Recent Comments

Prev  346  347  348  349  350  351  352  353  354  355  356  357  358  359  360  361  Next

Comments 17651 to 17700:

17651. citizenschallenge at 13:00 PM on 30 September 2017
       New research, September 18-24, 2017
       

       How do you keep up with it?  Thank you for the effort.

17652. GeoffThomas at 12:57 PM on 30 September 2017
       Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
       

       OOPS should have said GRAMS Swamp fox, there has now been huge success with feeding cows charcoal, 200 to 400 GRAMS/day, (mixed with their molasses) the charcoal helps the digestion, reduces infection and is turned into Biochar (actually enlivened biochar) by the cow, then pooped out and buried by Dung Beetles, leading to healthier cows with higher stocking rates, and rebuilding the impoverished soil, or vastly improving good soil - those farmers using that technique should get the dividend, twould perhaps pay for the charcoal, a dividend would be appropriate as farmers are traditionally conservative and hesitant to spend money

       Much land in Australia is very difficult to farm except by running animals on it, and as very little charcoal is lost by this process, the farmer would know exactly how much charcoal he has put into the soil through his cows.

       Threre are 28.5 Million cows in Australia, more than people, if they each get app 1/3rd of a kilo that is 9.5 million kilos per day, 3467.5 million Kgs per year, - in America there are 98.4 million, - between 1,3 and 1.5 Billion cows on the Earth, - do the sums, and charcoal/carbon is traditionally taken by humans for flatulence, - virtually removes methane farting from cows too.

       an institute in Germany has done some good research, - the Ithaka foundation, http://www.ithaka-institut.org/en/ct/95-Biochar-Feed-Additives, and not just on cows but all sorts of animals, and below this is a utube of the experience of an East Coast of Australia farmer doing just what I suggested above, feeding his cows charcoal,  it is a very inspiring and concise video, be prepared to be shocked if you have not come across this good information before.

       Again you see the changes coming up from individuals and groups, not imposed by politicians who typically lead by watching where every one is running and then pretending to be at the front.

       https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JPoItRWYSQ&feature=youtu.be

17653. NorrisM at 12:39 PM on 30 September 2017
       The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists
       

       Well, folks, looks like we are indeed going to have a Red Team Blue Team event!  And guess who is going to head it?

       Here is the following from a July 22, 2017 statement from Science Magazine:

       "U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt is considering a former official in President Barack Obama’s Energy Department to lead the agency's debate on mainstream climate science, according to a former leader of the Trump administration's EPA transition effort.
       Steve Koonin, a physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University, is being eyed to lead EPA's "red team, blue team" review of climate science, said Myron Ebell, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and a Trump transition leader."

       Just happened to see this when I googled "Steve Koonin Climate Change" for another purpose.

       It will be interesting!

17654. GeoffThomas at 10:08 AM on 30 September 2017
       Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
       

       Swamp fox, there has now been huge success with feeding cows charcoal, 200to 400 mG/day, the charcoal helps the digestion, reduces infection and is turned into Biochar by the cow, then pooped out and buried by Dung Beetles, leading to healthier cows with higher stocking rates, and rebuilding the impoverished soil, - those farmers using that technique should get the dividend, twould perhaps pay for the charcoal.

       Much land in Australia is very difficult to farm except by running animals on it, and as very little charcoal is lost by this process, the farmer would know exactly how much charcoal he has put into the soil through his cows.

17655. nigelj at 07:08 AM on 30 September 2017
       Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
       

       Red Baron @9, yes the fee and dividend scheme as presented  is not perfect in its details. I pointed out one potential flaw, but didn't have time to think about other flaws.

       But fee and dividend is clearly a step in the right direction, and I believe right in principle, and needed some positive feedback. Its also not just a supply side concept, because of the dividend which can be applied flexibly to a whole range of things. This is what makes the idea powerful because it regulates emissions at source, (the best thing to do) and also subsidises a range of things and these can be anything we want. No other scheme does both within one scheme, and I think you must do both. 

       Perhaps they could implement fee and dividend scheme so the dividend does go partly to farmers who farm to increase soil sequestration. I can't see why it couldn't.

       And  subsidies have done enormous things to get renewable energy off the ground and could now be phased down slowly. The main thing is to subsidise car recharging networks to get this over the line. The point is you dont need a whole lot of give away subsidies, its just a known range of things that benefit. As you say if theye are targeted at farmers who do things a certin way and get results, they are not an entitlement of freebie.

       Cap and trade in theory as in a text book resolves every possible issue even in theory encouraging soil sequestration indirectly, but comes up against a whole lot of real world obstacles, policial skullduggery, and time frame problems, that make it a dubious idea. 

17656. nigelj at 06:29 AM on 30 September 2017
       The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
       

       MA Rodger @38, I agree that makes sense. I'm not a climate scientist, just have some background from physical geography etc, so I can't say much about the calculations, without digging out a textbook or something.

       But here's my take on the issue, and I'm very certain about it. Firstly her assertions on CO2 not being a factor in warming early last century. One glance at a graph of CO2 and its obvious CO2 emissions were still  actually very significant early last century, so must have been a significant factor. Unless she is saying much of the heating from these would be delayed a couple of decades? But clearly CO2 must have played at least "some" role during early last century, and likely more than 10% maybe 30%, is my instinct just thinking about it all.

       But her main point seems to be there wasn't much CO2 early last century so what other factor caused the warming? Surely as a scientist she is well aware that records show solar activity was quite high, and volcanic activity quite low? They certainly contributed to the warming. Its really hard to know the proportions that CO2 contributed, solar contributed, and reduced volcanic activity because records are poor, but its clearly some combination. The quite strong warming is easily explained by a combination of factors. Various different research papers come up with different proportions. But theres no great mystery on what caused the warming, just the exact proportions. 

       By asking a silly rhetorical question already at least partly answered about what caused the warming, she spreads doubt, and suggests either unwittingly or deliberatety  that something else could be causing warming like solar changes, and this could be causing warming now. Thats my take on it, and how uneducated people would perceive it, tell me if I'm wrong.

       Overall her testimony is so flawed, rhetorical, and missing pieces of the puzzle, that it just creates confusion, and every sceptical thing she says gets cherry picked by other sceptics.

17657. RedBaron at 06:07 AM on 30 September 2017
       Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
       

       @10 swampfoxh,

       You are wrong about animal agriculture, but this is the wrong thread to discuss it. Please go to the proper thread. I will be happy to discuss it there with you. Maybe a mod can find a link.

17658. RedBaron at 05:59 AM on 30 September 2017
       Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
       

       @nigelj #8,

       Yes indeed. That's exactly the sort of thing I am talking about. Battery powered cars running off electricity from solar and wind is very doable. A semitruck, cargo ship, or jet plane run on renewable is not really technilogically feasible right now. We I guess in a pinch we could try and go back to three mast sailing ships, but certainly no where near the same capacity in tons of cargo. Maybe even nuclear powered cargo ships? Still a potential new set of problems. But if we have a sequestration sink that is verifiable like the LCP in agriculture BCCS systems, then we don't need eliminate fossil fuels 100%. Just offset what we don't have the technology to fix with BCCS for a drawdown scenario.

