical glass typically has a transparency of 99.95%. DeanMJackson is saying scientists lie because they call something transparent which is more transparent than the glass used in camera and telescope lenses.
Moderator Response:[DB] Having been given ample opportunity to make his case, and having abdicated the usage of logic, reason and physics, the user in question has recused himself from further participation in this science- and evidence-based venue.
-
nigelj at 12:57 PM on 9 May 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #18
I found this silly article by DeanMJackson:
sites.google.com/site/deanjackson60/throwing-cold-water-on-global-warming
This is the source of all the craziness. He quotes some paper in geophysical letters that finds oxygen and nitrogen allegedly have some weak properties of infra red heat absorption and transmittance similar to CO2 although much weaker. (I have no idea if this paper has been refuted or supported). He argues that the large quantities of these gases multiply this property enough to make it significant.
However he fails to grasp that levels of oxygen have actually been falling slightly over the centuries, so are not a factor in climate change. As I pointed out earlier.
Now interestingly enough, atmospheric levels of nitrogen are increasing very slightly, in a short term sense, due to (wait for it) burning of fossil fuels and forests! So it's possible nitrogen does have some small effect on global warming, although less than CO2, but unfortunately this doesnt let fossil fuels off the hook.
www2.ucar.edu/news/backgrounders/nitrogen-earth-system
I think Mr dean Jackson has basically shot himself in his own feet.
He also expands on his silly volume theory of gases.
-
nigelj at 11:58 AM on 9 May 2017Study: to beat science denial, inoculate against misinformers' tricks
Tom Curtis @2, yes very true, at least In America from what I observe. There are indeed far more denialist articles than mainstream science.
I agree it's partly scientific ignorance of journalists, and I have seen specific cases of this, but I would contend some of it's deliberate ignorance to keep an exaggerated debate going, to attract readers. Nothing else quite explains things, and its absolutely deplorable.
However in my country the newspapers are largely quite 'centrist' in outlook, and not as extremely partisan as America. Climate articles within specific newspapers tend to have a 50 / 50 split, so you get an article on evidence agw is causing more storms for example, followed by an opposing point of view from one of our local sceptics / denialists (mostly delusional fellows). But it's still a fake sort of 50 / 50 balance given the overwhelming consensus that we are altering the climate.
Having said that, it's reasonable to expect the media to publish a variety of points of view, given there is at least some genuine scepticism on some specific climate matters. So its reasonable to expect some sceptical articles from time to time, maybe about 20% of the mix would be more appropriate. It would be a bit unrealistic to expect virtually none.
It would really help if the media at least reported on the various consensus studies. This at least puts things in persepective, and informs the public. Call me old fashioned, but I thought the media was there to inform.
Regarding our own media, I object perhaps even more strongly to the way media let the sceptics get away with writing blatantly misleading garbage, or total lies, without any apparent conscience on the matter. Of course this would partly reflect a lack of journalists having any scientific knowledge, to hold people to account.
-
HK at 10:14 AM on 9 May 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #18
DeanMJacksons #15:
"Where did I say density? I said volume!"
You are talking about cubic feet per pound of different gases. The definition of density is mass per unit of volume, whether measured in your archaic units or more modern ones like kilogram and cubic metre, so you are in fact talking about density!
And as I showed in my post 13, greenhouse gases can have both higher (CO2, N2O, O3) and lower (H2O, CH4, NH3) density than the non-greenhouse gases oxygen and nitrogen, so density is clearly not a defining characteristic of a greenhouse gas. Why is that simple fact so hard to understand?Moderator Response:[PS] DNFTT
-
Tom Curtis at 09:58 AM on 9 May 2017Study: to beat science denial, inoculate against misinformers' tricks
nigelj @1, a simple search of google shows on the internet, denialist articles far outnumber those presenting the actual science. I believe that to also be the case in the right wing and/or Murdoch press (and it is certainly the case in my experience). We struggle to obtain a 50/50 distribution in the "main stream media".
Part of the problem is that most journalists are scientifically illiterate. CP Snow wrote in The Two Cultures:
"A good many times I have been present at gatherings of people who, by the standards of the traditional culture, are thought highly educated and who have with considerable gusto been expressing their incredulity at the illiteracy of scientists. Once or twice I have been provoked and have asked the company how many of them could describe the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The response was cold: it was also negative. Yet I was asking something which is about the scientific equivalent of: Have you read a work of Shakespeare's?"
Most journalists wouldn't even be able to quote one of Newton's laws of motion, the scientific equivalent of having read any book. As a result, perhaps, the do not understand what travesties of journalistic standards are the articles purporting to be skeptical of AGW.
It is not good enough.
-
Tom Curtis at 09:47 AM on 9 May 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #18
To the moderator, DeanMJackson @14 states:
"That's not the only problem with the 'experiment'. Specific heat means the amount of heat needed to raise the temperature of a [volume of] gas [one degree], and because Carbon Dioxide can raise its temperature with less heat than Nitrogen and Oxygen"
Engineer's toolbox (and here for densities):
Air 1.01 kJ/(kg K) 1.205 kg/m^3 1.01 * 1.205 = 1.217 kJ/m^3
Oxygen 0.919 kJ/(kg K) 1.331kg/m^3 0.919 * 1.331 = 1.223 kJ/m^3
Nitrogen 1.04 kJ/(kg K) 1.165 kg/m^3 1.04 * 1.165 = 1.2116 kJ/m^3
CO2 0.844 kJ/(kg K) 1.842 kg/m^3 0.844 * 1.842 = 1.554 kJ/m^3
Products rounded to three significant figures. Densities, and hence heat capacities per unit volume at standard temperatures and pressures.
DeanMJackson has just finished arguing the importance of the greater mass in the flask. He now wants to totally ignore that and treat the masses as constant across the flasks while using the heat capacity per unit mass of the gases. It is clearly his intention to introduce facts, or ignore them as they suite his argument rather than to try and come to a consistent understanding of the case. Indeed, that is being to generous. He is also very willing to simply introduce falsehoods if they suite his argument as well.
