Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 Next
Comments 17251 to 17300:
-
Tom13 at 03:04 AM on 3 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Michael - Thanks for the link.
www.odi.org/publications/10086-g20-subsidies-oil-gas-coal-production-united-states
The errors in the computation and logic of the data provided are easy to stop - at least for those with knowledge of oil and gas taxation. Lets start from the top
1) corporate tax exemption for MLP's - A) the income tax is being paid at the individual partner level, instead of the corporate level, net result is a small reduction in tax paid. B) The $ amount of tax subsidy is show as $3,931 for 2013, 2014 and 2015. Using the same $ amount for the three years belies reality. With declining oil prices, most of the MLPs are lost money, especially in 2016.
2) IDC - intangible drilling costs - this is a deduction for the cost of production, Secondly, it is only a timing difference. In year 1, there is a tax deduction, year 2-year 10, there is no deduction, in other words, after a few years, the deduction/benefit becomes a wash, so no net "tax subsidy.
3) domestic manufacturing deduction - Every manufacturer receives this deduction, - it is not unique to oil and gas.
4) Lifo inventory - Lifo only saves tax money in an economy when prices rise. Oil prices are by their nature volatile. Quite frankly absurd that lifo is treated as a subsidy, more absurd is the computation.
5) Percentage depletion in excess of basis - granted this is the only true subsidy - however, it only applied to royalty owners and independent producers. The computation of the amount is obviously incorrect. They have computed the same $ amount for all years even though prices have dropped which would reflect lower depletion allowable.
I just pointed out the first 5 obvious errors.
Moderator Response:[DB] Inflammatory snipped.
-
michael sweet at 01:29 AM on 3 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Tom13,
I went to the linked report. It has appendices that contain all the specific data for the subsidies. You have simply not read the part of the report that you claim is missing. Here are the first 6 lines of over 119 from an Excell spreadsheet that document USA domestic direct subsidies. (to access the data go to the report, click on the appendices and then direct subsidies for the USA)
Corporate Tax Exemption for Master Limited Partnerships Federal Tax expenditure Oil & Gas Cross-cutting 3931 3931 3931 OCI [WOULD BE 1.2 billion if we used JCT estimates for FY14 in JCX-97-14.pdf - vs. 3.9 billion estimate for 2012 (most recent year) from OCI/EarthTrack report. Differentiated tax treatment of distribution streams, incorporating dividend rates, tax deferrals on return of capital
Lost Royalties on Offshore Drilling (Outer Continental Shelf
Deep Water Royalty Relief Act) Federal Tax expenditure Oil & Gas Relief on royalties 576.2 2120 1348.1 GAO Used GAO high estimate since it is closer to the 2013 and 2014 U.S. oil and gas market (high production and $100 per barrel) of $53 billion of foregone revenues over the remaining life of the leases (~25 years in 2008) - NOTE THAT THIS MAY NEED TO BE REVISED FOR FUTURE YEARS (post-2014) if oil prices are at a lower sustained level
Intangible Drilling Oil & Gas Deduction Federal Tax expenditure Oil & Gas Exploration and field development 3490 1663 2576.5 OMB Used the budget estimate for repealing the deduction from the relevant FY budget (ie. consulted FY14 budget for 2014 figures, FY15 budget for 2015 figures, etc.,) rather than using projections from one earlier budget
Powder River Basin not designated as a Coal-Producing Region Federal Tax expenditure Coal Relief on royalties 1046.5 1046.5 1046.5 Institute for Energy Economics & Financial Analysis 2012 was latest estimate (from IEEFA). This allows coal companies to get leases of land in this region for a low cost - used Figure 3 data to arrive at this number
Domestic Manufacturing Deduction Federal Tax expenditure Oil & Gas Cross-cutting 574 1119 846.5 OMB Used the budget estimate for repealing the deduction from the relevant FY budget (ie. consulted FY13 budget for 2013 figures, FY14 budget for 2014 figures, etc.,) rather than using projections from one earlier budget
Excess of Percentage Over Cost Depletion Federal Tax expenditure Oil & Gas Extraction 1100 1000 1050 JCT Used JCT figures from S-1-13 and JCX-97-14. Alternative method building on OECD methodology could be taking FY14 expected income tax expenditures for excess of percentage over cost depletion from FY16 budget (see LINK) = 660. Apportion 660 to the ratio of oil, gas and coal production used by OECD for 2011 figures (did not revisit IEA source data for production) - this was 36.6% gas, 24.7% oil, and 38.7% coal. 660*0.366 = 241.56 for gas, 660*0.247 = 163.02 for oil, and 660*0.387 = 255.42 for coal
Last-In, First-Out Accounting for Fossil Fuel Companies Federal Tax expenditure Oil & Gas Cross-cutting 857.3 1152.69 1004.995 OMB, Friends of the Earth (FOE), Green Scissors Calculated share of subsidy for oil & gas (33%) based on FOE Green Scissors report. Used the respective FY year budget (ie 2013 estimate is from FY13 budget; 2014 estimate is from FY14 budget)
Temporary Expensing of Equipment for Refining Federal Tax expenditure Oil Refining 610 0 305 OMB Appears to have expired Dec. 31, 2013 according to JCX-100-14 - https://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=4667The formatting was lost in the transition. It is your responsibility to read the reports cited. When you claim that the report does not contain information it actually contains, that makes your argument weaker. In the report they sumarize the data because the data take up too much space to repeat everywhere.
Your claim "I do not believe this report" is simply false, you have not done your homework. You often do not do your homework before you make wild claims.
-
MA Rodger at 01:24 AM on 3 October 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #39
magellan @2.
I assume you are asking about the OP item "September is the most energetic month for hurricanes ever recorded in the Atlantic" and asking 'Most energetic since when?' (By the way, I am not aware of any new sovereign state being formed in 1776. I would guess the date you should be quoting is 1781.)
September 2017 saw Atlantic hurricanes for the month top the Accumulative Cyclone Energy (ACE) record set in September 2004 (ACE=155) with an ACE value for the full month of ACE=176. While historical tropical cyclone data in the Atlantic is more complete than in other ocean basins, it is still subject to inaccuracy prior to the satellite era, pre-1970s. However, with the data available it is possible to say that the ACE=176 for Sept 2017 is certainly the most energetic since before 1950, there being no other month that comes close to that value since then.
