Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 Next
Comments 19151 to 19200:
-
One Planet Only Forever at 06:28 AM on 13 July 2017Why the Republican Party's climate policy obstruction is indefensible
To be clearer:
"... moved by rational consideration of distant motives ..." with 'distant' understood to mean 'beyond short-term personal interest - consideration for all other life and the distant future'.
The need to chance the course of human development to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals and work to expand/improve those goals with Good Reason could be an effective part of the presented criticisms of actions by the likes of Team Trump. Doing so would expose that many other actions by the likes of Team Trump are damaging/unacceptable, not just their stance on climate inaction.
-
nigelj at 06:22 AM on 13 July 2017Planet Hacks: Food
A large recent research study shows vegetarians do seem to live longer. This was in our media a while ago. I'm not a vegetarian, and would be unlikely to cut all meat out of my diet, however it has made me think about how much meat I eat.
I saw another similar study somewhere. There does seem to be this emerging evidence that low meat and high vegetable diets are pretty healthy, provided you get plenty of plant protein and sources of iron etc.
Clearly animal farming also causes other issues like high carbon emissions, high use of water ultimately, pollution of rivers etc.
So several "lines" of evidence, or the consilence of evidence suggest a low to moderate meat diet is a good thing.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 06:18 AM on 13 July 2017Why the Republican Party's climate policy obstruction is indefensible
Climate scientists should continue to increase awareness and better understanding, including rebuking and rebutting whatever ridiculous impressions/ideas a USA Red Team/Blue Team creates. And that includes pre-emptive efforts to denounce/discredit the validity of a USA Red Team - Blue Team exercise given the already completed and far more legitimate Broad Spectrum evaluation by the IPCC (Broad hoped to be not as jarring to the snowflakes in the denier mob as the Rainbow Plus I previously used to describe it).
There are so many ways to delay the required correction of developed behaviour in the USA, and so much desire to maintain the undeserved perceptions of prosperity and opportunity, that it appears that the wealthiest USA deliberate delayers will need to be very effectively targeted by international sanctions.
That is the globally established non-violent way of addressing trouble-makers who will not be "... moved by rational consideration of distant - other than short-term personal interest - motives ..." (a portion of one of my favorite statements by John Stuart Mill in "On Liberty").
-
ubrew12 at 06:03 AM on 13 July 2017Those 80 graphs that got used for climate myths
I remember being directed to a website purporting to show all the different studies, around the World, that supported the 'Medieval Warm Period' (WMP) as a global phenomenon. It was certainly impressive: a large compendium of studies (most of them anecdotal). First thing I thought was: who has the time to compile such an impressive array of studies and yet doesn't have the time to properly integrate those studies for year and location? My answer is someone whose purpose is to cast shadow and not light. They're betting that most people will be blinded by the sheer number and give up and just accept the conclusion of the web-site.
-
carn at 04:52 AM on 13 July 2017It's too hard
@Tom Curtis
"Now, if the 5 billion bushels used for biofuels creats a threat to human life by using essential foods, so also does the equivalent amount used for animal feed"
Correct.
But if in a situation factors A, B, C and D cause death of humans, the deliberate introduction of a factor E, which also causes deaths, is not ethically made ok by A, B, C and D existing. It is still ethically questionable (or at least one should care about the negative consequences and minimize them).
"and certainly never suggest regulations restricting that use of corn so as to maximize the corn available for human consumption."
Trying to change the existing factors A, B, C and D is very different from not introducing factor E; changing something about the former might or might not be difficult; not introducing E is in itself always easy; just do not do it. Hence, it might be that the position of being against introducing factor E but also not to do much about A to D could be a reasonable position, if trying to alter A to D is expected to be futile.
Note, that i just try to explain how the people you consider to not believe their own argument, might actually believe their own argument and have a - from their POV - somewhat reasonable and ethically sound position (Important word in this sentence: "might"; of course many of the people you talk about might also be simply incoherent or have not thought enough).
@Eclectic
Personally, i tend to be against many GHG reduction proposals (in the way proposed by those actors themselves) suggested by anyone more to the left and especially by people devoted to ecological issues; basic reason is that they both tend not to understand what can be expected of scientific progress, when and how sometimes things are technically actually not possible, the efficiency of central planning and the unseen problems possibly caused by interference in free markets.
Entrust them with the task of decarbonization and give them the power to do so and i would expect the probability for disaster to be too high.
I generally prefer that their ideas and proposals are only implemented in rather diluted form by center or conservative politicians (though of course, they sometimes do too little).
"No need for "the piles of bodies" which will happen with even worse floods, wildfires, droughts and forced migrations, that occur if we fail to act in a sensible intelligent way (to slow down & halt the global warming)."
Sorry, but the maximum capacity of the state to produce dead bodies is only rivaled by earthquakes, impacts, volcanoes and diseases (only the latter influenced by climate; but far more influenced by ecos banning DDT and other useful stuff to fight mosquitos); so i will remain sceptical about suggestions proposing very drastic change.
And this is supported by seemingly many people being unaware about the problems entrusting the state to implement drastic changes can cause.
And about technical progress, think about H-bomb; its still the best option for large scale destruction; and it will likely remain for the next decades, maybe even for longer, potentially even "forever"; because it might be the best large scale destruction mechanism in any reasonable way available, that nature has to offer. In 2050 it will probably still the best and only option if one wants to destroy a mega city with a single strike.
Such technical boundaries can exist in any field and no plannable research and development can take us across the boundary (evidence: defense spending in general, especially for nuclear weapons; if anything more destructive would be achievable with a few decades of development, it would already have been devloped).
Even something like processing power might hit a "wall" in 15-25 years; cause nature is a nasty bitch and has its rules and does not care about what we would like to develop.
So while a lot will change to 2050, it could well be that the certain changes we desire simply will not arise.
