Recent Comments

Prev  319  320  321  322  323  324  325  326  327  328  329  330  331  332  333  334  Next

Comments 16301 to 16350:

16301. Bob Loblaw at 06:19 AM on 1 January 2018
       Fake news is a threat to humanity, but scientists may have a solution
       

       "the vested interest of a funder can corrupt the science"

       That something is possible says nothing about the likelihood. It is possible that an undetected asteroid will hit the earth and destroy life as we know it before I will get a chance to ring in the New Year tonight. It's not worth changing my plans for that possibility, though.

       Gail's repeated assertions basically amount to claiming that all the science is made up to get money, and every scientist that publishes on climate change and supports the idea that it is happening, humans are causing the bulk of recent warming, and it will get a lot worse if we continue to burn fossil fuels at current rates, are all part of a conspiracy to hide the truth. It basically lets her reject anything she doesn't like.

16302. Bob Loblaw at 06:11 AM on 1 January 2018
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       NorrisM: "Everyone agrees that additional levels of CO2 are causing global warming."

       Everyone? I constantly see people deny that there is any warming at all, and constantly see people deny that CO2 can cause any warming.

       How much of the current warming is due to rising CO2 is an attribution question, and the IPCC has stated that the best estimate is all of it.

       As for how much warming is predicted in the future, under different scenarios, and how models fit into the question, please take that to the Models are Unreliable thread,

       ...and the future predictions are not a linear extrapolation of recent trends. That is not a good way of doing the analysis.

16303. nigelj at 05:49 AM on 1 January 2018
       Fake news is a threat to humanity, but scientists may have a solution
       

       Gail @33

       "The overarching point is that the vested interest of a funder can corrupt the science to its own needs."

       Yes fair enough.  However I dont see governments directing the science in any significant way. If you are very paranoid you might believe they use the climate scare to increase their powers, so look to somehow exaggerate the science, but we see many centre right anti tax parties taking climate change seriously, presumably because they see the risk factor ( as already pointed out to you above).

       If anything, and I have to say this again hoping you see the point, governments would probably prefer the climate problem to just go away. If they want to "increase their powers" there are much simpler and more nefarious ways of doing this! 

       In fact I would suggest that if government does inject a bias into the science, it would be to 'downplay' the risks of climate change. It's commonsense! However I doubt they would be aggressive in doing this, or it may vary depending on the policial party of the day. Clearly The republican party dont like climate science.

       And we do actually have some anecdotal evidence leaking out that government officials who sign off the IPCC reports have tried to have the risks of dangerous climate change and levels of certainty of climate change downplayed.

       Of course there is the allegation of whether scientists inflate the risk of climate change to get governments worried so they then fund research. Just remember scientists are employed as a matter of course to do science on all sorts of issues that pose no threat, like studying beetles, they dont have to scaremonger to get work. Scientists are also trained to be restrained and objective. They may of course say climate change is serious and needs study: But Gail it is clearly a serious issue so this is only stating the obvious.

       In comparison, the fossil fuel industry have strong interests in business as usual, and are likely to go shopping for scientists who have a sceptical point of view. Once employed, they may become even more biased towards a sceptical view out of fear of losing their contracts. 

       Anyway as pointed out by others funding comes from both governments, companies and other sources, and this is very healthy balance that ensures we get good information overall. But the fossil fuel funded sceptical leaning studies have been unconvicing - for decades now. That should tell you something.

16304. MA Rodger at 05:38 AM on 1 January 2018
       Antarctica is gaining ice
       

       compx2,

       I think time has caught up with your comment "Let's just say Ice overall is growing in Antarctica, okay?" which is now twenty months out of date.

       Overall, the Antarctic ice cap was certainly not "growing" ice-wise over the period 2002-16. (The Zwally theorising mentioned in the OP update is an interesting theory but nothing more.) And the Antarctic Sea Ice had been showing a slow rise in SIE over the satellite record 1978-2010 and then did show a dramatic upward wobble to early 2016. But since then, as the comment @463 pointed out, the drama has been in the opposite direction and now SIE continues lower than at any time earlier than 2016.

       

16305. nigelj at 05:18 AM on 1 January 2018
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #52
       

       Zippi62 @4

       "Makes one wonder where "biased" polsters draw their lines. Most conservative thinkers I know avoid biased pollsters"

       This is too anecdotal, and it is highly improbable that conservatives simply don't do polls.

       "Millions of global warming/climate change protesters protesting in big cities where the environment can barely be be studied by those who protest. They have to depend on scientists to be honest and unbiased in their evaluations of each and every research study they perform using taxpayer dollars. "

       Partly true, but you don't need to be a scientist to understand that we are altering the climate. All you need is a reasonable education. The evidence is pretty basic and overwhelming.

       One data set or research paper might be unreliable, but we have numerous data sets and research papers,so its slander to suggest they are all somehow intellectually dishonest. Every paper discusses areas of certainty, and issues where uncertainty remains, so it's pretty transparent.

       "Most big government environmental scientists have a bias IMO, otherwise they wouldn't worry about who becomes POTUS."

       Not interested in your opinion, unless you can back it up with some information. Any sane person would worry about a president that tries to remove data from websites, and has scientifically illiterate views.

       "George H.W. Bush Sr., Bill Clinto, George Bush Jr., and Barack Obama were all "globalists". (Remember George Sr.'s 'new world order' statement?)"

       Irrelevant to the climate issue. You are also paranoid about globalism. The world has been globalising ever since we first started trading with each other. Imo the challenge is to get the global rules on a fair basis, and the balance of power right between nation states and larger global authorities, so that we avoid potential for abuse of power.

