Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 Next
Comments 3501 to 3550:
-
Bobby21796 at 03:05 AM on 13 September 2022Welcome to Skeptical Science
While studying climate change, it is important that we have a skeptic mindset and not a denial mindset. Skeptics look for a definitive answer backed by evidence while peopel with a denial mindset shut down anything that is not proven correct. All the data with climate change should be viewed with skeptic mindset, not denial. This is so any theory or data that is not 100% proven is still accepted. A denialist would shut down anything that is only 99% correct. A skeptic would say that 99% is probably true. Not everything always lines up or makes sense to us, but that does not mean it is not true and can be denied.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:57 AM on 13 September 2022New study more than triples estimated costs of climate change damages
Arguably (meaning a reasoned justification exists - as opposed to claiming an argument based on unreasonable rationalizations) the 2% discount rate used by the evaluation should be considered to be an upper limit on the discount rate.
The following World Bank ... Blogs post provides reasons why "Zero" is a more appropriate basis for these type of evaluations.
Using a zero-discount rate could help choose better projects and help get to net zero carbon
My MBA education and life experience supports this. The discount rate should only be used when the same people who benefit now will "exclusively" face the full future consequences. It is used to compare alternative "Investment Options" for an investing group, a group that wants to chose the option that maximizes their net-present-value (the evaluation of full life-cycle value of the investment converted to current day dollars by 'discounting' the future revenue and costs). It is meant to differentiate the magnitude of the future increased value compared to the required initial investment. It is not a concept that should be used to evaluate and compare how much will be lost by investment choices.
Applying a discount rate to compare the magnitude of negative impact options, like the increasing of climate change harm, would result in the selection of 'biggest losing options'. Using the higher rate results in evaluations justifying more climate change harm done.
It is simply and clearly unethical to use a discount rate to justify how much harm can be done to Others. And all of the future generations of humanity, as well as many members of currently living humanity, are being harmed by the actions that a portion of current day humanity inequitably benefit from.
Most rapidly ending the harm done is the ethical requirement. Using a discount rate to justify doing less than could be done to limit harm, to justify doing more harm, is part of what Peter Singer referred to as the 'Era of Excuses' in his book Animal Liberation (an ethical argument that is interesting to re-read by replacing "limiting harm done to other life" with "climate change harm done to other life").
-
MSU student at 13:13 PM on 12 September 2022Welcome to Skeptical Science
Thank you so much for this site. I am in search of answers to solutions and reading through the comments this seems like a well-knowledgeable audience. I am a current student and would love some really great data on Nuclear Fusion, how far they have come and predictions on how long it would last the world. I have read a couple of articles and I would love some great opinions on the matter. I think it could be just what the world needs. If everyone could come together and make changes to completely eradicate fossil fuels. The problem would be, of course getting every country to follow suit. Not just from closed mindedness but poverty as well.
Moderator Response:[BL] Welcome to Skeptical Science.
It looks like we have quite a few new users posting here on the Welcome thread - almost as if it is a class project or assignment.
In general, we try to keep discussions focused, so that all readers and participants can find on-topic conversation and help each other understand the issues. I'll remind all participants that we have a Comments Policy that helps guide participants. You can always find a link to it above the text box where you enter your comments.
That being said, nuclear energy is a topic that often creates somewhat heated discussion. Skeptical Science does not have team members that are experts in this area, so we do not have a lot of posts that cover the topic. We do have some reasonably-well-informed commenters, but we also have some discussions that include not-so-well-informed participants! (Welcome to the Internet!)
You can use the Search box on the upper left of each page to find posts related to any search terms you like. You will find the results broken into two categories:
- Posts that are in our "rebuttal" section - our bread-and-butter responses to the most common myths about climate change. The top 10 and a link to all arguments are found just below the search box on the upper left of every page.
- Individual blog posts that have appeared over the years.
You also have the option (on the search results page) to extend the search into the comments. That can return an awfully long list, though.
Searching for "nuclear", a few posts that might be of interest are:
https://skepticalscience.com/small-modular-nukes.html
https://skepticalscience.com/wrong-nuclear-energy-debate.html
https://skepticalscience.com/NuclearEnergy.html
https://skepticalscience.com/GND-nuclear-power.html
Reading the comments, as well as the post, can be informative.
-
john cena at 12:41 PM on 12 September 2022Welcome to Skeptical Science
Global warming or climate change is a very big thing in thr world right now. Most people know it's happening but are in denial because they don't think they can change it. I believe if someone is in denial it's more hard to get out of that stage becuase you know it's a problem you just don't really want to help.
-
Cosmo Kramer at 10:28 AM on 12 September 2022Welcome to Skeptical Science
In order to have an informed opinion about climate change, it is important to be skeptical about, but not deny, the information presented about it. In order to truly understand it, the data needs to be looked at without any preconceived ideas. All the data presented should be viewed with a skeptical mindset, where ideas are not denied or accepted immediately upon viewing, but where they are held until they are supported by enough extra evidence. After this, an informed opinion can truly be created. This is especially important for climate change, where the vast majority of information supports the idea that it is caused by humans, but a small majority goes against this idea. A properly formed opinion requires a skeptic mindset.
-
patrick.tumlin at 10:20 AM on 12 September 2022Welcome to Skeptical Science
Climate change has become a major problem in today's society because it has been let go for so many years without any restrictions or guidelines. Most people are either skeptical of climate change or in denial. It is better for people to be skeptical than in denial because they are more likely to realize just how real that it is. If something doesn't change soon, what kind of environment will our kids have to grow up in? It is time that we focus on the climate crisis that is presented before us and take action.
