Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 Next
Comments 8501 to 8550:
-
nigelj at 07:38 AM on 8 January 2020Doubling down: Researchers investigate compound climate risks
Hank, I also share many of your views, but the truth on this thing is possibly more nuanced. I'm a semi retired Architect, involved in the design of both housing and highrise construction in New Zealand.
Our building codes are quite detailed on everything including structure. There was a massive earthquake in Christchurch recently and modern buildings survived better than older brick masonry buildings and concrete framed buildings, as you would expect.
However there are huge caveats around all this. dkeierleber has a point to some degree. Our codes are minimal codes, so for example earthquake and fire codes target only life safety, not property damage. This is because of neoliberal thinking that constantly aims to minimise building codes.
As a result although modern highrise buildings and timber farmed houses survived the earthquake and not many people were killed, these structures suffered considerable damage and many had to be demolished and rebuilt. The bottom line is the codes are pretty minimal, and neoliberal ideology is definitely involved. I dont have time to go into all the details, but I know this for a fact.
-
dkeierleber at 07:15 AM on 8 January 2020Doubling down: Researchers investigate compound climate risks
@10, Hank, very happy to see your reasoned response. I have a fondness for engineers and engineering but I’m not sure where you’ve been working.
There were about 30 steel moment frame buildings in SF at the time of the ’08 quake. Around 20 were still in service in 2000 when CA had just finished extensive repairs to a lot of more modern steel moment frame buildings. The problem with the newer buildings was that the moment connection was too stiff. The older buildings had riveted (likely) connections. For a while we had creative solutions for that joint but those all went away when the same prescribed welded connection was again approved. It is supposedly now safe because we have a new alloy and new rules on how to make the full pen weld between the beam flanges and the faces of the column flanges. We’ll see what happens in the next big one.
Older buildings generally had the steel frame protected by masonry which made a pretty durable joint. It was an accidental benefit of engineers realizing that steel needed protection from fire. Engineers forgot that some time ago. Tell an engineer he should be responsible for protecting his structure and you will have an angry engineer. Engineers can’t be bothered to get a bigger portion of the design fees.
I read a paper in the Structural Journal, some years ago, that claimed steel buildings could not fail due to a fire. This despite the fact that we lost a steel building to fire in 9-11 (the third collapsed building). The paper was based on tests done in England in the 1970s but 9-11 showed that fire loads are much higher now, esp in office occupancies. The journal paper was arguing for performance based codes. Do some research on how well that’s worked for the Chinese.
Hurricane Andrew was a wakeup call to the insurance industry. Whole subdivisions were leveled due to shoddy construction practices. Roofs without hurricane clips had partial failures that let in water, turning particle board sheathing to mush. The response, instead of requiring better construction practices and better code enforcement, was to completely change how wind loads were calculated and applied, especially to low, gable roof buildings. That was likely the beginning of the end for the UBC (Uniform Building Code).
The UBC grew from a small, easy to understand book, with design standards for the common building materials, to 3 large volumes in 1994. The last UBC was 1997. Since then the same private industry has produced the International family of codes. The design standards in the UBC were written by prominent engineers who sat on the industry boards and advisory groups. IBC language is voted on in conventions of code officials. The minimum requirement for a building official is a high school diploma (It’s in both the IBC and IRC). After the IBC, structural design info moved out of the code book. You now have to get the current ASCE 05 for loads, the AISC for steel design, etc. At least the AISC now makes a passing mention about fire protection of steel members.
Over the years a system of weighted design has been suggested. I’m sure it’s now being used. The idea is to set a level of design standards to match an expected level of performance for given events. Instead of being an option for building developers to choose, it’s being incorporated into codes based on occupancy (I think). Part of the problem in the built environment is that nobody has a building built for them. Developers put up the cheapest, fastest building they can and then sell it. What’s worse is that many buildings are sold piecemeal. Condo projects will never have any defects corrected or be demolished because they are building ownership by a bunch of building owners, none of whom are very knowledgeable about buildings.
You are probably fed up with me by now but I still think that it’s frightening to think that buildings built to standards of 1890 are structurally better than buildings built to current standards. Of course, then there are the old clay brick buildings (I did a fair amount of seismic upgrades to those). -
nigelj at 06:52 AM on 8 January 20202019 in climate science: A continued warming trend and 'bleak' research
Tree planting is obviously useful for soaking up some emissions, but these tree planting schemes do still need a dose of cold, hard realism, because there's a serious risk people will assume they can solve a huge part of the climate problem thus obviating us from the urgent requirement to reduce emissions.
For example the article usefully says "Luedeling also takes issue with the map that Crowther’s team ultimately produced that shows where additional trees could grow globally. Many of those areas aren’t available for tree regrowth because they’re already in use.” Those regions include land used for livestock grazing, as well as populated areas such as Kinshasa, the capital of Democratic Republic of Congo... etcetera.
Nobody seems to mention that there will also be competing uses for waste lands and cattle grazed lands, from both biofuels production and for food production for a population heading towards 11 billion people by the end of the century. Obviously the food supply will take precedence over trees, because it simply has to.
And obviously there will be huge demands for timber for construction although the bright spot is there are alternatives like steel framing.
In addition there is Red Barons suggestion that properly rotationally grazed land can also sequester carbon, which has at least some evidential backing ( a bit more research would be helpful).
Planting forests looks like a useful wedge measure to soak up some carbon, but relying on it as a major player capable of soaking up a third of emissions to date doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Cooper13 seems to have made an extremely good point.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 06:36 AM on 8 January 2020Doubling down: Researchers investigate compound climate risks
Hank,
I am a Structural Engineer with 40 years experience, including participation in design code update processes. But I am Canadian with experience in many other nations, including the USA.
I share your understanding of structural design, and sort of agree that dkeierleber has offered an unfounded opinion. However, dkeierleber is correct about the harmful influence of competition for profit.
The A36 grade of steel was a decent material for seismic design before 'recycling of steel became common'. It had fairly reliable performance values allowing it to be used for the 'designed to yield first' components of a structure. However, 'recycled steel meeting the crude criteria of A36' often ended up being a much stronger steel than expected. It was those 'over-strong A36' parts of seismic structures that led to the tragic failures that resulted in the USA belatedly updating its steel material specifications and design codes. That delay of update could be seen to be a protectionist action by the USA profit interests (related to dkeierleber's correct concern) to keep imported steel out of the USA because, though imported steel was based on better specifications, it wasn't A36.
Now on to the climate condition point you made @7:
I am well aware of what you refer to, and agree that wind forces 10X worse are a long way off. But I would state that inland wind speeds could increase to levels currently thought to only happen near a coastline. And in some nations, like Canada, the regional design requirements are based on the history of local conditions rather than the less location-specific (cruder) USA approach of generalized climate conditions.
I would add that your comment misses the need to design for climate related things like ice accumulation during freezing rain events and 'maximum accumulated snow loading'. Climate change can increase the amount of accumulation of freezing rain, and introduce it to regions that previously never had that type of event. And climate change can result in more snow falling. And a warmer snow event will also be wetter heavier snow.
So there are many aspects of building design that can end up being exceeded as climate change alters the nature of regional climate events.
As a final note about coastal wind speeds, did you notice that this year there was a storm near the USA coast with wind speeds that were well above the threshold of Category 5, high enough to warrant consideration of adding a Category 6?
-
Hank11198 at 04:16 AM on 8 January 2020Doubling down: Researchers investigate compound climate risks
@ 8 & 9, dkeierleber
I have to disagree with you on every statement. As a Registered Professional practicing Structural Engineer I have no idea where you get your information.Out of the millions of building that are erected in the US there have been relatively very few failures. Of those failures, only a small percentage are due to improper design. That’s not an assumption, that’s a fact. That shows we DO put up safe buildings.