As far as the 2017 hurricane season so-far, it has racked up ACE=202 by the end of September and for the time-of-year sits in second place (1950-to-date) behind the 2004-season-to-the-end-of-Sept (ACE=220). It is possible this is =2nd as 1950 is not far behind. 2017 has so-far topped the ACE for all complete years bar five back to 1950, and bar eight back to 1850. This is set out graphically here (usually 2 clicks to 'download your attachment').
-
Tom13 at 00:35 AM on 3 October 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #39
#3 - prior to the satellite error, the ability to accumulate the data to accurately compute ACE was quite limited. As noted by Vecchi, there has been little to no discernable difference in ACE after adjusting for observational limitations since the late 1800's
this citation below is just one example.
The second point is that using a single data point - such as the month of Sept 2017 will most often lead to erroneous conclusions.
journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00146.1
the noaa, geophysical fluid dymanics lab frequently mentions that lack of any discernable differences in ACE.
-
Eclectic at 00:19 AM on 3 October 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #39
Nigelj @1 , thanks yes, the video is amusing. After all, when you boil it down, the denialists have absolutely nothing valid to support themselves with . . . unless you count validly-wacko Conspiracy Theories !
Magellan @2 , please state clearly the point you are trying to make. Is science comparative to voodoo and "Alternative Facts"? Is black comparative to white? I reckon so — but what is the point?
-
magellan at 23:33 PM on 2 October 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #39
Isn't science comparative? Relative to what? As opposed to what? One year of storms in 13 billion years, or in 241 years of a country's history is not science.
What is the distribution of record breaking hurricanes years between 1776 and 2017 or best data thereof.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 ar
-
Tom13 at 23:03 PM on 2 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
#27 - A 103 page report and virtually no info on what the actual subsidies the fossil fuel companies receive.
Page 68 mentions the reduction of the severance tax on oil & gas produced in Alaska - Severance tax is a tax that only the owners of the oil and gas properties (and other mineral and mining interests) incur. No other industries are subject to this tax. A reduction in a tax that is only imposed on a few is not a subsidy, but instead a reduction of a wealth transfer.
P 82 - The article calls the tax deduction for the cost of operations a subsidy. All industries receive tax deductions for the cost of operations - so by that articles definition, every industry receives subsidies.
-
Tom13 at 22:49 PM on 2 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
#26 - Nigelj
Armed with the knowledge of the tax policy definition of "revenue neutral", it should now be apparant why a wealth transfer from an efficient producer to an inefficient producer is not revenue neutral - If the receiver of the subsidy was efficient, it would not need a subsidy.
-
jgnfld at 20:20 PM on 2 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
The "tragedy of the commons", which is what is at base here w.r.t. the harm fossil fuels cause the globe, is a clear example of market failure. I'm not sure it's useful to talk about this failure in terms of "subsidies" and "wealth transfers", however.
A small group can exploit a large resource with impunity. However once the exploitation is at a level that all are affected negatively while at the same time there is no clear market feedback to those exploiting the resource, a crash is a typical outcome.
The fossil fuel age is presently exploiting the atmosphere beyond its abillity to stay in a safe range. If there are no market feedbacks that producers and users directly feel w.r.t. staying in that range, a crash of some sort is pretty much inevitable. Hopefully one that can be accommodated to a great degree.
We don't want a crash to occur with the climate, really, any more than we want collapses of any critical common resource. Even our most libertarian-spouting commenters should realize that. (There is a libertarian literature on this point, but freshmen libertarians tend not to be aware of it.)
-
Tom Curtis at 20:04 PM on 2 October 2017Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
magellan @90, before Darwin went to Cambridge, he studied to become a doctor for two years at Edinburgh. While he neglected his formal studies, he hung out with scientists, and most of his extra curricular studies was in biology. He was a member of the Plinian Society, and a regular companion of Robert Edmond Grant, a biologist. It was at the Plinian Society that he made his first two original contributions to science, both in the field of biology.
At Cambridge, he again neglected his formal studies, but became closely attached to a group of scientists. The closest of those attachments was to John Stevens Henslow, who was best known as a botanist. The attachment was so close that Darwin's nickname at Cambridge was "he who walk's with Henslow". It was on Henslow's reccomendation that Darwin was offered a position on the Beagle.
Darwin's interest in geology came late at Cambridge, and mostly consisted of a walking tour of Wales with Adam Sedgwick. That education in geology was expanded on by reading Lyell's "Principles of Geology" while onboard the Beagle.
As you can see, you have the facts regarding Darwin exactly reversed. It was biology that he had more extensively studied when he first came on board the Beagle, an area in which he had already made two, minor discoveries. It is unlikely that his late interest in geology would have much influenced Henslow's recommendation, given that the recommendation was made while Darwin was still touring Wales (and hence before Henslow could assess what he had learnt thereby).
This is often forgotten because Darwin's most initially celebrated accomplishments were in the field of geology - first in the form of a detailed description of the effects of an earthquake on local sea level in South America, and then, most famously, in his description of who coral atolls are formed, and what explains their distribution.
But following those acheivements, he was heavilly involved in classifying his biological finds; and then published a major contribution to biological systematics in two volumes before turning to witting The Origen of Species.
Your argument would be better if reversed, but even then it would be wrong, for by the time Darwin made his geological contributions, he had accompanied Sedgwik on the tour of Wales (as a result of which, and possibly other tours, Sedgwick discovered the Cambrian); and read Lyell's Principles while carefully comparing those principles to geological phenomenon around the world. -
MA Rodger at 19:50 PM on 2 October 2017Temp record is unreliable
The recent discourse about absolute global temperature appears to have ground to a halt but one aspect of this remained unmentioned and it might be appropriate to introduce it now - the Berkeley Earth temperature analysis. I was mindful that BEST would overly-complicate things for that enquirer. Yet as Rohde et al (2013) says "The Berkeley Average analysis process is somewhat unique in that it produces a global climatology and estimate of the global mean temperature as part of its natural operations." Thus mean absolute temperatures are to hand from the BEST data.
As a result, not only does BEST graph its global land temperature record using absolute values, it also provides within the data the absolute mean value of the anomaly base used (1951-80) for individual months and annually, the annual value being +8.7ºC. But this isn't entirely the end of this story.