-
Pumpkinspiceseason at 10:02 AM on 12 September 2022Welcome to Skeptical Science
Climate Change is real and I hope we can find a way to stop it. Using fossil fuels is definitely the reason to blame. One promising energy generator/storage is pumped hydro storage (PMS). Even with that though there are four issues; the rate of power delivery that is to come from storage, the length of time over which this rate would have to be maintained, the rate at which energy would have to be stored given the intermittent pattern of its availability and the efficiency of the full cycle (Trainer, 2017).
Works Cited
Ted Trainer,
Some problems in storing renewable energy,
Energy Policy,
Volume 110,
2017,
Pages 386-393,
ISSN 0301-4215,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.07.061 .
(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421517304925) -
jonsnow at 09:09 AM on 12 September 2022Welcome to Skeptical Science
I agree that skepticism is better than denial. I think that in order to form a decent opinion regarding climate change, all of the facts need to be considered. That being said, I myself can see that we need to have more people who are "skeptics" rather than in "denaial". We need this change in order to stop the planet from burning up. If we do not make this change, the damage we could cause now and in the future is unfathomable. I will thoroughly enjoy looking at all of the theories and myths regarding climate change on this website.
-
MA Rodger at 22:12 PM on 11 September 2022CO2 effect is saturated
GreenEarth @661,
As Eclectic @ 663 says, your "mystery" is a 'phycisist' thing. You would get a reply from a physicist that it is well known that all thing which absorb photons likewise emit them. And to provide authority for such a statement they would cite Beer's Law.
This is true, but most folk would not find this entirely helpful.Consider the specrum of light. It is well known to have absorption lines which provide the fingerprint of the gases which cause those apsorption lines. But these are identical to the less-well known emission lines of those gases, the lines being caused by the difference in temperature of the gases and the more distant 'background emitter'. If the gases are cooler than the background, the lines will show as absorpion. If the gases are hotter they will show as emitters.
See also this 'Lesson Explainer' which may help.At lower temperatures (and thus lower energies) where only IR is being emitted, the more simple molecules like N2, O2 & Ar are entirely transparent, neither absorbing nor emitting IR.
Greenhouse gases are more complex molecules so can waggle in more complex ways than mono- & bi-atomic molecules, these waggles defining the basic absorption wavelengths. Thus for CO2, the waggles, (top to bottom in the diagram) v1, v2 & v3, are caused by abrosbing IR at 2.7 microns, 15 microns and 4.3 microns. They are also caused (and in our atmosphere overwhelmingly so) by collisions with other air mollecules, collisions which also overwhelmingly de-waggle the CO2. A CO2 molecule getting the chance to de-waggle by emitting an IR photon is comparatively rare (although there is loads of CO2 molecules so IR is emitted).
Our atmosphere is too cold to give a strong enough bash to the CO2 to impart the v1 & v3 waggles, so it is only the 15 micron v2 that concerns us. The v1 waggle is induced in the atmosphere by sunlight which is just about still significant at 2.7 microns, but our atmosphere is not hot enough to create v1 waggles so there are no IR emissions at 2.7 microns. And by 4.3 microns the sunlight is entirely weak while the atmosphere is still too cold, so v3 falls between the terrestrial and solar energies and is absent here on Earth.
Moderator Response:[BL] Note that comments have been moving around a bit due to deletions. Eclectic's comment 663 is now at 661.
Before anyone spends a lot more time on responses to some of these questions, it may be worth waiting to see if the comment survives moderation. We've seen a lot of thread-bombing on this particular subject in the past 2-3 months, seeing the same tired old "criticisms" of basic science. Although posed as questions, the commenter(s) rarely have any desire to learn the science.
-
Eclectic at 21:36 PM on 11 September 2022CO2 effect is saturated
Thanks MARodger @662 ~ sorry to have cross-posted with you.
The more the merrier, I hope. As you indicate, the subject is not particularly intuitive, and I hope to learn something more from GreenEarth's previous experience at other internet sites.
Moderator Response:[BL] Response to deleted comment
-
Eclectic at 21:28 PM on 11 September 2022CO2 effect is saturated
Hi GreenEarth (@661) ,
Offhand, I am not sure which would be the best page here to point you to ~ IIRC this information can be found on a number of threads (and perhaps a kindly Moderator can indicate some suitable ones).
What we are talking about is very basic stuff known by all physicists having any connection with radiation & atmosphere (in other words, climate science).
In short, the atmospheric molecules are all knocking about against each other. Likewise for the various molecules of the Earth's surface ~ energy passes from surface to atmosphere, and vice versa, by these impacts. There is also bi-directional energy exchange between the planetary surface and adjacent air, via radiated photons. (Of course, there is also short-wave photonic energy coming from the sun ~ including from clouds, dispersion by dust etcetera in the air.)
The surface loses "heat" upwards by convection, by evaporation/condensation, and by radiation (mostly by radiation into the atmosphere, but a small amount by direct radiation out to space via the "window" band around 10 microns). The so-called "sensible heat" loss (producing warm air and thus convection) derives from molecular impacts as well as the limited-range radiation you have mentioned earlier.
Once the energy has risen to the so-called Top Of Atmosphere [TOA] it can then be radiated out into space (the TOA altitude level is different for CO2, H2O, CH4 , and other greenhouse gasses).
I hope I have not been repeating too much stuff that you already know.
The essential point is that because the greenhouse gas molecules are so thinly distributed among the bulk of N2/O2 air molecules, they are speeding/ slowing/ vibrating owing to impacts with the N2/O2 molecules which are moving at the (average) speed determined by the local air temperature. In effect, CO2 [for example] is able to broadcast 15 micron photons by gaining energy from local air (and by radiating, effectively cools the adjacent air). Almost all the energy for radiation comes from impact energy ~ and only a minuscule amount is contributed from a received/absorbed 15 micron photon from a "distant" CO2 molecule.