Buildings built at the end of the 19th century were not based on codes since they didn’t exist. There was also almost no knowledge of seismic loading or how to resist that loading. They were simply built very conservatively. That said you didn’t provide any references that show they have performed better than more recent structures. Seismic design is very complicated and every occurrence allows engineers to study the results of current design practice. It is known that buildings designed with the more recent codes perform better than previous designs.
Building codes DO ABSOLUTELY have structural design information. Otherwise they would have no purpose. Today’s codes have probably 10 times the amount of design information as in the past. That’s just an estimate on my part based on the size of the codes. In addition they have extensive commentaries that explain how and why each formula should be used. I served on the ASCE committee for Design of High Voltage Substations a few years ago and I can assure you it was not written by people with only high school educations. Out of about 40 representatives there were several PhD’s, including the lead, along with probably 20 graduate engineers with masters degrees. There may have been a few industry representatives without college degrees but they were only there for guidance in specifying materials that might be unavailable and other minor advice.
The buildings destroyed in the Florida town you mentioned are a testament to design codes. Residential buildings are seldom designed by an engineer. The one that was standing was reinforced concrete construction and WAS designed by an engineer for 250 MPH winds. After that the codes in Florida were changed so that an engineer must sign off on residential designs and the design wind speeds were increased. That doesn’t agree with your statement that codes are being affected by deregulation.
I am a strong believer that we are failing future generations by not addressing climate change. I am in favor of laws that decrease the amount of CO2 were a putting in the atmosphere. Storms will be worse and we need to account for that. But I don’t think unrealistic claims that storms will be 10X worse are helpful to our cause.
-
Cooper13 at 04:04 AM on 8 January 20202019 in climate science: A continued warming trend and 'bleak' research
I sent this comment to the SS inbox, but seems relevant here as well.
I really wish the scientific community in the US and those communicating the +1°C change (and +1.5°C target limit) would convey what this really means to land-dwellers in the US and around the world.
It is well established from observations, and from projections/models, that land temperatures (where most of us live, and where we grow our crops and livestock) increase at roughly 2x the rate that global temperatures rise.
Thus, discussing a "+1.5° target limit" is very misleading to most Americans (and becomes a talking point for deniers that it's too small to worry about).
EVERY time the +1.5°C target limit is mentioned, it should be pointed out that this implies a +3°C increase over land, where you live. And for those in the US who are much more familiar with the Farenheit scale, that becomes nearly +5.5°F.
EVERY time we talk about a +1.5° target - explain that this equates to +5.5°F over land.
The +1°C we are already experiencing means +2°C over land, and that is already over +3.5°F; people are lulled to sleep with the +1.0 and +1.5°C global increases and are completely unaware that we're talking much larger (2x larger) amplification over land.
I strongly suspect that if you start explaining to staple crop farmers and livestock farmers they will see +5.5°F with the current target (which we may not even meet), they will raise their eyebrows at that.
In a nutshell:
+1.5C global = +3C land = +5.4F land
+2C global = +4C land = +7.2F land
+2.5C global = +5C land = +9F land
+3C global = +6C land = +10.8F land
Make a simple graphic; educate people, so they understand when someone dismisses a +1.5C global rise, it's actually MUCH more pronounced than that for where they live and play!!!
-
dkeierleber at 02:36 AM on 8 January 2020Doubling down: Researchers investigate compound climate risks
@7, Hank, we know how to design safe buildings, we just don't. Did you see the pictures of a town in FL destroyed by a hurricane? Did you read about the one house that survived because the owner wanted a stronger house?
Last years hurricane that stalled over the Bahamas is a peek at what is to come. Hansen, Et Al (2015) talks abut Atlantic storms 10x worse than today's during the last interglacial, with temperatures only 1C warmer than we are.
-
dkeierleber at 02:29 AM on 8 January 2020Doubling down: Researchers investigate compound climate risks
As a retired structural engineer, you guys brought up a subject I used to have to deal with. To begin with, why do you guys assume we put up safe buildings? Steel moment frame buildings built at the end of the 19th century have proven to be more durable to earthquakes than ones built in the late 20th century. The build environment has suffered from faster/cheaper while design fees keep falling. Commercial building codes no longer have structural design info because the codes are written by people with high school educations. Welcome to deregulation.
Look into the neoliberal race to the bottom and the rise of authoritarian governments as a response to the resulting destruction of the middle class in the west. You will begin to see why we aren't going to fix anything (including a looming climate disaster) until it's too late. (Neoliberal economic theory called neo-conservative in America. Remember Bush and the neo-cons? The reason we invaded Iraq.)
-
Hank11198 at 02:24 AM on 8 January 2020Doubling down: Researchers investigate compound climate risks
OPOF
“A signficant structure design challenge is accurately identifying things like the worst case climate events that a structure could face. Rapid climate change makes that very difficult to do, and raises doubts about every already built structure.”
I realize what you are trying to say but I don’t think you understand the process that engineers use to determine the loading on a structure. Structures are not designed for the worst case climate event that a structure could face. In the US wind loading is divided into hurricanes that occur along the gulf and eastern coast, and storms that occur in other locations. Hurricanes are based on 1200 year probability and storms are based on 700 year probability. A 5000 year hurricane or storm COULD occur. However it has been agreed that the code design probabilities are a reasonable value that allows structures to be built without costs being unreasonable. In addition, structures are divided into 4 risk categories which determine a risk factor for a structure. Category 1 is for structures that represent low risk to human life like agricultural buildings. Category 2 which is everything not in the other categories. Category 3 which represents substantial risk to human life. Category 4 which includes essential facilities (hospitals, fire stations, etc). Basically the risk factor changes the design hurricane or storm probability.
Rapid climate change is dangerous. However changes in maximum wind speeds for hurricanes and storms are not enough to raise doubts about existing structures. -
One Planet Only Forever at 02:23 AM on 8 January 2020Doubling down: Researchers investigate compound climate risks
Some structure design is incredibly complex. Dynamic response is a very complex behaviour to evaluate. But the real issue is 'not doing something when there is uncertainty regarding the potential for negative consequences'.
Some of the most complex design is dynamic response of a structure with partially yielding elements of a structure system (parts stressed beyond their elastic behaviour). That includes seismic and blast resistance design (things I have personally done). And that complex dynamic system response gets combined with the understanding that lateral motion of a structure is amplified by vertical loads acting concurrently on the off-set structure (the vertical load is no longer straight down a support column).
My main point remains. The knowledge that the combination of effects of climate change are not yet well understood should have been enough to cause the leadership of the highest impacting people to dramatically reduce their impacting while pursuing the required expanded awareness and improved understanding. That is what they would expect to happen in Structure design, even though a flawed structure design would only affect a tiny portion of the global population, and have almost no effect on generations in the distant future.
The real problem is the fatally flawed of belief that the 'power of innovation' requires anything that is competing for popularity and profit to be allowed in the competition before the potential negative consequences are well understood. Competitive consumerism, especially the Patent/Copyright systems and related limited time period for benefiting from owning patent/copyright protection, tempts people to try to get away with harmful and unsustainable activity (because it is easier and cheaper than the alternatives).
Harmful unsustainable developments can be seen to be defended if they become popular and profitable. The demand is that evidence of it being harmful 'must be very certain', with higher certainty of unacceptability required the more popular and profitable it is. In some people's minds that has quickly gotten to the absurd point where no amount of evidence will 'meet the demanded level of proof' (on many issues, not just fossil fuel abuse). The 'learning resistant people' who enjoy benefiting from the popular and profitable activity, or developed a liking for an incorrect understanding, can claim that any evidence is Fake and demand that any presentations of information on the issue be 'Balanced or Moderate' which means 'Compromised'.