-
BaerbelW at 03:28 AM on 13 July 2017Conservatives are again denying the very existence of global warming
Climate Feedback published a scathing review of Delingpole's Breitbart article about this white paper.
-
Eclectic at 02:34 AM on 13 July 2017Why the Republican Party's climate policy obstruction is indefensible
Quite so, Michael Sweet @66 .
Truthful science is going to get a hammering, either way. it is a Lose/Lose situation, unless some smart thinking finds a way to mitigate the harm.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:15 AM on 13 July 2017Planet Hacks: Food
Great "Brief" delivery of helpful information.
Like all brief punchy deliveries it fails to mention some important points (it has to fail to mention them to remain "Brief and Punchy").
A major point about changing diet is to do it based on the region of the planet you are in. Buying Local is a potential big deal, but only if the locally grown stuff is more sustainably produced than it being shipped in from somewhere else.
An example of that point is the value of eating sustainably harvested meat like cariboo and arctic char in the Arctic. It may also be better to ship in vegetable and fruit than 'greenhouse grow it locally in far Northern climates' depending on the source of heat used and how they are shipped.
That example flies in the face of the simple premise of reducing meat consumption.
Another helpful point would be to add about only buying what you eat is to buy what you need to eat. There are some pretty silly developed cultural beliefs like:
- eating beef is somehow a Prime sign of success, especially the "Too Die For Oversized Steak Dinner". (4 ounces of beef delivers about 30 gm of protein which is what most bodies can process from a meal - try to get a serving that small in a restaurant)
- or the absurdity of places like Brazilian Restaurants serving 13 types of meat to everyone at Dinner (as much as the customer wants to force in at one meal - even though the body will not effectively process it and potentially have kidney problems trying to process it).
-
michael sweet at 02:15 AM on 13 July 2017Why the Republican Party's climate policy obstruction is indefensible
Climate scientists need to be careful about refusing to participate. If the Red team is Lindzen and Monkford the Blue team is Spencer and Curry it might lead to a refutation of the IPCC report.
-
Eclectic at 01:58 AM on 13 July 2017Why the Republican Party's climate policy obstruction is indefensible
OPOF @64 , the red-team/blue-team approach to climate science may be the current "talking-piece-du-jour" for denialists & ultra-right-wing politicians. But I think they will meet you with hostility if you suggest a "rainbow" approach ;-)
Scaddenp @63 , the GOP politicians could go either way, about setting up (or not) a red-team/blue-team Investigation or Inquiry. Certainly they would like to set up a rigged inquiry : and certainly they know that a truly fair/impartial inquiry would inevitably show the denialists to be completely wrong.
Personally, I think the genuine climate scientists should reject any kind of inquiry (of the proposed type) and they should state assertively A/ that a "new" red-team/blue-team assessment would be a great waste of the taxpayers' money, and B/ that such assessments had already been done and are always being done continually every year by by large numbers of scientists as part of normal everyday science.
The anti-science politicians in power might well decide to try to carry out a red-team/blue-team "Inquiry", despite a high certainty of an adverse decision (adverse to them). Because they would gain in the short term (and if they can't rig a favorable result, then they will still gain by drawing out a fair Inquiry for many years. )
They can beat the genuine climate scientists over the head for not participating in the Inquiry — for the non-participation will look bad to the non-thinking public. And if participation does occur, then [the GOP politicians] will publicly use that participation as an admission by the scientists that the mainstream science is so uncertain & doubtful, as to be very much in need of a thorough inquiry.
The anti-science politicians would gain tactical advantage in forestalling journalists' questioning of (lack of) Climate Change policy and (lack of) action or leadership :-
— "The science is not settled, obviously."
— "We are actively looking into these questions."
— "It is premature for me to comment on that."
— "No, I can't comment, because the matter is [sub judice]."
— "As soon as the Inquiry is finished, we will study its report and decide on appropriate action."
In summary : it would be a very unskilled politician who couldn't arrange for the Inquiry to be stacked with so many submissions, as to take many years to complete. An excellent way to continue to stonewall, without being perceived as stonewalling!
-
earthking at 23:15 PM on 12 July 2017Those 80 graphs that got used for climate myths
More leftist lies to propagate their ideological nonsense.
Moderator Response:[JH] Blatant sloganeering snipped.
[PS]
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
earthking at 23:10 PM on 12 July 2017Conservatives are again denying the very existence of global warming
Oh, I see it is just fine that leftist wili violates policy with a radical leftist nutcase like Noam Chomsky. I am positive posting a "political" video of the informed and far more plausible right wing would be unacceptable: "Political, off-topic or ad hominem comments will be deleted. Updated Comments Policy..."
Moderator Response:[JH] Blatant sloganeering snipped.
-
earthking at 23:00 PM on 12 July 2017Conservatives are again denying the very existence of global warming
And then there is the hockey stick and the incriminating evidence "in writing" that damnably condemns the climate change sycophants; or would that be psychophants? There is no logical or scientific evidencial explanation for "the pause." Did man suddenly call on the cooling gods to reverse warming? It used to be that science was defined by theories based upon repeated experimentation and explainable from a formulated hypothesis. And even under that premise, honest scientists would admit, there is still a margin for error--possibly completely false--no matter the evidence. As is always the case: follow the money.
Moderator Response:[JH] Blatant sloganeering snipped.
-
kar at 21:36 PM on 12 July 2017Those 80 graphs that got used for climate myths
The "80-graph table" should really be put into an expandable small database or table here at SkS for future expansion, and with links to the REAL tables/articles!
PS:
Allways tag links to fake science or denial-articles with attribute rel="nofollow":
This is important to avoid search crawlers to Google and others to elevate their hit rank!! -
One Planet Only Forever at 13:37 PM on 12 July 2017Why the Republican Party's climate policy obstruction is indefensible
My understanding is than the IPCC process is far more robust than a USA Red Team - Blue Team Competition would be.