This is the reason why the concentration of CO2 at near-surface altitude is irrelevant to the greenhouse warming effect ~ because the concentration at TOA is the important determiner of the planetary effect. Then we get to the importance of the temperature at TOA and the actual altitude at TOA combined with the Lapse Rate temperature gradient.
GreenEarth, my apologies if my condensed explanation is not as clear as you would like, but I hope it sets you off in a useful direction of exploration of the basic concepts. And I would be interested to know where the incorrect ideas you got were coming from.
Moderator Response:[BL] Portions snipped. Note that this is a response to a deleted comment. The poster in question has been pointed to appropriate places may times, but has not shown a positive learning slope.
-
MA Rodger at 20:29 PM on 11 September 2022CO2 effect is saturated
GreenEarth @659,
The quote from the 'Advanced' rebuttal you make continues:-But on the way up this light will find a decreasing pressure, i.e. less CO2 molecules. There will be a point where the light can escape to the outer space. The intensity of the emerging light will be appropriate for the temperature of this "last" layer layer.
And this is then followed by description of a simplistic model of a spreading absorption band caused by increased CO2. (It isn't perhaps the best of descriptions but the physics is both complex and novel for general consumption so what is 'best' will always be debatable.)
The continuation of your quote is saying that it the altitude from which IR is emitted into space that is the important, this being the effective radiative "top of the atmosphere".
And adding more CO2 (which is well-mixed up to the top of the stratosphere at 50km) puts more high-up CO2 in the way of the IR that would previously have exited to space. So more CO2 pushes the CO2 "TOA" further up not lower down.
If you consider the additional CO2 near the surface, more CO2 does indeed reduce the path length of IR before it encounters a CO2 molecule to absorb it. But because CO2 both emits and absorbs IR in equal measure**, while the IR has a shorter path length, with added CO2 more IR is being emitted. At a constant temperture, the shorter path length and the increased emissions cancel out. (**As Eclectic @660 says, CO2 emits due to collisions with other air mollecules. These collisions also absorb the energy from almost all absorbed IR. Because of this, the level of IR emission is determined by temperature and not by IR emissions from the surface.)Moderator Response:[BL] Note that this is a response to deleted comment.
-
Eclectic at 19:33 PM on 11 September 2022CO2 effect is saturated
GreenEarth @659 :
In general, a CO2 molecule radiates a 15 micron photon after gaining energy from impact with a neighbouring O2 or N2 molecule. This type of impact happens at all levels of the troposphere/stratosphere. (The similar mechanism also applies with all the other greenhouse gasses.)
Therefore your stated supposition about altitude and radiation of photonic energy is entirely wrong. (But I am curious where you got such an erroneous idea from. Can you elaborate? )
Moderator Response:[BL] Snipped portions that are a direct response to a deleted comment
Note that this issue of absorbed radiation being transferred to other molecules has been discussed recently in this thread. A detailed explanation of at Eli Rabbet's was previously pointed out in the moderation comments on comment 655.
-
Bob Loblaw at 07:42 AM on 11 September 2022A critical review of Steven Koonin’s ‘Unsettled’
dvaytw:
I dont' know what IPCC report Koonin is reading, but when I read the "Headline Statements" for AR6 Working Group II, I don't see the rosy picture that Koonin does.
Selectively quoting from a few of their headlines (bolding mine):
B1. Human-induced climate change, including more frequent and intense extreme events, has caused widespread adverse impacts and related losses and damages to nature and people, beyond natural climate variability.
B2. Approximately 3.3 to 3.6 billion people live in contexts that are highly vulnerable to climate change (high confidence).
B4 Beyond 2040 and depending on the level of global warming, climate change will lead to numerous risks to natural and human systems (high confidence). For 127 identified key risks, assessed mid- and long- term impacts are up to multiple times higher than currently observed (high confidence).
These do not seem to fit the normal definition of "minimal".
Perhaps he is still using something he prepared in the 1990s, when "the end of this century" was the year 2000?
As usual, consulting Skeptical Science's Most Used Climate Myths,
- Number 3 is "It's not bad"
- Number 67 is "CO2 limits will hurt the poor".
-
michael sweet at 01:24 AM on 11 September 2022A critical review of Steven Koonin’s ‘Unsettled’
dvaytw:
You list two items where you think Koonan was correct and climate scientists are incorrect:
1) "The economic impacts of climate change will be minimal to the end of this century". Tell that to Pakistan which has suffered $30 billion of damage from the worst flooding recorded. Record flooding is occuring around the world. There are billions of dollars damage in the USA alone from forrest fires, and those fires are happening around the entire globe. The damage suffered yearly now are severe, we don't need to wait untill the end of the centuary.
2) "Use of fossil fuels is the only real means by which developing countries can achieve parity". Perhaps you have not noticed but a shortage of fossil fuels are currenly causing economic pain across the world. Countries that have invested in renewable energy are doing great! Renewable energy is the cheapest energy all around the world now and is cheaper every year. Meanwhile fossil fuels get more expensive every year since all the cheap fossil fuel was mined years ago. Do you want to condem developing nations to expensive, polluting energy that they will have to replace as soon as it is built with cheaper renewable energy? I note that in developed countries little new fossil fuel generators are being built, virtually all new installations for new energy are renewable. In addition, distributed solar can be installed immediately virtually everywhere while central fossil generation requires expensive transmission systems that do not exist in developing countries.
Your arguments were false ten years ago and are absurd now. Read more and get up to date.