Compromising expanded awareness and improved understanding of how harmful something may be may seem appealing to the Kumbaya types who just want 'everyone to get along and let everyone live the way they want'. That attitude has its place, when no profit or personal benefit at the expense of others is involved. But that attitude would never cut it in Structure design. And it certainty should not apply to the issue of the future disaster creating potential of the popular and profitable fossil fuel abuse.
Everyone's actions need to be governed and limited by the avoidance of creating harmful impacts on others, even if that means having to forego potential personal benefit because of uncertainty regarding the acceptability of an activity.
-
nigelj at 17:44 PM on 7 January 2020Doubling down: Researchers investigate compound climate risks
Actually designing structures to withstand combined effects can get quite complicated at times.
-
nigelj at 17:36 PM on 7 January 2020Doubling down: Researchers investigate compound climate risks
Designing structures for combined events is not too complicated. You design a structure to withstand a certain snowload, and then the structure has to be designed to withstand a certain wind load, on the basis that it is also sustaining the designed maximum snow load at the same time.
The climate problem is the inverse of this, but harder to work out.
This insidious combined cimate effect is what needs to be front and centre of discussions aimed at the public, not the arm waving, highly speculative apocalyptic stuff that many people will scoff at.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 16:14 PM on 7 January 2020Doubling down: Researchers investigate compound climate risks
bozzza,
Not sure what the question is, but here is an attempt to clarify.
A signficant structure design challenge is accurately identifying things like the worst case climate events that a structure could face. Rapid climate change makes that very difficult to do, and raises doubts about every already built structure.
And proving the reliable performance of all the materials and shapes and connections has been constantly improved through the efforts of countless institutions around the planet.
But the need for a structure to be safe is not compromised by a desire to carry on doing something questionable just because it was popular or profitable. Things that were dicsovered to be unsafe or harmful stopped being done and are corrected.
-
Eclectic at 15:38 PM on 7 January 2020There is no consensus
Hmmph. If Dr Curry were an actor, then you would see her in B-grade movies, at best.
Dr Lindzen would be the equivalent of Marlon Brando in his last few years ~ someone who once received some respect from those in the industry . . . but was now "washed up" and coasting along on the remnants of his past reputation. Sic transit.
Dr Happer . . . also the Emeritus Syndrome, plus something a bit uglier.
Let's move on from the Ad Hom sketches, and look at the actual arguments that Curry puts forward as a "contrarian".
Her arguments ~ well, she doesn't have any really. She has asserted that for late 20th Century warming, "up to about 60%" of it might (possibly) be caused by a concurrence of several long-cycle periodic ocean current phases (multi-decadal Atlantic overturning current plus other much longer century/multi-century cycles . . . cycles which most scientists consider to be no more than a twinkle in the eye of their "discoverers"). In other words, a load of balderdash. But a straw which the desperate denialists like to grasp at.
All the while, Curry wears heavily-shaded glasses which are pachyderm-polarised to show very little of the Elephant in the Room i.e. CO2 .
Yes, Curry does admit that CO2 has a mild effect on global warming, but maintains that after you subtract the surface warming effect of those concurrent ocean cycles, the remaining minor warming shows that CO2 is a minimal problem because it must be that the planet's ECS (climate sensitivity) is quite low.
That's about the size of it. The rest of her rhetoric is simply empty rhetoric ~ confusing & vague distractions from the underlying reality. Just what certain American senators/Congressmen wish to hear. So they call her up to speak to "committees" and thus provide themselves with a veneer of excuse to take no action on AGW.
Essentially Curry is a misinformer, through the use of vagueness and innuendo. Like an expensive barrister arguing for a guilty-as-sin client, she usually does not step over the line of absolute mendacity. Not quite.
-
bozzza at 13:46 PM on 7 January 2020Doubling down: Researchers investigate compound climate risks
How difficult are these structure design codes to formulate!??!
-
TVC15 at 13:46 PM on 7 January 2020There is no consensus
To add to KR @ 870
PatrickSS kept propping Judith Curry up as some sort of climate expert who is being hushed from publsihing papers. I also suggest PatrickSS that you look up her credentials.
It always cracks me up as Judith is always the wild card deniers pull out of their back pockets and try to prop her us as some sort of credible climate science researcher such as Katharine Hayhoe.
Here are a few links about who Judith is as well as her agenda.
Judith Curry Was For Me Before She Was Against Me
Climate Misinformation by Source: Judith Curry
IPCC attribution statements redux: A response to Judith Curry
-
TVC15 at 09:26 AM on 7 January 2020There is no consensus
One Planet Only Forever @ 875
Trust me I do discuss human population with deniers. Human activity and consumption has a huge impact on global warming.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:08 AM on 7 January 2020There is no consensus
TVC 15,
In response to the point about everyone having the right to be as bad as Others, you may face a further angle of denial claiming that population is the problem. And you may preempt that by sharing a version of the following rather than waiting to see if it comes up.
The consensus understanding is that human impacts are causing significant negative climate changes to occur. And it is the total global impact that matters.
A good way to argue against the simple claim that 'increased population is the problem' is to point out that each person's impacts add up to the total impact, and though total population is a concern it is the impacts of the highest per-person impacting portion of the population that needs to be reduced (along with the point that every person has the right to be as harmful as Others).
A related item to point out regarding total impacts is that the impacts that developed more fortunate circumstances in the national regional environment that a person is born into should also be counted as impacts of that person. That was part of the Kyoto understanding. It was recognised that the current more fortunate population of the more fortunate nations owed a debt for the impacts caused by the development of their more fortunate circumstances.
-
zzupdown at 08:43 AM on 7 January 2020How much has nuclear testing contributed to global warming?
Could limited detonations of nuclear warheads be a short-term stop-gap measure to fight global warming, then? The world might be willing to trade lowered food production and a slight increase in cancer rates to buy some time to solve global warming permanently. As for wildlife, Chernobyl shows that human habitation is far deadlier to wildife than radiation is. How many detonations do you think it'd take?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:19 AM on 7 January 2020Doubling down: Researchers investigate compound climate risks
Combining the impact of climate events makes sense. Structure design codes have required that for decades.
An example is the need to combine the weight of ice collected on a high-tension power line with the increased wind force of a strong wind blowing on the larger diameter feature (increased because of the ice). The required cable and support tower design is substantially impacted by that combination.
The difficulty in investigating the 'combinations of climate impact' should have been a justification for more aggressive action to reduce the rate of climate change impacts until the severity of the consequences was better understood.
A knowledgable person in a more advanced nation today would not try to build a building with new materials or a novel structural system without very thoroughly investigating and understanding its behaviour, and proving it would be safe under a massive diversity of combined potential impacts.
Why is the future of humanity on this planet continuing to be be significantly geo-engineered by current day actions of the 'supposedly most advanced people in the supposedly most advanced nations' without the consequences being 'very well understood'?
Any person claiming it's OK to carry on doing whatever is popular and profitable needs to be challenged to answer why that is morally acceptable.
-
TVC15 at 06:35 AM on 7 January 2020There is no consensus
Thank you Electric,
I try to not focus on things that make my soul sad for all living creature and plants on this earth but when I look at the denial machine and how humans are so divided by over climate change due to science illiteracy, anti-science folks, confirmation bias, political stances etc....it can be quite discouraging. Especially knowing we are in the midst of a very serious mass extinction event. I sometimes wish I was not a biological/medical scientist. I would be just as clueless as most of the planet with respect to human impacts on earth.Thank you One Planet Only Forever for offering great insightful suggestions.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:41 AM on 7 January 2020There is no consensus
TVC 15 @871, Building on Eclectic's response.