       "Let us not forget where the UN IPCC came from and how it has progressed over the past 30 years and what the United Nations' ultimate goal is. Globalism. Un-elected government officials (they are appointed) being handed billions of dollars every year for climate research projects and advisory boards."

       The Un doesn't primarily fund climate reseach, nation states do.

       "The corn-belt of the U.S. does lots of climate research. Farmers are a good source for spotting "climate change indicators".

       Yes, and they say the climate is changing.

       "Purdue University did a survey aimed at Agricultural Extension educators, agricultural advisors, and farmers. Over 90% (1,560) of those surveyed mostly believed that either the environment and humans are 50/50 responsible (~33%)"

       What makes you think farmers have any special insight on science? Their educational levels tend to be rather average or below average. They also tend to be Republican supporters and the Republican Party is sceptical of climate science, unfortunately. That's not to say farmers are inferior to anyone else, they aren't - and we rely on farmers for our very survival.

       "Big city dwellers are easy to antagonize."

       Well you might be right about that. I dont know why, but I have some good guesses on it. But its not really that relevant to the climate issue.

16306. Russell at 04:09 AM on 1 January 2018
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #52
       

       https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2017/12/counting-down-to-year-of-dog.html

       Let us not forget how often President Trump has stood up as species of the year

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Sloganeering snipped.

16307. Zippi62 at 04:09 AM on 1 January 2018
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #52
       

       The "resistance" comes from those who feel that they can trust the "97% consensus" mantra. Populations in large cities like New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Denver, Seattle, Portland, Washington, D.C., Detroit, Philadelphia, Baltimore, St. Louis, and Miami vote 75%+ 'democrat' and are the most likely places for demonstrations ("resistance"). It's easy to dupe those who can't verify scientific findings on their own. 99.9% of these people aren't scientists.

       Makes one wonder where "biased" polsters draw their lines. Most conservative thinkers I know avoid biased pollsters

       Millions of global warming/climate change protesters protesting in big cities where the environment can barely be be studied by those who protest. They have to depend on scientists to be honest and unbiased in their evaluations of each and every research study they perform using taxpayer dollars. Most big government environmental scientists have a bias IMO, otherwise they wouldn't worry about who becomes POTUS. George H.W. Bush Sr., Bill Clinto, George Bush Jr., and Barack Obama were all "globalists". (Remember George Sr.'s 'new world order' statement?)

       Let us not forget where the UN IPCC came from and how it has progressed over the past 30 years and what the United Nations' ultimate goal is. Globalism. Un-elected government officials (they are appointed) being handed billions of dollars every year for climate research projects and advisory boards.

       The corn-belt of the U.S. does lots of climate research. Farmers are a good source for spotting "climate change indicators".

       Purdue University did a survey aimed at Agricultural Extension educators, agricultural advisors, and farmers. Over 90% (1,560) of those surveyed mostly believed that either the environment and humans are 50/50 responsible (~33%), the climate has changedand is mostly natural (~29%) or their is insufficient evidence to know with any certainty that the climate is occuring or not (~28%). Less than 10% believe it is happening and is caused by human activities.

       It's easy to convince big city-dwelling populations. That's the only world they know. They generally can't understand how big the world really is.

       The 20 most populated areas in the U.S. (previous list of cities plus 6 other highly populated areas) take up less than 14,000 square miles of the 3,500,000+ square miles United States land area (0.04% of the total U.S. land area). (Hillary Clinton received 10 million more votes in these 20 most populated areas. She won the popular vote by less than 3 million)

       Big city dwellers are easy to antagonize. 

       If anything, Global Warming alarmism plays to those who don't have the luxury of exploring the world outside of their own city. They are the poorest of the poor.

       Good luck in your celebration! The science isn't as 'cut-and-dry' as is portrayed by those who seem to love antagonizing people into a "resistance" they don't understand.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Blatant sloganeering snipped. 

       Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

       Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site. 
        
       Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion.  If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

       Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

16308. Aanthanur at 03:53 AM on 1 January 2018
       97% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven
       

       they included papers that did not quantify the Anthropogenic contribution to warming.

        

       and when you check the abstracts of for example endorsement level 3, you find that they did count unquantified abstracts as supporting, thus the claim in the intro of the study is false.

       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Specific citations required.

16309. John Hartz at 03:52 AM on 1 January 2018
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       NorrisM: You ask:

       Are there studies to show accelerating ocean temperatures?

       Recommend that you peruse the comments previously posted on this OP and the related lecture-video from Denial101x that is appended to the OP. 

16310. Tom Dayton at 03:26 AM on 1 January 2018
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       Gail: The bank balance accounting that Bob Loblaw explained to you has been done for planetary energy imbalance, using the types of evidence that MA Rodger described to you. But instead of your subjective, reference-free and incorrect assertions of the bank balance, climatologists have done the accounting quantitatively, with references to source data and methods,  including uncertainties, and from multiple types of data, data sources, and methods. The most recent I've found is a reference I already pointed you to, which you seem to have totally ignored: Trenberth et al. (2016). If the body of the paper is too technical for you to understand, at least read the Abstract, Introduction, and Conclusions.

16311. NorrisM at 03:18 AM on 1 January 2018
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       Moderator

       That was why I was asking for some estimate of warming from two periods, 1950 and 1975. Perhaps the two periods should be from 1950 and 1970.

       I agree that the rate from 1950 at least would be more relevant.  It would be interesting to look at 1970 but we then get into shorter periods which themselves have problems.