-
Bob Loblaw at 22:20 PM on 10 September 2022Reasons to avoid false balance and fake debates
Zoli:
That's what you took away from that cartoon? Fashion statements and a broad sweeping declaration about the beliefs of 15th and 16th century people?
FYI, there are people around today that still believe in a flat earth. Fewer now than there were in the 15th and 16th centuries, but still a few. The suggestion in the cartoon is that their beliefs are, shall we politely say, somewhat antiquated - like the wardrobe of the character in the cartoon.
So, you can reject it all as "misinformation" because you want to read something into the cartoon that isn't really there - or you could actually read the text and consider the argument being made.
-
Eclectic at 19:12 PM on 10 September 2022A critical review of Steven Koonin’s ‘Unsettled’
Dvaytw, as a small matter of interest, I checked on Youtube (where the Dessler/Koonin debate is made public).
The earlier video release was 9 days ago, and shows currently as 12,069 views. Another release was 3 days ago, and managed 163 views so far. That's a bit discouraging. Maybe next time the producers of the debate can substitute with actors such as George Clooney & Brad Pitt. But I suspect even using photogenic speakers is not going to set a-flame the world's attention. Sad reflection on human nature, eh.
(Are there other video releases you can point me to?)
-
Eclectic at 18:35 PM on 10 September 2022Reasons to avoid false balance and fake debates
Zoli @1 ,
please allow some artistic licence, for humorous effect. (But you are quite right ~ even the Ancient Greeks did not use ruff collars.)
-
Zoli at 18:25 PM on 10 September 2022Reasons to avoid false balance and fake debates
Thank you spreading the misinformation with that picture, that suggests renaissance-early modern people didn't know about the spherical Earth.
For your information, America was discovered in 1492, and Magellan's fleet circumnavigated around the globe in 1519-22. Both happened during the renaissance, predating the fashion of that ruff collar.
-
Eclectic at 18:15 PM on 10 September 2022A critical review of Steven Koonin’s ‘Unsettled’
Dvaytw @21 : my 2 cents on that August 2022 debate :-
Two questions.
A/ What is "minimal" impact? To use those cliches Global North and Global South . . . the North has considerable fat on its waistline. For instance, in the USA the wealth of the socioeconomic top 1% is approx 40 trillion USD ~ so the nation could comfortably manage to deal with a plus/minus 10% economic impact over the course of the next eighty-ish years.
# But for the South, things like the [presentday] disastrous Pakistan flooding/ other droughts floods heatwaves and increasing sea-level rise (over the coming 100 years & beyond) . . . are heading in the direction of cumulating catastrophe, which will fall most heavily on the South. Quite possibly the total global GNP's will continue to increase [to the applause of economists] ~ but that would provide little comfort against a vast scale of human misery. So shame on Koonin, if that is his line of "economic impact" argument.
B/ What do the people of the so-called developing countries actually need over the next 100 years? First answer is : food/ shelter/ education/ freedom from oppression, and so on. Parity, in the sense of a widescreen television etcetera would be nice, but it is a long way down the immediate wish list, I'm sure. Neither the food nor the TV will be produced by a large ramping-up of fossil fuel usage. Much reform (and careful international aid) is needed ~ but Koonin is absurd if he opines that Nigeria will necessarily benefit from more oil production or Congo Republic benefit from more cobalt production.
If Koonin thinks that more fossil fuel usage will not cause an overall digging-deeper of the present "hole" for global conditions, then he is being disingenuous (for the sake of quickie debate points).
# Third question . . . is the Koonin/Dessler debate worth viewing? Dvaytw, if the two points you mention are the best/strongest that Koonin can do, then their debate sure ain't worth viewing.
-
dvaytw at 16:04 PM on 10 September 2022A critical review of Steven Koonin’s ‘Unsettled’
I've read Koonin's book, as well as every online critique I could find... but I haven't been able to discover a response to what I think are Koonin's strongest points - by which IMO he decisively defeated Dressler in their recent Soho debate (of August, 2022). The first is that, according to the IPCC's own forecasts, the economic impacts of climate change will be minimal to the end of this century. The second is that use of fossil fuels is the only real means by which developing countries can achieve parity with developed countries over the coming century. If anyone can respond to these two big points I would great appreciate it!
-
Eric (skeptic) at 11:09 AM on 10 September 2022How climate change spurs megadroughts
Thanks for the reference to the "History of ENSO..." and for the link that worked for me too. The paper references some of the same authors earlier work (e.g. Stahle 1998) for part of the reconstruction: Google Scholar for Stahle 1998. In that 1998 paper they say:
The reconstruction model relies heavily (though not exclusively; Table 1) on the tree-growth response in subtropical North America to wet conditions during El Nino years and dry conditions during La Nina years. However, this model does not uniquely fingerprint ENSO extremes because other circulation patterns can bring drought or wetness to the Texas-Mexico region
It is complicated and the correlation is being used for a reconstruction, not a study of North American drought or causation. As Stahle 1998 points out the drought and wetness has other causes.
I looked through some of the references from History of ENSO and found there were suggestions of more intense and/or prolonged ENSO as early as 1996 (Trenberth and Hoar):
The late 20th century contained a number of extreme and prolonged ENSO episodes (Trenberth and Hoar 1996), including the two most intense El Niños (1982– 1983 and 1997–1998) and La Niñas (1988–1989, 1973–1974).
I think the evidence for prolonged and more intense ENSO cycles is stronger now. Some papers that cite the History of ENSO paper and use that same history to study other drought and rainfall effects. One is Multicentury Evaluation of Recovery from Strong Precipitation Deficits in California which looks at the role of very strong El Nino (e.g. 2016) in drought recovery (2012-15 drought) in California. Note that paper does not look at what role if any that La Nina had, just the role of strong El Nino in drought recovery.