He has now given more than sufficient evidence that he does not wish to abide by the comments policy on excessive repetition. He has also repeatedly demonstrated he is unwilling to give "substantial reasons" for his arguments, meaning his posts constitute sloganeering by the definitions of the comments policy. I move that the member be no longer heard, as it were. Certainly unless and until he acknowledges that a mole of any gass occupies the same volume at a given temperature and pressure as every other gas, and that hence in the atmosphere the molar heat capacity is the most usefull in determining the heat capacities of gases, and that, therefore, for atmospheric purposes, CO2 has a greater heat capacity than ordinary air, N2 or O2; and that therefore his argument against the greenhouse effect, in addition to being invalid (it would not prove his point even if his premises were true) is unsound (it would not prove his point even if valid for the premises are false).
If you think the most appropriate process is to clear his posts root and branch, I certainly would not disagree and would be quite happy for my posts to be deleted as well in such a response.
Moderator Response:[PS] the bar for "most astonishing misunderstanding of physics by a commentator" is quite high but Dean is pushing it and I strongly suspect troll instead. I'll leave it to DB to adjudicate.
-
nigelj at 08:06 AM on 9 May 2017Study: to beat science denial, inoculate against misinformers' tricks
This junk science attacking vaccines and climate science, and this misleading rhetoric, is all so frustrating. It's a bit of a side effect of everyone having a super computer in their pocket, to spread or read this stuff.
The fake balance in the media is also frustrating. On the other hand you are not going to get a 97% / 3% split of warmist and denialist articles, and it will be closer together for practical purposes. But a 50 / 50 split is certainly artificial, and is creating a false impression.
But at the very least the media could have an advisory note above climate denialist style articles, that there is a 90 - 97% consensus. This would gain them readers through grabbing attention, and promoting full disclosure.
-
nigelj at 06:29 AM on 9 May 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #18
DeanMJackson @15, since you think CO2 is a "cooling gas" go and live in Venus and see how long you survive.
Honestly you either havent got a clue, or are deliberately and knowingly spreading junk science.
-
DeanMJackson at 06:06 AM on 9 May 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #18
HK says, "DeanMJacksons claim that the GHE of a gas depends on its density..."
Reply:
Where did I say density? I said volume! Let's take a look at the volumes of carbon dioxide, oxygen and nitrogen at 1 atmosphere/70 F* ...
One pound of Carbon Dioxide has a volume of 8.7 cubic feet,
Oxygen is at 12.1 cubic feet.
Nitrogen is at 13.8 cubic feet
With a smaller volume than either Nitrogen and Oxygen, Carbon Dioxide can only possess LESS heat than Nitrogen and Oxygen, and when more COOLER carbon dioxide is pumped into the Nitrogen-Oxygen based atmosphere (>99% of the atmosphere's gasses), the result can only be a COOLING of the atmosphere. As demonstrated by the three volumes illustrated for Carbon Dioxide, Oxygen and Nitrogen, Carbon Dioxide holds approximately one-third less heat than either Nitrogen or Oxygen, proving Carbon Dioxide's cooling effect on the atmosphere. To better grasp this fact, let's use a more familiar everyday experience we witness involving water: When a small amount of cooler water is added to a larger warmer body of water, the result is a cooling of the water.
Moderator Response:[PS] If you are trolling by making ridiculous misstatements of physics then please find another website for your amusement. If not, then please, please open a textbook...
-
DeanMJackson at 06:00 AM on 9 May 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #18
Tom Curtis says, "Just for the record, DeanMJackson has now suggested that the experiment I linked to, although it directly contradicts his prediction, does not refute him because of the pressure induced warming due to the greater density of CO2."
Reply:
That's not the only problem with the 'experiment'. Specific heat means the amount of heat needed to raise the temperature of a [volume of] gas [one degree], and because Carbon Dioxide can raise its temperature with less heat than Nitrogen and Oxygen can (Nitrogen and Oxygen have high specific heats, meaning it takes more heat to raise their temperatures), naturally the temperature of the Carbon Dioxide only jar rises faster than the predominantly Nitrogen-Oxygen jar!
-
HK at 20:54 PM on 8 May 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #18
DeanMJacksons claim that the GHE of a gas depends on its density can easily be debunked by comparing the molecular mass of some gases. The molecular mass determines the density of gases when their pressures and temperatures are the same. First, the two major constituents and non-GHGs in our atmosphere:
N2: 28
O2: 32
And then some greenhouse gases:
CO2: 44
H2O: 18
CH4 (methane): 16
N2O (nitrous oxide): 44
O3 (ozone): 48
NH3 (ammonia): 17
SO2 (sulfur dioxide): 64
CFCl3 (Freon-11): 137So, it's evident that the molecular mass (and therefore density) of GHGs can be both lower and higher than the two major non-GHGs in Earth's atmosphere!
-
jgnfld at 18:51 PM on 8 May 2017Is the climate consensus 97%, 99.9%, or is plate tectonics a hoax?
william...
This meme--popular among the disinformed, misinformed, and naive--is ridiculous. Without consensus, it is very dificult to do science at all.
Galileo is remembered as right because he contributed greatly to the consensus of those qualified to judge his work.
-
Tom Curtis at 18:50 PM on 8 May 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #18
Just for the record, DeanMJackson has now suggested that the experiment I linked to, although it directly contradicts his prediction, does not refute him because of the pressure induced warming due to the greater density of CO2. Taking into account the dimensions of the base of the type of flask use, and assuming a volume in the flask of 1 liter, and pure CO2 (both obvious over estimates), the increase in pressure amounts to 7.1*10^-4% of atmospheric pressure. Given the ideal gas law, and the fact that the flask contains a constant volume, that means the increase in pressure for pure CO2 would in the flask would result in less than a 2.6x10^-6 oC increase in temperature. That is almost certainly less than the cooling associated with the endothermic reaction generating the CO2, not enough to register on the thermometer used, and certainly not enough to explain the approximately 1oC greater increase in temperature in the flask containing CO2.