       I appreciate my question on models might be getting "off topic" but these questions on the rate of temperature increase certainly relate to "empirical evidence".

       Perhaps this is just impossible to do because of other factors such as the aerosols, volcanoes, ENSO etc.  I think I read somewhere on this website that ocean temperature increases are a better measure.  Surely there are some papers on this because it is such an obvious question.

       Are there studies to show accelerating ocean temperatures?

       Moderator Response:

       [TD] See the Nuccitelli 2012 graph to see that ocean heat content dwarfs that of air, land, and ice. Then for a more up to date graph of ocean heat content, and one in which the acceleration is obvious, see John Abraham's post, and for details read the article that John's post summarizes.

16312. compx2 at 02:42 AM on 1 January 2018
       Antarctica is gaining ice
       

       It sounds to the outsider as though it is very important to you guys to say that the addition of ice in Antarctica is NOT due to global warming, a separate issue related to Ozone (are humans responsible for the Ozone hole?).  But the loss of ice is due to global warming.
       
       Seems to me addition of ice is a simple thing to say, and that attributing it to something else is kind of like saying this ice is different from that ice, that some ice counts toward the ice in Antarctica and some doesn't count.
       
       And you sound awefully sure about that Ozone hole,  Where are the references to the studies that prove lack of Ozone is the problem?  Well, is there a problem that Ozone ice is messing up something in Antarctica?  Should be plug the Ozone hole?
       
       Let's just say Ice overall is growing in Antarctica, okay?

16313. John Hartz at 02:00 AM on 1 January 2018
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #52
       

       citzenschallenge:

       The ten actions identified in the Editor's Pick article of the OP are:

       1. Pipeline protesters fought back
       2. Thousands of nerds marched on Washington
       3. Scientists saved climate data
       4. Ex-government employees dropped the mic
       5. San Juan’s mayor said what many were thinking
       6. Bears Ears tribes took Trump to court
       7. Legislators pushed for environmental justice
       8. Companies defied the Trump agenda
       9. Cities filled a leadership gap
       10. States also thumbed their noses at Trump 

       Only the first two are public protests.    

16314. JohnSeers at 01:44 AM on 1 January 2018
       Fake news is a threat to humanity, but scientists may have a solution
       

       @Gail 33

       The problem is not just that you are biased against (climate) scientists but you give the impression you view the world of funding in a very simplistic, cynical and black and white way. 

       How do you think scientists should be funded? By government or industry? Obviously the answer is both because you need independence from industry but also industry genuinely wants answers to questions, so they sometimes employ scientists directly or commission research. Naturally, ultimately, these are just people with various levels of integrity as is reflected anywhere.

       Scientists, on the whole, take a pride in their objectivity and value the integrity of science and truth. This does not mean none of them cannot be corrupted by money but that is rare. (Hence the very few contrarian scientists perhaps?). More the problem is industry taking research results and then spinning the results to over-emphasise small effects or ignore poor results. This can be ameliorated by good communication from scientists but they tend not to have budgets for this. 

       When scientists accept funding there are always contracts that protect the integrity of the science and bolster the independence of the scientists. This can get quite messy when it comes to interpretation and control of results. But on the whole there is quite a distinct gap between the scientists and the industry.

       Your view that everything is just all one-way to the bad is just unrealistic.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Gail is on the cusp of relinquishing his/her privilege of posting comments on this site.

16315. citizenschallenge at 00:59 AM on 1 January 2018
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #52
       

       Seems that it's going to take more than protests.  

       How about some direct intellectual confrontation - demanding an explaination for why Republican feel comfortable using blatant (and juvenile) lies to rationalize refusing to pay attention to what sober serious science tell us about the physical Earth that we depend on for everything.

       Here's a thought:

       "Science’s Blue team educates Pruitt’s Red team - A Rough Outline."

       https://confrontingsciencecontrarians.blogspot.com/p/blue-vs-red-team.html

       or perhaps

       https://confrontingsciencecontrarians.blogspot.com/p/hall-of-shame.html

16316. Gail at 00:19 AM on 1 January 2018
       Fake news is a threat to humanity, but scientists may have a solution
       

       Eclectic @ 32
       Skepticism about climate science isn't over the basic notion of AGW,  which is widely accepted;   sooner or later there must surely be a problem, yes.   It's about whether the science truly is settled as regards How Much Warming How Soon - ie the claimed high certainty of an  imminent catastrophe (CAGW).  And also more general skepticism over  objectivity.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Sloganeering snipped. 

       Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

       Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
        
       Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion.  If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

       Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.

16317. BaerbelW at 00:09 AM on 1 January 2018
       Fake news is a threat to humanity, but scientists may have a solution
       

       Gail @33

       Your view of (climate) scientists seems to be very biased to say the least. Please, take a look at the website "More than scientists" and the collection of expert interviews recorded for our MOOC Denial101x where some of them share why they actually do the work they do. 

16318. Gail at 23:52 PM on 31 December 2017
       Fake news is a threat to humanity, but scientists may have a solution
       

       Eclectic @ 32
       No I am not comparing oranges and apples.  The overarching point is that the vested interest of a funder can corrupt the science to its own needs.  Searching for positive or negative results, it makes no difference here. 
       
       Possesion of  science degrees, or having "science" in job titles,  is no guarantee that objectivity and scientific method are being followed.