17659. swampfoxh at 05:57 AM on 30 September 2017
       Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
       

       Carbon fee and dividend, I think, forms the basis of effective public policy, but if that scheme is undertaken only by 1st World democracies, it won't do much to reduce emissions.  Since 2nd 3rd and 4th World countries, together, (whom are administratively very deficient in managing any public program), can torpedo this program, it's probably not going to be a big player in fostering emissions reductions or building renewables.  In the background, sequestration schemes large enough to really count either can't be done and made permanent (e.g. carbon capture) or done so slowly (e.g. soils regenerative) that significant positive effects can't be detected for generations.  It makes no sense to burn fossil fuels and then go 'round trying to scoop out the 0.04% of CO2 that's mixed into the atmosphere...we should just not burn fossil fuels in the first place.  However, the complete elimination of Animal Agriculture could drop, rapidly,  CO2 emissions by about 50%/year which would give us a good deal of breathing room while we turn down the CO2 portion of the greenhouse gases that human activity seems addicted to liberating.

17660. RedBaron at 05:43 AM on 30 September 2017
       Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
       

       @nigelj,

        It is still all on the supply side of the carbon cycle, even the so called "cuts" are nothing more than a reduction of the increases of CO2. No where does that sort of tax and dividend fee actually promote sequestration and drawdown of CO2, revenue neutral or not. That type of plan is analogous to just shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic. No one is patching the hole on the sinking ship.

       Now right here in Oklahoma we have the carbon program that actually has a chance to work. It is a pilot program and still just voluntary. BUT it is functional and it does actually have a chance to literally verifiably reduce atmospheric CO2 if scaled up. Unlike the tax and dividend scheme talked about in the OP. This is because the "dividend" goes only to VERIFIABLE increases in soil carbon. So we have a way to actually remove vast amounts of CO2 and control and verify the payments of the dividends to ONLY those farmers actually sequestering the carbon. It never can become an entitlement, it is paying carbon farmers for farming carbon! And the payments reflect the "crop" they are growing, fertile high carbon soil.

       Carbon Sequestration Certification Program

        

       It is voluntary now but should such a time come when federal plans are instituted it could easily be funded too.

       Now personally I am trying to raise the money to become a demonstration farm for the project. It will cost me about 14 k to do that including the proof of concept I need to run. 

       So far I have raised 10 dollars :P oops. Not much love out there on gofundme. And for some reason I did not get my federal grant. LOLZ But the principles are the same whether it is me personally doing the demonstrations or someone else.

17661. nigelj at 05:19 AM on 30 September 2017
       Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
       

       Red Baron @ 5

       Maybe add item 4 :Resolve difficulty of cutting aviation and industrial emissions, by using agricultural, soil, and forestry related carbon sinks as offsets.

17662. nigelj at 05:06 AM on 30 September 2017
       Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
       

       Singleton Engineer @3, I agree cutting emissions is the main thing, but doing this will promote renewable energy anyway.  The beauty of fee and dividend is it pushes money into renewable energy. This process would be the same in rich and poor countries, just rates of construction of renewable energy are clearly very different. 

       There's also value psychologically in promoting renewable energy in the public climate discussions, as its a positive solutions orientated sort of thing that takes peoples minds off endless cuts and the associated difficulties of making cuts.

17663. nigelj at 05:01 AM on 30 September 2017
       Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
       

       Swayseeker @4

       With respect these comments have absolutely nothing to do with fee and dividend, literally nothing at all.

       "One could heat areas by using biochar? The dark biochar soil will heat up more than the surrounding land and air above it will heat up and rise, increasing chances of convectional rain, especially because areas of convergence of sea breezes could be induced in the certain areas. One could also use solar air heaters instead of biochar."

       This is just crazy stuff. Dark biochar soil has plants growing in it surely? And even if the biochar is exposed, it would not make that much difference, and would just be a waste of crop lands and would erode.

       What is a  solar air heater?

       "When they fed extra evaporation into climate models it showed that evaporation cools Earth."

       What study shows this nonsense?

17664. MA Rodger at 04:58 AM on 30 September 2017
       The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
       

       NigelJ @37,
       Judith Curry's objections are indeed quite petty, numerous and overtly used in feeding the denial machine. Their petty nature generally means she gets away without too much detailed criticisms. Mind, she makes out she doesn't like being called a denier. In her Dec 2015 Senate testimony (PDFp104) she describes this badge-of-courage and counters it by describing three things the IPCC assessments allegedly cannot explain, the least petty of which was the early 20th century warming.

       "Are you aware that temperatures have been warming for more than 200 years and that in the 20th century, 40 percent of the warming occurred before 1950, when carbon dioxide was not a factor in the warming. OK. And I could go on and on. Many of these issues are raised in my written testimony. " (My bold)

       This, of course, is intemperate nonsense from Judy-the-BlogMom and not the words that any serious climatologist would ever utter. To be fair we should examine her written testimony to check she didn't mis-speak. He written testimony tells us:-

       "If the warming since 1950 was caused by humans, what caused the warming during the period 1910—1945? The period 1910–1945 comprises over 40 percent of the warming since 1900, but is associated with only 10 percent of the carbon dioxide increase since 1900. Clearly, human emissions of greenhouse gases played little role in causing this early warming."

       Here we meet a cherry-picked period 1910-1940 which is then associated with "warming since 1900" so I would be inclined to take 1900 as the start-point of any analysis.
       Checking Curry's bold assertions - Using 10-year averages to prevent annual fluctuations causing problems (as per the data in the graph presented in Curry's testimony, although here I use GISS, not HadCRUT) and CO2 forcing from IPCC AR5 AII, the warming 1900-40 is 37% of the 1900-2000 rise and the "associated carbon dioxide increase", ΔF_(CO2) 21%. It appears Curry's testimony is seriously flawed.

       Mind, this method of comparison that Curry attempts is overly simplistic and needs checking. We could instead compare the 40-year period 1900-1940 with the period 1970-2010 and note that the global increase in temperature 1900-40 was 42% the 1970-2010 increase. And the anthropogenic climate forcings increase (for both periods a pretty-linear increase) with the 1900-40 increase 26% that of the later period. (We should also perhaps note in passing that in comparison to 1970-2010, 1900-40 was preceded by decades of relatively high ΔF_(anthro) that would have still been in action thro' the respective periods and also relatively high negative natural forcings, Both these would have boosted temperatures 1900-40 relative to the later period.) These percentages 42% & 26% would compare to Curry's unfounded asssertion of 40:60=67% & 10:90=11%.