We know from further experience that the 2016 recovery didn't last long. Any effect of global warming on the sign of ENSO will be important if ENSO is an important factor in drought and drought recovery. Also prolonged La Nina like the current one will be problematic if it causes drought and is prolonged by global warming.
-
Bob Loblaw at 06:20 AM on 10 September 2022How climate change spurs megadroughts
The second and third figures in the post show pretty dramatic changes. I have visited both areas. The satellite images don't really show the full drama of the change that you see from ground level, though.
The first of the two is just east of Lost Wages Las Vegas. I visited the area in 2009, and the drop in water level was very dramatic. Quite the sequence of bathtub rings.
The second satellite image is from the top of Lake Powell. The Colorado River flows from east to west across the image, and enters Lake Powell at Hite. Or, what used to be Hite, which disappeared under the lake when it was formed. If you look on Google Earth, you can still see an abandoned marina area marked, which was shut down in the mid-2000s due to low water levels. Google Earth historical images are also quite interesting.
Highway 95 crosses the Colorado River just before the bend in the satellite image. I visited there in 2008, and there was enough water to provide for some lush vegetation. Not so lush now.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 06:20 AM on 10 September 2022How climate change spurs megadroughts
Doug Bostrom,
The potential ENSO problem is indeed a significant concern, and is well summarized in the following quote from the abstract:
"Although extreme ENSO events are seen throughout the 478-year ENSO reconstruction, approximately 43% of extreme and 28% of all protracted ENSO events (i.e. both El Niño and La Niña phase) occur in the 20th century. The post-1940 period alone accounts for 30% of extreme ENSO years observed since A.D. 1525. These results suggest that ENSO may operate differently under natural (pre-industrial) and anthropogenic background states. As evidence of stresses on water supply, agriculture and natural ecosystems caused by climate change strengthens, studies into how ENSO will operate under global warming should be a global research priority."
Of course, a major part of the problem is the powerful developed bias against any research that is considered to:
- be less likely to produce short-term economic benefits than other research
- potentially require external governing to limit harm done by desired activity that is beneficial to some but harmful to others (popular or profitable among beneficiaries who are able to compromise 'governing actions' - misguiding research funding and other ways of penalizing 'Institutions of Learning' to make them more compliant 'pursuers of desired types of learning')
- potentially require the rapid ending of a developed popular or profitable activity by external governing and penalty to bring about a more rapid ending of the activity to limit the total harm done.
Undeniably climate change research unintentionally produced these 'learning and research fears and threats' triggering a massive harmful aggressive response from people who like to benefit from:
- harmful unsustainable beliefs and actions
- a lack of awareness of the harm done
- excusing the harm done because of the benefits obtained
- claiming that the future is always better so future generations will naturally create amazing improvements in spite of the harm being done to the ability of others, especially future generations, to live better lives.
Human willingness to be harmfully misled, or excuse and ignore the harm done, puts more than "Breakfast, lunch and dinner are under threat".
-
Bob Loblaw at 06:01 AM on 10 September 2022How climate change spurs megadroughts
Doug's original link @ 7 also got me to an "Oops. It looks like you are in the wrong aisle" page. (Custom error 404 page...)
OPOF's link works for me.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 05:43 AM on 10 September 2022How climate change spurs megadroughts
Doug @7,
That link did not work for me.
The link (here) got me to a page where a pdf of "A history of ENSO events since AD 1525: implications for future climate change" could be downloaded for Free.
-
Bob Loblaw at 23:11 PM on 9 September 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #36 2022
David-acct:
Note that is is usually best to point out what it is at that link that you want to bring to people's attention. Link-only posts are discouraged.
For what it is worth, that study does not suggest that this higher-than-previously-thought geothermal heat flux is new. The estimates are at a higher spatial resolution than previous studies, and indicate an area of higher fluxes around Thwaites, but it is still in the "a couple of hundred milliWatts/m2" range.
And it is related to long-standing tectonic features, so it has been happening for a while. The news release in your second link says "which has likely affected the sliding behavior of the ice masses for millions of years".
So, of interesting note in terms of the dynamics of Thwaites, but not an isolated explanation of any recent changes in behaviour.
-
David-acct at 11:45 AM on 9 September 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #36 2022
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/08/210818083957.htm
FWIW - the thwaites glacier along with most of west antarctica has lots of geothermal activity.
-
Doug Bostrom at 07:35 AM on 9 September 2022How climate change spurs megadroughts
Germane by topic and extra useful thanks to its nature and hence collection of citations, Eric:
A history of ENSO events since AD 1525: implications for future climate change
Actually, not only Eric ought to take a look. We've got hydrometeorological problems. "People gotta eat." Breakfast, lunch and dinner are under threat.
-
Eric (skeptic) at 00:53 AM on 9 September 2022How climate change spurs megadroughts
Sorry, left out the link: Google Scholar Link. Multiyear La Nin ̃a events and persistent drought in the contiguous United States
-
Eric (skeptic) at 00:31 AM on 9 September 2022How climate change spurs megadroughts
Thanks for the feedback and suggestions. I want to clear up the dates for weaker monsoon since 2000 and La Nina since 1999. They are not related as far as I know, but they could be. The Pacific is cooler during La Nina and it is one of the two monsoon moisture sources for the SW US monsoon. Could be related in some other ways.
Monsoon weaker starting in 2000: NWS Phoenix monsoon data. Predominant La Nina starting in 1999: MEI Time Series (NOAA) from psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/ Note that the monsoon statistics are only Phoenix AZ so a somewhat limited depiction. Also note that the MEI is one of several ENSO indexes. The Jan Null link provided above uses Nino 3.4 ocean temperatures. The regime change from El Nino (red in MEI link) to La Nina (blue in MEI link) doesn't show up nearly as much in the Nino 3.4 data.