I see the IPCC process as a rainbow team approach (plus teams beyond the visible spectrum) all having to agree on the understanding/wording of an issue with the restriction that the wording must be supported by, and be consistent with, all of the available information brought into the evaluation by the global spectrum of paticipants.
A result of a USA Red Team - Blue Team Game (potentially gamed significantly by a few powerful wealthy people and how it gets covered in the media) could not be expected to come close to the comprehensiveness and legitimacy of the IPCC results.
-
nigelj at 13:11 PM on 12 July 2017Those 80 graphs that got used for climate myths
I don't know if the study tells lies, but in my view it certainly tells lies by omission, misleading claims, and manipulated graphs. It would be interesting to know if its possible to take some sort of legal action against climate denialists for all this. Misleading claims are the basis of false advertising laws, so some precedent is there.
You would at least need to prove both misleading claims, and that real harm was caused, as that's how the law basically works. I'm no lawyer, and would be interested in expert comment.
Maybe a solar power company could bring a claim that the denialists misleading nonsense is causing them harm. Maybe governments should take a case that denialist misleading nonsense is undermining efforts to combat climate change, and thus causing harm to the public good.
Make the denialists sweat, and realise they cant get away with everything.
If its not possible under existing laws, pass laws making it illegal to mislead people with lies by omission in science reports. The IPCC is upfront about the full picture, and uncertainties, so why shouldn't everyone be expected to do the same? -
scaddenp at 12:53 PM on 12 July 2017Why the Republican Party's climate policy obstruction is indefensible
The peabody case was interesting. Deniers on whole are trying to convince themselves or a gulliable public that they have a point. That is much harder to when points can be debated by actual scientist. One reason I would like to red-blue team approach and bring on the popcorn. On the other hand, some of advocates of the approach are just looking for soft money and its hard to feel good about that.
I suspect that there are some astute GOP people that would see the likely outcome of the red/blue team approach and quietly can it. I love the assumption that climate scientists are blue team. Maybe nowdays most are given way they are treated, but certainly wasnt always the case. Which team is Richard Alley playing for?
-
Bob Loblaw at 10:48 AM on 12 July 2017Why the Republican Party's climate policy obstruction is indefensible
...and lastly (for the moment), if NorrisM really wants to see what a court of law would do when "the two sides" face off in court over climate, I suggest he read this article describing the results of a recent court case.
https://www.desmogblog.com/2016/06/07/peabodys-outlier-gang-couldnt-shoot-straight
Hint: the "skeptic" side does not come off looking very good.
-
Bob Loblaw at 10:44 AM on 12 July 2017Why the Republican Party's climate policy obstruction is indefensible
NorrisM: I have also posted a comment over on the models thread.
As for your statement "I think you are saying that the observational information is not good enough to explain the increase in temperature."
No, that is not a proper interpretation. The observational information is good enough to explain the increase in temperature, for the most part, within the uncertainty limits of the observations. It's just that the uncertainty is larger the further back in time you go, and thus the power of explanation is weaker (and may always be limited).
The error in logic that is often made is to think that a larger difference means the models have failed. They have not, because we cannot know if the larger difference is due to model error or poor measurement. We also have difficulty in using that difference to improve the model, because we may be chasing an observational error, not reality.
A lot of effort is made to try to find additonal sources of information on the past. We can't go back and measure temperature at weather stations again, but we can find more lake sediments, more tree rings,, more ice cores, etc. and improve the methods of deriving temperature information from them, though.
-
Bob Loblaw at 10:33 AM on 12 July 2017Models are unreliable
Also following from NorrisM's comment on the thread Tom Dayton refers to:
The model spread is also not an ideal representation of the uncertainty in the prediction, because the number of models is very limited and the type of things they include is different.
RealClimate has set up a page that discusses such things in more detail.
-
bjchip at 09:50 AM on 12 July 2017Those 80 graphs that got used for climate myths
Can "the scientists" sue these people for defamation ? Is there perhaps a class action that can be taken ordering them to cease lying or pay the penalty for it?
Yet lying in public is "protected free speech" and the only answer to it is more speech.
-
Tom Curtis at 08:35 AM on 12 July 2017It's too hard
Carn @62, in recent history 4.3 to 5.3 billion bushels of corn have been used for animal feed (2011/12 to 2014/15, see table 1 here). Over the same interval, 4.6 to 5.2 billion bushels have been used for fuel alcohol, a fairly consistent 140 million bushels have been used for alcohol for manufacturing use, and human consumption, a fairly consistent 490 million bushels have been used for high fructose corn syrup, and a fairly consistent 200 million bushels have been used for cereals (ie, direct human consumption).
Now, if the 5 billion bushels used for biofuels creats a threat to human life by using essential foods, so also does the equivalent amount used for animal feed (which provides only a tenth of the human food quantity in animal protein). Likewise the much smaller amounts used for corn syrup or bourbon. Yet the people who think the amount used for biofuels leads to starvation never draw the same conclusion about those other usages, and certainly never suggest regulations restricting that use of corn so as to maximize the corn available for human consumption.
That leads me to conclude that those people do not believe their own argument; or that to the extent that they do, they do not care about people starving due to lack of corn. If they did, they would be equally concerned about the other inefficient (in terms of food content) uses of corn.
I agree that much of the biofuel industry is a boondoggle driven by a political desire to subsidize the profits of corn farmers. It is not, however, a threat to human life.
-
nigelj at 08:07 AM on 12 July 2017Why the Republican Party's climate policy obstruction is indefensible
NorrisM @57
You still like this red team blue team approach, and appear to want it run as a court process etc. I just think you are very wrong on both issues.
I note you appear to be a lawyer, so do have vested interests or a probable bias. I can appreciate this, and I would maybe do the same in your shoes and want a court approach, but it's still a bias.