Regarding the Land Only record, Rohde et al state "The global land average from 1900 to 2000 is 9.35 ± 1.45°C, broadly consistent with the estimate of 8.5°C provided by Peterson (et al 2011)." So the +8.7ºC value in the BEST data is a little different in Rohde et al. Further, this 8.5°C Peterson et al value is only re-quoted by Peterson et al, the value being taken from an NOAA FAQ table (on the 'mean temperature estimates' page), itself based on New et al (1999). Yet the true Global Land average temperatures are far far more dependent on local factors than the anomalies are. (Consider altitude - the average land altitude is 840m thus some 5ºC cooler than a sea-level average would be).
Note that while there are two different anomaly base periods in play here, the difference between them is tiny. The 1901-2000 mean is cooler than the 1951-80 mean by just 0.024°C in NOAA, with an almost identical tiny difference in BEST Land (and also BEST Land&Ocean).
Yet, while BEST Land temperatures may produce a global land absolute mean temperature "as part of its natural operations," that is not so clear with its Ocean data.
When combined with its Land Temperatures to create a full global Land&Ocean temperature series, BEST still provide the absolute value of the anomaly base (1951-80) within the data, that value being +14.720ºC or +15.305ºC (dependent on treatment of sea ice). Sea ice aside, the derevaton of an absolute value for SST is mostly trivial compared with the Land exercise. So if the quoted Land anomaly value of BEST & NOAA land temperatures is very close (+8.7ºC and +8.5ºC respectively) why are the global Land&Ocean values so different (+14.7ºC/15.3ºC and +13.9ºC respectively)? (And without an answer, this may have seen our recent enquirer running away shouting "I told you so!")The SST data used by BEST is HadSST3 but the documentation on BEST's use of HadSST3 appears a little sparce. HadCRUT4 also uses HasSST3 but their average global mean anomaly value is roughly the same as NASA/NOAA and lower than BEST (although note the source of this HadCRUT4 data similarly give a BEST Land value as +9.17ºC).
So no answer is apparent to me. Yet, whatever its cause, the discrepancy makes not a jot of difference to the anomalies in the various SAT/SST records which are unaffected by anomaly base values and provide global temperature records that are pretty-much peas in a pod.
-
Eclectic at 12:59 PM on 2 October 2017Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
Magellan @90 , it is a strawman argument to say that: "Ivar Giaever is not fit to address the issue because its [sic] not his field of expertise". And I'd love to know who are the "very smart people on both sides of the isle [sic] here". And which island are you referring to?
Magellan, you entirely miss the point about criticism of Giaever. It is irrelevant which "field of expertise" he previously came from.
Giaever's incompetent assessment of climate science is being criticized because
(A) He got it wrong. And got it wrong bigly !
(B) He had the hubris to think that a few hours of googling the topic of climate science would gain him enough knowledge to make a worthwhile contribution to the public discussion.
(C) He had the arrogance to think that a few hours' reading on non-specialist websites would qualify him to declare that all the experts were wrong.
(D) At the age of 83 , he had the chutzpah to lecture a formal gathering of Nobel Laureates (and also of many bright young scientists) about how science is done properly — while at the same time demonstrating his own failure to think logically about science! What an embarrassing performance in front of the young scientists (not to mention in front of the Laureates). Truly cringeworthy stuff !
(E) And he had the lack of insight to recognize the above.
~ Magellan, possibly you do not recognize/comprehend Scaddenp's euphemism of "Gone Emeritus" about Giaever. "Gone Emeritus" is a term used about some retired professors or retired eminent scientists — it represents a pathological fusion of hubris & mild senile dementia. It shows itself as wacky beliefs and/or a maverick's disregard of the evidence base of mainstream science.
If Giaever were 50 or 60 years younger, then scientists would simply call him a silly young fool. Yet still have some hope that he would come to his senses as he got a bit older.
Magellan, possibly you are not aware of the insidiously corrupting effects of small amounts of money or other inducement. Money etc that Giaever receives from propaganda organizations (e.g. his payments from the Heartland Institute in his role as an apologist for Big Tobacco) might not appear to you as very much or very likely to influence a famous/wealthy person to any great degree. But psychologists' experiments show that a small amount (such as $25,000*) can be more effective than a large amount (say $500,000) in maintaining & entrenching a person's adherence to a particular line of thinking. So for rather small amounts, the propaganda paymasters get very good value for money!!
[ * I mention this figure because it is an example: of a sum paid to the science-denier Richard Lindzen by Peabody Energy. I have not seen the size of the payments / stipends / gratuities / subsidies received by Judith Curry or her like, from paymasters such as Heartland, the GWPF, or under-the-counter industry slush funds. ]
-
scaddenp at 11:12 AM on 2 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Tom13 - to test "economic efficiency", are you prepared to support complete removal of all tax-payer subsidies from the fossil fuel industry? Starting with direct producer subsidies.
-
nigelj at 10:50 AM on 2 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Tom13 @25,
"No its not revenue neutral - wealth transfers are never a zero sum game, especially with the transfer is from efficient sectors of the economy to less efficient secotrs - basic economics 101."
I think you are mostly wrong about that.
"Revenue Neutral Law and Legal Definition. The term Revenue Neutral implies changes in the tax laws that result in no change in the amount of revenue coming into the government's coffers. In other words, a tax proposal is revenue neutral if it neither increases nor decreases tax revenues when compared to existing law."
definitions.uslegal.com/r/revenue-neutral/
The tax and divedend idea does not increasing tax or decreasing tax by this definition. The claim that the fee and dividend idea somehow allegedly sends a subsidy to allegedly less efficient energy producers is therefore clearly irrelevant and another issue entirely.
Certainly the sheme is revenue neutral enough and nit picking about the issue becomes foolish. It should be acceptable to fiscal conservatives etc.
And as I pointed out you are incorrect to claim wind power is less economically efficient or that electric cars are less economically efficient, in fact electric cars are more economically efficient after about 5 years of ownership. And as I pointed out your definition of economic efficiency is far too narrow as it fails to consider long term environmental costs. So your assertion fails these tests as well.