Of course, we all knew each fact stated in the last sentence of the above paragraph without needing to crunch the numbers. I find it difficult to believe that even DeanMJackson did not know that. Therefore I now regard him as a troll and will treat him as such. DNFTT
-
scaddenp at 14:53 PM on 8 May 2017CO2 is coming from the ocean
I would be fascinated to hear how someone can claim that the CO2 increase is coming out of the ocean while at the same time CO2 dissolved in ocean in increasing (mass balance issue) and pH is decreasing. "voodoo economics" rides again? The CO2 we emit magically vanishes? Good luck - I doubt you are arguing with someone who is used to the idea that positions can be decided by data. I predict a fallback to some other argument, just as vehemently debated. Perhaps you should force them to state what data they would accept which would change their mind in advance.
-
scientificeconomist at 14:17 PM on 8 May 2017CO2 is coming from the ocean
Sorry.... I started with a comment about me searching for the isotopic evidence that is stated in "what the science says" comment box. It is not clear in the article's evidence however I see that a few commentors have provided links.
I plan to have those links tattooed to my forhead so that when I meet a rather obnoxious climate change skeptic again, like I did at a party last night, and he claims that climate science is a hoax and that any increase in CO2 is coming from the oceans, I can counter that claim and have him search the evidence as we speak.
I jest of course. Thank you for this website and allowing me to vent. Climate skeptics can be frustrating, especially when they ambush with their arguments and you are 3 beers into what is supposed to be a fun night. This is my first time on this site and my first comment. I will post more valube comments in the future.
Moderator Response:[DB] You can find a more detailed discussion of the isotopic evidence of the atmospheric rise in concentration of CO2 on this fine post by Tom Curtis.
-
Tom Curtis at 12:43 PM on 8 May 2017Lindzen Illusion #2: Lindzen vs. Hansen - the Sleek Veneer of the 1980s
JME @111, the relevant quotes are:
1)
"I personally feel that the likelihood over the next century of
greenhouse warming reaching magnitudes comparable to natural variability seems small," he said. "And I certainly feel that there is time and need for research before making major policy decisions."2)
"What does the temperature record already show about global
warming? Do the data conclusively indicate about one-half degree centigrade (plus or minus 0.2 degree) global warming over the last century, as some proponents suggest? No, contends Professor Lindzen."3)
"The trouble with many of these records," he said, "is that the
corrections are of the order of the effects, and most of us know that when we're in that boat we need a long series and great care to derive a meaningful signal."4)
"Nor, he said, was the temperature data collected in a very
systematic and uniform way prior to 1880, so comparisons often begin with temperatures around 1880. "The trouble is that the earlier data suggest that one is starting at what probably was an anomalous minimum near 1880. The entire record would more likely be saying that the rise is 0.1 degree plus or minus 0.3 degree."From (4) you can project Lindzen's estimated trend temperature increase since about 1850. Strictly for comparison purposes, this requires that you use either HadCRUTv4 of the Berkely Earth LOTI both of which extend back to 1850. The GISTEMP LOTI only extends back to 1880, a time of which Lindzen says "... probably was an anomalous minimum ...". Using a GISTEMP decadal or multidecadal average starting in 1880 to establish the baseline for Lindzen's predictions would underestimate his predicted temperature. It also, however, overestimates his trend in that the 0.1 C rise is taken to be over a 30 year shorter interval.
Further, for Lindzen to consider there to be an "anomalous minimum", he obviously considers there to be more natural variability (see (1)) than that generated by the ENSO cycle, plus volcanism and other short term effects. That, however, is what is portrayed in the OP above. Ergo, arguably the graph understates the prediction for global warming.
To see to what extent this is true, I made a comparison between the Lindzen prediction and the BEST LOTI:
Comparing this graph to those above, it appears that the errors made worked in Lindzen's favour. That is primarilly because 1880 was not "...an anomalous minimum..." relative to 1850, contrary to Lindzen's claim. Consequently the increased trend generated by using an 1880 start date brings the Lindzen prediction closer to observations than do the graphs above. The only thing better for Lindzen in this more accurate comparison is the better fit with long term variability. On the other hand, the complete failure to capture the continuation of the temperature trend from the 1970s to late 1980s by Lindzen makes his prediction absurd, if the overall under prediction of temperatures throughout the 20th century had not already.
Lindzen commented on the observational record, saying:
"Professor Lindzen cited many problems with the temperature
records, an example being the representation of the Atlantic Ocean with only four island measurement sites. Urbanization also creates problems in interpreting the temperature record, he said. There is the problem of making corrections for the greater inherent warming over cities--in moving weather stations from a city to an outlying airport, for example."These were fair comments in 1989, when the GISS temperature record was based on meteorological stations only. Now, however, the GISS LOTI and BEST LOTI include ship and bouy data for Sea Surface Temperatures. What is more, BEST does not adjust for station moves, but rather treats any such move as resulting in a different station. BEST also relies on far more meteorological stations than GISS even now, and certainly in comparison to the GISS product of 1989.
Further, rather than "the corrections [being] of the order of the effects", as claimed by Lindzen in 1989, in the modern LOTI temperature series, the corrections reduce the effects:
(See here)
There is, therefore, no reason to doubt the essential accuracy of the modern observations. Ergo, Lindzen was wrong - calamatously wrong, in his implied prediction of 1989.
(Small note: Lindzen predicts future warming as being small in terms of natural variability. I took that to mean less than half of a standard deviation of the 1850-1950 temperature data, taken for the excercise as being entirely natural or nearly so. That exagerates Lindzen's natural variability as anthropogenic forcing was a significant factor over that period. Base on that yardstick, Lindzen's prediction for the trend from 1990-2100 is a trend of 0.008 C/decade, or 111% of his retrodiction of the observed trend from 1850-1989. That is, his predicted trend rises by only 11% from his retrodicted trend.)
-
nigelj at 11:37 AM on 8 May 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #18
DeanMJackson @10, says "and greater density creates greater pressure, thus greater the temperature observed!"
You must be joking surely. The CO2 doesn't just sit as a layer on the oxygen and nitrogen, compressing it like some sort of bicycle pump. Any effects on density when mixing together would also be trivial.
You also said in another post "With a smaller volume than either Nitrogen and Oxygen,Carbon Dioxide can only possess LESS heat than Nitrogen and Oxygen"
This is irrelevant. It's not about heat capacity as such. It's about the ability of certain molecules to both absorb and re-radiate infra red radiation and only certain gases do this like CO2.