       Thus it can be seen that Curry identifies an allegedly unexplained discrepancy to refute the accusation made against her - "I was basically called a denier." But she then unable to grasp the problem in more-than-trebling the size of this discrepancy within her testimony to a Senate Hearing. So it basically sounds like her accusers called it right.

17665. RedBaron at 02:21 AM on 30 September 2017
       Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
       

       #3 Singleton Engineer,

       You said, "They (CO2 emissions) must be cut to zero, avoided, banned and outlawed to achieve the goal."

       This is not precisely true. If this recently published study in Nature is to be believed, then AGW will increase for quite some time even at zero emissions from us, simply due to natural feedbacks we already triggered.

       Evolution of global temperature over the past two million years

       Earth 'Locked Into' Temperatures Not Seen in 2 Million Years

       Of course we really are not "locked into" that scenario if we also effectly start sequestering enough carbon to counter past emissions and start drawdown.

       CCS cant do it.

       BeCCS can't do it.

       But BCCS can most certainly be scaled up enough to at least offset enough if there are significant cuts in emissions.

       Can we reverse global warming?

       Executive summary:

       Yes we can reverse Global Warming.

       It does not require huge tax increases or expensive untested risky technologies. It does not even require 100% elimination of all fossil fuel use.

       It will require a three pronged approach worldwide.

       1. Reduce fossil fuel use by replacing energy needs with as many feasible renewables as current technology allows.
       2. Change Agricultural methods to high yielding regenerative models of production made possible by recent biological & agricultural science advancements.
       3. Large scale ecosystem recovery projects similar to the Loess Plateau project, National Parks like Yellowstone etc. where appropriate and applicable.

       What matters is balancing emissions against sequestration until we have a drawdown scenario. BCCS is potentially scale-able to be big enough to do that with significant cuts on the emissions side, but not necessarily needing to be 100%.

       Trying to be perfect is where the huge costs and technical difficulties come in. If all you need to do is balance plus a small amount more negative, it can actually be done at a net profit. Meaning no net cost at all. And even better it is doable right now without the need of unknown future technical advances.

       In fact eliminating billions and billions of dollars of subsidies for unsustainable energy and ag systems would save us taxparers so much and probably allow the free market to do all the heavy lifting straight away.

       Just a slightly different POV for your consideration.

17666. Swayseeker at 23:08 PM on 29 September 2017
       Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
       

       Regarding the wildfires in Canada and the hurricanes mentioned, why not create areas of two seabreeze convergence (lake breeze convergence) near lakes, on the sea where hurricanes form, etc, to increase rainfall and cause more evaporation and rain to cool off Earth and reduce fires. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110914161729.htm explains that evaporation increases low level clouds which reflect solar energy back to space. In fact low level clouds in low latitudes are comparatively warm and radiate heat back to space better than other clouds. Some scientists used to believe that more evaporation could even warm Earth because water vapour is a greenhouse gas. When they fed extra evaporation into climate models it showed that evaporation cools Earth. Florida and other narrow land masses have sea breezes from both sides and there is an area of convergence where high pressure and rising air result where the two breezes meet. This is associated with high rainfall in areas such as Florida. One could heat areas by using biochar? The dark biochar soil will heat up more than the surrounding land and air above it will heat up and rise, increasing chances of convectional rain, especially because areas of convergence of sea breezes could be induced in the certain areas. One could also use solar air heaters instead of biochar. The sea might not be as hot as the sea round Florida, but areas on convergence also occur in New Zealand as shown in http://blog.metservice.com/SeaBreezes See also http://climate.ncsu.edu/edu/k12/.liftingmechanisms

17667. SingletonEngineer at 22:43 PM on 29 September 2017
       Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
       

       I would caution against hyperbole.  There have been comparable or worse hurricanes, perhaps not recently.  The blackout-causing storm in South Australia a year ago was listed as "worst in 54 years", but soon came to be touted as "worst ever... sign that the sky is falling".

       I absolutely accept that climate damage is happening due to greenhouse gases and the oceans are being acidified and warmed and that these things herald trouble ahead, but if the current events are not really the worst ever, then suggesting that they are only invites swift rejoinders from those who aren't seeing the big picture.

       Hence, my personal concern that "renewables" are less important than CO2e emission reduction.  The discussion should centre on the way that reduced or zero emissions globally can be achieved affordably, rather than as at present rich countries in Europe, North America and Australia puffing out their chests with pride about how much money they have blown through in order to convert maybe 5% of their total emissions to so-called renewable electricity.

       What matters... the only thing that matters... is how soon the remaining sources are going to be stopped, including in the countries that are money poor and energy poor.  That will never be achieved by only WWS projects and mountains of money and progress toward this goal cannot be measured in terms of "X thousand notional households".

       Put bluntly, CO2 emissions will not stop because we continue to license or to tax emitters.  They must be cut to zero, avoided, banned and  outlawed to achieve the goal. 

17668. Riduna at 16:47 PM on 29 September 2017
       Right-wing media could not be more wrong about the 1.5°C carbon budget paper
       

       I an not at all sure that Professor Allen enhances the reputation of Oxford University with his latest Paper. It appears to involve a hint of cherry-picking.

17669. nigelj at 12:43 PM on 29 September 2017
       The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
       

       Judith Currie is not making a lot of sense to me. She makes a lot of criticisms of the IPCC and climategate and climate science in general. These criticisms are largely quite petty criticisms, or related to isolated problems any professional body will have, or they are idealistic suggestions. She blurts all this out in public forums, and its potentially undermining public confidence in the IPCC. Maybe she is grandstanding, because it just doesn't make sense otherwise.

       Some things are best done in private and by all means forcefully done if required with backup from other colleagues. Not everything has to be in the public domain. And some of her suggestions are good, like putting costs to a range of temperature scenarios.

       If there was a big systemic problem, or many problems, of course blow the whistle, but there just isn't. Climategate comprised leaks (actually theft)  of thousands of emails and you have a couple of small things and numerous reviews done finding no problems. IPCC reports thousands of pages long and about one single mistake on some glacier. Many reviews have already been done of the IPCC. Currie is making the perfect the enemy of the good, time and time again. She is tearing herself and climate science to pieces, and what good has come of it?

17670. Eclectic at 11:09 AM on 29 September 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38
       

       NorrisM @8 , you make yourself ridiculous, to imply that "massive expenditure" in renewables is being proposed in an unjustifiable way.

       Economically, we are already at the crossover point where future power generation is cheaper with renewables wind/solar.   (You may also have noticed the report that half of U.S. nuclear power plants are unprofitable — partly due to fracked gas and partly due to renewables.  Remarkable!!  And worth contemplation.)   Why would any sane person wish future energy infrastructure spending to be on more expensive items than on cheaper items? — and especially so, in view of the need to eliminate CO2 pollution.

       On a side-note : The Marshall Plan was indeed very expensive — yet I gather that the economists' consensus is that it was money very justified in economic terms (not to mention the humanitarian & geopolitical benefits).