There is also the point that if the subsidy on renewables could be funded by removing a subsidy on fossil fuels. This should alleviate concerns some people have about additional subsidies, and is also obviously revenue neutral in the sense that funding simply swithches from one thing to another that we want more of, which is renewable energy.
-
Tom13 at 10:04 AM on 2 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
24 - Nigelj
Its also revenue neutral, well justified, sensible, practical, and well targeted.
No its not revenue neutral - wealth transfers are never a zero sum game, especially with the transfer is from efficient sectors of the economy to less efficient secotrs - basic economics 101.
-
nigelj at 08:42 AM on 2 October 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #39
Just looking at the climate change is a hoax cartoon, this short three minute satirical video is very amusing:
-
John Hartz at 07:13 AM on 2 October 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #39
Suggested supplemental reading re the situation in Puerto Rico:
After first tour of Puerto Rico, top general calls damage ‘the worst he’s ever seen’ by Jenny Marder, PBS News Hour, Sep 30, 2017
-
scaddenp at 07:08 AM on 2 October 2017Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
magellan. The amount of domain knowledge required to make a contribution to a field has gone up exponentially since Darwin. While it is indeed possible for people to make contributions outside their field, it takes considerably more work than 1/2 a days googling. The criticism of Giaever is not so much that he is outside his field, but - as demostrated above if you read the article carefully - that he didnt bother to gain any the requirisite background before making uninformed remarks.
The standard in science for making a contribution to a field, is to publish new insights in a peer-reviewed journal. Instead he is trying to make statements from an authority position (that he doesnt actually have), in support of an ideologically-driven agenda (ie his involvement with Heartland). In science palance, he has "gone emeritus". Not the first and wont be the last.
I have no time for ideologically-driven thinkers of left or right. Thinking that goes from " Proposition A would require Action B which is contrary to my political values; ergo Proposition A is wrong" is demonstrating the failure of education in critical thinking.
-
nigelj at 06:06 AM on 2 October 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #39
NorrisM @10, nobody was accusing Curry of personal dishonesty or fraud, or ambulance chasing or other forms of immorality. Just of bad science and being vague and confusing.
-
NorrisM at 05:51 AM on 2 October 2017The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
Bob Loblaw, MA Rodger & Nigel
I am about to spend about 10 hours on planes (to Europe) and I have brought along Chapter 9 of IPCC 2013 (Evaluation of Climate Models) & Chapter 10 of 2014 IPCC on Mitigation Potential and Costs. Nigel I am trying!
Do not have time to respond re measurements but it is confusing to the layman. I am sure international shipping and aviation have agreed on what GPS system they will all use. I appreciate somewhat why anomalies are charted rather than absolute temperature changes but you lose the average person when you do so.
If the purpose of the climate research is to influence public policy then it has to be understandable to the politicians and the general public.
Getting some agreement on baselines seems to me to be absolutely basic so we are not always arguing about the basic facts. Just as a recent example, the Millar et al paper gets criticized for using HADCRUT rather than some other one which included the Arctic. Why do we have this? It just confuses the people you are trying to convince.
-
nigelj at 05:46 AM on 2 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Tom13 @19
"Its a surtax, subsidy and a wealth transfer program precisely because the receiver of the subsidy is less efficient than the one being charged the surtax. Simple economics 101"
Yes its a surtax and a subsidy and wealth transfer if you like.
Its also revenue neutral, well justified, sensible, practical, and well targeted.
There is nothing wrong in principle with subsidies, and even orthodox economics recognises they have their place to encourage new industries of clear value that would otherwise struggle due to adverse conditions. All subsidies are a form of wealth transfer, just as the very concept of government itself and all its parts is ultimately funded by a wealth transfer of some sort.
And as has been pointed out, if renewable energy subsidies go along with cancelling fossil fuel subsidies, then things balance out nicely. There is no net wealth transfer.
Regarding efficiency, we are not transfering wealth to economically inefficient energy sources because wind power is now profitable even without the subsidy. This has been pointed out to you a dozen times, with numerous studies on costs but you still dont get it, - or wont get it.
If you are talking solar power maybe this is not yet quite profitable as a stand alone thing yet. But how do we really measure economic efficiency? We have to look ultimately at full costs and benefits much longer term, including environmental costs and health costs. In that sense renewable energy is more efficient.
-
NorrisM at 05:28 AM on 2 October 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #39
Moderator
I do not think I broke the above rule. Issues of what is right and wrong get lobbed at "deniers on this website daily. See for example criticisms of Curry. I was dealing with a moral issue of taking advantage of a very tragic situation while it is ongoing.
Moderator Response:[JH] Moderation complaint snipped.
-
nigelj at 05:22 AM on 2 October 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #39
Swayseeker @5, not a bad idea, except there do not appear to be many houses left standing.
-
nigelj at 05:20 AM on 2 October 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #39
NorrisM @7
We should discuss problems when they are current and fresh in peoples minds. We will be no use to anyone otherwise. Alligators and swamps.
I can't recall what really started the conversation on Curry. The concern is with the way she makes vague, often petty, and frankly silly statements that feed the denial machine, and are jumped on by politicians eager to downplay climate change, as people discussed in depth, with quotes from her writings. You should read the quotes and study them.
She may have got some hurricane prediction right by chance or skill. I'm not doubting her basic qualifications, just interested in why she has become a climate denialist, and why she makes the most incredibly obtuse, open ended and frustratingly vague and factually incorrect or incomplete statements. If that impresses you and rocks your world, I suppose you should read her "blog".
If she is paid by oil and gas companies it doesnt matter for what reason, there will be a perception of bias at the very least. If she wants to be taken seriously she might consider that.
Good to see you staying away form the Heartland Institute. Possibly avoid the more extreme environmental websites as well. Go straight down the middle with the IPCC. Their science is more than worrying enough.
-
magellan at 03:33 AM on 2 October 2017Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
I believe there are very smart people on both sides of the isle here, however I believe there's some missing logic on the global warming side.
I have seen the statement that
Ivar Giaever is not fit to address the issue because its not his field of expertise.Is it true that science has such a standard? Can a person with extensive knowledge in one field dabble in another's? Is it even possible that he may have an opinion that becomes the authority in another field of expertise? Sure, if we are all prepared to change our minds on Darwin.
Charlse Darwin was not a doctor, biologist, zoologist, nor veteranarian, but an expert Geologist. Now are we going to throw out 100 years of internal medicine over our bias?