Here is just one proof in the real world. Forget about flasks with mixtures of CO2 and other gases. Consider the planet Venus, which has an atmosphere of nearly pure CO2, and surface temperatures of above 400 degrees celsius, and compare that to earth where the atmosphere is mostly oxygen and nitrogen and lower in temperature. (But increasing as we add CO2)
So despite your claims about CO2 having a smaller volume it has greater propensity to cause warming.
Please also note Venus gets little sunlight at the surface, because it's reflected by high level clouds of sulphuric acid, and despite this the greenhouse effect from CO2 is enough to cause pretty intense temperatures. Its one demonstration of the greenhouse effect and it's been explained by the specific nature of the CO2 molecule and what it specifically does to radiation.
This website ran an article a few weeks back, or had some comments from Tom C, or somebody on exactly how CO2 infuences radiation at a quantum physics level. I learned a lot, but I'm not sure where the article is now.
-
DeanMJackson at 08:06 AM on 8 May 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #18
Tom Curtis says, "1) The flask into which the CO2 is introduced is open at the top while it is being introduced. That means the pressure inside the flask remains at atmospheric pressure through out, and only sealed once no more CO2 is being introduced, so there can be no warming by compression of the gas. With the CO2 being introduced in this way, it merely displaces air, remaining in the flask because of its greater density."
Reply:
You do realize that Carbon Dioxide is more dense than Nitrogen and Oxygen (hence also explaining Carbon Dioxide's cooler physical quality than either Nitrogen and Oxygen; greater heat expands a gas, while less heat contracts a gas), and greater density creates greater pressure, thus greater the temperature observed!
Moderator Response:[JH] Excessive repetition deleted. You are about to relinquish your privilege of posting comments on this site because of repeated violations of the SkS Comments Policy.
-
nigelj at 06:58 AM on 8 May 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #18
Sorry, this is the link related to oxygen levels falling longer term
www.livescience.com/56219-earth-atmospheric-oxygen-levels-declining.html
It's quite interesting quite apart from the climate issue.
-
nigelj at 06:55 AM on 8 May 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #18
DeanMJackson @2, none of your comments above make any sense.
This greenhouse gas issue is nothing to do with volumes or densities of gases. The heat absorbing properties of interest to us relate to the shape of certain molecules like CO2, as in this article and animation below. This is proven textbook science. You seem to think scientists are dummies that dont consider all possibilities, but you just show yourself to be the narrow minded person.
scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation
Your comments about the CO2 experiment with the jars lacked validity as pointed out above by Tom Curtis. They also just lacked plain commonsense, so the rest of your views are likely to be dubious at best.
I suspect you are paid to spread garbage. No self respecting person would really believe any of what you say. It would only fool a few complete dummies.
By the way your assertion that oxygen is a greenhouse gas is nonsense and also fails the commonsense test, as levels of oxygen have actually been falling slightly long term, so obviously cannot account for global warming.
scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation
The urban heat island issue you claim causes global warming is a myth that has been dispelled 100 times over, and there are plety of related articles on this website. Again theres a mountain of research like the Best Study with a mountain of complex evidence, but theres little difference in rates of warming between urban and rural areas, and that alone should tell anyone with any commonsense that global warming is not caused by urban development.
-
william5331 at 06:06 AM on 8 May 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #18
There is a chain of events that has to happen; all unlikely but all possible. It may be too late but we can at least try. Bernie Sanders must be elected with a new party and must then legislate to get vested interest money out of politics. He must then do all the obvious things to get America off fossil fuels including legislating Hansen's tax and dividend. Clearly all subsidies of whatever type must be removed from fossil fuel and transferred to renewables and energy storage and a huge program must be put in place to re-train people put out of work in the fossil fuel industry to take their place in the renewable energy field. Other measures needed are obvious to any reasonably bright year 12 student. The barrier are the very people we have put in place to solve problems like this. This might help as well to convince the politicians. http://mtkass.blogspot.co.nz/2010/10/forget-climate-change.html
-
JME at 04:26 AM on 8 May 2017Lindzen Illusion #2: Lindzen vs. Hansen - the Sleek Veneer of the 1980s
I clicked on the links to try to find Lindzen's temperature predictions shown in the figures, but they just led to some notes from a Mallove talk - no charts or data. Are those predictions published anywhere? If so, I think it would be very helpful. Thanks.
-
dr_who1379 at 01:38 AM on 8 May 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #18
Actually, if we do take it seriously and say---cut down or stop burning fossil fuels---we jump up .5 to 3 degrees C. (due to the reduction of our sulfate caused global dimming). This already pushes us past 1.5 degrees and possibly over 2 degrees C. Damned if you do and damned if you don't springs to mind.
All but the 'worst case scenario' in the IPCC rely on effective and immediate climate engineering. And the worst case listed is 8.5 degrees C.
Whatever we do, billions of us have got to go. Famines expected in Africa this year to start (the Indian Ocean is very warm this year).
Dustbowls elsewhere to come. Only a few even have a chance. -
Evan at 00:15 AM on 8 May 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #18
In the article "No country on Earth is taking the 2 degree climate target seriously by David Roberts, Energy & Environment, Vox, Apr 29, 2017", the following statement is made
"What is clear is that we are betting our collective future on being able to bury millions of tons of carbon. It’s a huge and existentially risky bet — and maybe one out of a million people even know it’s being made."
It is not millions, nor billions, but eventually will be closer to a trillion tons of CO2, or more, that we must capture, transport, and bury. If we must sequester 10 Gigatons/yr., and if we do that for about 100 years, that equates to a trillion tons. Most articles talk about CO2 emissions from oil, gas, and coal reserves, but agriculture and the meat industry emits large quantities GHGs comparable to that emitted by the transportation sector, and to get to net-0, those emissions will also have to be offset.