17671. Mal Adapted at 10:35 AM on 29 September 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38
       

       NorrisM,

       Here you sound like a genuine skeptic:

       I have come to realize that the whole issue of climate change and what to do about it is a massively complex matter which is difficult for the layman to grasp. It does worry me whether the public at least could ever get any benefit from a Red Team Blue Team approach.

       Here you don't sound very skeptical, IMHO:

       What continues to scare me is that we are being asked to expend massive amounts of money (GDP that could have otherwise been directed to other places) to convert from fossil fuels. 

       Who is asking you to expend massive amounts of money to convert from fossil fuels? While some targeted subsidies might be cost-effective, all the technology needed to substantially decarbonize the global economy has been invented, awaiting only investment in R&D on more efficient production and distribution, and economies of scale. With a nudge from the 'visible hand' of collective intervention in the 'free' market to re-internalize enough of the marginal climate-change costs of fossil fuels, the omnipresent 'invisible hand' can help steer the carbon-neutral transition rapidly, fairly, and at the lowest net cost. 

       A revenue-neutral US Carbon Fee and Dividend with Border Adjustment Tariff , for example, would not increase the average federal tax burden. The combined revenues, collected from fuel producers and importers of manufactured goods, would periodically be divided by the number of taxpayers and returned to each of us as a dividend. While the average taxpayer would break even, those who consume more fossil carbon than the national average would, essentially, pay those who use less. CF&D with BAT is effectively a progressive tax: since per-capita energy consumption in fossil carbon equivalents per year is positively correlated with income, there would be a net income transfer downward. The Border Adjustment Tariff would keep US manufacturers competitive domestically and encourage our trading partners to follow our lead.

       Returned to every taxpayer in equal-sized dividends, under CF&D with BAT the fee and tariff revenue would remain in consumer hands, to drive demand for currently available carbon-neutral alternative energy, at prices that compete with fossil fuels accounting for a scientifically justifiable, lower-bound estimate of the marginal cost of CO2-equivalent emissions. With accurate pricing of the true costs of energy from the available sources, market forces will build out alternative energy supplies and infrastructure, until average energy prices are about what they are now. And for now, the buying power of US consumers is still sufficient to propagate decarbonization throughout the globe's tightly integrated economy.

       See citizensclimatelobby.org for more information.

17672. Philippe Chantreau at 09:53 AM on 29 September 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38
       

       I find the concern about spending massive amounts of money for energy transition is misplaced. No such concern was present in the years leading to the 2008 crisis, and the World spent 15 trillions with absolutely nothing to show for it because the entire US financial market had become fradulent; this was made possible by infiltrating regulating bodies with free market nuts who believed that it was all going to regulate itself with people driven exclusively by exteme greed at the wheel. We all know how that ended. Greenspan himself had to confess that he had made the screw up of a life tine when he allowed this belief to be implemented.

       Remarkably, however, the World economy has recovered in less than 10 years, and the effects were a far cry from what was experienced post 1929. If we could spend 15 trillion to indulge the frantic greed of a few criminals, why can't we spend the same for a true energy transition, something that will leave a lasting positive effect on all of humanity? There is no good answer to that question, none. The only morally justifiable thing to do is the carry on the energy transition with at least the same urgency that the criminals expended on the task of enriching themselves.

       In a recent NYT editorial, another free market fanatic made the argument that Harvey was going to be barely a blip in Houston march to prosperity. Little did this person realize that this can be turned around and one can just as well argue that if the Housont area economy can merrily absorb 200 billions of hurricane damage, it could as easily absorb 200 billions of energy transition investment in one quick setting. Priorities... 

17673. Doug_C at 07:11 AM on 29 September 2017
       Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
       

       I also support the fee and dividend system with an escalating fee on fossil fuels at the source and a direct divident to energy consumers. This allows the energy sector to plan for the time when fossil fuels become non-competitive and gives consumers the resources they need to support alternatives.

       I live in southern British Columbia, Canada and have relatives just across the border in Washington State. The amount of wildfires here is unprecedented, BC still has massive wildfires burning, one over 1,000,000 acres, overall more than 2.5 million acres are or have burned here this season. Oregon, California, Washington State and Montana are all also experiencing the same catastrophic impacts due to the warmer drier summers already this will become an even more acute situation as the years progress. This is clearly a global phenomena as Australia, Siberis and other places are also experiencing record widlfires along with many other impacts globally.

       I also have family in Texas and know people in Florida who were impacted by some of the worst hurricanes ever recorded, considering that these massive storm systems gain their strength directly from warm ocean water, this is also something that southern US states will be combating for decades to come. Any sound policy on the state level must factor in the costs of not mitigating climate change impacts which are already significant. Harvey is estimated to have done alomst $200 billion in damage in Texas and Irma caused at least $10 billion in Florida and other nearby states. Not to mention the deaths which are in the hundreds from all the hurricanes across the Caribbean, Central America and US south this year.

       While it is unfortunate that the current US president has choosen to ignore the glaring reality on this in favor of a position that is clearly unsustainable and unsupported by evidence, it is good to see that other levels of US government are stepping up.

       In the end I think that real change on this issue is going to come from the ground up, citizens demanding that their elected officials implement policies based on the best evidence not the worst.

17674. nigelj at 06:46 AM on 29 September 2017
       Right-wing media could not be more wrong about the 1.5°C carbon budget paper
       

       Gorgulak @5, I know exactly what you mean, its confusing and hard to work out how they get there. The following article explains it ok:

       www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/09/is-there-really-still-a-chance-for-staying-below-1-5-c-global-warming/

       It's a combination of things. Firstly theres very little discrepency between models and latest real world temperatures taken as a average of all temperature data sets. But the  study uses the hadcrut data which shows the least warming ( I have no idea why they would do that and select just one set of data as opposed to an average) so magnifies the discrepency. Secondly theres some issue about how the study considers carbon budgets explained in the article. But be warned its a bit headache inducing!

17675. nigelj at 06:23 AM on 29 September 2017
       Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
       

       Fee and dividend is an absolute winner for me. It solves a whole range of problems, including getting right at the source of the problem, various practical issues, being fair to consumers, overcoming various political / ideological objections. The fact that just one idea solves so many different problems suggests the idea is inherently the right one, and certainly practical in real world terms. In contrast cap and trade seems to have some problems applied in the real world, and a patchy record where it has been used.

       The fee will possibly push up petrol prices (although this is not inevitable), and it will be a good incentive to buy less petrol. However if the dividend is purely cash in hand it will cancel this out, so it's important the dividend is largely some sort of voucher for buying home insulation, electric cars, and perhaps home appliances to try to at least minimise this leakage effect, and push things in the best direction. 