16319. BaerbelW at 22:55 PM on 31 December 2017
       97% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven
       

       Aanthanur @39

       Your comment reads as if you haven't yet taken the time to read all the information readily available about Cook et al. on our homepage:
       https://skepticalscience.com/tcp.php?t=home

       Otherwise you should already be aware that one important aspect of the rating done for the paper (and actually mentioned in it) is that any wording minimising anthropogenic warming would have made the abstract go into one of the rejection categories, thus ruling out the inclusion of "human activity cause some warming" in categories 1 -3.

16320. Eclectic at 21:36 PM on 31 December 2017
       Fake news is a threat to humanity, but scientists may have a solution
       

       Gail @31 , your arguing is getting even more confused.

       You are comparing apples and oranges.   Tobacco-funded research was "looking for an escape clause" — they wanted to find "negatives" or at least some counter-arguments against the scientific consensus position.

       Government-funded climate research [done by agencies, institutions, and hundreds of independent universities] is not angled toward an escape clause — every genuine climate scientist knows there is no escape clause and there is no counter-argument against AGW.   If there were a valid counter-argument against AGW, then the handful of "contrarian scientists" [richly backed by Fossil Fuel industry funds] would have discovered & publicized it long before now.   And indeed, the contrarians don't have a clue : they only have various hypotheses which have already been proven false (and their "hypotheses" are mutually contradictory and have zero evidence backing them).

       Gail, you are comparing apples and oranges there . . . and so your conclusions are invalid.  Invalid and worthless.

       Gail, it is high time you started to educate yourself about science.

16321. MA Rodger at 19:33 PM on 31 December 2017
       CO2 limits won't cool the planet
       

       Aaron Davis @27,

       I assume you have not carried out even the most simplistic of calculations to support you assertion "So, if anything albedo and CO2 combination, should overstate the seasonal effect over CO2 alone." If you had, you would have noticed that, while the impact of surface albedo will accentuate your elusive little CO2 effect, if you calculated it properly even for that pair of two-month-periods, you would see that during the periods and zones in question, insolation & albedo are far bigger effects than your teeny weeny dip in CO2. The insolation works against the CO2 effect and is about 100 x bigger (+13Wm^-2 compared with -0.14Wm^-2). The Surface Albedo effect is bigger still being about 300 x teeny weeny CO2 effect but additional to it. So the combination of Insolation and Surface Albedo sits 200 x bigger than the teeny weeny effect you attempt to measure (-27Wm^-2). Of course the atmospheric albedo is still to be accounted as has the imbalances in preceeding months. And there is still a whole pile of other factors beyond solar energy input.

       I must stress that the reason your teeny weeny CO2 effect is so insignificant is not because CO2 forcing is insignificant or even that 15ppm CO2 is entirely insignificant. It is because the 15ppm CO2 dip you attempt to measure is only operating for a couple of months before you attempt to measure its impact.

       The 9e18j value you ask about reflects the size of the zone impacted by the dip and its accumulative impact by the time of your temperature measurement. It is not a global figure. Why would it be? (The annual global forcing from -15ppm ΔCO2 would today amount to 2,250e18j, an effect that is far from insignificant.) That you apparently see some notion mirroring your own denialism in my comments is entirely illusory on your part.

16322. Gail at 19:19 PM on 31 December 2017
       Fake news is a threat to humanity, but scientists may have a solution
       

       He who pays the reseacher calls the tune.  No sensible layman would trust tobacco-funded research into smoking would they ?     No,  because the motives of a science's funder can easily skew and disguise results to advance the funder's vested interest,  cleverly highlighting or hiding various aspects as needed.
       Moderators - Yes, your rule is that political comments are not allowed. But, as it happens, most climate science is politically funded.  So you have thus ruled out any fundamental discussion of the actual practice of climate science, its motives and adherence to the scientific method.   
       I  think that is Unskeptical Science, and urge you to reconsider.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Moderation complaint snipped. 

       Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

       Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site. 
        
       Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion.  If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

       Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

16323. Aanthanur at 19:13 PM on 31 December 2017
       97% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven
       

       "We examined a large sample of the scientific literature on global CC, published over a 21 year period, in order to determine the level of scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW)."

       no you do not determine that level. because according to you data, there would have been a 87% consensus and not 97%.

        

       because you then change the consensus position to include unquantified statements.

        

       "To simplify the analysis, ratings were consolidated into three groups: endorsements (including implicit and explicit; categories 1–3 in table 2)"

        

       so people, carefull when you use that study as a source, the study shows that 97% of published studies state that human activity cause some warming.

        

       the paper does not show that 97% of the scientific literature on climate change support the conclusion that human activity cause MOST of the warming since mid 20th century, as is falsely claimed in the paper.

       how did this pass peer review?

16324. Eclectic at 17:49 PM on 31 December 2017
       Video: How not to panic about Global Warming
       

       Quite right, Pluto.   A study of history, shows that if you wish to solve a social or environmental problem . . . then you should not even lift a finger until other people have done their bit first.

       It worked for the Good Samaritan.  It also worked for George Washington & the Founding Fathers — they were successful because they did nothing at all and simply waited for the others to move first.  After all, any other way of doing things would be so unfair.  

16325. NorrisM at 15:16 PM on 31 December 2017
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       Bob Loblaw @ 343

       Everyone agrees that additional levels of CO2 are causing global warming.  The question always comes down to how much warming.

       So does this not again bring us back to how good the GCMs are at predicting what impact this increased CO2 will have on future temperatures, even assuming that all of the observed warming since 1970 is attributable to CO2 emissions? 

       The models predict that we are not going to make a 2C limit for the period from 1870 to 2100 without serious cuts in CO2 well before that time.   

       But if you look at the "ballpark" .8C increase in the last 150 years that works out to around .05C per decade.  At this rate, 100 years from now (not 1870) we will add a further .5C representing a total of 1.3C since 1870.