-
Tom Curtis at 23:37 PM on 7 May 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #18
DeanMJackson @2, responds with much nonsense. Rather than wade through it all, I will focus on his claim at the end that:
"That being cleared up, do you recall your high school chemistry teacher’s instruction on the high heating effect of Carbon Dioxide, where there's two jars and a heater next to each of the two jars? Carbon Dioxide is pumped into the second jar, and the temperature rises faster than the temperature in the first jar, thereby proving that Carbon Dioxide is a warming molecule. What the teacher didn't tell you is that by adding more Carbon Dioxide into the second jar, naturally the temperature within the jar will rise faster than the first jar because the atmospheric pressure in the second jar is GREATER due to the addition of the extra Carbon Dioxide!"
Here is that experiment being done properly:
You will notice that:
1) The flask into which the CO2 is introduced is open at the top while it is being introduced. That means the pressure inside the flask remains at atmospheric pressure through out, and only sealed once no more CO2 is being introduced, so there can be no warming by compression of the gas. With the CO2 being introduced in this way, it merely displaces air, remaining in the flask because of its greater density.
2) The CO2 is generated by an endothermic reaction. That means the CO2 is cooled by the process that generates it, and in turn that the CO2 enriched flask will be slightly cooler than the other flask at the start of the experiment.
Because of (1) and (2), any excess heat gain by the CO2 enriched flask will be due to the IR absorption of CO2, and no other process; something DeanMJackson claims to be impossible. Indeed, he claims that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 with no change in pressure would have a cooling effect, the opposite of what is observed.
-
chriskoz at 21:39 PM on 7 May 2017Evidence Squared #10: Debunking William Happer's carbon cycle myth
Even though as I indicated @5, I don't value Happer as a worthy human after learning about his argumentation in this post, I still appologise for mispelling Happer's name as "Hepper" in my comment @10. Sorry.
-
chriskoz at 21:28 PM on 7 May 2017Evidence Squared #10: Debunking William Happer's carbon cycle myth
Tom@8,
It's interesting that the "Munich analogy" can be taken at face value as a rational analogy and I agree to your point.
However Hepper, when asked why this analogy is apriopriate, did not give any indication that Paris agreement was an inadequate response to the "Hitlerian" level of risk. Had he qualified his analogy that way, it would indeed be a valid analogy and not a fallacy. He was given a very clear and ample opportunity to precisely qualify his words. His only qualification was that Paris Agreement was a "garbage" that will result in nothing but "enormous cost". He did not say a single word nor did he even suggest the risk element that both Paris and Munich conferfences tried to mitigate. Ergo, the would be apropriate aspect of his analogy ws not on his mind. Absense of evidence in this case, is IMO the evidence Happer did not use his analogy in the literal sense you're trying to ascribe. On the other hand, the words he used in his qualification - "garbage", "enormous cost" - that added more emotion than precision to his argument, suggests his intentions were emotive rather than epistemic from the very start.
BTW, there are many diferent, more recent analogies available to express that something is futile. E.g. SALT fiascos, why going back to pre-WW2 event? Because it carries larger emotional load. But, ultimately, Happer's failure to rationaly qualify his analogy is a key for us to conclude that he:
- did not understand the face value of his words
- used an inapropriate analogy to express his words
- by looking for an emotive rather than intellectual analogy, he ultimately fell victim of Godwin's law.
-
Eclectic at 19:01 PM on 7 May 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #18
DeanMJackson, he might or might not return to give more detailed response to your lattermost post — but until such time as Tom Curtis makes comment, please allow me to say :-
Your own comment that CO2 is a "cooling gas" in the atmosphere, can only be described as strange & confused.
Your comment seems to rest upon the strange and magical concept that each atmospheric molecule of a low-specific-heat gas (such as argon) lives in its own little parallel universe and does not interact (collide) with neighbouring molecules of other types.
Absurd nonsense, of course! And your other comments are little better.
Are you really so scientifically ill-informed — or are you simply engaging in disingenuous nonsense for its own sake?
-
DeanMJackson at 15:50 PM on 7 May 2017Is the climate consensus 97%, 99.9%, or is plate tectonics a hoax?
What determines an atmospheric gas' potential heat capacity?* Anyone know? Anyone take high school physical science or physics? What physical feature of a gas determines what the gas is capable of ingesting regarding heat? Don't remember? Does VOLUME ring a bell? Ahhh...volume! Yes, volume. So let's take a look at the volumes of carbon dioxide, oxygen and nitrogen ...
One pound of Carbon Dioxide has a volume of 8.7 cubic feet,
Oxygen is at 12.1 cubic feet.
Nitrogen is at 13.8 cubic feet
With a smaller volume than either Nitrogen and Oxygen,
Carbon Dioxide can only possess LESS heat than Nitrogen and Oxygen, and when more COOLER carbon dioxide is pumped into the Nitrogen-Oxygen based atmosphere (>99% of the atmosphere's gasses), the result can only be a COOLING of the atmosphere.When the volume of any planet's atmosphere is increased by additions of a cooler trace gas such as Carbon Dioxide is on Earth, the result can only be a cooling of the planet, all other variables remaining constant. And if other variables should increase the heat of a planet, such as increased radiation from the planet's star(s), then the additional trace gas will have a RELATIVE cooling effect on the planet. To better grasp this fact, let's use a more familiar everyday experience we witness involving water: When a small amount of cooler water is added to a larger warmer body of water, the result is a cooling of the water.
So what is warming the planet, you ask? The heat obtained by both Nitrogen and Oxygen comes from thermals and latent heat from the surface, heat from man-made structures on the ground, and the heat produced by incoming radiation absorbed directly by the atmosphere, not solely from the absorption of outgoing IR. The warmth that blankets us each day is due to Nitrogen and Oxygen, not the puny amounts of the trace gas Carbon Dioxide, nor any of the other trace gasses.
Regarding man-made structures on the ground, interestingly NASA's 'earth's energy budget' illustration fails to provide the data on the amount of solar radiation absorbed by those structures, and it is the massive growth of urban sprawl the last sixty years that accounts for the atmosphere's warming, a warming that is being tempered by increasing amounts of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere.
That being cleared up, do you recall your high school chemistry teacher’s instruction on the high heating effect of Carbon Dioxide, where there's two jars and a heater next to each of the two jars? Carbon Dioxide is pumped into the second jar, and the temperature rises faster than the temperature in the first jar, thereby proving that Carbon Dioxide is a warming molecule. What the teacher didn't tell you is that by adding more Carbon Dioxide into the second jar, naturally the temperature within the jar will rise faster than the first jar because the atmospheric pressure in the second jar is GREATER due to the addition of the extra Carbon Dioxide!