I acknowldege my data is limited. But I believe drought is a natural occurrence affected by global warming. Drought will be more intense since warmer air holds more moisture from evaporation and transpiration. It can start sooner and end later for the same reason.
The climate.gov ENSO change analysis is very helpful. I believe however they should say the "switches" are affected in various ways by warming. It's not particularly useful to use "climate change" to describe cause and effect since climate change (not further defined) can be either cause or effect. The increase in amplitude is notable but their caveat is noted. I agree that the modeling is difficult and adding warming doesn't make it any easier. I think that added warmth doesn't necessarily change the sign of ENSO but wil enhance precipitation as they note, without adding much drought over the ocean (except possibly drier in the mid and upper levels). That could increase ENSO intensity since it is primary driven by precipitation.
I'll look at the hydrology material next.
-
Doug Bostrom at 14:23 PM on 8 September 2022How climate change spurs megadroughts
Review the last half dozen or so "Hydrology, hydrometeorology & climate change" sections of our weekly new research feature to get an initial grip on the complexity of the topic, Eric. "It's not that simple."
-
scaddenp at 09:13 AM on 7 September 2022How climate change spurs megadroughts
Some analysis of whether ENSO has changed here. "There is no clear evidence that any changes since 1950 in ENSO are all that unusual." Even more so if proxy records are used. Also, it is incredibly unclear how global warming will change ENSO. "But regardless of any changes in ENSO sea surface temperatures, in intermediate to very high GHG scenarios, it is very likely that rainfall variability over the east-central tropical Pacific will increase significantly (4). Basically, we may expect El Niño to be wetter in this region and La Niña may be drier. "
That prediction seems to be holding.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 06:17 AM on 7 September 2022How climate change spurs megadroughts
Eric,
Please share more details of the basis for your comments regarding El Nino and La Nina. The presentation of the history of El Nino and La Nina by Jan Null (here) based on the NOAA ONI evaluations does not appear to show the dramatic difference before and after 2000 that you infer. I am also curious about the choice of 2000 for the dividing year and the limit of 1980, note the significance of La Nina in the 1970s).
Also, what is the basis for the claim about monsoons. My understanding is that changes of monsoon timing and intensity affect agriculture that has developed in monsoon affected regions (earlier or later can be a problem, significantly more or less rain can be a problem).
-
Eric (skeptic) at 21:27 PM on 6 September 2022How climate change spurs megadroughts
The connection between drought intensity and global warming is clear. However droughts start and end naturally and they should mention that there has been persistent La Nina since 1999. There have been four major La Nina and one major (super) El Nino. From 1980 to 1998 the numbers were reversed: four major El Nino and one major La Nina.
While persistent La Nina creating the present drought in the western US, it may be also be true that persistent El Nino and it's excess moisture masked the drying effects of global warming in 80's and 90's. Possibly separate from ENSO (not sure), there was a lack of monsoon rains starting in 2000. There was substantial monsoon this year which tempers evaporation in some locations.
Lawns will dry up; lush golf courses will disappear. The very character of the West - and of many arid parts of the globe - will be transformed
I would say "revert" and mostly for the better.
-
David-acct at 12:02 PM on 5 September 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #33 2022
www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2022/02/20/texas-energy-winter-renewable-jacobson-dessler-rogan/
The above article is praising Jacobsons work and analysis of 100% renewables.
I have posted the money quote describing jacobsons 30 sec test of the supply and demand of electricity. See if you can spot the logic flaw in jacobsons analysis.
"In the recent study, Jacobson and colleagues showed how to meet energy demands every 30 seconds across the United States with no blackouts in a greener, more populated nation in 2050 and 2051.
They modeled grid stability throughout the contiguous United States, including data from a weather-climate-air pollution model, which includes climate factors and statistically typical weather patterns that occur in a given region. Using energy consumption data from the Energy Information Administration, the team simulated energy demands for 2050 to 2051. Energy supply had to equal energy demand every 30 seconds, otherwise the model shut down.
"The team found that the actual energy demand decreased significantly by simply shifting to renewable resources, which are more efficient. For the entire United States, total end-use energy demand decreased by about 57 percent. Per capita household annual energy costs were about 63 percent less than a “business as usual” scenario."
-
Eclectic at 05:26 AM on 5 September 2022Models are unreliable
Lomborg today sounds more like Fox News & Tucker Carlson.
That's a slight exaggeration, JohnCalvinNYU ~ but Lomborg's ideas seem to be wandering further away from common sense . . . almost like he's getting all his information from the Murdoch media empire.
John, please widen your education. Avoid Fox and suchlike propagandists.
-
Bob Loblaw at 05:09 AM on 5 September 2022Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
John Oneill:
...and if we had an expectation that the conditions that led to early development of nuclear in places such as France could occur again, and provide us with large quantities of nuclear energy in the very near future at reasonable/competitive cost, then nuclear would be a useful path in the future.
But like they say in any investment advice, "past performance is not indicative of future results". You really need to make sure that the conditions that led to past performance will actually exist and continue in the future.
-
Bob Loblaw at 05:02 AM on 5 September 2022Models are unreliable
JohnCalvinNYU:
I"m really not sure just what definition of "accurate" you are using. If you are expecting it to be "perfect", then prepare to be disappointed. Science (and life in general) does not produce perfect results. Any scientific prediction, projection, estimate, etc. comes with some sort of range for the expected results - either implicitly, or explicitly.