17676. gorgulak at 05:39 AM on 29 September 2017
       Right-wing media could not be more wrong about the 1.5°C carbon budget paper
       

       Why is it that projecting out from the IPCC models gets you 70 GtC remaining whereas this new analysis gets you 200 GtC? From what I've read it seems like they haven't changed anything about the models but only adjusted them to todays temperature and emissions. You get 70 GtC if you project outward without adjustment, but the models have underestimated where we would be emissions-wise and slightly overestimated where we would be temperature-wise. So if you project outward from 545 GtC you're projecting out from the 2020's where the median of the models predicted we would be for emissions, which is also at a higher temperature and atmospheric co2 concentration. Is all of that right?

       I understand that the actual difference between the models and observations is not 0.3 C but is much smaller. I'm just wondering how you get 3x more carbon budget while still projecting the same rates of warming and without a new "warming per tonne of co2 emitted". Is it simply the small adjustemnt to account for todays temperature and emissions that gets you that?

17677. John Hartz at 05:07 AM on 29 September 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38
       

       NorrsM: For information about the costs of energy, check out the Energy Mix website. Its stated purpose: 

       The Energy Mix is your guide to climate change and energy issues and solutions. Whether you’re looking for the latest content on the impacts of climate change, the fossil industries that produce the emissions, renewable energy and energy efficiency alternatives, or climate solutions outside energy, you’ve come to the right place. Please send us your comments and story ideas!

17678. John Hartz at 04:53 AM on 29 September 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38
       

       NorrisM: Your concerns about the lack of an SkS article about the PNAS paper, Evaluation of a proposal for reliable low-cost grid power with 100% wind, water, and solar by Clack et al are duly noted.  There is no need for you to bring this up again. (Excessive repetition is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy.)

       As you may be aware, the Clack et al paper generated a lively discussion as evidenced in the following articles:

       Dear scientists: Stop bickering about a 100% renewable power grid and start making it happen by Joe Romm, Think Progress, June 20, 2017 

       Jacobson Pushes Back In Fierce Fight With Modelling Critics by Julian Spector, The Energy Mix, June 20, 2017 

17679. NorrisM at 04:27 AM on 29 September 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38
       

       Correction.

       "commentary on the Clack paper" instead of "commentary on the Jacobson paper".

17680. NorrisM at 04:26 AM on 29 September 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38
       

       John Hartz @ 7

       Thanks for your reply.  It just seems to me that in the interests of "balance" a commentary on the Jacobson paper would have been appropriate.  I still think that SkS should take on the issue of costs of converting from fossil fuels to RE.  it would be easy to create a "myth" even based upon my worries as expressed in my reply to Eclectic.

       If there is a website similar to SkS which deals with costs, perhaps you could direct me to it.

17681. NorrisM at 04:20 AM on 29 September 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38
       

       Eclectic @ 6

       Thanks, I will read with interest the blog following McKitrick's essay including Hausfather's comments.  I have actually bit the bullet and purchased a pdf copy of the Millar paper so I have a better idea as to what it actually says (to the extent I can understand it). 

       I have come to realize that the whole issue of climate change and what to do about it is a massively complex matter which is difficult for the layman to grasp. It does worry me whether the public at least could ever get any benefit from a Red Team Blue Team approach.

       What continues to scare me is that we are being asked to expend massive amounts of money (GDP that could have otherwise been directed to other places) to convert from fossil fuels.  I cannot think that there has been any other time in the history of the US where such massive expenditures have been proposed based upon predictions which are in turn based upon economic models.  The closest I can think of was the faith that the Marshall Plan expenditures would result in democracies in Europe.   I suspect that the expenditures of the Marshall Plan as a percentage of GDP would be far less than the US costs of conversion to either wind and solar or, for that matter, nuclear power.

17682. MA Rodger at 01:17 AM on 29 September 2017
       The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
       

       Eclectic @34,
       You say you have examined the history of Judy's little asteroid Climateetc but that was not the start of her journey to the dark side. A lot of stuff preceded the creation of Climateetc in Sept 2010 but, as with much else, Judy has her own take on the journey she took. Her version of it is set out at the start of her 2015 Senate testimony:- (PDFp39)

       "Prior to 2009, I felt that supporting the IPCC consensus on climate change was a responsible thing to do. I bought into the argument don’t trust what one scientist says, trust what an international team of 1,000 scientists have said after years of careful deliberation.
       "That all changed for me in November 2009, following the leaked ‘‘Climategate’’ e-mails that illustrated the sausage-making and even bullying that went into building the consensus. I started speaking out, saying that scientists needed to do better at making the data and supporting information publicly available, being more transparent about how they reach conclusions, doing a better job of assessing uncertainties, and actively engaging with scientists having minority perspectives.
       "The response of my colleagues to this is summed up by the title of a 2010 article in the Scientific American, ‘Climate Heretic: Judith Curry Turns on Her Colleagues.' I came to the growing realization that I had fallen into the trap of group think. I had accepted the consensus based on second-order evidence, the assertion that a consensus existed."

       This seems to suggest that in the two days following Climategate, Judy went from happy-bunny climatologist to happily posting on denialist websites like Wattsupia (a re-post from ThinkProgress but Wattsupia is the version she links to here) and denialist Climate Audit, the place she tells us "became my blog of choice, because I found the discussions very interesting and I thought, ‘Well, these are the people I want to reach rather than preaching to the converted over at [the mainstream climate science blog] RealClimate.’” That's a big big shift in just two days, Judy! Almost as abrupt as the next leap to full denialist in the following year, assuming you go along with Judy's timeline.

       The story actually begins in 2005 with Webster et al (2005) 'Changes in Tropical Cyclone Number, Duration, and Intensity in a Warming Environment'  which was published just as the 2005 hurricane season was making hurricane studies highly political. So the paper drew a lot of denialist flack from contrarians to which Judy found herself responding (being a co-author) and was still providing expert hurricane testimony in July 2006.  She was also the lead-author on a paper addressing the scientific argumentation of hurricane studies (although note that while the article is described here as "unapologetic in advancing their particular point of view", the article is actually setting out its scientific position as being no more than "the central hypothesis."
       But there are then the first signs in 2006 of Judy falling out with her scientific colleagues but over the narrow issue of how to treat with denialists. We find Judy commenting at what would become her "blog of choise" ( eg. about halfway down this 2006 thread where she would soon earn her posting rights). Also in 2006, she was talking on the need for engaging with denialism which heavily hints at her future path. This 2006 talk was tellingly titled "Falling Out of the Ivory Tower" and bullet points included ♠ inadequate assessment and communication of uncertainty ♠ turf battles and appeal to authority ♠muddy relationship between climate research and policy. It can thus be seen that Judy was already engaging with her "group think" monster by 2006, years before 'climategate'.
       Her immediate response to 'climategate' (in web-pages linked above) was to advocate openness so denialists can spot any errors allowing (apparently) corrections to be made with minimum fuss. "Doing this would keep molehills from growing into mountains that involve congressional hearings, lawyers, etc." while she says she isn't implying "climate researchers need to keep defending against the same arguments over and over again." (I would agree with this last point as they would instead have to 'keep defending against the same arguments over and over & over & over & over & over again, ad nauseam.')
       And by mid-2010 our Judy had become one of her own "scientists having minority perspectives" becoming an uncritical conduit for denialst argument and thus unable to connect with her peers (as her input into this July 2010 RealClimate comment-thread well demonstrates).
       Two months afterwards she had her little un-worldly asteroid Climateetc to retreat to, where she could cultivate her persona as The Daily Mail climate scientist of choice.