       So we have to go back to the climate models to get to the 4-6C increases which are in the IPCC Fifth Assessment.  I may have these numbers wrong but you get my point.

       Perhaps someone can provide me with a calculation of the observed decadal increase from 1950 onwards, or, for that matter, even from 1975 to date.  

       Moderator Response:

       [TD] It is very clear that warming has accelerated over the last 150 years. Right off the bat, you must account for the pause in warming between about 1940 and 1970, which was due to huge dumping of reflective aerosols into the atmosphere. Ignoring that by averaging from 1850 onward seriously reduces the temperature increase rate estimate so it is unrepresentative of warming before that dumping and since that dumping was drastically reduced.

16326. Pluto at 14:43 PM on 31 December 2017
       Video: How not to panic about Global Warming
       

       Do the AGW supporting political celebrities actually believe what they are preaching?

       By now, most of us are familiar with the lavish, jet-setting lifestyles of the super rich politians who are pushing the agenda of the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) community. These include both Clintons, Al Gore, and Barack Obama. While telling us "We the People" that we must reduce our carbon emissions or all kinds of catastrophies will happen, they seem to have no problem whatsoever in bouncing around the world (for both business aned pleasure) in their private jets or Air Force One. Most of us would call that hypocrisy on steroids, and I certainly would not argue that point, but there is another aspect to this that I find even more disturbing. These political celebs know full well that their money and influence won't save them from the disasters they describe, yet their personal lifestyles seem to indicate no concern at all. This leaves open the question of whether they personally believe in AGW, or if they know something the rest of us don't, and realize this threat is fictitious.

       Along these lines, there is another point that should be addressed. Back in the early 1990s, the Cold War ended along with the jobs of thousands upon thousands of defense scientists. By then, global warming was already considered to be a serious threat. These displaced scientists could have been put to work at better understanding the climate change situation and finding solutions, possibly in terms of cleaner burning fuels or more efficient engines, motors, and generators. But this didn't happen. Instead, the "peace dividend" went into helping the former Soviet scientists, bailing out failed financial institutions, and getting involved in every skirmish in the Middle East. Most of the high-profile politicians involved in making these decisions were also on the AGW bandwagon. What baffles me is that they continued with that "business as usual" attitude even though the lives and well-being of themselves and their own families were in as much danger from AGW as everyone else's. So what happened? Did they simply not care or did they realize the AGW threat was non-existent?

       The best way to not panic about global warming is to recognize that the very political celebrities that are promoting it are also the ones who, by their actions, seem the least worried about it. These include both Clintons, Al Gore, and Barack Obama. While telling us "We the People" that we must reduce our carbon emissions or all kinds of catastrophies will happen, they seem to have no problem whatsoever in keeping their "fuelish" lifestyle by bouncing around the world (for both business aned pleasure) in their private jets or Air Force One. Most of us would call that hypocrisy on steroids, but there is another aspect to this that I find even more disturbing. These political celebs know full well that their money and influence won't save them from the disasters they describe, yet their personal and professional lifestyles seem to indicate no concern at all.

       During the early 1990s, a period often remembered as the "end of the cold war" thousands of defense scientists lost their jobs, including me. At the time, AGW was already considered a threat by many, and the IPCC warned of various disasters occurring if we don't reduce our coarbon emissions by the year 2000. At this point, truly concerned AGW believing politians would have helped direct the "peace dividend" funds (ie. savings resulting from the defense cutbacks) to rehire at least some of these former defense scientists so that they could help find solutions or mitigate the coming crisis. This did not happen, however. Instead, the "peace dividend" went into helping the former Soviet scientists, bailing out failed financial institutions, and getting involved in every skirmish in the Middle East. Most of the high-profile politicians involved in making these decisions were also on the AGW bandwagon. What baffles me is that they continued with that "business as usual" attitude even though the lives and well-being of themselves and their own families were in as much danger from AGW as everyone else's. So what happened? Did they simply not care or did they realize the AGW threat was non-existent?

       So, as I see it, if the AGW celebs aren't worried about it, why should I be?

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Sloganeering snipped. 

       Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

       Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

16327. saileshrao at 14:40 PM on 31 December 2017
       It's methane
       

       Baraliuh @29-31, here's a recent Nature article showing the enormous carbon sequestration potential of grasslands returning to native forests: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25138.epdf

16328. saileshrao at 12:44 PM on 31 December 2017
       It's methane
       

       Baraliuh @29-31, has there been any resolution to your questions on Animal Agriculture?

16329. John Hartz at 08:12 AM on 31 December 2017
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       Recommended supplemtal reading about ocean warming...

       The oceans hold the story of a planet warming as fossil fuels are burned. Here is what scientists have discovered, in four charts.

       The Most Powerful Evidence Climate Scientists Have of Global Warming by Sabrina Shankman & Paul Horn, Inside Climate News, Oct 13, 2017

16330. Bob Loblaw at 07:25 AM on 31 December 2017
       Fake news is a threat to humanity, but scientists may have a solution
       

       Having worked in government research over two+ decades, I can definitely say that the times when I have felt that research outcomes were being suppressed if they did not meet the governing party's political agenda, it was when the political agenda was rejecting climate science, not the other way around.

16331. Bob Loblaw at 07:20 AM on 31 December 2017
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       To inject an analogy into all this earth energy balance discussion:

       Let's assume I keep all my money in a piggy bank. Everything I receive gets placed in the piggy bank, and all my expense are paid out of the piggy bank.