I think courts or similar processes are no place to decide matters of science. With respect neither judges, lawyers or lay people on juries are in any position to analyse such complex science and pass reasonable judgement.
Not even expert witnesses could resolve the issue. Climate science runs to over 12,000 research papers and all are important, and its hard to see your process dealing adequately with that.
We are seeing similar huge difficulties in complex financial fraud cases, which are beyond the expertise of judges and juries etc, but in those cases it's hard to do anything other than a court process.
With climate science its both feasible and far more appropriate and sensible to have large review bodies like the IPCC. This was designed specifically because of the problems with court style processes and even inquisitorial processes as in the european legal system.
-
nigelj at 07:55 AM on 12 July 2017Why the Republican Party's climate policy obstruction is indefensible
Norris M @56
You say "I do not know if you are able to do this but if you were to elimate both the 1998 El Nino and the 2015-2016 El Nino from the data, how would the models stack up to actual observations excluding those events?"
Look at figure 3 in this graph below. And also the article in general.
skepticalscience.com/foster-and-rahmstorf-measure-global-warming-signal.html
It removes all el nino and la nina events from the trend. It's from work by Foster and Rhamstorf. You can plainly see what is left is a roughly linear trend of clearly increasing temperatures, and quite steep. It's therefore clear el nino is not the reason for increasing temperatures.
A picture paints a thousand words, and when there are arguments and disputes its best to go back to the basic data as in a graph or table.
Unfortuantely it doesnt have model predictions grafted on, but you will find the models run in the early 1990s have predicted this trend pretty well, but are still slightly under in the last few years as I have said. They are not sufficiently under to be some huge concern, imho. It's certainly false and at least a huge exaggeration to say the models failed to predict the pause and / or dont predict temperature trends adequately.
It's believed models are slightly under, as oceans are absorbing more heat than first thought, and this is delaying warming slightly. But a delay is only a delay.
Regarding Santer and Held not talking up over discrepencies. I dont know why, and we may never know why and there could be many reasons, some people are a little shy by nature for a start, or just get side tracked by other issues they feel are more important. Dont read things into things.
-
nigelj at 07:18 AM on 12 July 2017Those 80 graphs that got used for climate myths
More very unreliable, unrepresentative 80 studies research, with giant cherrypicks and manipulations and time frame problems.
The following link is a list of published research studies on past climate histories as at 2014. I did a rough count and there appear to be about 500 studies! They also say its far from a complete list.
So 80 studies proves nothing, and they have not demonstrated it is representative. Plenty of studies show a hockey stick eg Briffa, Esper, and they are proper, relevant studies
www.c3headlines.com/list-climate-history-studies-research-peer-reviewed.html
-
Tom Dayton at 05:32 AM on 12 July 2017Why the Republican Party's climate policy obstruction is indefensible
NorrisM, I have replied to your comment here on the original, appropriate thread.
-
Tom Dayton at 05:28 AM on 12 July 2017Models are unreliable
Response to NorrisM's comment on another thread: Norris wrote "If I understand your first example, this would suggest that it is appropriate to "average" the various model results and compare them with the actual observations."
No. There is only one observation run, so you cannot average it with other observation runs to obtain the observations mean, so you cannot compare the models mean to the observations mean. Instead, you compare the observations run to the statistics of the model runs, including not just the model runs mean but the model runs spread.
Likewise, we have only one observations run of Earth's temperature because we have only one Earth. You continue to ignore my explanation from weeks ago. As MA Rodger noted, in that comments thread you have merely reiterated your claims from this thread without responding here to the people who gave you information you asked for.
-
NorrisM at 05:24 AM on 12 July 2017Why the Republican Party's climate policy obstruction is indefensible
Eclectic @ 53 and MA Rodger at 54
My reply to MA Rodger is that I started that process of reading the thread starting in 2008 and was prepared to slog through it all, knowing after a very short while that I would hardly understand most of the technical information.
That was until I heard that Perry may very well undertake a Red Team Blue Team investigation which, for a lawyer, is the way to go because it forces both sides to mount their evidence and bring their experts.
In fact, Eclectic, although I fully agree with your comments on the APS Panel regarding preparation ahead of time, we should have what is the equivalent of a Supreme Court hearing on this. It still troubles me that Santer and Held did not speak up more strongly on the discrepancies (and I note no one has yet commented on that). But the problem I had with both the APS enquiry and the Berkeley Red Team Blue Team project is that they did not follow through with what we have come to expect in a common law justice system. An independent judge (or judges) listening to both sides of the argument and their experts, that panel of judges coming to a decision, and then providing their reasons. Any dissenting judges would also provide their reasons.
In the case of the APS Panel, the Board of Directors one year later came out with a revised statement that basically was the same as the previous one (after backing off of the word "incontrovertible") but without providing any reasons.
In the case of the Berkeley project, Mueller (sp) really acted like a judge in the European system where the judges get actively involved in searching out for evidence on their own. This system may or may not be better than our adversarial system but I like our adversarial system because it is open. Basically, Mueller hired his own guy and came up with his own reasons and ignored the evidence of both sides or certainly did not use it.
What we will be relying on as Trump takes a run at our institutions, is an independent judiciary with no axe to grind. That I am sure is why Judith Curry does not want the NAS to conduct the review. I fully understand that some scientific bodies felt that they had to make a stand on the question of climate change but it does then hit their independence when later asked to preside over any adversarial process to consider the very issue upon which they have come out with a policy.
When the APS came out with their statement after the Koonin chaired APS Panel, I am sure that one of the discussions amongst the Board was how much they could "modify" their statement now that they had taken a stand without causing a major issue not just in the press but in the world.
So if there is to be a Red Team Blue Team organized by the Department of Energy, it would probably be better to place the responsibility in some agency that has not come out one way or the other on this issue. I still have some misgivings with this rather than the NAS but it might be that the NAS itself would pass on it.