The Delayer you have encountered is attempting to distract attention from expanded awareness and improved understanding of the current day and future problem.
The current day and future problem is the result of the highest per-capita impacting people, and the nations they controlled, in the 1980s failing to responsibly lead the correction of economic activity.
Instead of doing the harder less popular and less profitable work of correcting the incorrect direction of development, the populations of those nations willingly accepted leadership messages that encouraged them to continue to over-develop in the Unsustainable Damaging direction they were headed in. When and where did one of the most absurd opposites of responsible correction, Hummers, become a popular expression of Winning? The same nation that spawned the misleading marketing attacks against climate science.
The Kyoto deal included nations like China and India agreeing to be tied into restricting their development to the 'per-capita' impact levels that the higher impacting nations were showing leadership towards by lowering their per-capita impacts (while sustainably improving the living conditions of their poorest).
China and India are still 'developing up to the per-capita levels' of the USA and its correction resistant hangers-on. And they have every right to develop up to the per-capita impacts of the highest impacting nations.
Some portion of the current day global population clearly deserves to be blamed today. And it is the highest per-capita impacting people and the nations they try to hide in and get defended by. And many of them deserve to be penalized for how they behaved through the past 30 years, and they know it.
That fundamental understanding can be applied to a diversity of claim making by the Delayers.
Tell the Delayer that everyone has the right to benefit by behaving as badly as the worst behaving cheating Winner they see. And everyone should compete to be an even worse Winner in everything they do (including Sports). Then tell them you personally disagree with that attitude, you understand it to be incredibly destructive and that any perceptions of Wining that way are unsustainable, but you understand that it is an accurate description of the actions of the Delayer you are dealing with. Finish the point by stating that you know everyone continues to have the ability to learn to behave more helpfully no matter how old they are and hope they choose to learn to behave better, to be more helpful, to be less harmful.
-
Eclectic at 17:57 PM on 6 January 2020There is no consensus
Cheer up, TVC15. Put a smile on your face, and know that things will get worse before they . . . er . . . stop getting worse.
It sounds like your denier friend is a quitter ~ he gives up, just partway into the battle to do the right thing. I wonder what his great-grandparents would have thought of his lack of moral character?
Sure, most countries are dawdling on carbon emission reductions ~ and there's no realistic hope of limiting world temperature rise to merely 1.5 degreesC. The question is, will we collectively take enough action to hold things to a 2 degreeC rise (or will it be much more)?? Already we are seeing problems & extremes cropping up more intensely . . . with only the (so far) rise of 1 degreeC. A full 2 degrees or 3 degrees will give our great-grandchildren some very "interesting times" indeed !
Eventually there will be no choice ~ almost all nations will have to (rather desperately & expensively) take belated major action against emissions. Common sense tells you that the ground-swell from voting citizens will simply get stronger and stronger. And future politicians will become increasingly nervous about "the alternative use of lamp-posts" !!!
The denialist's thinking is crazy if he reckons the upper echelons of government want to fund truth-speaking science researchers ~ in reality, most politicians want the the whole AGW thing to disappear as an election issue. They'd rather not hear about it. (It sounds like his brain is switched to stand-by mode.)
Such people as your denialist, who think that humans mostly just do stuff for money . . . well, the psychologists would say that these denialists are "projecting" their own trashy money-grubbing attitude onto everyone else.
-
TVC15 at 15:15 PM on 6 January 2020There is no consensus
Well he's some denier comments that seem misinformed...especially the bit about funding. How do deniers know how funding works in the academic setting?
However I do think this denier has a point in that many countries are never going to agree to lower carbon emissions.
Not all climate scientists agree with the current CO2 modeling being used. Academics and other grant seekers are producing what the government wants to market. No agreement no funding. Universities don't lift a finger unless they get a grant.
If the US went dark it would not change or reverse the climate dynamics on a global scale.
Certainly China, India, Africa, et al, will not comply with the Paris agreement or any other agreement in the next 12 years or next 5 generations. So what are you going to do today? Support countries like China and India, buy vinyl siding, heat your home, drive a car? Logic and common sense have been left behind and the only way to run a government is with the aid of a propaganda machine to create a false reality.
The more I see what is occurring worldwide with respect to climate change and all the dreadful news we are seeing now in Australis and the Amazon, how can anyone feel hope for this situation?
-
Evan at 08:01 AM on 6 January 2020The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
Nigel@43, yes, we need to tone things down.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, the Keeling curve is accelerating upwards. Not only is it a tall order to stabilize CO2 concentrations, but at some point the dynamics of the Keeling curve move out of our control, and no amount of climate negotiations, nor wind mills, nor solar panels are likely to help us reverse course.
We really don't need dire scenarios to know that we are out of time to take serious, drastic action. Soon our plans will mean very little. We may become climate passengers.
-
nigelj at 06:03 AM on 6 January 2020The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
Guys, its getting very testosterone charged, and remember we are supposed to be on the same team.
This is my take:
I think the problem is this: I agree with MS, the IPCC have definitely lowballed things, certainly on sea level rise. Maybe not on temperatures. But a few scientists and media people have highballed things to the maximum as NP alludes to. Its created decades of confusion on who to listen to.
This is why I suggest we need a solid middle ground. We need to focus on scenarios that are extreme and low probability, but evidence based ones, not ones at the truly ridiculous end of the spectrum. The hand waving stuff.
I have lost count of the number of times I've seen Hansens New York will be underwater by 1928 quote. Its provided denialists ammunition for decades, its so easy to shoot down. The general public read this stuff and it hands them an excuse to dismiss the whole climate issue. Now before you attack me, I'm well aware Hansen has been quoted out of context, and it was based on a very high emissions scenario, but explaining all this has us on the back foot. I'm hoping you see the point.
The Paris commitments along with actual coal reserves and deployment of wind power etc look like they kill the very most extreme scenarious dead, although they by no means kill dangerous scenarios dead. The trouble is the commitments are not bedded in enough to be sure. Am I missing something?
-
Eclectic at 02:55 AM on 6 January 2020Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
MAR @384 , your comment is doubtless kindly meant. There were numerous indications (including the first sentence of #382) that it was a case of "non-native English". And no-one should object to grammatical and spelling trespasses, where the underlying meaning is obvious enough. Just as each of us would hope to be forgiven our own trespasses. (And I am very happy for posters to post comments in their native tongue . . . although often it would be prudent for them to provide a rough translation into English, for the benefit of the majority readership.)
Nevertheless, to borrow a non-English word, there was in #382 a considerable chutzpah in making an improper spelling of physicist , while criticizing/berating the mainstream scientists for inattention to proper detail. The irony was amusing.
MAR, you have a formidable depth of knowledge of climate matters, and I find it hard to believe that you could find it credible that Rero would come up with anything to back up his statement that "many scientists were starting to doubt". That's why I asked Rero to name some scientists & supply a modicum of the evidence on which any true scientist could base his "increasing doubt". Of course, a real scientist is only wishing to entertain credible doubt [my phrasing, not Rero's].
-
MA Rodger at 00:53 AM on 6 January 2020Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Rero @382,
Picking up on some of your comment, I would echo the view @383 that if you do mention their existence you should give some indication of who these 'recently doubting scientists' are.
You also mention the figure in the OP of Spectrum of Greenhouse Radiation described in the OP as measurement of FTIR spectroscopy. This is clarified in the paper referenced which states "The measurements have been obtained using commercial Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) spectrometers." You ask for a more substantial reference than Evans & Puckrin (2006) 'Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate' which is a conference paper. The figure is not controversial so I am not sure why further reference is required. The same result can be obtained using the UoC MODTRAN model (with Water Vapor set to zero, altitude to zero and looking up). But if you insist on a peer-reviewed published paper, perhaps Ellingson & Warren (1996) would be what you are looking for.