-
Bob Loblaw at 03:23 AM on 2 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Yes, Tom13, I can accept that you call that a subsidy. And with that definition it would be a subsidy when we do that for fossil fuels, too.
For pencil wood, if producer A has to grow trees or buy them from someone who grows them and pays all the environmetal costs associated with growing them, they'll pay the costs. When producer B gets government-owned trees free for the taking, where government pays for replanting seedlings, all the envrionmental costs, etc., then company benefits from a subsidy. Company B nenefits from a transfer of wealth form government to its shareholders.
That you think ending such subsidies for the fossil fuel industry represents creating a transfer of wealth and subsidies tells me all I need to know abouthow well you understand Economics 101.
-
NorrisM at 01:28 AM on 2 October 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #39
nigelj
The writer of the article. By the way, lawyers in the same position are called "ambulance chasers" (When I practiced law I was a business lawyer)
I think a couple of months from now would have been more appropriate to engage in this discussion.
On another somewhat related point, I have been reading the comments on Judith Curry. Is this all because of some interview I understand she had with Fox News? I am a little disappointed with her even appearing on that "news" source.
But I can tell you at one point when I was watching CNN and CBS etc covering Hurricane Irma when it was in the Caribbean, all of the predictions for the path of Irma at that time were up the east coast of Florida. I just happened to go on the Curry blog for other reasons (although I sometimes look at GWPF, I only regularly follow two blogs, one on each side).
At that time, when all the other predictions had the storm heading to Miami, Judith Curry's prediction that day showed the hurricane heading for the west coast of Florida.
It took another day before CNN was modifying its predictions. Perhaps there were others and this was just an example of news sources looking for the dramatic but it was both CNN and CBS.
So if one oil and gas company retains Judith Curry to predict hurricane paths I have no problem with that. People do have a right to earn a living while promoting their causes. I think her oil and gas interests are immaterial to the issues and have been fully disclosed. You cannot bar every person from this debate if they have had some present or past relationship with the fossil fuel industry. On that basis, everyone should disclose any advice (and compensation they receive) to any organization promoting the dangers of climate change.
PS One time I took a look at a YouTube video of the President of the Heartland Institute. That was all I needed to stay clear of that site.
Moderator Response:[JH] Snipped statement in violation of the following section of the SkS Comments Policy.
- No accusations of deception. Any accusations of deception, fraud, dishonesty or corruption will be deleted. This applies to both sides. You may critique a person's methods but not their motives.
-
Tom13 at 01:26 AM on 2 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
#20 - Bob
If I made and sold pencils, and I could find a way that the cost of the wood and graphite I consume was paid for by someone else (e.g. government), then I'd be the richest pencil maker around.
That would be a subsidy,
-
RedBaron at 01:15 AM on 2 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
@19 Tom13,
Please be more specific. Are we talking about my States plan which pays a farmer to sequester carbon based on verifiable increases of soil carbon? That's entirely different than fee revenue being returned to the citizens ... whether they are producing a goods or service or not.
We collect taxes all the time to pay contractors to build roads, schools etc..pay police and military etc... Those people providing for a public goods or service. So collecting a surtax to pay people sequestering carbon in the soil long term is well within our already established capitalist societies priciples and economic structures. It can be instituted very conservatively without negatively disrupting the economy at all. In fact by circulating more money that eventually will in the long run circulate through very depressed rural economies, it will be a big boost to economic developement. A win win for everyone.
But if we are just charging a surtax then paying revenue neutral dividends to every citizen regardless of any goods or services that citizen my produce...? That's just a wealth distribution program guaranteed to fail. The shuffling chair analogy applies.
So please be precise.
-
Bob Loblaw at 00:55 AM on 2 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Tom13 seems to want to ignore the wealth transfer that occurs when the producers and consumers of fossil fuel energy avoid the externalized costs of that use and force that cost on to the taxpayers that pay for disaster relief, longer term health and environmental costs, etc. Taxpayers that include people that are not using those fossil fuels in large quantiities.
If I made and sold pencils, and I could find a way that the cost of the wood and graphite I consume was paid for by someone else (e.g. government), then I'd be the richest pencil maker around. Tom13 might think that having me pay for the wood is a "wealth transfer program", but other may differ.
-
Tom13 at 00:53 AM on 2 October 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #39
www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-09-30/no-trump-didn-t-botch-the-puerto-rico-crisis
Article on the relief for puerto rico -
-
Bob Loblaw at 00:46 AM on 2 October 2017The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
NorrisM @ 45 and elsewhere
You are beating a drum of uncertainty on aboslute knowledge of what a specific temperature has been (e.g., choosing a baseline, etc.). You can have a degree of uncertainty on what the exact temperature is, but still have a very high degree of certainty on how it has changed.
To iilustrate through an analogy: let's say I have a neighbour, Sarah, who lives 6 houses up the street - about 100m north of me. I can describe the location of my house in latitude/longitude using NAD27, NAD83, or WGS84 coordinate systems, which will disagree on exactly how to label where I live. They may differ by 100m or more. I may not even know the lat/long very well at all - being kilometres off.
...but does this affect the accuracy with which I can direct someone from my house to Sarah's? No, not at all. I don't even need to know that NAD27, NAD83, and WGS exist.
The different global temperature series are akin to NAD27, NAD83, and WGS84. Regardless of what baseline is used, and how different temperature records are merged into a global measurement, they all show pretty much the same thing with a high degree of certainty.
The drum you are beating is a dead horse.
-
Tom13 at 00:42 AM on 2 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
18 - Red - Its a surtax, subsidy and a wealth transfer program precisely because the receiver of the subsidy is less efficient than the one being charged the surtax. Simple economics 101
-
RedBaron at 00:36 AM on 2 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
@18 Tom13,
Exactly Tom. Like shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic. This is my main problem with Liberal mitigation plans. But if the dividends were paid to the people sequestering carbon long term, then it would be paying for a goods/service that benefits society. That's a market rather than a wealth redistribution plan. Sure in some ways all economies are wealth redistribution, but that would redistribute to a producer! That's a good thing.
-
Richard13699 at 00:32 AM on 2 October 2017Right-wing media could not be more wrong about the 1.5°C carbon budget paper
Isn't it time that climate deny-listers were prosecuted as the criminals and fraudsters that they are and for the crimes against humanity which they facilitate?