        

       
       Tapping this out, I was surprised to read in that article critical of Judy which she cited in her testimony that:-

       "Curry asserts that scientists haven’t adequately dealt with the uncertainty in their calculations and don’t even know with precision what’s arguably the most basic number in the field: the climate forcing from CO2 —that is, the amount of warming a doubling of CO2 alone would cause without any amplifying or mitigating effects from melting ice, increased water vapor or any of a dozen other factors."

       Question- Is that right? Has she fallen that far into the denialistic pit to consider this a substantive issue. Answer - She certainly had back in Dec 2010.

17683. John Hartz at 23:42 PM on 28 September 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38
       

       NorrisM @35: You wrote:

       I have seen no criticism whatever by this website of the June 2017 paper of Clack (NOAA) et al published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences which has roundly criticized the Jacobson cost study to the point of questioning its validity.

       As has already been pointed out to you, the primary focus of SkS is the science of climate change and related matters.  The fact that none of the volunteer authors who generate articles for posting on SkS chose not to post an article critiquing the PNAS paper you have referred to is rather insignificant.

17684. Eclectic at 22:13 PM on 28 September 2017
       New paper shows that renewables can supply 100% of all energy (not just electricity)
       

       NorrisM , I thought I ought to transfer some of my reply to you about the Jacobson paper, from where you had mentioned it as an en-passant footnote in "another thread" :-

       I had said :

       "... Jacobson draws a long bow into the technological future.   IMO his emphasis on hydrogen fuel was way over the top, and as you rightly say his hydro-power summation is nowadays shown as a big error.   #Nevertheless, none of that is in any way an excuse not to press ahead with wind/solar conversion at a much faster rate than we are doing currently" .

       The Jacobson study continues to have value as one of many talking-points regarding future developments . . . despite its lack of perfection.  Yet it is always important that we "keep our eye on the ball" of what we need to do now to tackle the ongoing AGW crisis.

17685. Eclectic at 20:47 PM on 28 September 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38
       

       NorrisM @5 , thanks yes — I happened to be reading the McKitrick article on J. Curry's Climate etc blog a few hours ago.   I reckon you would be greatly exaggerating the matter, to describe the article as causing a kerfuffle.  [or did you mean: causing a covfefe?  ;-)  ]

       IMO it was quite a yawn ~ just McKitrick trying to make a beat-up over very little.  Far more interesting, NorrisM, were some of the posts in the Climate etc comments column attached to it.  No, not the many usual run-of-the-mill Room Temperature IQ comments (though at least they're relatively civil compared with those on other denialist websites).  But you will find a number of interesting/entertaining posts by Zeke Hausfather.  You won't need to read very far between the lines, to see Hausfather's icy-polite stiletto puncturing McKitrick and basically pointing out that McKitrick is talking horsefeathers.

       ( You may not be aware of it, NorrisM, but McKitrick has an abysmally low reputation among scientists.  The website rationalwiki is often entertaining in its assessments — and the McKitrick entry is worth a look.  Be prepared for a guffaw !  And similarly in their assessments of other climate-denialists, not to mention other areas of non-science. )

       Your side-note comment on the Jacobson 2015 study (mentioned briefly on "another thread" on Sks — "New Paper Shows That Renewables ... " ) ~ yes true there were only about 80 (date 2015) comments there, and many of them were of low quality and unhelpful, and probably you glanced over those ones predating your 2017 comment.  But Jacobson draws a long bow into the technological future.   IMO his emphasis on hydrogen fuel was way over the top, and as you rightly say his hydro-power summation is nowadays shown as a big error.   #Nevertheless, none of that is in any way an excuse not to press ahead with wind/solar conversion at a much faster rate than we are doing currently [and IMO that aspect makes the Jacobson study a very low priority for discussing as a "hot topic". ]

17686. Rbrooks502 at 17:53 PM on 28 September 2017
       Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes
       

       cool thanks.

       I will follow with more as I progress. I thank for taking the time with me. 

17687. nigelj at 16:17 PM on 28 September 2017
       The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
       

       Eclectic @34, definitely interesting thanks. I hear you.

       I read The Hitchhikers Guide when quite young. He has written several other similar books all well worth a read,  just in case you haven't come across them, easily enough googled, especially So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.

       I'm a little bit interested in human motivation. I did some clinical psychology  at varsity just a couple of introductory papers, (I needed some extra credits) so hence my interest in climate scepticism and its driving causes. People are a bit complex and unique in their psychology and mix of motivations, and this makes climate denial a bit challenging to deal with, but there are a few main things of course noted from time to time on this website. I'm convinced theres no one thing you can boil climate scepticism down to, its a complex combination of vested interests, poor science knowledge,  political reasons, resentment of rules, psychological factors, personal ambitions, ego, and sense of entitlement etc.

       The human race. Brilliant but mad as you say. That's evolution for you, complex and untidy.

17688. NorrisM at 16:08 PM on 28 September 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38
       

       Here is Ross McKitrick's analysis of the Millar et al paper that seems to have caused such a kerfuffle:

       "Millar et al. attracted controversy for stating that climate models have shown too much warming in recent decades, even though others (including the IPCC) have said the same thing. Zeke Hausfather disputed this using an adjustment to model outputs developed by Cowtan et al. The combination of the adjustment and the recent El Nino creates a visual impression of coherence. But other measures not affected by the issues raised in Cowtan et al. support the existence of a warm bias in models. Gridcell extreme frequencies in CMIP5 models do not overlap with observations. And satellite-measured temperature trends in the lower troposphere run below the CMIP5 rates in the same way that the HadCRUT4 surface data do, including in the tropics. The model-observational discrepancy is real, and needs to be taken into account especially when using models for policy guidance."

       This article, which can be referenced on the ClimateEtc Judith Curry website seems to be reasonably balanced.  I first read it and thought that maybe the "overstatement of the models" was an overstatement.  But .3C is a fair bit when we are talking about 1C since pre-industrial times.

       I see that in fact the IPCC did acknowledge in 2013 that the models were predicting warming beyond observations.  I took a look at their chart which is actually updated by McKitrick to reflect the 2016 El Nino.  So this is why Ben Santer, in the APS 2014 panel review acknowledged that Christy's claim of a significant variance was "old news".  At least it has now been acknowledged.  Does not change the question as to what we should do about it.