Your following statements are not entirely clear. When you state "my main criticism is that experimental procedure seems to be incorrect," this seems to be separate from the criticism of using consensus to define the science (which is not a valid crticism. The consensus rests on science, not the other way round). If your "main criticism is that experimental procedure seems to be incorrect" and if this is separate from your consensus consideration, please set on why you consider the "experimental procedure seems to be incorrect".
-
MA Rodger at 00:35 AM on 6 January 2020Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Eclectic @383,
I fear you fail to spot the linguistic limitations within the comment of Rero @382 who doesn't sound like a native English speaker. And I do not see Rero @382 saying there are "well-qualified & well-informed scientists who have recently developed a credible doubt about the mainstream physics of climate." Rather it is "recently many scientist start to doubt" (my bold). There is no mention of "credible doubt."
-
michael sweet at 22:41 PM on 5 January 2020The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
Nick Palmer:
Reading Nigelj's link, Dr. Joelle Gergis, one of the lead authors of AR6, says:
"I can assure you that the planetary situation is extremely dire.
It’s no exaggeration to say my work as scientist now keeps me up at night."...
"The scientific community is acknowledging this by including new sections on abrupt climate change throughout key areas of the upcoming IPCC report. We now consider these “low probability, high impact” scenarios an increasingly critical part of our work."
It appears that the IPCC scientists agree with me.
I have provided extensive references to support my claims that previous IPCC reports were low ball. Naomi Oreskes et al show IPCC reports are low ball. You have provided nothing to support your claim that "The figures from the IPCC represent MIDBALLING, being the most likely figures." Changing the goal posts again and claiming scientific reports already contain extreme results is simply false. Provide references to an IPCC summary for policy makers that contains references to the fat tail.
Changing the goal posts to RCP8.5 again is not helpful.
Take your complaints about having to provide references to WUWT.
-
Eclectic at 21:51 PM on 5 January 2020Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Rero @382 ,
What a happy co-incidence that you have posted here! I am delighted to find another fellow phisicist. There are so very few of us, and our scientific field of specialty is so very new, that it has not yet even been incorporated into the Oxford English Dictionary (but I have hopes it will be so, in February).
More to the point, Rero, you have unfortunately been extremely vague in your commentary ~ amounting to little more than semantic nihilism.
Best if you start from the beginning, and provide some names of well-qualified & well-informed scientists who have recently (say in the last 100 years) developed a credible doubt about the mainstream physics of climate.
More importantly, you should specify the plausible (and preferably peer-reviewed) evidence which justifies their doubt. Because we phisicists abhor empty words, do we not?
-
Rero at 20:53 PM on 5 January 2020Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Recently many scientist start to doubt on such theories about man made climate changes, specially those from other background like me. I am a phisicist. For me it is difficult to give credit to a mere conference paper as the one you cite as main reference. Is there any other reference to address the full sun spectrum and compare with the presented one? Also I am in doubt of the name you used to describe the FTIR spectrum. It is not a " greenhouse radiation spectrum" as you claim, it is just an FTIR of the atmosphere. Have the authors accounted for the emissions from the Earth and subtracted them? You can use a simple fit with a black body radiation with an emissivity also called as brown body. Another issue is the water spectrum being ommited. Why? Is not the water contributing to warm Earth's surface? In resume I do believe in the possibility of warming, my main criticism is that experimental procedure seems to be incorrect. Also to a cientist it is not enough saying that many people believe in something or that you're the majority of them. This is not the way scientific evidence is validated. If there is ANY inconsistency in ANY theory it does not turn it completely false immediately but it put the model in serious doubt. Number of scientist that agree to a flaw evidence is useless here. I rather know how do you conduct your research and how do you reach your conclusion. So tell me some measurements made from a standard labs like the NREL of the sun radiation. Because to compare data taken from distinct instruments one decades after the other in distinct times of the year or even the day and also without absolute power calibration cannot be accounted as serious science. Forgive me by being skeptical but that is my job and I am giving you an opportunity to show me more arguments of your claim. -
One Planet Only Forever at 14:12 PM on 5 January 2020Few countries on track to meet Paris climate goals
Nations failing to meet their Paris Promises have kicked the current generations of those nations in the can. The next steps of Paris are the ratcheting up of actions to meet the required limits.
The science of how bad the future will be due to climate change impacts has a history of firming up a more frightening future. More science is making it harder for politicians to claim there isn't enough certainty in the science. That lack of certainty was the basis for the less negative story they wanted told all those years ago, along with claiming that the future generations would be richer and brilliantly able to solve everything.
And the collective lack of corrective action by the correction resistant political types in all aspects of society (even in science), including the lack of interest in expanding the awareness and understanding of the general population, makes things even worse. The larger accumulated climate impacts make it even easier for the correction resistant to claim The Other Side is Fear-Mongering and the the actions The Other Side claim are needed are Just Too Hard (and it gets harder for each future generation when less corrective action gets taken by current 'supposed leadership').
-
One Planet Only Forever at 13:52 PM on 5 January 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #1
"On one side, dangerous climate change. On the other, something we can figure out and adapt to if we play our cards right."
That thinking is the root of the problem. I appreciate the author is not using it as an excuse for a reduced level of corrective action - but many people do unjustifiably use the adaptation option as an excuse.
The We who are Benefiting face almost none of the consequences. And the ones facing the consequences may not be fortunate enough to have a scientific discovery magically allow them to 'adapt'. And even if they did, they would never 'get back' many of the resources that their predecessors Disappeared (like the extinctions of forms of life).
The current generation needs to adapt to the reality that materialistic consumerism has no future.
The Truth is that "On one side there are current day people who would have to work a little harder, less artificial assistance, and enjoy their life a little less, limiting what they do to activities that are not wasteful or harmful (with the more fortunate giving up some of their fortune and opportunity in order to sustainably improve the lives of the less fortunate), so that a current generation finally breaks the cycle of creating more harmful consequences that future generations of humanity will have to try to deal with. On the other, the future generations who can do nothing to get even with their selfish harmful predecessors."
The National Building Codes of the more developed nations require a 98% or better chance of a structure surviving the possible impacts that could happen to the structure. That means less than a 2% chance of any part of a structure failing.
Humanity's future environment should have an even lower chance of "Being Compromised", if the leadership of the current generation cared to think about it and lead based on that understanding.
-
anticorncob6 at 11:28 AM on 5 January 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #1
" And over the next decade, the world will decide its fate of whether it can limit heating to within 1.5 degrees Celsius of pre-industrial temperatures."
We have to reduce carbon emissions by an average of 15% every year just to have a 50/50 chance of staying below the 1.5C limit. The world isn't doing that.
-
Nick Palmer at 10:25 AM on 5 January 2020The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
Michael Sweet. Whether you realise it or not, you argue in exactly the same way as denialists do, only in an alarmist mirror fashion. Clearly you are going to continue with your long ill-thought out posts chock full of incorrect assertions and characterisations and I wonder if the moderators need to slow you down a bit. I'll just point out an example of your style: M.S. wrote "I supported William Reese's article advocating allowing people to discuss high danger possibilities of AGW. Currently only low ball projections are publicly discussed"
It is absolutely untrue that only lowball projections are publicly discussed - you just made that up.
M.S also wrote: "You claim without suppport that Cauderia says 6 billion dead is scaremongering crap" Firstly, it is Caldeira actually...