For those scratching their heads, forgetting their high school physical science class instruction, increasing atmospheric pressure increases heat.
Now, a proper experiment, using the scientific method, would have included a third and fourth jar, where additional Nitrogen is pumped into the third jar, and additional Oxygen pumped into the fourth jar. But the scientific method isn’t used, because if it were the temperatures within the third and fourth jars would climb even higher than the second jar where additional amounts of Carbon Dioxide are pumped in.'
---------------
* No, not 'molar heat capacity' as Tom Curtis informed us on another thread, since molar heat capacity tells us nothing about a gas' heat capacity due to their EXPANDING WITH HEAT! Molar heat capacity measures the heat capacity of the particles that are in a gas, and since gasses expand due to heat, molar heat capacity can't be used to solely quantify the heat of a gas. Molar heat capacity contributes to a gas' potential heat in also expanding the gas, therefore one must add molar heat capacity AND specific heat capacity (volume) to obtain the correct temperature of a gas.
When Nitrogen, Oxygen, and Carbon Dioxide are at 70 F (and 1 atmosphere), all three have the same temperature, but which molecule has approximately one-third less of the 70 F temperature? Carbon Dioxide, which proves it's a cooling molecule in Earth's atmosphere.
Moderator Response:[DB] Off-topic and inflammatory snipped. If wishing to comment on matters not strictly on-topic to the subject matter of the current thread, please use the search function to find a more pertinent thread. Many thousands such exist here and all are active.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.
-
DeanMJackson at 14:41 PM on 7 May 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #18
Tom Curtis says:
"1) The heat capacity of a gas is, to a first approximation, a function of the number of degrees of freedom..."
Reply:
Which is why the drgrees of freedom for Nitrogen and Oxygen are LESS than for Carbon Dioxide, which is a function of Nitrogen and Oxygens greater volumes.
Tom Curtis says:
"2) "volume and mass do not measure the same thing."
Reply:
I never said they do!
Tom Curtis says:
"2) The heat capacity thus defined is the molar heat capacity..."
Reply:
Which tells us nothing about gasses that EXPAND due to HEAT! Molar heat capacity measures the heat capacity of the particles that are in a gas, and since gasses expand due to heat, molar heat capacity can't be used to quantify the heat of a gas. Only volume can determine the true heat a gas can retain at any particular atmospheric pressure and temperature, hence why Carbon Dioxide is a COOLING molecule in Earth's atmosphere. Very simple to comprehend!
Tom Curtis says:
"3) Heat gained by molecules by radiative transfer is almost immediately redistributed to the rest of the gas through collisions. Which type of molecule stores the most heat is therefore irrelevant to understanding the greenhouse effect."
Reply:
Gas molecules also obtain heat from ground based thermals and latent heat induced collisions caused by water vapor originating from oceans/seas/lakes/rivers, not just by radiative transfer, and which type of molecule stores the most heat is critical!
Tom Curtis says:
"The way the greenhouse effect actually works is through the capture and emission of radiation. For that to occur in the IR portion of the specturm, you need an electrical dipole (difference in charge) within the molecule."
Reply:
Why only the IR portion of the spectrum, Tom?
Tom Curtis says:
"That is effectively impossible with molecules made up of two atoms of the same sort, so O2 and N2 are IR transparent."
Reply:
Once again, why are you fixated on the IR spectrum? Nitrogen and Oxygen not only absorb infrared radiation, they also absorb gamma rays, x-rays, and uv light. Oxygen also absorb visible light.
That being cleared up, do you recall your high school chemistry teacher’s instruction on the high heating effect of Carbon Dioxide, where there's two jars and a heater next to each of the two jars? Carbon Dioxide is pumped into the second jar, and the temperature rises faster than the temperature in the first jar, thereby proving that Carbon Dioxide is a warming molecule. What the teacher didn't tell you is that by adding more Carbon Dioxide into the second jar, naturally the temperature within the jar will rise faster than the first jar because the atmospheric pressure in the second jar is GREATER due to the addition of the extra Carbon Dioxide!
For those scratching their heads, forgetting their high school physical science class instruction, increasing atmospheric pressure increases heat.
Now, a proper experiment, using the scientific method, would have included a third and fourth jar, where additional Nitrogen is pumped into the third jar, and additional Oxygen pumped into the fourth jar. But the scientific method isn’t used, because if it were the temperatures within the third and fourth jars would climb even higher than the second jar where additional amounts of Carbon Dioxide are pumped in.
-
Tom Curtis at 14:38 PM on 7 May 2017Evidence Squared #10: Debunking William Happer's carbon cycle myth
saileshrao @6, the change in total CO2 stored as biomass is accounted for by the IPCC as Land Use Change ( or LULUCF), which includes emissions from agriculture, deforestation and reforestation, and desertification. Cook and Jacobs are responding to a suggestion that human respiration has an effect on total atmospheric CO2 just because it is respiration, and without any consideration of total changes in biomass due to changes in how and where humans farm and source timber.
-
Tom Curtis at 14:27 PM on 7 May 2017Evidence Squared #10: Debunking William Happer's carbon cycle myth
chriskoz @5, personally I am not convinced of the soundness of reduction ad Hitlerum. To me it is as often used as rhetorical avoidance of argument as are false (and offensive) comparisons to Hitler. An example of that which you might be inclined to agree with are claims that calling the irrational objectors to climate science "deniers" are an attempt to are the invoking a comparison between AGW deniers and holocaust deniers, and that therefore supporters of climate science thereby show they are without coherent argumentative response, as per reductio ad Hitlerum.
Better to unpack the analogy.
The Munich agreement was an ineffective response to a very real threat. By making that analogy, Happer commits himself to the view that global warming is in fact a very real threat. A threat comparable to that posed by Hitler.
I would take issue with Harper's overwhelming confidence in an economic theory which is not supported by a consensus, ie, that the Paris agreement will cause enormous harm. I would contrast that dogmatic agreement with a carefully selected subset of economists with his refusal to accept the genuine consensus on climate science.