       I want to know if I am gaining or losing money over time. There are two ways to figure this out:

       1. Track every transaction that adds money to or takes money out of the piggy bank, and add them up to see what the ultimate change is.
       2. Count the contents of the piggy bank at the start and end of the month, and see if the total is different.

       If accurate, both methods will come up with the same result. If either method is error-prone, differences will occur within the margins of error.

       In the climate system, the earth-atmosphere as a whole is the energy piggy bank. The ocean is the largest energy store. The only way to add or remove energy from the earth-atmosphere piggy bank is through radiative transfer with space. The sun provides the input, and the earth emits IR radiation.

       We can track the imblance in two ways:

       1. Measure the radiation input and output, using satellites, and add everything up over time to determine the imbalance.
       2. Pick a start and end time, and measure the temperature changes and heat content of the oceans and atmosphere.

       Climatologists are smart. They are doing both. The first shows fingerprints of increased CO2 in the spectral distribution. Error sources in the absolute readings make an exact determination of the imbalance very difficult. The second unequivolcally shows warming/heating. The imbalance must be a net positive addition of energy.

       The two methods agree within the margins of error. The combined evidence leaves little room for doubt that increased CO2 has led to a radiative imbalance that is warming the planet.

16332. factotum at 06:20 AM on 31 December 2017
       From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation
       

       Skeptical Science asks that you review the comments policy. Thank you.

       How to demonstrate to a denier the power of small amounts of stuff.  Ask them if they will take .4g g of cyanide.   that is to body weight what CO2 is to the atmosphere, or 4 parts in 10,000.  

       Every year, literally tens of thousands of workers in various industries have exposure to and ingest cyanide, most commonly KCN and NaCN.  They do not die because the body can deal with and process it.  But to much in a short period of time will kill you.

       You can even purchase certain vegetables in the grocery which if not prepared properly or consumed in to large a quantity will kill you.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassava.

       So natural, abailable, and to much can damage you.   Just like to much CO2 can damage the current ecosystem which include us.  So, the next time  an AGW denier goes on and on about how harmless small amounts of anything are, just offer him some cyanide.

       https://www.snopes.com/food/warnings/apples.asp

16333. Tom Dayton at 05:59 AM on 31 December 2017
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       Phillippe, some of the papers in the reference list in this paper by Trenberth et al. might provide that answer, if you feel like digging through them.

16334. Zippi62 at 05:52 AM on 31 December 2017
       US government climate report looks at how the oceans are buffering climate change
       

       Of course the oceans are buffering climate change.

       Warming one gallon of atmosphere isn't the same as warming one gallon of ocean water. It doesn't take much to warm a gallon of air by 1C. 

       How much energy does it take to raise the temperature of 352,670,000,000,000,000,000 gallons of ocean water by 0.1C versus 321,003,271 cubic miles of atmosphere?

16335. nigelj at 05:41 AM on 31 December 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #52
       

       "Hearing that the Trump administration would scrub federal sites of information on climate change or obscure other important research, researchers worked with dozens of coders, archivists, and librarians to preserve data sets and web pages from agencies, like the EPA, NOAA, and NASA"

       Astonishing that things have come to this level of anti-science and blatant denial of reality, and blatant censorship of science. This is supposed to be the 21st century, not the medieval period of book burning. The year 2017 will go down in infamy as the dumbest year on record (and almost certainly one of the hottest based on data so far this year)

       I feel protest marches and other shows of resistance are probably quite powerful. I dont think its a coincidence that Trumps approval ratings are all down near 30% now, it has to be the cumulative effect of protest, along with the nonsensical, damaging and self promoting things he says on a daily basis.

16336. Philippe Chantreau at 05:13 AM on 31 December 2017
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       Perhaps some who are more knowledgeable than me on radiatve processes can answer this but would we not expect the energy imbalance to be too small to measure until equilibrium has been reached? The Harries studies show the TOA radiation changes that would be expected with the changes in trace gas concentrations.

16337. nigelj at 05:07 AM on 31 December 2017
       Fake news is a threat to humanity, but scientists may have a solution
       

       Zippi62 @23

       "Climate science doesn't base their findings on Michael Mann's "Hockey Stick Graph". Do they?"

       No  they dont, because it was only one early study and of average quality. The IPCC reports mostly do not to rely on single isolated studies, because that would obviously be sub optimal. I would have my doubts myself. 

       The IPCC rely on multiple studies whenever they can, and this is why a lot of research is done, like double entry book keeping in accounting it helps identify errors in research and improve research.

       We have about 10 other more recent and thorough studies on the medieval warm period,  that find very similar results and similar shaped hockey stricks to Manns original study, for example by Briffa, Esper and many others. Refer medieval warm period on wikipedia for lists of published research. The studies all take different approaches to researching the issues.

       You think this is some giant conspiracy? If so,that is where we part company completely and irrevocably. I live in the real world (which is hard enough) not the Brietbart fantasy world.

16338. nigelj at 04:45 AM on 31 December 2017
       Fake news is a threat to humanity, but scientists may have a solution
       

       Gail @ 25

       "And it too is plainly not neutral, having an obvious vested interest in scaremongering calculated to ease the path of political expansionism."

       Just adding to Eclectics accurate comments, no  government wants the climate change problem, because it obviously is another problem to deal with, and will cost them money. Notice governments are generally measured and restrained in their tone discussing climate issues and stick to the findings of the IPCC reports, rather than the more extreme possible scenarious of some research on very high rates of sea level rise etc.

       Of course none of us want to see excessive government power either. The carbon tax and dividend idea has the strength of being revenue neutral, and not increasing government spending.