For those that say this is a "waste of time" I can only repeat myself. It is called RealPolitik. As lawyers, we used to refer to the "Golden Rule". He who has the gold makes the rules. I hate to say it but you know who makes the rules in the US at this time and for the foreseeable future. That is why I think the climate science community should sign on to this process and be a part of it.
Perhaps this website should set up a separate section to consider the issues that should be considered by such a Red Team Blue Team.
Who knows, perhaps Trump will only sign on to this process if he has some assurances that 'he will win". If the panel is "weighted' one way or the other it would destroy its credibility. From what I have seen of Koonin, I do think that he would ensure that the panel had representation from both sides but that the majority of the panel were truly independent.
I truly think that the Red Team Blue Team structure should be modified to require the panel to provide its recommendation and reasons for its decisions. As with judgments of any appellate body, there could be dissenting opinions.
-
NorrisM at 04:48 AM on 12 July 2017Why the Republican Party's climate policy obstruction is indefensible
nigelj @ 52 and scaddenp @ 50.
I certainly get the message that models cannot predict 10 year cycles. I guess what I should have asked Bob Loblaw are the model predictions and their variance based upon: 1. Period 1900 to present; and 2. 1975 to present.
Thanks nigelj for your explanations of the periods of temperature increase and decrease (or levelling off) during the 20th century. I know that one of the pet peeves of Lindzen (from one essay by him) has been the use of aerosols to "adjust" models. All very confusing for the layman. See my comments to Eclectic and MA Rodger below.
But if the models are within one SD over 20 years then this is certainly material information. Reading Christy's chart you would not think so.
-
NorrisM at 04:30 AM on 12 July 2017Why the Republican Party's climate policy obstruction is indefensible
Bob Loblaw @51.
If I understand your first example, this would suggest that it is appropriate to "average" the various model results and compare them with the actual observations. In your example, the model of 50:50 chance is correct because the average of the models is bang on with the theory.
Although statistics is not my strong suit (I have to admit I did take one course in my undergrad degree (BA Economics), do I understand that a bell curve of the GCM results are within one standard deviation. If so, what percentage of one SD?
I do not know if you are able to do this but if you were to elimate both the 1998 El Nino and the 2015-2016 El Nino from the data, how would the models stack up to actual observations excluding those events?
As to the second example, I think you are saying that the observational information is not good enough to explain the increase in temperature.
-
rugbyguy59 at 04:19 AM on 12 July 2017Conservatives are again denying the very existence of global warming
Thanks, Tom. I greatly appreciate the effort, quick reply, and the hints about how to check these things. If one positive thing has come from the hours spent confronting these people it's that my own knowledge of science, climate, and the Internet continue to grow.
scaddenp @6 He's a lukewarmer and somehow the idea that small increases in temp "exaggerated by homogenization" can cause these big changes in the real world makes sense to him... without making him think; Wow, these are some big changes.....! -
michael sweet at 03:07 AM on 12 July 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #27
Chriskoz,
The US Navy has already made jet fuel from CO2 recovered from sea water. They estimate the cost at about US$3-6 per gallon. It is not clear from the article if they have to pay for the electricity they use to run the process. If renewable energy was cheap enough you could make jet (or automobile) fuel but the efficiency of the process is low (internal combustion engines are only about 30% efficient while electric motors are over 90% efficient). In addition, internal combustion motors are high polluting compared to electric if you ike clean air to breathe.
This is modern technology, not a miracle.
-
Eclectic at 02:00 AM on 12 July 2017It's too hard
Carn @62 ,
you are too pessimistic by far. The major problems (caused by AGW) won't be solved by fear & paralysis.
2050 is 33 years away. A third of a century. Look back in history and see what great changes have been achieved in the past 33 years — from the internet/computerization and GPS satellites, to lithium batteries and cheap solar panels. Or the 33 years earlier still [i.e. back to 1950 ..... almost the Fred Flintstone Age ;-) ..... except for the H-bomb, that is! ] .
Now look forward 33 years into the likely future : and at the much faster technological rate of change occurring now and increasingly during that third of a century. And we can do a damn fine job eliminating two-thirds of (present day) CO2 emission rate, using the technology available today. All it needs is some good old-fashioned Can-Do attitude ! (Surely the Can-Do attitude didn't die out in year 2000, did it? )
The remaining one-third of emissions will need more effort and R&D — especially the liquid hydrocarbon fuels for planes and ships. You know it yourself, that the current "biofuels" are a complete scam [carried out for county/state political reasons : not for genuine scientific reasons] as well as being detrimental to actual food-growing (as you well point out).
No, Carn, let's face it — jetfuel and diesel fuel from renewable sources will require advanced catalysis-based chemistry in yet-to-be-built factories (using recycled organic "waste" feedstock) and/or vat-fermentation with algal enzymes (also using "waste" feedstock). The latter is already commencing in a tiny way with small pilot plants — but is still $200 or more per barrel of "oil". But give it another 20 years!
No need for "the piles of bodies" which will happen with even worse floods, wildfires, droughts and forced migrations, that occur if we fail to act in a sensible intelligent way (to slow down & halt the global warming).
Rock and a hard spot. But sitting on our bums will be the worst choice.
-
MA Rodger at 00:53 AM on 12 July 2017Conservatives are again denying the very existence of global warming
John S @8.
Bar one instance, the talk of "ocean" data in this OP/comment-thread refers to SST (sea surface temperature). (Note, there is one statement in the OP saying "oceans are warming" which would sensibly refer to Ocean Heat Content.) The surface air temperature (SAT) above the ocean and also the skin temperature of the ocean will vary greatly with time of day. But unlike on land, it is impractical to monitor SAT at sea to obtain max/min daily values. SST is not greatly affected by time of day, averaging less than ½ºC (as per fig 2 of Kennedy et al 2007) although in still conditions this can be far greater.