I would also take issue with his claim that the effects of the Paris agreement are trivial. In fact, if actually implimented the Paris agreement will reduce expected warming by around 20%. But it will not reduce that warming to below 2oC, let alone the 1.5oC above the preindustrial average that a significant number of relevant experts consider necessary to avoid substantive harm from AGW.
But that the Paris agreement is an inadequate response to an (at least) Hitlerian level of risk? Yes, that at least is true.
And coming full circle, I will note that Happer's analogy paints climate change deniers as, not the equivalent of holocaust deniers, but of those traitors in the UK and the US who thought Hitler was a great man, and that we should take his side rather than oppose him.
-
bozzza at 14:18 PM on 7 May 2017Is the climate consensus 97%, 99.9%, or is plate tectonics a hoax?
Are not facts reached by consensus?
-
Tom Curtis at 11:44 AM on 7 May 2017Is the climate consensus 97%, 99.9%, or is plate tectonics a hoax?
Why is it that when the completely ignorant with no relevant knowledge on a topic want to demonstrate to the world how foolish they are, they cannot post on just one thread? Like monkeys flinging shit, they don't seem happy unless they've smeared every wall.
In any event, refutation here.
Moderator Response:[PS] Thanks Tom. Normally replies to deleted get dumped too but given your effort, it should stand and perhaps it might give our visitor some indication on the knowledge gap (not hopeful however).
Dean -
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
I suspect that Sks is not the site for you - other forums (eg WUWT) welcome comments likes yours.
-
Tom Curtis at 11:41 AM on 7 May 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #18
No doubt DeanMJackson's masterpiece of junk science, conspiracy theories and paranoia will soon be deleted for multiple comments policy violations, of which the most egregious are the accusations of fraud. However, for the record:
1) The heat capacity of a gas is, to a first approximation, a function of the number of degrees of freedom it has, ie, the number of different way in which it can vibrate, rotate and in other ways store heat energy. As a three atom molecule, CO2 has a greater molar heat capacity (28.46 J mol^-1 K^-1) than either N2 (20.8 J mol^-1 K^-1) or O2 (21.0 J mol^-1 K^-1)
2) The heat capacity thus defined is the molar heat capacity, ie, the amount of energy storable per mole (ie, 6.022140857×10^23 molecules). Contrary to DeanMJackson, volume and mass do not measure the same thing.
3) Heat gained by molecules by radiative transfer is almost immediately redistributed to the rest of the gas through collisions. Which type of molecule stores the most heat is therefore irrelevant to understanding the greenhouse effect.
4) Where DeanMJackson says:
"With a smaller volume than either Nitrogen and Oxygen,
Carbon Dioxide can only possess LESS heat than Nitrogen and Oxygen, and when more COOLER carbon dioxide is pumped into the Nitrogen-Oxygen based atmosphere (>99% of the atmosphere's gasses), the result can only be a COOLING of the atmosphere."he not only gets the relative molar heat capacities wrong, and misunderstands the nature of the greenhouse effect, he confuses heat capacity (an amount of energy stored per degree of temperature increase) with actual temperature.
4) The way the greenhouse effect actually works is through the capture and emission of radiation. For that to occur in the IR portion of the specturm, you need an electrical dipole (difference in charge) within the molecule. That is effectively impossible with molecules made up of two atoms of the same sort, so O2 and N2 are IR transparent. CO2, on the other hand, creates an electrical dipole in two out of its three vibrational modes, and can absorb and emit IR radiation strongly.
I could go on. His junk science does not end there. But that should be enough to show that DeanMJackson is ignorant on the relevant science.
-
william5331 at 09:27 AM on 7 May 2017Is the climate consensus 97%, 99.9%, or is plate tectonics a hoax?
Consensus has little to do with science. It may increase the probablility that the theory is correct a little but there are too many examples of consensus being wrong for us to harp on this point. Climate change has the weight of peer reviewed science behind it and this is the point we should be emphasizing. Plus the phenomenon of exposure. A mountain climber would identify with this. You may be on a very difficult climb on a bolder but are only a meter or two above the ground. Nearly zero exposure. On the other hand you may be on a cake walk on a ridge with 2000m below you on both sides. Easy walk but horrendous exposure. Climate change is like this. The consequensus are ghastly if we are correct. Besides, there are so many reasons other than climate change to get off fossil fuels. Perhaps we should hammer this with the unbelievers.
http://mtkass.blogspot.co.nz/2010/10/forget-climate-change.html
-
nigelj at 06:53 AM on 7 May 2017Evidence Squared #10: Debunking William Happer's carbon cycle myth
Chriskoz @5, your reductio ad hitlerum fallacy reminds me of another similar tactic called "poisoning the well" used repeatedly by Trump.
"Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a fallacy where irrelevant adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
Regarding Trump and his team, you are of course exactly right. Most people surround themselves with like minded people, and "yes men" and with Trump this has been taken to an an extreme level. The bubble they live in is gigantic and dangerous, as it insulates them from constructive criticism and full information, so risks poor quality decisions.
I would however give Obama some credit for including a few people with opposing points of view, regardless of what you think of him in other ways. So not everyone chooses to live in a bubble.
However apparently Ivanka Trump is moderately sympathetic to climate issues, and Trump pays a lot of attention to "familiy". I hope it's not all a big pretence from Ivanka, but I'm trying to see some positives and not get too despondent.
Another small ray of hope is apparently some republicans in congress are promoting renewable energy and carbon taxes etc. (from some reputable looking media article, I can't remember which one). The general opinion is that now Obama is gone, it's safe to promote climate issues. But I would think it's probably too little, too late.
-
jlsoaz at 04:36 AM on 7 May 2017Antarctica is gaining ice
Hi amhartley:
Thanks for the response.
Yes, I have been to nsidc.org a fair amount, particularly this page to try to understand each Northern Hemisphere summer what is going on with greenland ice melt:
http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/
While I do like that page, I must say I have not been able to find what I am looking for there, as far as clear non-scientist-oriented data that shows land ice changes over the years, whether for the Antarctic, Greenland or other places.