This was extraordinarily easy to check - yet M.S didn't... - again, his aggressive denier/alarmist style shows because he appears to believe that if one don't know of something, that it doesn't exist. Try looking again at the 'Reece article' linked to in the comment#8. In it is this: "Similarly, Ken Caldeira, senior scientist, Carnegie Institution, points out, “There is no analysis of likely climate damage that has been published in the quality peer-reviewed literature that would indicate that there is any substantial likelihood that climate change could cause the starvation of six billion people by the end of this century.”"Which rather proves my point about Caldeira's views and demolishes his insinuation and it also strongly suggests that M.S. didnt read or properly understand the words in the article he referenced!. Only reading headlines or cherry picking articles is a classic denialist/alarmist trait
There is a point which M.S, is fundamentally not getting, which I have addressed several times already - incorrigibly ignoring or failing to understand repeated points is also classic denialist/alarmist think. That is starkly illustrated in his fallacious statement: "You ignore your previous complaints about underprediction and shift the goalposts to a single word Hallam said. You complain about people who discuss worst case scenieros and imply that I discuss worst case scenieros"
The point is that those who campaign and pontificate using 'fear porn' and say worst case low probability things WILL happen, like Hallam, are simply wrong. Get it? WRONG.... They are also highly irresponsible because they give massive amounts of ammunition to the denialist propagandists, who use it to confuse and mislead the public about what the sensible peer-reviewed science says. No scientist worth his salt would support that nonsense, indeed they get angered by it. BTW Michael Mann wouldn't approve of Sweet's postion either! It is the implied certainty in the words of Hallam and his ilk that is dangeously misleading.
I did not 'complain' about people who discuss worst case scenarios at all, all those scenarios are covered in the science and often in restrained magazine articles. It is legitimate to mention low probability outcomes as part of a full risk assesment process. It is not legitimate to tell the public that 'we're all going to die in X years'. Again, I say it is absolute nonsense to say that the very low probablity, worst case scenarios which depend not only on nothing at all being done to fix things but that fossil fuel use, particularly coal, will massively increase in future, which is the R.C.P 8.5 pathway which is next to being abandoned as a possible future, are not being mentioned publicly. However, it's true that climate scientists and policy makers are not 'hyping' them, like the dangerously stupid and irresponsible Hallam's of this world tend to do, for very good psychologcal reasons. Such risks may even be mentioned in the public arena more if only the reporters, fired up by the irresponsible doomers, extremists and alarmists, who create a journalistic hunger for headline worthy quotes about 'worst cases' happening and make them interview as if those were firm, almost inevitable, predictions, didn't need to be corrected so often by real scientists when interviewed.
Those types I do, and did, complain about are those who misrepresent the science and the possibilities to be as scary as they can possibly make them out to be in order to plug their cause or their ideology or whatever motivates them. NigelJ, who is probably one of the most regular commenters here, and who knows his stuff, has already confirmed that trying to scare the public with over the top hype to try and stampede them towards a policy, desired by the scarey pontificator, does not work and is actually counterproductive. People like Michael Sweet seem either unaware of this or ignore itAs Sweet clearly can't acknowledge that others can know stuff he is unaware of, shown by his denier like demands that everything anyone says that he doesn't like be ' proved' - MS: "You provide no data to support your claims", here's a few links that support what I and NigelJ wrote about hyping fear and its countreproductive nature.
Fear won't do it- Promoting Positive engagement With Climate Change Through Iconic and Visual Representations
'Loss-Framed Arguments Can Stifle Political Activism' Adam Seth Levine (a1) and Reuben Kline (a2)
'How Hope and Doubt Affect Climate Change Mobilization Jennifer R. Marlon1*, Brittany Bloodhart2, Matthew T. Ballew1, Justin Rolfe-Redding3, Connie Roser-Renouf3, Anthony Leiserowitz1 and Edward Maibach3https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2008.00188.x
'Fear-Based Climate Appeals Can Be Counterproductive'
https://psmag.com/environment/fear-based-climate-appeals-can-be-counterproductiveModerator Response:[DB] Let's tone things down and take a higher road. For reference, Michael Sweet is a member of the Skeptical Science author team.
Ad hominems and inflammatory snipped.
-
nigelj at 08:50 AM on 5 January 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #1
"Safety is something we all crave. It’s human nature."
Nope. Quite a few people crave danger. This is probably a factor in all the crazy climate denialism. They are happy to take a risk with the whole planet. Some of the science underpinning risk taking:
www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/science-choice/201508/can-you-be-addicted-adrenaline
www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-main-ingredient/201207/seeking-danger-find-sense-life
The economist William Nordhaus claimed 4 degrees is the safe limit above which human casualties become serious. The trouble is we don't know this with any certainty, and his views are contested, and even a 1.5 degree world could lock in 4 degrees, it cant be ruled out given the understanding of tipping points, so I can't see any safe limit. By the time one is mathematically defined with precision it will probably be too late.
Jonathen Franzen says "We haven’t fixed climate change for 30 years, so we may as well give in to the fact that everything is screwed." This just seems intellectually lazy and defeatist.
-
Eclectic at 08:46 AM on 5 January 2020Clouds provide negative feedback
Hefaistos @255 ,
please comment on the Dewitte et al., 2019 paper you cite.
My first impression of the EEI graph is (ignoring error bars) that it's very noisy.
-
Hefaistos at 07:37 AM on 5 January 2020Clouds provide negative feedback
Interesting paper finds "surprising" results from CERES with a negative trend of Earth Energy Imbalance as well as a negative trend of Ocean Heat Content Time Derivative :
"Decadal Changes of the Reflected Solar Radiation and the Earth Energy Imbalance" by Dewitte , Clerbaux and Cornelis.
Abstract: Decadal changes of the Reflected Solar Radiation (RSR) as measured by CERES from 2000 to 2018 are analysed. For both polar regions, changes of the clear-sky RSR correlate well with changes of the Sea Ice Extent. In the Arctic, sea ice is clearly melting, and as a result the earth is becoming darker under clear-sky conditions. However, the correlation between the global all-sky RSR and the polar clear-sky RSR changes is low. Moreover, the RSR and the Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) changes are negatively correlated, so they partly cancel each other. The increase of the OLR is higher then the decrease of the RSR. Also the incoming solar radiation is decreasing. As a result, over the 2000–2018 period the Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) appears to have a downward trend of −0.16 ± 0.11 W/m2dec. The EEI trend agrees with a trend of the Ocean Heat Content Time Derivative of −0.26 ± 0.06 (1 σ) W/m2dec.
...
"The Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) shows a trend of −0.16 ± 0.11 W/m2dec. The decreasing trend in EEI is in agreement with a decreasing trend of −0.26 ± 0.06 W/m2dec in the Ocean Heat Content Time Derivative (OHCTD) after 2000.
The OHCTD over the period 1960–2015 shows three different regimes, with low OHCTD prior to 1982, rising OHCTD from 1982 to 2000, and decreasing OHCTD since 2000. These OHCTD periods correspond to periods of slow/rapid/slow surface temperature rise [16,17], to periods of strong La Ninas/El Ninos/La Ninas [14,18], and to periods of increasing/decreasing/increasing aerosol loading [19,20]. "https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/11/6/663/htm#
-
nigelj at 12:53 PM on 4 January 2020The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
This article is very relevant. We are seeing the very worst of our scientific predictions come to pass in these bushfires. Note particularly the discussion on the next IPCC report, and the suggestion it will include a section on abrupt climate change. There's a link to the main topics to be included in the report.
-
michael sweet at 11:40 AM on 4 January 2020The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
Another fact and reference free post from Nick Palmer disparaging me.
Let us review the conversation.
At 12 I entered the conversation. I supported William Reese's article advocating allowing people to discuss high danger possibilities of AGW. Currently only low ball projections are publicly discussed.