-
John S at 23:51 PM on 11 July 2017Conservatives are again denying the very existence of global warming
waht does ocean temperature mean exactly? ... e.g. the whole ocean, the surface waters of the ocean or the air 1 metre or so above the ocean
-
carn at 22:59 PM on 11 July 2017It's too hard
Wow, fast responses.
@59 Tom Curtis:
"One problem with such an approach is that it cannot generate very rapid change."
I agree.
"The longer we take no, or little, effective action, the more rapidly we will have to respond later - and the more rapidly we respond, the higher the economic cost of the response. If we delay long enough, then only direct regulation, and/or direct government capital investment will be rapid enough a response. Delay too much longer after that, and the cost of action will be more than the potentially catastrophic costs of AGW."
That might be the case; but there are some who seem to think we are already past the point of anything but direct action; and others who seem to think that such direct action would in any case outweigh the negative consequences of what the former try to prevent by direct action.
But all this seems to be in my eyes "guesswork"; so it seems we have no way to determine e.g. "till 2025 non-direct mild action is sufficient and its negative consequences would be likely acceptable", "till 2035 non-direct but not so mild action would be sufficient", "till 2040 direct action still less severe than doing nothin would help", "beyond 2040 only drastic direct action would help, but likely would do more damage than what it prevents"; anybody filling such numbers would probably be guessing.
Or is there any reliable study in that direction?
"You may have noted how the president M. Macron has indicated that France should be able to achieve something close to zero nett CO2 emission by 2050 (but you will also have noted that France already has the advantage of much nuclear power). Still, other advanced countries should be able to achieve the same goal — if led by long-sighted statesman-like politicians (rather than the present batch of short-sighted politicians)."
The later being close to my point; we have the politicans we have; they must politically do the job. Does Macron base his goal on a realy factual well thought basis and with already the concept of a plan in mind? And can we therefore expect, that when he and his successors carry out such plans do it with minimized otherwise damage?
Or is Macron just an empty babbler, who just thinks it scores some points to say such things with no actual plan or concept and ending up that somewhere in 2030-35 some hasty stupid things will be done, so enviros can be pleased for the next election?
Pretty hard to tell from the distance.
And my question is:
"Whether and how this risk [of incompetent politicians pursuing ecological goals doing more harm than good] compares to the risk of doing nothing [so to the effect of a 5-6°C warming, which doing nothing might lead to] or only what hurts little about CO2 emissions [so to the effect of a 2-4°C warming, which doing what doesn't hurt might lead to]"
"Carn @59 , I must also ask you to clarify how fitting a billion solar roof-panels will cause "a body pile numbering millions"."
I'll first do it with this one:
"Biofuels:"
Incentives by governments to use biofuels -> higher prices for respective "biofuel" plants -> more area devoted to "biofuel" plants -> higher food prices -> as governments happen to be non-competent they do not do enough about this issue -> some poor people starve due to governments pursuing biofuels.
"solar"
Incentives by goverment to use solar power & government incompetence leads to insufficient funding of grid structure, backup powerplants, storage -> in a period of long but not unexpected low solar output, grid brakes down for several days -> civil unrest -> dead bodies
Doing this for the 13 other points i think is irrelevant, because sometimes governments mess up things so glaringly simple (e.g. building an airport; thats child play compared to decarbonizing economies), that governments if it happen to be at its worst certainly can mess up any of these points
-
Eclectic at 20:57 PM on 11 July 2017It's too hard
Thank you, Tom Curtis. The situation is straightforward.
Carn @59 , you really need to clarify the line of argument you are wishing to make [or perhaps I am wrong in assuming you were trying to make any such thing].
Surely it is difficult to find any historical lesson that can be applied generally to the rest of the world, from the unique event of the "Great Leap Forward" (and the unique situation of then-Communist China, around 60 years ago). And even more difficult to find relevant parallels between the "GLF" and the modern world with respect to the need to de-carbonise the national economies of the world.
You may have noted how the president M. Macron has indicated that France should be able to achieve something close to zero nett CO2 emission by 2050 (but you will also have noted that France already has the advantage of much nuclear power). Still, other advanced countries should be able to achieve the same goal — if led by long-sighted statesman-like politicians (rather than the present batch of short-sighted politicians).
Venezuela is currently a sociological basket case. IMO, no useful lessons are to be learnt there, about solar power / wind power / etcetera.
Carn @59 , I must also ask you to clarify how fitting a billion solar roof-panels will cause "a body pile numbering millions".
Clarity, Carn. Clarity, please!
-
Tom Curtis at 20:19 PM on 11 July 2017It's too hard
carn @59, the preferred option for many policy advisors is to simply place a price on well mixed GHG emissions based on their CO2-eq contribution to warming. Different policy advisors have different preferences as to how to do that, with perhaps the most popular current option being the fee and dividend model were a carbon tax is imposed on emissions, and reimbursed to citizens on an equal per capita basis. The advantage of such mechanisms is that the majority of decisions are made by private actors, with the consequent market efficiency that often entails.
One problem with such an approach is that it cannot generate very rapid change. The longer we take no, or little, effective action, the more rapidly we will have to respond later - and the more rapidly we respond, the higher the economic cost of the response. If we delay long enough, then only direct regulation, and/or direct government capital investment will be rapid enough a response. Delay too much longer after that, and the cost of action will be more than the potentially catastrophic costs of AGW. That point is the AGW "skeptics" end game.
So, in response to your question, currently minimal government action of a type already proven to not "stack up the bodies" by responses to other issues is sufficient to effectively solve the problem. But not taking that minimal action will cost us. Indeed, not taking it in 1990 when the isue was sufficiently resolved that it should have been taken, has already cost us.