       Emotive and ideological fears about role of government must not stand in the way of commonsense solutions like renewable energy and carbon taxes.

16339. Aaron Davis at 03:40 AM on 31 December 2017
       CO2 limits won't cool the planet
       

       MA Rodger @26

       Albedo is something I have data for [Kukla_and_Robinson_1980 table 2]. I've calculated the average albedo from

       • 60N to 82N  during the months FebMar  64.0% and AugSep 35.1% and from 
       • 60S to 70S    FM 21.3% AS 64.2%

       While the Cold months (in the dark mostly have high Albedo about the same from North to South, the Warm months have actually higher albedo in the North (35 vs 21%).  Since this is also when CO2 is low due to plant uptake in the North compared with the South where CO2 is at baseline changes onlt 1 ppm, a higher Nothern albedo would move the temperature in the same lower direction as the lower Northern CO2. So, if anything albedo and CO2 combination, should  overstate the seasonal effect over CO2 alone.  

       I am not familiar with how you arrived at the 9e18 Joules corresponding to 15 ppm change in CO2 figure.  It is quite low compared to the total annual global heat accumulation figure I've been using (12.5e21 Joules per year).   If that's all we would get out of all the cost and effort to reduce CO2 over the next 5-10 years by 15 ppm, it appears you would agree it's hardly worth the effort.  

       If the variations in the amount of energy reaching the ground (insolation) varies over periods more than a year, the analysis should still be good, as I am comparing differences over the same year, but that is something I'd like to verify as well.  The idea here is not to get a 15 ppm sensitivity.  It's hard enough to justify the utility of the low confidence ECS analysis. My point here is to support the principle hypothesis of this section "CO2 limits won't cool the planet", which I gather from your remarks you agree with, to at least some extent.  

       I appreciate your interest and share your objective to seek the truth.

16340. MA Rodger at 23:02 PM on 30 December 2017
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       Gail @338,

       Echoing the message @339, you are certainly setting out some very bold assertions. Evidence can always be questioned but not ad nauseam and evidence certainly it should not be subjected to defenestration.

       ♥ "Antarctic ice expanding, sea level been rising since long before CO2 did,"

       Levels of antarctic ice (even Sea Ice Extent remains effectively unknown for almost all the period over which CO2 levels have been rising, increasing CO2 levels having been significant from about 1800.

       

       Global sea level  is considered essentially flat over the previous three millennia following the final vestiges of Ice Age melt and evidence of the wobbly beginnings of the present rise are evident from about 1800.

       

       ♥"ocean heat only superficially known, no significant change in surface temps for nearly two decades"

       The OHC over recent decades is understood far more than "superficially" and even if the "surface" mentioned continues to refer to oceans, there is a significant rise in SSTs over the last decade or two. (The addition of the adjective "statistical" would yield a different answer, but I would not be guided by the answer given by Jones to Harrabin in 2010, which was a very poor answer in my opinion. Answer B should not be "Yes,..." but "What a very stupid question.")

       

16341. Eclectic at 22:40 PM on 30 December 2017
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       Gail @338 , where on Earth (or some alternative planet?) have you been getting your Fake Scientific News from?  WUWT? Or somewhere even crazier than WUWT?

       "No significant change in surface temps for nearly two decades"??!!  (Actually there's one wacko site which has claimed no significant warming for about 50 years!)   On real planet Earth, the ice is still melting at hundreds of cubic miles per year, and the sea level rise is accelerating, plants and animals are changing location & habits . . . and the surface temperature has presented us with the four hottest years on record ( 2014 / 2015 / 2016 /2017 ) .

       No significant sanity at WUWT . . . only total "imbalance"  ;-)

16342. Eclectic at 22:24 PM on 30 December 2017
       Fake news is a threat to humanity, but scientists may have a solution
       

       Gail @25 , the governments of Australia, Britain, Canada, Denmark, Estonia, France . . . thru to Zambia . . . are plainly not on "the path of political expansionism".

       All these governments have plenty of other problems on their plate — they don't want to have to grapple with fresh problems like AGW.   They all heartily wish they had 20 times fewer problems to grapple with ( Gail, your own common sense should tell you that!! ).   They put some investment into science, as a matter of duty . . . and rather reluctantly in the case of climate-related science.

       Reluctantly because [as Nigelj correctly states ] governments would rather the whole climate problem just went away.   But most governments (with one or two exceptions which you may not have noticed) have the honesty to at least make some token effort to counter the global warming problem.  That includes funding some climate research — but they are certainly not wanting to push or encourage "bad news results".  Quite the contrary.  They would prefer only "good news" . . . but alas there's not much of that to be found.

       Gail, where did you read such a looney idea as "expansionism"?  Have you been frequenting such insane websites as WhatsUpWithThat?  Please, give up such websites, and return to the real world.

16343. JohnSeers at 21:57 PM on 30 December 2017
       Fake news is a threat to humanity, but scientists may have a solution
       

       @Zippi62 23

       "That's based upon a poll of a few thousand people."

       A few thousand people? That sounds like a comprehensive poll then. 

16344. Gail at 21:00 PM on 30 December 2017
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       eclectic @337
       But all of that circumstantial evidence can be questioned.   Antarctic ice expanding, sea level been rising since long before CO2 did,  ocean heat only superficially known, no significant change in surface temps for nearly two decades.     Whereas a direct measurent of an imbalance would be unanswerable.   