You will often see this expressed as an indication of the "level of confidence" in a result. (This applies to any analysis, not just models.) In the most recent IPCC Summary for Policymakers, the state that they use the following terms (footnote 4, page 4):
Each finding is grounded in an evaluation of underlying evidence and agreement. A level of confidence is expressed using five qualifiers: very low, low, medium, high and very high, and typeset in italics, for example, medium confidence. The following terms have been used to indicate the assessed likelihood of an outcome or result: virtually certain 99–100% probability; very likely 90–100%; likely 66–100%; about as likely as not 33–66%; unlikely 0–33%; very unlikely 0–10%; and exceptionally unlikely 0–1%. Additional terms (extremely likely 95–100%; more likely than not >50–100%; and extremely unlikely 0–5%) are also used when appropriate. Assessed likelihood is typeset in italics, for example, very likely. This is consistent with AR5. In this Report, unless stated otherwise, square brackets [x to y] are used to provide the assessed very likely range, or 90% interval.
So, the logical answer to your question of why models are constantly being updated or improved is so that we can increase the accuracy of the models and increase our confidence in the results. Since nothing is perfect, there is always room for improvement - even if the current accuracy is good enough for a specific practical purpose.
Models also have a huge number of different outputs - temperature, precipitation, winds, pressure - basically if it is measured as "weather" then you can analysis the model output in the same way that you can analyze weather. A model can be very accurate for some outputs, and less accurate for others. It can be very accurate for some regions, and less accurate for others. It can be very accurate for some periods of geological time, and less accurate for others. The things it is accurate for can be used to guide policy, while the things we have less confidence in we may want to hedge our bets on.
Saying "none of the climate catastrophes predicted in the last 50 years" is such a vague claim. If you want to be at all convincing in your claim, you are going to have to actually provide specific examples of what predictions you are talking about, and provide links to accurate analyses that show these predictions to be in error. Climate models have long track records of accurate predictions.
Here at SkS, you can use the search box (upper left" to search for "lessons from past climate predictions" and find quite a few posts here that look at a variety of specific predictions. (Spoiler alert: you'll find a few posts in there that show some pretty inaccurate predictions from some of the key "contrarians" you might be a fan of.)
As for Lomborg: very little he says is accurate. Or if it is accurate, it omits other important variables to such an extent that his conclusions are inaccurate. I have no idea where I would find the article of his that you mention, and no desire to spend time trying to find it. If that is your source of your "none of the climate catastrophes" claim, then I repeat: you need to provide specific examples and something better than a link to a Lomborg opinion piece.
There have been reviews, etc. posted here of previous efforts by Lomborg, such as:
https://skepticalscience.com/open-letter-to-wsj-scientist-response-to-misleading-lomborg.html
https://skepticalscience.com/lomborg-WSJ-debunk-CSRRT.html
https://skepticalscience.com/lomborg-detailed-citation-analysis.html
...and Lomborg has a page over at DesmogBlog.
In short, you're going to have to do a lot better if you expect to make a convincing argument.
-
JohnCalvinNYU at 01:45 AM on 5 September 2022Models are unreliable
If climate models are accurate then why are they constantly being updated or improved? Assuming there's even a logical answer to that question, how are scientiests certain that the "improved" versions of the models are actually improved? None of the climate catastrophes predicted during the past 50 years ago have come to pass (see "False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet" by Bjorn Lomborg) so why is the scientific community convinced it is correct now given it's history of failing to make accutrate climate predictions?
-
John ONeill at 22:32 PM on 4 September 2022Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
The graph with the concave blue line and the convex red line is actually a good cartoon of what actually happened to the electricity emissions of France and Germany, the exemplars of the 'Mesmer plan' accelerated reactor buildout, and the 'Energiewende' attempt to decarbonise with mainly wind and solar. French electricity emissions, and fossil fuel use, plummeted, and are still among the lowest in Europe, even though at the moment, the nuclear industry is only running at 34% of its capacity. Germany started later, its emissions have gone down much more slowly, it's still producing on average 3 to 4 times as much CO2 as France, and there's no guarantee that the reduction curve will get steeper - at the moment, it's not looking good, with mothballed coal plants being started up to replace the Russian gas that's supposed to be 'firming' solar and wind. Peak power production over the last 24 hrs was 69 GW, close to the full capacity of either solar, 65 GW, or wind, 64 GW. But solar averaged only about 11 GW, and wind only 14 GW. German nuclear, unlike French, has been running at 98% capacity all day. The batteries that will supposedly back variable renewables are nowhere to be seen. Pumped hydro makes an appearance for just four hours, at from 2 to 11% of demand. Meanwhile, the 'brown coal', of which Gemany is the world's largest user, continues to be the largest single source of electricity, as it has been for the last thirty years.app.electricitymaps.com/zone/DE
-
wayne19608 at 08:55 AM on 4 September 2022What’s going on with the Greenland ice sheet?
thanks Rodger
there is this older article
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40641-015-0014-6
I guess from a political perspective there is not much point in thinking past 2100
-
Bob Loblaw at 02:09 AM on 4 September 2022Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
The difference between getting to net zero first versus minimizing the total emissions between now and reaching net zero is not a trivial distinction.
Look at the following figure. The red line reaches zero after 40 years. The blue line has not quite reached zero after 60 years. The total emissions under the red line are about 3x the total under the blue line. Waiting 30 years for "better technology" is not a good choice.
-
sekwisniewski at 01:06 AM on 4 September 2022Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Replying to 315:
Bob Loblaw:
"Getting faster to net zero" is not necessarily the issue. Minimizing total emissions between now and "getting to net zero" is what matters.
I did not intend to suggest otherwise and used "faster/cheaper" quantifiers as possible scenario constraints.