-
carn at 19:16 PM on 11 July 2017It's too hard
Sorry if there is already another article for this question, but this is the most fitting a found:
"The bottom line is that while achieving the necessary GHG emissions reductions and stabilization wedges will be difficult, it is possible. And there are many solutions and combinations of wedges to choose from."
I understand this to mean that the only thing proven or at least made plausible is that technically sufficient reductions would be possible.
But that the exact choice and the concrete implementation would require political activity; e.g. choosing the most preferred "wedges" and implementing policies; e.g. deciding to pursue the nuclear wedge and implementing the necessary policy choices (which could be many from selecting the optimal safety requirements - too high and costs are too high and building speed is too low, too low and risk of serious accident is too high - to sufficiently training, equipping and politically supporting riot police, so that anti-nuclear protests are subdued quickly enough).
Is it somewhere/somehow studied if politics is actually capable of doing that?
Is it somewhere/somehow shown that the risks of having politically such far reaching issues decided and implementet by politicians, courts and agencies of "average" competence are lower than the risks from doing nothing or only very limited action about CO2 emissions?
Please understand as background for that question, that in my view it is undeniable that when government does large restructering of economy there is a certain risk - could be well in 1- 10% region - that government just messes things up and little of what is intended is achieved, while some or even many dead bodies pile up.
Most extreme examples would be the great leap forward with a body pile of maybe 30 millions and the holdomor of maybe 7 to 10 millions. A less severe example would be today Venezuela, where "fortunately" the body pile currently numbers maybe only in the hundreds or thousands.
Based on this, i think one should at least consider the issue, that a severe but messed up CO2 reduction effort being enacted upon 2+ billion people (depending upon which nations one considers to have too high per capita emissions) could also end up with a body pile numbering millions or tens of millions.
Whether and how this risk compares to the risk of doing nothing or only what hurts little about CO2 emissions, is my question and what hard scientific evidence exist in this direction (by which i mean something different than economist X produced one study supposedly showing that the economic benefit would outweigh the disadvantages in year 2070; because economics is simply not a science suitable for reliable predictions on such time scales)
Thanks for answers
-
MA Rodger at 17:05 PM on 11 July 2017Why the Republican Party's climate policy obstruction is indefensible
The comment NorrisM @49 has turned full circle to address what NorrisM described in an earlier interchange as "what also troubles me in everything that I have read so far on climate change." That interchange ended with NorrisM withdrawing to read up on SkS comment threads and for some reason "the Nigel Lawson GWPF site." It would be good to nail this discussion rather than have yet another run round the houses.
-
Tom Curtis at 16:47 PM on 11 July 2017Conservatives are again denying the very existence of global warming
I made an inadvertent error when I wrote @5, "...the changes from 2000 to 2016 was to reduce the trend from 1950 to 2000". In fact the reverse is the case, with the trend increasing from 0.11 C/decade to 0.15 C/decade. The reasons for the change, however, remain fully justified as detailed above. Sorry for the error.
-
chriskoz at 16:08 PM on 11 July 2017Bad news for climate contrarians – 'the best data we have' just got hotter
Not only that, but the improved analysis shows that the atmospheric (lower troposphere) temperatures are warming faster than the Earth’s surface.
Shouldn't it be as actually expected, given tropospheric tropical hotspot predicted by models at ~10km, which is right about TLT/TMT channels (Microwave Sounding Unit channel 2, and the Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit channel 5) Carl Mears is talking about in the study herein?
Maybe it's time to update this article based on the study herein?
-
scaddenp at 14:51 PM on 11 July 2017Conservatives are again denying the very existence of global warming
Just wondering if your pseudo-skeptic also believes:
1/ glaciers cant be melting because somewhere there is one advancing
2/ Sealevel rise is caused by coastal subsidence
3/ NASA, JAXA, ESA are conspiring to doctor photos of the poles to make it look like ice is melting.
After all, if GW is just due to adjustments to the temperature record then it follows that ice cant be melting and the sea isnt rising.
-
Tom Curtis at 14:21 PM on 11 July 2017Conservatives are again denying the very existence of global warming
rugbyguy59 @4, if your pseudo-skeptic informant could navigate to those pages (linked from here), he could also navigate to the history page on the same site, where an explanation of the differences is given. Between 2000 and 2016 the major changes are:
- The change from the GHCNv2 (with data from 7200 stations) to GHCNv4 (with data from 26,000 stations).
- The change from Hadley Centre’s HadISST1 (1880-1981) and OISST data Sea Surface Temperature data to ERSST v4 Sea Surface Temperature data, the later embodying a far better knowledge of, and therefore adjustments for differences between methods of measuring temperatures from ships.
In addition, NASA GISS switched to using satellite night light data to identify areas of increased urbanization for the urban heat island adjustment, and areas above sea ice had temperatures determined by air temperature rather than by underlying water temperatures (which in winter can be 10s of degrees warmer).
The effect of the changes from 2000 to 2016 was to reduce the trend from 1950 to 2000, ie, the end of the period of overlap, as can be seen in this graph:
As can also be seen, the effect of the changes over the years have been minor, except for that between 1987 and more recent versions. Of course, the 1987 version relied on just 2,200 stations (8.5% of the current number), and had no Sea Surface Temperature data.
-
chriskoz at 13:51 PM on 11 July 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #27
CBDunkerson@3, ubrew12@5,
With my imagination, I think the cost (~energy input required) of reducing oxydated compounds to their elements - Si or Al or C in CO2! - depends on the amount of oxidation that you have to reduce.
The first example you give: cost of re-reducing recycled (=slightly contaminated) Al cans, involves just removing paint contaminant. Compared to bauxite processing, which involves large amounts of electricity for electrolysis to separate Al from Al2O3, the energy input is almost nothing and the benefit recycling an abvious no-brainer.