-
Tom13 at 00:00 AM on 2 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
. The way fee and dividend works is a fee is charged to companies that produce greenhouse gas emissions. No longer would society be subsidizing the costs from carbon pollution.
The revenue from the fees would be returned to citizens so that it becomes a revenue-neutral tool. There is no net increase in cost or increase in income. What the fee and dividend method does, however, is reward people and companies for good choices.
In other words - its a surtax - with a subsidy for renewables and a wealth transfer program.
-
Swayseeker at 23:41 PM on 1 October 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #39
Houses can be dried out and mould prevented by using solar air heaters - see http://www.builditsolar.com/Experimental/PopCanVsScreen/PopCanVsScreen.htm on how to build your own solar air heater. I wonder if water aerators could help improve hygine in some inundated areas.
-
nigelj at 17:24 PM on 1 October 2017The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
Norris M @48
No Norris I made a whole range of points you ignored. But forget it.
You are however confusing me. You started off discussing historical temperatures and complaining we dont have 100% certainty. We have good certainty plus or minus a small difference. We have five main global temperature data sets produced by different agencies (nasa, noa, hadcrut, etc) who all take the raw data and correct for things like urban heat islands, so they dont bias things upwards etc. They do this slightly differently. All these finalised sets of data are actually pretty similar. There's a composite graph here below and its very clear.
https://thinkprogress.org/comparing-all-the-temperature-records-4a273a0f8f31/
If you are now talking model projections until 2015 (latest available) temperatures have tracked models quite well except they are slightly under projections through the last few years, but as you can see not much and the high temperatures of 2015 - 2016 have bought things back into line. So theres nothing fundamentally wrong with the models despite the complete blather on some websites. Some of these model runs are quite old so nothing has been "adjusted".
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/climate-model-projections-compared-to-observations/
Thank's for your quoted commentary but I dont intend to respond to much of it because its all out of context and hard to follow. The graphs I have indicated are from well known websites that dont make things up, and speak for themselves. A picture paints a thousand words anyway.
I will comment on this regarding models and predictions right through to year 2100:
"Sorry Benjamin but estimated ECS is still 1.5C – 4.5C @ 95% confidence. By definition that’s a constant forcing. That range hasn’t been improved in 60 years of climate “science”. The low end of that range is yawn-worthy and the high side is alarming. Observed ECS is near or below the low number."
"If we are still at this range, we are not talking 100% certainty, are we? We are no where near the certainty we require before we undertake massive changes in our society."
You are possibly missinterpreting these numbers. They are not variations in predicted temperatures by 2100. They are uncertainty of climate sensitivity. And yes it's a level of uncertainty for sure, but the raw range of numbers is a bit misleading. The weight of evidence puts the number at most probably 3.0 degrees. Most of the research points firmly at that number, especially the quality research. So its not quite as uncertain as it seems.
Its quite false of the writer to claim nothing has changed and his claims of observed climate sensitivity is very dubious, as it appears based on the pause, and the pause was not as big as was first thought, and has ended and these two things change the picture a lot.
Nevertheless the IPCC acknowledge we do not have 100% certainty on this sensitivity issue, so they have a range of forward temperature predictions. Business as usual emissions is expected to generate between about 3.5 -5 degrees by end of this century. This still has uncertainty, but less than the information you printed on climate sensitivity.
-
MA Rodger at 16:59 PM on 1 October 2017The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
NorrisM @41.
It may be correct to say that there is differing opinion as to when is appropriate to define "pre-industrial" and thus at what level to set as the "pre-industrial" temperature, but I'm not aware of any disagreement over the temperature rise since 1900. Consider the SAT records, ((HadCRUT, GISS, NOAA, BEST) they each present a temperature anomaly for the late 1800s (perhaps the average for the 1890s would suit as a pre-1900 value) and an anomaly for the most recent calender year 2016, yielding the following temperature rises: 1.13ºC, 1.25ºC, 0.93ºC, 1.33ºC. This shows a spread of results but given the differing methods employed this is to be expected. The average is 1.16ºC which to 2dp is 1.2ºC. The WMO (who define "pre-industrial" as late 1800s) provide the following graph which demonstrates this rise.
My use of the value 1.2ºC @40 was not intended to carry much weight. Rather it was demonstrating the way in which Curry was mis-representing the hockey-stick analysis. I mention the rise since 1900, the IPCC has passed attribution on the rise since 1950 which is the majority of the rise since 1900. It is this IPCC attribution that lies at the heart of Curry's denialism, a subject on which she has blogged at length many times.
Concerning the El Nino, I would suggest that the El Nino is now behind us and the rise since 1900 to the last 12 months comes out as 1.06ºC.
-
Eclectic at 16:38 PM on 1 October 2017The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
NorrisM , you have already been shown to be wrong about "your" version of requirement of "massive changes".
And your wildly irresponsible approach to major risk management is also clearly wrong.
It would be a pleasant change if you put forward some valid criticisms !
-
NorrisM at 16:14 PM on 1 October 2017The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
nigelj @ 46
I see that the thrust of the one question you asked that I did not answer relates to how much certainty do we need before we make significant decisions. You state:
" We certainly have a good idea of global temperatures plus or minus a small discrepency (sic)"
After me commenting on the Millar et al paper that has recently been published, one of the other participants suggested that I read the blog following the McKitrick article on the Judith Curry website. In fact, I found the discussion very interesting and civil between McKitrick and Hausfather but it was too technical for me to come to any conclusions on where they ended up.
But reading further, I came to an answer to your question regarding how much "certainty" I need or, more to the point, how much uncertainty there is there with the models?
First, Benjamin Webster came up with what I thought was a reasonable explanation for the differences in what the observations show and what the models have predicted and how they have been "adjusted" to correspond with actual observations so that they are very close:
"With regard to forcing, this is apples-to-apples.
For the past, we generally know the real-world forcings that went into the hindcasts.
For the present simulations, they can get off if we don’t use the real-world forcings.