16345. Gail at 19:49 PM on 30 December 2017
       Fake news is a threat to humanity, but scientists may have a solution
       

       @nigelj @ 22
       Government spends orders of magnitude more on climate science than everyone else put together.  And it too is plainly not neutral,  having an obvious  vested interest in scaremongering calculated to ease the path of political expansionism.   Hence the credibiliy crisis being addressed by the red-team/blue-team initiative.   
       All in all this is a very thorny problem the layman faces here - potential catastrophe intertwined with trust issues.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Sloganeering snipped.

       Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

       Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

16346. MA Rodger at 19:17 PM on 30 December 2017
       CO2 limits won't cool the planet
       

       Aaron Davis @25,

       If you are minded to continue with this farce, you may find this web utility from NASA useful. It will show you that over the period of reduced arctic CO2 which would impact the region perhaps 9e18j, your grand analysis would in "removing confounding effects," fails to tackle some 2,700e18j of confounding insolation. While this value will be reduced due to albedo (which itself will not be consistent for the comparisons you attempt), it might be worth noting that it will not just be the average insolation over the period 1979-2017 confounding your analysis but even the variation in insolation over the period 1979-2017 will have greater magnitude than the effect you attempt to analyse.

16347. Eclectic at 18:36 PM on 30 December 2017
       Fake news is a threat to humanity, but scientists may have a solution
       

       Zippi @23 , there is no need for you to be incensed or even consensed — for now Breitbart has just discovered that Roy Moore himself was born in Kenya in 1947 and lived the first 40 years of his life there.  And all the teenage girls he molested (consensually) were Kenya-born as well.  Since in Kenya the legal Age of Consent is 12 for girls, then it follows that Moore had done nothing unlawful.

       71% of Alabama Republicans were already aware of that fact, Zippi — so you and Breitbart are well behind the times.

       Alternative facts are so very useful.   Especially against CO2 science.

16348. Zippi62 at 14:33 PM on 30 December 2017
       Fake news is a threat to humanity, but scientists may have a solution
       

       " ... The Fox Newsification of America ... "?

       " ... 71% of Alabama Republicans believed the allegations were false ... "?

       Does the writer (Dana) really know 450,000 republicans (650,000 voted for Roy Moore), who knew the allegations were false? C'mon! That's based upon a poll of a few thousand people.

       Climate science doesn't base their findings on Michael Mann's "Hockey Stick Graph". Do they? His graph surely made it into the UN IPCC's Policymaking recommendations even though it wasn't "consensus" science information.

       Are we talking political science or climate science?

       I like the idea of a RED TEAM/BLUE TEAM forum. It surely wasn't the choice of James Hansen, Al Gore, or Michael Mann over the past 30 years. The science was "settled" to them. 

       I find this article to be based upon arrogant assumptions, just as is 'climate sensitivity to raised CO2 levels'. There is no consensus on the ideal CO2 level of our atmosphere.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Sloganeeing snipped.

       Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

       Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

16349. David Kirtley at 12:20 PM on 30 December 2017
       From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation
       

       Digby @4 "Am I correct in thinking that the change in delta value is caused by the burning of fossil fuels? "

       Yes. Think of the pre-industrial atmosphere which had a δ13C of -6.5‰, now start burning coal, oil and gas, which has a δ13C of about -25‰. Over time we are adding more and more carbon which is "lighter", i.e. has less and less 13C as compared to 12C. Hence, the δ13C of atmospheric CO2 has shifted lower to about -8.5‰ currently.

       "how do you compute the contribution of the latter, given the former?"

       I'm not sure if you can make this computaion. (At least I don't know how to do it!) I don't know if there is a way to say, okay, a decrease in delta values from -6.5 to -8.5 over 200 years = x amount of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels.

       The reasoning is more along these lines: knowing that the delta values are decreasing, when normally they are stable at -6.5‰, tells us that more of the carbon in atmospheric CO2 is coming from a "lighter" source. We know that the biosphere contains lighter carbon. (See Part 1 where I go over this.) And fossil fuels are also lighter because they ultimately come from plant material. The biosphere is constantly exchanging carbon with the atmosphere, as plants live, grow, die and decay, but we don't see any major changes which would account for the drop in delta values. However, we have been consistently digging up and burning fossil fuels for the past ~200 years. Perhaps that's it.  ;)

       Check out this NOAA link for more. And if you have more time check out the entire series on isotopes. I can't recommend it enough!

16350. chriskoz at 11:54 AM on 30 December 2017
       From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation
       

       Digby Scorgie@4,

       As jbpawley noted above, it's not easy to compute the balance of FF carbon in atmosphere from δ-value if you don't know the isotopic preference of carbon sinks such as ocean & biosphere. As we can see from e.g. annual cycles of keeling curve, about 4-5 times more carbon is exchanged between biosphere and atmosphere, comapared to what is added to the system from FF. CISRO graph in the article  is a measure of a strong correlation (pretty amazing BTW) rather than the carbon balance.

       There are other methods for measuring the amount of FF carbon in the atmosphere. For example by checking Declining oxygen concentration because adding 1 mole of C into atmosphere by burning FF must take 1 mole of oxygen (O₂) from it. Other processes involving O fluxes (photosynthesis vs. respiration) are in balance. So you can calculate from the graph therein how much C (that burnes to Co2) and H (that burns to H2O) have been burned. 100% of H2O was taken by ocean, while only some 50% was taken by ocean & biosphere. Knowing all of that, and if you know the proportion of C & H in FF we burned (we do), then you can confirm quantitatively how much CO2 increase to expect from a given O2 decline.

Prev  319  320  321  322  323  324  325  326  327  328  329  330  331  332  333  334  Next