       On that point, I am still waiting for someone to respond to my question (on another stream) regarding the Jacobson 2015 study on wind and solar costs of replacing fossil fuels in the US by 2050.  I have seen no criticism whatever by this website of the June 2017 paper of Clack (NOAA) et al published  by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences which has  roundly criticized the Jacobson cost study to the point of questioning its validity.  

       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Satellites do not measure temperatures, they measure brightness.  Brightness is converted to temperatures via computer models with 5 times the error bars of the surface temperature record.  Satellites do not measure the surface, where people live, they measure where airplanes fly.

17689. bozzza at 13:54 PM on 28 September 2017
       Right-wing media could not be more wrong about the 1.5°C carbon budget paper
       

       FDDs

       The temperatures above 80N are really starting to trend... and business and industry need long lead times to react properly.

       Resource bottlenecks have always been the predicted result when people start realising all at once what the truth is. Why is this truth being hidden from the consuming taxpayer who a) lives in a democracy and b) is supposed to have consumer rights?

       We need to decide what is the most important information and each tell a thousand of our friends as fast as possible: I put it that this graph is one of those most important pieces of information...

17690. NotMuchHope at 13:34 PM on 28 September 2017
       It's too hard
       

       Seven years later, with all the action of the last decade having produced st best a plateau in emissions rise with minimal increases (and even then I have reasons to doubt that this is actually a sign of an end to increased emissions) is this article still valid?  Every year without a reduction in emissions makes the future reduction curve necessary steeper and steeper -I think Dr. Hansen has said it will take 6% decrease each year now to prevent 1.5 degrees in increase, and probably some car removal geoengineering scheme which may or may not even be possible.  

17691. Eclectic at 13:32 PM on 28 September 2017
       The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
       

       Nigelj @33 and prior ,

       The Mail is a fine example of "corporate insanity" ( I almost said "institutional insanity" — but that might be misconstrued! ).    Insane in the Latinic sense of being unsound of mind or body.

       Of course, corporate insanity derives from individual insanity (at the leadership level).    The English language lacks the terminology to label the type of insanity demonstrable in climate-denialists / anti-vaxxers / Flat-Earthers etc.     "Legal insanity" is defined over a narrow range, which only partly overlaps with the "medical insanity" (which is primarily a psychosis-based diagnosis/definition).   Yet every day around us, we notice examples of degrees of insanity : exhibiting as poor decision-making and a partial denial of reality — and all at a much higher intensity than in the average mature sane person.    But the insanity of climate-science-denialism is the prime type being of interest here at SkS.

       Which leads us back to J. Curry and her motivations.  I am sure, Nigelj, that she is moved by many considerations (but lacking what Mr OPOF calls the rational consideration of distant motives).

       In my post #24 above, I sieved out 5 examples of Curry's "position".   I started with wikipedia and desmogblog, and jumped back and forth between Curry's own blog and those sources (plus a few others).   Desmogblog had a number of its links broken (or not easily available) so I didn't verify everything on them — nor did I think it warranted the waste of time to pursue them. ( Though I am half-puzzled by Tom13's violent contention that the quote: "And that's not human" has any real difference from the quote: "And that is not caused by humans".   I will have to give a shrug about that one ! )

       Fortunately I had a considerable amount of prior experience of Curry's blog, so I was able to quickly judge/assess the concordance of the selected quotes with Curry's historical position (or rather more accurately : her range of self-contradictory positions plural ).

       For my sins, I had (from some years ago) chosen to examine parts of Curry's blog extending up to now [but skipping sections randomly, of course].   Two motives for that examination ~ (A) I knew that Curry was one of the trio [Curry, Christy, Spencer] of "contrarians" who were academically active & knowledgeably up-to-date climatologists, and well above the likes of those denialist minds in their twilight years [Lindzen, Singer and suchlike].   And despite reading the mainstream's damning indictment of the trio, I hoped I might find some scientifically logically valid points that Curry had put forward.   But I found none whatsoever.

       ~ (B) I was interested to learn something of her psychology (or perhaps psycho-pathology is the better term).   Why would a nominally-rational person take up a denialist stance?   Putting aside all questions of corruption & financial inducement, there remains the "strange peculiarity of the human mind".    As I had mentioned to Rbrooks502 (on another thread) , there is the actually remarkably widespread condition of Encapsulated Paranoia, where the individual is sane in most areas but psychotic [psychotic = out of touch with reality] in one particular area — the textbook case being the man with paranoid jealousy re his wife/girlfriend.

       However, other types of encapsulated insanity exist, and the scientific-minded readers here will be well aware of the Conspiracy Theorism and other insanities underlying AGW denialism.  Including the pathological resistance to accepting the plain logical evidence produced by the totality of climate scientists.   (A resistance which is multi-factorial, of course.)

       But I am drifting off-topic — yet excusing myself by pointing to the whole basic purpose of SkS being the combination of general information/education plus the countering of (some of) the climate "madness".    Nigelj , please forgive my overly-long post here, but I thought that you, as a wide reader, would find some points of interest in it.   Finishing in a humorous vein — doubtless you are aware of Douglas Adams' classic Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, where some [alien] inspector has given a one-line descriptor/assessment of Planet Earth . . . comprising just two words: "Mostly harmless".   I imagine that if the Inspector were to return to this solar system to assess the human race . . . he would use a 3-word descriptor: "Brilliant but mad".

17692. citizenschallenge at 08:35 AM on 28 September 2017
       Right-wing media could not be more wrong about the 1.5°C carbon budget paper
       

       I was wondering about that, thank you for clarified it so well, ... and for giving the Arctic some respect.  ;)

17693. nigelj at 06:54 AM on 28 September 2017
       The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
       

       Just reading the above discussion various things come through. Judith Curry is clearly promoting sceptical arguments sometimes over even basic accepted physics, and encouraging doubt about climate change. She is clearly irrational in her thinking. Tom says she has said other things less sceptical, but its the doubt that comes through strongly.

       The interesting thing is she is not specific on her reasoning. Theres a lack of clarity and detail about why she thinks what she thinks, which is frustrating everyone, and just plays into the hands of the denialists.

       Perhaps she is filled with doubts, but unwilling to be open in specific ways, or perhaps she enjoys the attention. Or perhaps she is just a schill for commercial interests and this looks very likely.

       I wish she would be specific, or shut up. I think as a scientist payed out of public funds to some extent (as well as fossil fuel money) she owes us all a duty to be precise and stop in effect spreading nonsense, doubt, climate rumours and vague suspicions.