That’s part of the cause of the 1998-2014 temperature “slowdown”. Solar and volcanic forcings were a little cooler than expected. But running a hindcast with the real-world forcings still gives pretty good estimate of the resulting surface temperatures."Just at a point when I thought, "gee" is that all there is in differences, David Springer highlighted exactly what Steve Koonin said in the APS panel that I have reference before:
"Sorry Benjamin but estimated ECS is still 1.5C – 4.5C @ 95% confidence. By definition that’s a constant forcing. That range hasn’t been improved in 60 years of climate “science”. The low end of that range is yawn-worthy and the high side is alarming. Observed ECS is near or below the low number."
I will not add the balance of his remark.
If we are still at this range, we are not talking 100% certainty, are we? We are no where near the certainty we require before we undertake massive changes in our society.
This is not the place to discuss the massive changes required.
-
Eclectic at 15:50 PM on 1 October 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #39
NorrisM @2 :
< "In the midst of all this tragedy, could you not wait?" >
NorrisM, when you are beset by alligators, is also the time you should be draining the swamp.
-
nigelj at 15:48 PM on 1 October 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #39
Norris are you talking to me or the writer of the article?
The disaster is already about a week ago, so plenty of respect has been shown.
However I think we should talk about causes, problems and solutions pretty immediately, while things are fresh in peoples minds, and I think this what the inhabitants would appreciate most. Theres nothing to be gained from what, having a months silence, crying in our beer? What is it you want, apart from trying to make people feel guilty?
-
Eclectic at 15:46 PM on 1 October 2017The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
NorrisM @45 , (A) you do not need to await a moderation opinion, before choosing to discuss things on a fitter thread.
(B) You are making the Denialist error of looking at various models and failing to look at the physical reality. Ice is melting, sea levels are rising ever faster, etcetera . . . the global warming is occurring very obviously — so it doesn't need to be "falsified" !
MA Rodger @40 , @38 , @36 : thank you for that further background on Judith Curry. It is in complete accordance with what I have seen in studying her blog. ( I haven't bothered with any detailed study of Lindzen Christy & Spencer — since a large slice of their illogical thinking derives from their fundamentalist religious fixed ideas. But Curry is interesting because she is something stranger & more peculiar ! )
Currie makes a nauseating display of persistent intellectual dishonesty — because she flies in the face of clear logical thinking & well-proven scientific fact. Made doubly nauseating by her attempts at a tone of self-righteous martyrdom.
Her blog's support for Salby's nonsense is far from the only denialist craziness that she chooses to espouse slightly indirectly. She has a tendency to put other denialists' scientifically-wacky stuff in her blog (in effect, they are "guest authors") and she keeps a few inches back from 100% endorsing this stuff, in that she delicately says she is including it for the readers' "interest" ). ~ Again, an example of her intellectual dishonesty.
She is indulging in plain denialism of the most unscientific sort — and the extremist politicians (senatorial and congressional) & the extremist press enjoy lapping it up.
-
nigelj at 15:13 PM on 1 October 2017The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
NorrisM @45
"Here is my point".
No Norris. Please go back and answer the points I raised in detail.
You show people no basic respect, by ignoring what they say, then have arrogance to expect to be taken seriously. Its starting to really annoy me because I dont do this.
However I will address your points:
"If you do not have a "base" upon which you can agree as to where the temperature has been, then how can you make judgments about the predictions of future temperature rises? How can you compare where you are if you do not know where you have started from?"
Thats empty rhetoric. We know the historical temperature record accurately enough. Anyone with any commonsense can see this, and certainly any scientist can. Im not interested in discussing it further. You pretend to be a reasonable man, but your rhetoric shows you are most unreasonable, and with respect are a likely climate denying shill for the fossil fuel industry, and legal profession, and spend a lot of time reading websites like The Heartland Institute. It will rot your brain reading that material.
"The GSM (or ESM) models have to be judged on their ability to predict the future by how successful they have been in predicting in the past. This is the very basis of the scientific method. Come up with a theory which is "falsifiable" and then see what happens. "
What are you getting at? Models are absolutely not judged just on how they predict the past, its a combination of the past and future. Models have predicted the past rather well, and models run in the 1990s have predicted subsequent temperatures until 2017 quite well. Its not perfect but is certainly predicted them well. That's all any model in any field of science can do. You have been given this data before several times.
The model is valid until someone can prove the terms in the model are wrong, or alternatively the real world proves the model wrong. Neither has happened. Temperatures from 1900 right through to 2017 are very close to the middle of model predictions. The only outlier from this is the hadcrut dataset, which is not a great dataset. This is all a fact whether you like it or not.
"If you say that the "disagreement between the main temperature data sets is quite small" then can you provide me with the following"
No I wont provide it. With respect, please google the information yourself. All you do is come on this website ask people to do your homework and provide information, then when we do you "claim" links dont work, ignore the information, or dispute the information. Data for nasa, noaa temperatures etc is pretty similar. I'm not interested in nit picking.
"The problem with "longer term" predictions is that we have to undertake significant changes in order to move our society from fossil fuels to other sources of energy. We know that the temperature is going up and that clearly a significant portion is man-made. But how fast this is going to happen is clearly material. "
Obviously yes its material, and models give certain results and if you ignore them then its on your conscience. It's the best scientific guide to the future we have. Im not sure what else you expect. A miracle?
"At the present time, my understanding is that oceans are rising at a level of 2 mm/yr "
What do you mean by present time? This year, last five years, what?
Short trends less than about five years mean nothing because natural variation makes levels fluctuate over very short periods. The ten year plus trend is more like 3.5mm and this is what counts, as has been pointed out to you about a dozen times before. A simple google search of the jason topex satellite data on sea level rise will show you this, something more for you to ignore and claim you cannot find. But once you look at a graph like this its all obvious and easier than using words.
"It has to be models predicting much higher temperatures to cause the oceans to rise at massively faster rates to get to 2-3 feet by 2100."
Yes models predict accelerating temperatures. And? Until you provide substantial physical and / or mathematical evidence the models are wrong, why should I take you seriously?
-
NorrisM at 14:00 PM on 1 October 2017The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
nigelj @ 44
Here is my point. If you do not have a "base" upon which you can agree as to where the temperature has been, then how can you make judgments about the predictions of future temperature rises? How can you compare where you are if you do not know where you have started from?
The GSM (or ESM) models have to be judged on their ability to predict the future by how successful they have been in predicting in the past. This is the very basis of the scientific method. Come up with a theory which is "falsifiable" and then see what happens.