The NASA site I mentioned in my post above seems to show land ice mass changes.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/land-ice/
and it cites two sources:
https://grace.jpl.nasa.gov
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/icebridge/index.html#.VDQh8UvLxd0
There seems to be (as best I can make out) a common theme to both sources that they were satellite-based systems, with IceSat gone and GRACE no longer functioning fully, and both systems seem to have scheduled replacements. (Maybe I am confused and they are one and the same system, but it seems like possibly different systems and different planned replacements).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_IceBridge
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICESat-2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Recovery_and_Climate_Experiment#GRACE_follow-on
Perhaps it is the somewhat challenging nature of the science journalism involved, but I haven't seen a single news story which gets at the important question of how important this land ice data would seem to be, that no widely-disseminated information seems to be available dating past 14 months ago, and that both sources are dependent on expensive new planned launches which we can hope won't be pushed back or cancelled, but which are still 2-3 quarters away at the least.
Perhaps the IceBridge interim plane-based system can provide data, or perhaps other countries or systems are developing data? Japan? China? NASA has literally labeled this as a "vital sign" and it does seem important, so I'm hoping to uncover if there is more reliable data out there. Perhaps I have missed something at NSIDC. Do you have a specific link in mind? -
Jfaw70 at 02:35 AM on 7 May 2017Sea level rise due to floating ice?
Can anyone tell me how much is trapped in sea ice and there released when sea ice melts? There must be billions of tons of trapped air in floating sea ice I would assume, but I'm no expert. I don't have to be an expert to know what happens to the water level in my bath tub when I push a cup into in upside down.
Moderator Response:[JH] How much what? Please clarify.
-
saileshrao at 02:17 AM on 7 May 2017Evidence Squared #10: Debunking William Happer's carbon cycle myth
Unfortunately, John Cook and Peter Jacobs are also oversimplifying in the first video. Just because the metabolic carbon cycle is closed doesn't mean that it is balanced. Indeed, 20 million acres of land get desertified and 30 million acres of land get deforested each year, which shows that the metabolic carbon cycle isn't balanced. The planet's ecosystems are far from being in equilibrium.
In his PNAS paper from 2008, Barnosky estimates that the biomass of all wild megafauna was steady at around 200 Million tons (MT) between 10K-100K years ago. Since then, the human-livestock population has overwhelmed the planet's ecosystems.
Currently, the human biomass alone is 500 MT and we metabolize 0.93 GT of dry matter biomass (IPCC AR5 WG3 Chapter 11). Our livestock biomass is well over 1000 MT, but they metabolize 4.69 GT, FIVE times as much as all humans put together, because they are an unnatural mix of mostly young animals, who get slaughtered before they reach puberty. -
BaerbelW at 01:19 AM on 7 May 2017There is no consensus
qwertie @749 & 750
I disagree that we have to follow the framing of those who still deny the consensus and to then basically censor ourselves by no longer mentioning particular studies.
As for the details from "Consensus on consensus", they are already just a click away and - at a guess - it wouldn't matter at all if that information were also included right within the rebuttal. They'd still ignore and/or twist it to their liking.
-
Eclectic at 21:47 PM on 6 May 2017Humans are greening the planet, but the implications are complicated
LinkeLau, like you I would not care to quantify the degree of benefit coming from "increased greening". However, not many years ago there was a study by agricultural scientists, indicating that another 1 degree rise in AGW would cause a roughly 5% drop in wheat/maize/rice production (per Hectare), and 2 degree rise would cause a 10% reduction. If so, then this reduction in food for humans would override any benefit from increased leafy food for livestock.
Alas, I have not managed to re-discover the reference for the study, but IIRC it involved 3 research centres, one of which was in Sri Lanka and one in USA or Europe, and one in Australia I think.
In trying to quantify things, we must remember that the increased greening of the land would not apply to the 73% percent of the globe which is ocean ( and including Antarctica ). And probably not apply to a further 3% which is already commited to conventional crops.
I speculate that there would be no extra sequestration of carbon by seaweeds, since they are already suffering from a surfeit of "available carbon" courtesy of ocean acidification.
Rainforest would be in the region of 2% [and falling] of global area, and that amount is small and unlikely to be permitted to increase. So an increased "cloudiness" would likely not occur, to have any effect on cooling through more reflectiveness.
-
LinkeLau at 19:15 PM on 6 May 2017Humans are greening the planet, but the implications are complicated
Dear Tom@4
Thank you for your extensive answer and elaborations.
1) In general I think it is a very hopefull message that additional plant growth could eventually drawn down all anthropogenic CO2 emissions, but I also understand that 'the price is high' for many plant and animal types. On the other hand - and maybe it is a form of my ignorance - I somehow trust that nature will find a new balance which will be positive for some plant and animal types and negative for others. Is it too bold to state that more vegetation in the long term means more biomass and also a wider variety of species? If we take a look at the dense rainforrest we are all happy about the variety of species that live there. Why couldn't that happen in large parts of lets say Australia, the Soviet Union, Canada or the US? With current agro technology development (agro towers, led light spectra, meat production based on stem cells, etc.) most of these lands will probably become obsolete for food production in the near future (30-100 years). So, reforrestry could at least sequester a lot of the access CO2 we pumped in that air. Lets 'built' forrests on agro ground that is no longer needed. It is already done in the Netherlands where obsolete grounds are 'given back' to nature.
2. I don't have any expertise in this field and also based on logic reasonining it is hard to find an answer, but given the very cloudy atmospere in the rainforest I would guess that a lot of temperature will be trapped near surface, but as a compensation extra clouds reflect incoming solar. What the net effect will be? I can only guess. If I take a look at the maps that NASA produced it seems that the rainforrest could also have been a dessert without the forrest (assumption: the forrest keeps the forrest although solar irradiance is very high in some of those areas)
3. Probably without these resistance to aridity the world would have been as it is now. Maybe this is one of the reasons (a miricle?) why the earth did not experience a runaway greenhouse effect before: plants adapt to a large extend if temperature as well as CO2 in combination increase to a high level by creating their own biotope? The cloudiness that follows (see reainforrest) helps re-radiating solar irradiance and that could start a new cooling phase?
Prev 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 Next