17694. Tom Dayton at 06:19 AM on 28 September 2017
       Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes
       

       Rbrooks502:

       1. No, that study described in the video did not measure only at the north east coast of the U.S. I don't understand how you got that idea. The narrator clearly says "The Eastern US and near Ascension Island."
       1. The name "Eastern US" means anything to the east of the midline of the continental US.
       2. Ascension Island is in the middle of the southern Atlantic Ocean.
       3. That was only one of many studies measuring the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere. The video (at 3:22) explicitly says "We've also measured the greenhouse effect with satellites and at observatories all around the world." This video does not name them, because this video is not intended to be a survey of the entire scientific literature. This video is merely a simplified, introductory, overview lesson. One recent example of a ground-based study done in Oklahoma and Alaska in the US, was Feldman et al. (2015). (The news release summarizing it is here.) You can easily find more studies by reading the Intermediate and Advanced tabbed panes of that SkS post that has that video. Click the links in that text to find the details of the studies being cited. You can also look in the reference list of any study's paper. You can search the internet for other studies that reference that study. For example, you can use Google Scholar to find that study, and click the "Cited by" link below the study's name. And you can borrow a climatology or atmospheric science textbook.
       2. The amount of CO2 is not relevant for studies that verify the greenhouse gas signature spectra of absorption and emission. The patterns of absorption and emission are the same regardless of the amount of CO2. A separate question is whether the total amount of downwelling radiation in that CO2-signature-pattern has increased as the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased. The answer is yes, having been measured by Feldman et al. I linked to above.
       3. Wikipedia has an explanation of gas escaping the atmosphere to space.
17695. nigelj at 06:05 AM on 28 September 2017
       The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
       

       Tom13 @28

       "There is a huge body of scientific research showing CO2 has been a trailing indicator of climate change over the last 1.5m years, not the leading indicator.

       This trailing indicator phrasing of yours is unclear. The ice core samples show a strong correlation of CO2 and temperature and remember we have good causation as well given CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The samples show CO2 peaks lag temperature peaks, but the published research demonstrates with good certainty that while solar changes  caused the initial temperature peaks, CO2 was the dominant factor in the warming and amplified the warming as below:

       skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

       And more recent published evidence shows CO2 may well not have lagged temperature as below. So you are wrong on both counts. Just as Judith Curry is wrong to claim CO2 is not the main control knob.  

       www.scientificamerican.com/article/ice-core-data-help-solve/

17696. HK at 04:26 AM on 28 September 2017
       Potholer on the 1.5C carbon budget paper controversy
       

       Nigelj @3:
       No, the Millar study uses mid-19^th century as baseline, not 20^th.
       Dana's latest post contains most of the points I planned to use in my response to you, for instance that the HadCRUT4 data shows less warming because of its incomplete coverage in the Arctic.
       So, I agree with Dana that 1.5^oC might be impossible, but 2^oC is of course still better than 3^oC and much, much better than 4^oC!

17697. ubrew12 at 04:19 AM on 28 September 2017
       Right-wing media could not be more wrong about the 1.5°C carbon budget paper
       

       "the study authors... looked at how much carbon will be emitted at the time we reach 1.5°C warming"  In what way is this a useful metric?  It's like saying "if you burn this much diesel, your ship will get to Portsmouth harbor in one hour".  And a minute later, it'll sail right past it on its own momentum ("...because of what’s known as the ‘thermal inertia’ of the oceans" - yup). 

       A few years ago, Dr Mann published some calculations that indicated that if the ECS is 3C, as expected, then at todays 405ppm of CO2 we'll essentially hit 2C by 2100 (this assumes coal aerosols rain out, a 0.5C hit).  I find this a far more useful way of discussing how much wiggle room Earth has left before we exceed these targets.

17698. Geomancer at 03:55 AM on 28 September 2017
       Right-wing media could not be more wrong about the 1.5°C carbon budget paper
       

       Great explanation.  I saw the potholer video and he also gave this a thorough debunking.  Here are a couple more.

       https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-climate-models-have-not-exaggerated-global-warming

       http://www.factandmyth.com/climate-change/no-scientists-did-not-exaggerate-global-warming

17699. Inti at 03:50 AM on 28 September 2017
       It’s settled: 90–100% of climate experts agree on human-caused global warming
       

       I hope it is not off topic here to ask whether there is a case for addressing the "consensus is not science" argument directly, as a myth in its own right? I appreciate that it isn't a claim about the content of the science itself, but it is a "metaclaim" about the methodology and philosphy of science in the context of climate. And it is an argument hat seems to come up frequently.

       Here, for what it's worth is how I'd frame a reply to the claim:

       Climate scientists don't base their conclusions on consensus. They base it on evidence, and that evidence is overwhelming.
       Consensus matters for the rest of us when we try to understand areas of science where we are not experts. That is when it is sensible to see what most true experts think. In this case they think that climate change is real and human-caused.
       In the same way, if I get cancer and someone claims that I can cure it myself with vitamin pills I will ask myself what the consensus of oncologists thinks.

       The common denialist meme says that "science does not work by consensus". Of course, that is true, but it is a straw man; nobody ever claims that it does. The point about consensus is that it arises amongst climate from the convergence or consilience of many strands of evidence, not that consensus is the evidence on which practicing climate scientists build their conclusions.

       So consensus is not central to the science itself, but to the understanding that the rest of us form as non-scientists (or at least non climate scientists). How else can a non-specialist form a well-founded opinion about any field in which they are not experts, but by asking themselves whether there is an informed consensus amongst actual experts? The only alternative would be for each of us to take advanced degrees in each field of expertise ourselves, before making a judgment. Good luck with that!

       (By the way, I think John Cook and colleagues are wise to shift from talking about consensus of evidence to consilience or convergence, to avoid confusion about that point.)

       Accepting the consensus is not a guarantee that we will be right. That's because neither science or any other form of human study promises certainty or "proof" (except, possibly , mathematics?). Consensus could be wrong, but at any one time it is the best bet, and other positions are sucker bets. It gives us the best chance of being right.

       Of course, that is only true if the consensus has arisen from well-founded scientific practice. Climate science is so formed, despite the deniers' best attempts to show otherwise. It is a mature, theoretically sophisticated field with a wide range of empirical and analytical methods at its disposal.

17700. Rbrooks502 at 03:42 AM on 28 September 2017
       Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes
       

       Tom@46 So after reading 1-3 as you posted and watching the video, one thing stands out. The video shows scientific study at the north east coast of the US to measure the IR. Why was this location chosin? Wouldnt the high population density have an effect on not only the CO2 produced but also the amount of IR released out? If so (and I believe it matters)  Wouldnt it be more logical to do this same experiment over all other areas? Using this experiment is very limited. While I love airplanes, this sole experiment is very limited and I think it should not be used as a sole test. It would be like putting a CO2 measuring instrument only on volcanic islands.  Imagine creating a thermometer if you will for the planet by using many measurements along the same criteria. IE more airplanes going up continously evenly spaced through out all the areas. 

       Also, (side thought) the thought of other gasses beside hydrogen and helium at a rate of 53KG per second be the only gases released into space came to mind. To date these are the only gases being released out of the atmosphere as far as I know. Do you have any data on this?

       Your thoughts?

       I will continue on you list and post where applicable. 

Prev  346  347  348  349  350  351  352  353  354  355  356  357  358  359  360  361  Next