-
MA Rodger at 23:09 PM on 3 September 2022What’s going on with the Greenland ice sheet?
Wayne @4,
I was in two minds on continuing our interchange, but I decided I would continue when I came across coverage of the paper underlying this SkS OP which surprisingly appeared today on the pages of my local rag with the title "Zombie ice to raise global sea level". On-line I see the same story getting into newspapers elsewhere (eg The Washigton Post).In terms of an SLR-CO2 correlations, I don't recall seeing Hansen provide it. I believe the closest he got was in Hansen et al (2013) 'Climate sensitivity, sea level and atmospheric carbon dioxide' (with its well-used Fig 1) which looked at temperature & SLR but only inferred CO2 levels with very cursory checks to actual CO2 reconstructions.
And for me, Hansen's 5m SLR by 2100 was always a bit of theorising that I struggled with. Even after it appeared properly written up in Hansen et al (2016), which at least answered the energy equations that were my initial objection to such a large SLR projections, for me it still remains more 'discussion document' than a full-blooded argued case. In my view, worrying as it is, the future SLR from Greenland & Antarctica depends on the Precipitation minus Ice-Loss balances and that puts us in the hands of climatologists for the precipitaion and glaciologists for the ice-loss. The application of paleoclimatology and whether Greenland melted out in the Eemian isn't so relevant for our future SLR.Just to throw in my other SLR bug bear which also becomes relevant here, I've always reckoned SLR ain't gonna stop at 2100. So why do we go on so long about the 2100 SLR when by 2150, 2200, 2300 etc it's going to be seriously bigger? (A total of 2.3m SLR/ºC AGW according to IPCC AR5 fig13.14.)
The SLR-ΔCO2 relationship is of course a paleoclimate thing, so may not be immediately relevant outside the Eemian or now we have a Panama Isthmus connecting N&S America. That said, the SLR-ΔCO2 relationship is usually a step beyond what most graphics provide, but fig 6 of Rea et al (2021) 'Atmospheric CO2 over the Past 66 Million Years from Marine Archives' does provide us a ΔT-SLR-ΔCO2 graphic. Note that they do not attempt to be definitive with this CO2 reconstruction, saying "While each method has uncertainties, these are largely independent, so their broad convergence on similar CO2 histories is encouraging."
But I stress the idea that paleoclimate stuff should concede precedence to glaciology when it comes to the melting ice caps today and glaciology is where the paper underlying the SkS OP above comes from, Box et al (2022) 'Greenland ice sheet climate disequilibrium and committed sea-level rise'. I read that paper as saying that, as of now (2000-19), Greenland is not tipped over into melt-out mode (which I think was always seen as requiring a little more AGW to do that tipping, but nonetheless is good news to hear said) and that the Greenland melt which we are committed-to will happen in the next several decades, not several centuries, and will be mainly over by 2100.
So at least for Greenland under the AGW so-far, my bug bear (that we are in denial ignoring massive SLR awaiting us post-2100) is assuaged.
Mind, the SLR thus awaiting from Greenland isn't trivial. And there is still Antarctica. And not forgetting we still have the tiny task of halting future AGW.
-
Bob Loblaw at 09:40 AM on 3 September 2022Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
sekwisniewski:
I already said:
It doesn't matter whether you label them as "nuclear' or "fossil". The emissions end up in the atmosphere.
What matters is complete accounting. Item 4, which I think we agree on.
"Getting faster to net zero" is not necessarily the issue. Minimizing total emissions between now and "getting to net zero" is what matters.
-
sekwisniewski at 06:54 AM on 3 September 2022Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Replying to 313:
Of course, by definition the lifecycle emissions should account only for a given source (wind, solar, nuclear, hydro, etc) LIFECYCLE. Once we've established those, we could construct various scenarios of building those sources in time in an interacting system. Only then could we optimize and assess if there are "opportunity emissions" for different scenarios, i.e. does including nuclear bring us faster/cheaper to net zero or not? Still, these wouldn't be lifecycle emissions. Does this make sense?
-
Bob Loblaw at 04:23 AM on 3 September 2022Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Seriously, sekwisniewski? "Conservation of mass" arguments?
Taking life-cycle emissions, using only what happens during construction and operation of the plant violates the "conservation of a consistent argument" requirement when looking at item 4. Either we are taking the entire system and results into account, or we are selecting only the part that supports a particular argument (AKA cherry picking).
-
sekwisniewski at 01:55 AM on 3 September 2022Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Replying to 311:
1. You can't add opportunity emissions to lifecycle emissions, because it violates the conservation of mass, if those lifecycle emissions are then used to calculate physical emissions.
2. Another counterfactual to maintaining nuclear is replacing it with a mix of fossil and renewable sources. Fossil backup of renewables is suggested in Abbott (2012). Renewables replacing nuclear wouldn't reduce emissions either according to your logic, which does not seem to be a good framing.
3. Yes, but when nuclear covers new demand opportunity emissions of = 0.
4. Absolutely, we've got to take the overall picture into account, which is studied in the field of energy systems modeling.
-
Bob Loblaw at 00:05 AM on 3 September 2022Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
A few problems with that list, sekwisniewski.
- It doesn't matter whether you label them as "nuclear' or "fossil". The emissions end up in the atmosphere.
- If nuclear is being built to replace existing nuclear, then it doesn't replace fossil-fuel-based capacity and does nothing to reduce fossil fuel emissions.
- Other sources coming on line now can also cover future demand.
- Yes. The calculations need to cover all sources of electricity, and all the CO2 emissions that are produced if a particular path is chosen. Cherry picking a compartmentalized view - where you only count emissions when a plant is operating (e.g., wind vs. nuclear) and you ignore how this fits into the overall picture - is a bad approach.