At 13 you entered calling me a doomer for supporting discussing high danger, low probability issues. You criticize Reese and others who worry about the long, very fat tail of probabilities. You provide no data to support your claims. You quote Reese to support your argument.
At 15 you claim without data that "the majority [of scientists are] saying 'things are proceeding at about the rate we thought'. You claim without suppport that Cauderia says 6 billion dead is scaremongering crap.
At 22 I use the example of gross underestimates of sea level rise in the IPCC reports to support my claims. I point out that Hansen was roundly criticized for his estimates of 5 meters rise 15 years ago. You would have completely censored him. I point out that 5 meters rise is now standard in the fat tail of possibilities. I point out that 600 million people are currently at risk from 2 meters of sea level rise alone (currently at risk, an estimated 800 million at risk by 2100). Here is the paper describing this risk, it was widely discussed several weeks ago. Previous estimates understated the problem by a factor of three.
I then list more 4 examples of underprediction. It would be easy for me to list many more.
At 28 you describe Alleys talk. You complain about Hallam using the word "will" while Alley only says the probability is low. (According to DB the probability has increased significantly since Alley was recorded). You ignore your previous complaints about underprediction and shift the goalposts to a single word Hallam said. You complain about people who discuss worst case scenieros and imply that I discuss worst case scenieros.
At 30 I detail IPCC lowballing of sea level rise with references. I point out that the IPCC numbers are very low ball numbers, far below the scientific norm. I state I believe most people will only respond after problems directly affect them. I state I do not use numbers from the end of the fat tail but support others using what they think is appropriate.
At 31you insult me for supporting extremist views, although that is not my position. You change the goal posts to describe how best to affect public opinion. You state your opinion of the best way to address the public without any citations to support your reasons.
At 35 I detail my claim about IPCC lowballing scientific estimates with detailed citations. I show 2 meters was a reasonable choice, within the 90% percentile. I prove the IPCC AR5 lowballed sea level rise. I provide numerous quotes of scientists complaining about IPCC lowballing. I state that I see no reason to think lowballing issues will get more people to take action than describing extreme problems. I point out that lowballing has had no effect for the past 30 years.
At 38 you shift goalposts again and state that I do not differentiate between what will happen and what might happen, although I have clearly shown that 2 meters is around the 90th percentile of probability for a high emission model. You then shift the goal posts again to discuss RCP 8.5, which I have not discussed at all. You claim that you do not need to cite data since you have discussed this issue with scientists and your recollection of the discussion is enough.
None of us know what will happen after tomorrow. All projections have to be taken with that caveat. In the full video that we discussed above of Dr Alley he shows the entire curve and states emphatically that we must take strong action to ensure the end of the fat tail [15-20 feet] does not happen. (watch the video yourself to find this).
I think lowballing problems as you advocate is bad policy. I try to discuss problems near the 90% area. Hallam goes further up the tail. That reflects on Hallam, not me. People here in Tampa think 0.5 meters by 2100 is the top estimate of sea level rise because the IPCC numbers are so low. That is a disservice to the public and keeps people from taking action.
You have been deliberately offensive. You keep shifting the goal posts when I give examples that you are incorrect. You have not provided a single reference to support your claims.
Moderators: Nick Palmer is sloganeering and deliberately insulting other posters. Please ask him to provide references to support his wild claims and stop insulting me.
I found this reference by Oreskes, Oppenheimer and Jamieson:
Scientists Have Been Underestimating the Pace
of Climate Change (description of book)The problem of underestimating problems is much more complicated than I described and much more widespread.
I think your suggestion that we should all lowball the problems of AGW is a bad idea. It has failed for 30 years. In the next 10 we will see if Hallam's efforts are helpful or harmful. He can hardly do worse than the last 30 years of lowballing. In the past year Extinction Rebellion has gotten more attention for AGW action than traditional sources you advocate.
I note that Michael Mann is making much stronger public statements than he used to. Australia, your country is burning – dangerous climate change is here with you now
-
Nick Palmer at 00:47 AM on 4 January 2020The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
Michael Sweet. You still seem to have a problem understanding that "theres a big difference between claiming what will happen and what might happen".
You quote a blizzard of figures but you don't seem to have understood the original post - about R.C.P 8.5. All of the shock horror predictions that the Hallam's of this world tell people are going to happen, and the low probability 'highball' IPCC projections too, are dependent on what is increasingly seen as an unrealistically high increase in future emissions by the very same scientists whose work is used to formulate the projections of the consequences of the 'what ifs' that are the RCPs.
You may not know but the author of this article - ATTP - is Ken Rice, a highly respected figure in the field and I have been in communication with him (and other noted and noteworthy climate scientists) over some years, so I have the advantage over you of not just knowing what the 'boiled down' IPCC reports say, but also what the scientists behind the scientific papers that are considered by the IPCC say. They're not fond of extremist alarmist and doomers...
Skepticalscience is not an alarmist or doomer site (despite what denialists say on a daily basis...) and anyone giving any sympathy or support to the 'fear porn' rhetoric of the likes of Hallam is probelmatical to keeping intact the integrity of the site as a repository of objective reliable scientific knowledge. -
takamura_senpai at 23:27 PM on 3 January 2020Statistic of the decade: The massive deforestation of the Amazon
There is a simple way to solve a forests problem - declare default. But. This is impossible, because Brazil - is a USA colony
-
takamura_senpai at 23:23 PM on 3 January 2020Statistic of the decade: The massive deforestation of the Amazon
This is a colonialism. USA hang a huge debt on Brazil, just buy polititians. Now USA have woods and goods from Brazil for free - less even than % on debt. Brazil have to cut forests because it is a colony of USA. Debt too big. Brazil have to pay USA aprox 100 billions of dollars every year. EVER. So forest will die.
-
Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
pbezuk: Relative humidity over land has decreased, as predicted by the models; the slower cooling of the oceans has shifted some humidity to the waters. The specific humidity, the total amount of water in vapor form, has on the other hand increased again as predicted, with resulting increases in precipitation and flooding.
Your post is simply wrong.
- Byrne and Gorman 2018 - Relative humidity trends as per models
- Feng et al 2016 - Specific humidity trends and resulting rainfall changes
- How substances in trace amounts can cause large effects - Yes, it's CO2
-
michael sweet at 12:19 PM on 3 January 2020The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
Reviewing my post at 35 I confused the graph with another I reviewed. The light lines on the graph show the 90% confidence interval and not the 95% confidence interval. 95% confidence is much higher.
Nigelj: the graph shows the consensus 90% confidence in 2013 was 1.5 meters. The quote indicates that "global total SLR exceeding 2 m by 2100 lies within the 90% uncertainty bounds" [in 2019]. The consensus 90% value BAU increased over 0.5 meters from 2013-2019.
It is difficult for amateurs like us to keep track of what is going on. Tamino has good posts on sea level rise. RealClimate has a good post every so often. This year had a lot of bad news on sea level rise. Hopefully next year will be better.
-
David Hawk at 08:47 AM on 3 January 2020Skeptical Science New Research for Week #52, 2019
This announces republishing of a book on the subject of control of nvironmental deterioration resulting from industrialization. 90% if tge biij comes from a major project conducted in Sweden between 1975-77. At the end of the research it was proposed that phenomena like climate change would emerge if major change was not undertaken. The project included many companies and governments, where the companies allowed complete access to their research and production facilities. The work ended in a call for a new approach to enviornmental regulations as the research results showed how the usual legalistic approach was not capable of managing systemic phenemena.
The recommendations from the study were ignored for forty years. Climate change will be our future. The book is:
"Too Early, Too Late, Now what?" David L. Hawk, 2019
Moderator Response:[DB] While we encourage people to bring the results of peer-reviewed research to the discussion threads, merely promoting your own book is not appropriate.