If you have a large range on what the past was then this becomes very difficult.
If you say that the "disagreement between the main temperature data sets is quite small" then can you provide me with the following:
1. Range for the period 1800 - 1900;
2. Range for the period 1900 - 1950
3. Range for the period 1950-Present
The problem with "longer term" predictions is that we have to undertake significant changes in order to move our society from fossil fuels to other sources of energy. We know that the temperature is going up and that clearly a significant portion is man-made. But how fast this is going to happen is clearly material. At the present time, my understanding is that oceans are rising at a level of 2 mm/yr (recently down from 3 mm/yr). It has to be models predicting much higher temperatures to cause the oceans to rise at massively faster rates to get to 2-3 feet by 2100.
Moderator: Perhaps we should move this to the thread on climate models. It is amazing how easy it is to move from one thing to the other because they are so related.
-
NorrisM at 13:42 PM on 1 October 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #39
In the midst of all this tragedy, could you not wait?
Moderator Response:[JH] Sloganeering snipped.
-
nigelj at 07:24 AM on 1 October 2017The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
Norris M @41
"There does not seem to even be agreement amongst climate scientists on what actual global average surface air temperature increases have taken place since "pre-industrial times" (ie 1800) or since 1900."
This is true, but what is your real point here? The disagreement between the main temperature datasets is quite small. You will probably never get perfect agreement because histoorical data collection is not inherently perfect. We certainly have a good idea of global temperatures plus or minus a small discrepency. This is as good as it gets (like the movie) and is enough for intelligent understanding of the general situation we are in. You seldom get 100% agreement and certainty in anything in any measurements of any past historical phenomena. That doesnt matter as long as trends clearly stand out.This is enough for me to see theres clearly been approx "x" quantity of temperature increase.
Are you saying you want 100% certainty and agreement before you can take climate change seriously?
A simple question Norris. Do you really have 100% certainty in other areas of your personal and business life? Think about it hard there are mostly always some doubts and unknowns even if we sometimes say we are "sure".
"I read that temperature rise had now fallen back to the pre-2015-2016 El Nino level"
Again so what is your point? It's to be expected that temperatures fall after an el nino but its highly probable they will rise again after a few years. Its really longer term trends that count, and approx. temperature increases over a time frame, not exact temperatues 1.65382 degrees over x time frame.
-
nigelj at 07:05 AM on 1 October 2017The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
MA Rodger @40
"She will raises issues but almost always fails to set out clearly what she concludes from such issues."
This has also been my exact same impression of various things she has said. Its very frustrating and it creates enormous doubts, exactly what climate denialists deliberately set out to do, so she plays right into their hands, either deliberately or unwittingly.
I think going back to your previous post all the trouble started when she was heavily criticised over her research paper on weather systems. It appears she lost confidence in herself, or something, and started to side with the sceptics and perhaps their was some genuine desire to respect their point of view, or at least listen to it, at least at first. But its a slippery slope, and she is a full scale denialist now whether she realises it or not, and admits it or not. Her rhetoric speaks for itself. It reminds me of the theme expressed in the book Animal Farm by Orwell.
"Her evidence on the relevance of the 'hiatus' never concludes. Rather it rambles on about "The growing discrepancy between climate model predictions and the observations".
Exactly. Now at that point in time of her testimony it was fair to say temperatures were falling towards the lower boundary of error bars, but they were not outside these and as far as I'm aware its always been predicted you could have approx. 10 year periods of slow temperature growth, or even falling temperatures due to a variety of natural cycles. Curry must know that so why didn't she say so in her testimony? If she thinks natural causes could not have been responsible for the "pause", then why does she not say so? By saying nothing, she is unbalanced and not fulsome in her testimony, and can only be seen as a full on climate denialist whether she intends this or not.
"and for good measure the graph stops short of the latest 2015 warmth),'
Again Curry must have know this, and it puts her testimony into the frankly misleading category. This is not good enough.
"we need to look at the satellite data. I mean, this is the best data that we have and is global")".
I'm just gobsmacked by this, as again she must know the limitations of this data. Its certainly not the best data. Again it puts her fully in the Watts Up denialist camp, and is the exact sort of rhetoric they use. She is copying and pasting what they say.
You dont need to have a degree in atmospheric physics to know that none of the data sets are 100% perfect, and the sane and sensible thing to do would be to take an average of them all. Curry is qualified and obviously very intelligent, so something has become unhinged somewhere, to be saying the things she is saying.
I have no problem with scepticism as its natural, and I dont take things at face value, but I think we have a duty to be balanced and tell things in full context, and explain a full conclusion, and Curry does neither of these things.
"Yes, I do believe that we have overall been warming, but we have been warming for 200, maybe even 400 years, OK? And that is not caused by humans."
This just feeds right into the denialist machine. She has been suckered in. And clearly theres a big acceleration in warming form 1920 so why doesn't she see the significance of that?
"the land datasets are sort of starting to agree"
She is thinking aloud. You do this in private with colleagues not when testifying to politicians! She doesnt know when to shut up.
-
nigelj at 06:04 AM on 1 October 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #39
This disaster is very grim for Peurto Rico, and possibly a sign of worse things to come as climate changes. If IPCC climate predictions prove correct and hurricanes become more intense and eventually more numerous, the impacts will be very significant. Some of the IPCC projections for increased hurricane intensity are quite large, depending somewhat on geographical location. Increasing quantities of gdp will go into hurricane repairs as opposed to increasing basic quality of life.
Some vulnerable areas will possibly never fully recover before the next big one hits. It took 10 years to clean up and repair things after Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, and the cost was 100 billion dollars. No wonder small island nations already stay poor.
This sort of scenario can only become more common as climate continues to change because the type of change has mostly negative consequences for weather systems. Theres very little upside when more heat energy and moisture goes into weather systems.
Economies are adapted over decades and centuries to stability of environment or at least known regular cyclical problems of roughly equal intensity. This stability has been useful in improvement in human economies, and we have seen tremendous progess in many areas, despite the inevitable problems as well. Our modern economy since the end of the last ice age has never actually faced a period where weather gets progressively worse almost everywhere over decadal time frames, so its uncharted territory to fully quantify.
Prev 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 Next