-
michael sweet at 08:15 AM on 3 January 2020The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
Nigelj,
We basically agree. I do not like being called a cherry picker. I responded to some of your issues in the post above.
-
michael sweet at 08:08 AM on 3 January 2020The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
Nick Palmer at 31:
Thank you for a post completely lacking in citations so I do not need to go read them.
Long time readers ar Ske[ptical Science might remember a drawing from a scientist (sorry I do not remember the scientists name) which had a large gaussian curve labeled "Scientific Opinion" on one side. At the far right of the gaussian curve was a line labeled "IPCC position. About 10% of the curve was to theleft of the IPCC line. Much further to the left, past the point of no problems, was a line labeled Denier scientists. In the middle of the IPCC line and the denier line was a line labeled "news reports splitting the middle". The news reports line was far to the left of the end of scientific opinion. (If anyone has a link to this drawing please post it below, I have not been able to find it).
The point of the graph was that, exactly as OPOF describes, the IPCC report determines the point where a consensus of scientists agrees "the damage must be higher than this". That means the average of scientific opinion is much more damage than reported by the IPCC. The lowest 10-15% of scientific opinion determines where the line is drawn. Your description of the IPCC linne as the midpoint of scientific opinion is simply incorrect (I note that you have provided no citations to support your claim).
I support my claim with this reference to a RealClimate post. (the data discussed is referenced to a peer reviewed paper at RealClimate). The graph below shows the data from IPCC AR5 and the results of a survey of 90 sea level rise experts.
In the IPCC report the data was only quoted from the 17-83%. Standard data in scientific reports is to the 95%. Thus for RPC 8.5, the I(PCC reported a maximum expected rise of just under 1 meter. The 95% opinion of the experts was just over 1.5 meters.
I call the IPCC claim of under 1 meter low balling.
Just for giggles let us look at a recently published survey of experts:
"We find that a global total SLR exceeding 2 m by 2100 lies within the 90% uncertainty bounds for a high emission scenario." my emphasis
Your position is that I should only say sea level will rise 0.95 meters when expert opinion says there is as much as 10% chance of over 2 meters if we go BAU?? If I am responsible for building an airport I am expected to anticipate it will last 100 years with 95% certainty. That would be well over 2 meters.
According to this RealClimate post, Jason Box, a glaciologist who studies this issue, has said:
"There was controversy after AR4 that sea level rise estimates were too low. Now, we have the same problem for AR5 [that they are still too low]."
Stefan states:
"One statement that I do not find convincing is the IPCC’s claim that “it is likely that similarly high rates [as during the past two decades] occurred between 1920 and 1950.” I think this claim is not well supported by the evidence. In fact, a statement like “it is likely that recent high rates of SLR are unprecedented since instrumental measurements began” would be more justified."
At 27:40 of the video linked above Dr. Alley says:
"The IPCC is way on the optomistic side fo what is possible [for this issue and many others]"
He does not mention 30-40 feet but does say "could be bigger than this [15-20 feet]. they have not done a worst case study"
Prominent scientists complain repeatedly that the IPCC is lowballing the numbers. I think it is acceptable for me to do the same. Can you provide something besides ":this what Nick Palmer thinks" to support your position.
I have not been called a doomer before. Thinking about it, I note that low balling it for 30 years as you advocate has not gotten anything done. Perhaps Hallem of ER will do better with his approach.
-
nigelj at 06:48 AM on 3 January 2020The never-ending RCP8.5 debate
michael sweet @29
"you can't argue every issue by pointing to what an expert or two said and leaving it at that. Sometimes experts are dead wrong. You are using the "argument from authority fallacy," and also doing exactly what the denialists do when the point at a couple of denialist experts."
Yes I did say this, but at that point I was referencing the claims of Reese that 6 billion people will die by 2100, not sea level rise per se. This is really Reeses opinion, its not in the peer reviewed literature as far as Im aware, its been heavily criticised by several other experts, and like Nick Plamer says theres a big difference between claiming what will happen and what might happen. Reese is feeding the denialists. It's sad if you can't see this.
"Your paper actually supports my posts: 2 meters is a high estimate but within 95% estimates of high sea level rise and 5 meters is within the long tail. You did not read the paper. The paper also states that the consensus of experts has significantly increased since 2013. "For sea level rise the consensus always increases every 5-10 years."
Whatever. I have already stated that I accept some published science (Hansen and others) concludes 5 metres is possible as the most extreme worst case. An incredible numbers of things have to happen for this to occur and some of the mechanisms in Hansens research are none too clear. That's the opinion of plenty of scientists. Not everyone accepts Hansens conclusions. 2-3 metres by 2100 is what is considered more reasonably possible and scares the hell out of me anyway and would be devastating. I don't know why anyone needs to wildly speculate beyond this.
Even Hansens sea level rise predictions that New York would be underwater by date xyz have fed the denialists for decades, and the scientific community has had to do gymnastics to defend them.
If we want to be convincing the public, and using scary predictions towards the upper end, imho we need to be focusing in on a worst case for sea level rise that is strongly backed by evidence, not the off the chart highly contested stuff at the extreme end. I have already made this point so I'm trying again. It's a subtle difference but its important.
Nick Plalmer is right when he says "If you havent seen the clear evidence from psychology that overstating risks not only turns people off, but reduces the credibility of the 'consensus' middle ground of science in the publics' eye then you need to read a bit wider." I have done some psychology, so Im aware of this. Basically fear can motivate change, but the research finds when using extreme and scary scenarious, there has to be a solid evidence base or fear can work in the opposite direction to whats intended.
"Farmers raise crops on all the good land. Only poor land is allowed to go to trees. Virtually all farmable land is already occupied by a farmer. Your gross insensivity to farmers on good, delta land being forced to move to cities is disgusting. Lost good land is not replaced by poor land in the mountains or melted permafrost. All the estimates I used were for 2100. You refer to multiple time periods so it is unclear what you mean. It is clear that you are not up to date on the amount and consequences of sea level rise."
My point was sea level rise will reduce framland, and forests might be cut down to provide more farmland so its hard to see 6 billion people dying by 2100. And it seems plausible, given huge numbers of trees are being cut down in the Amazon rain forest to grow crops and for cattle (unfortunately). Obviously there could well be very increased mortality longer term given seaa level rise wont stop by 2100.
I said nothing about farmers being forced to move to cities. I said nothing about growing trees on mountains or permafrost regions. I don't recall using multiple time periods. I only talked about 2100 or end of this century. I provided you with a reference from physics.org to some of the latest science on sea level rise.
----------------------
Michael Sweet @30
"The rules for the IPCC reports were written by fossil fuel lawers."
Where do you get that from? Not that it would suprise me.
"Lowballing problems as you suggest has not motivated anyone to take action in the past 30 years. "
I don't think problems have been low balled as much as you think. While the IPCC have not highlighted the possibility of multi metre sea level rise by 2100, there is a graph in their report talking about 12 degrees c by 2200 for business as usual. This is not low balling. The media has been full of scary predictions of all sorts.
"I do not support frightening people with 15 feet (Alley actually mentioned 30-40 feet as a maximum in his talk, listen to it again), but having 65 cm in the Executive summary, which is the most you expect people to read, is not accurate."
This seems in total contradiction to all your previous rhetoric!
My position is this and it always has been and I've said it 100 times: The IPCC understate things in the executive summary and are too cautious. The possibility of 2 metre sea level rise should be mentioned, or something like that, because theres good evidence its a reasonable possibility. But making truly extreme claims like 6 metres sea level rise and 6 billion people dead within one hundred years feeds is on shaky ground, and feeds the denialists and could be counter productive.
I think we might be more on the same page than you think.
Prev 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 Next