The second example: Si re-reducing from used solar panels - I'm not sure how much oxydation is there and if the process would be much different to melting down sand. I welcome material engineers to shed some light here.
The third example - scraping carbon out of the CO2 in atmosphere - is a pure fantasy: so much oxidation, needless to say CO2 dillution down to 0.04%, is to overcome. On top of that we're talking about convincing science deniers to use precious energy for nothing but influence some "invisible trace gas", while they want all available energy for themselves and don't care about said gas. Very hard, next to impossible, unless future technology miraculously delivers unlimitted free clean energy (nuke fusion proponents tried to market it as such but failed).
-
rugbyguy59 at 13:45 PM on 11 July 2017Conservatives are again denying the very existence of global warming
In a discussion with a pseudo-skeptic there was only one point that he made that I couldn't understand. It related to temperature adjustments and so I will ask about it here. He produced two global temp records from NASA that were quite different:
This one he says is from 2001
FigA.txt 2001 from GISS
And this one is from 2016
FigA.txt 2016 from GISSI've not been able to find anything that would explain why there is such a difference. I'm assuming both data sets are from NASA. I also know there are more than enough reasons to know adjustments are doing the right thing but is there anyone here who has run across this one and knows what the reasons are?
Moderator Response:[BW] Replaced link text to make it shorter
-
Eclectic at 13:38 PM on 11 July 2017Why the Republican Party's climate policy obstruction is indefensible
Thank you for that explanation, Bob Loblaw @51, though I am not sure that is at the heart of NorrisM's line of inquiry. I suspect he wants black-and-white certainty — without regard to questions of probabilties & the consequent need for prudent risk-management of planet Earth.
Nigelj @52, some of those graphs have not been updated with the latest real-world temperatures (which show a better match to the old "predictions").
NorrisM @49 , you are making a mountain out of the molehill that was the Koonin-chaired panel of scientists back in early 2014.
Metaphorically speaking : in a scientific ocean rivalling the Pacific in size, the Koonin/APS review was a momentary ripple in a lagoon. And a ripple that was stillborn. [ er, sorry about the mangled metaphor ;-) ]
NorrisM, you have made the mistake of equating the Koonin/APS review with something like a major case before the Supreme Court. But the situation was quite different. Doubtless the scientist-participants would have done a bit of "brushing up" before the panel met — but there would have been nothing like the lawyers' preliminaries where weeks of careful polishing of comprehensive presentations (prepared by teams of high-powered lawyers/barristers) before battle commenced.
Furthermore, the matters discussed were only a tiny section of climate science. And from my reading of the transcript, nothing much came forward that was substantive or in any way conclusive. Really, the result was stillborn. So I don't see how you can justify cherry-picking such a "non-event" and drawing any lessons from it.
(B) You do well, to put a "tick mark" of suspicion against some of the denialists (such as Lindzen). Not only does their case not hold water, but you can see how their underlying thinking is severely tainted/motivated by non-logical emotional bias. Lindzen, for instance, holds that our planet was created by Jehovah [i.e. the pre-Christian deity] as a self-correcting mechanism, and so it cannot deviate from the ideal narrow condition suited to humanity. Or so Lindzen seems to believe. Such is the power of emotion-driven illogical thinking, that it results in Lindzen being quite unfazed that (repeatedly!!) the physical evidence keeps showing him to be severely wrong.
Self-deception and delusion are the essence of climate denialism.
-
nigelj at 12:19 PM on 11 July 2017Why the Republican Party's climate policy obstruction is indefensible
NorrisM @49
You might find this helpful. I'm exploring it myself, to try to make sense of it all.
This link is a graph of models versus reality up to 2015. The first two graphs are the most relevant and clearest
www.realclimate.org/index.php/climate-model-projections-compared-to-observations/
You can see temperatures are generally following models reasonably well, but as I said before slightly under, but not by much. Last years temperatures, 2016, means they are even less under.
Please note, like the comment above says models cannot ever exactly predict year to year temperatures, wiggles, or decadal temperatures. They predict longer term trends approximately, over 20 years, and the general track, and predict end point temperatures which is what concerns us most.
The pause originally appeared large, and outside of what models predicted as expected natural variation (wiggles). You can see in the graphs in the link above it isnt actually so large. Recent temperatures and better data on the pause has changed things.
The warming from 1900 - 1940 has been attributed in almost all reseach to a combination of CO2 and increased solar activity. It should be pointed out solar activity sunspot cycles only has a limited impact over short periods 1 degree maximum for short periods.
The flat period from 1940 - 1970 (approx) has been attributed to high particulate emissions from the post war industrial boom.
The warming from 1970 - currently has been almost 100% attribted to CO2.
-
Bob Loblaw at 11:20 AM on 11 July 2017Why the Republican Party's climate policy obstruction is indefensible
NorrisM:
In your fourth paragraph, you pose two questions that indicate you still are not recognizing what global climate models can and cannot do. Let me try to provide some sort of explanation.
The first question is If the models are capable of predicting the future then they should have had an answer for the supposed "hiatus"
But the models are not capable of predicting short term variability, such as El Nino events. They do have El Nino events, but the timing is more or less random and does not match the exact sequence of a particular set of years. Different model runs with slightly different starting conditions will place El Nino events at different times.
Thus, you can't use the timing of El Ninos and related temperatures to test model skill. If El Ninos are simulated with a similar frequency and magnitude as the real world, then the model has skill even though the timing isn't exact.
Let us take a non-climate model of a familar concept as an analogy: tossing a coin. With a fair coin, there is a 50:50 chance of heads or tails with each toss, and I will model a sequence of ten tosses using a spreadsheet with a random number generator. I will repeat the model simulation 9 times. Here are the sequences, with the counts of heads and tails:
- HHTTTTHHTT 4 6
- TTHHTHTTTT 3 7
- TTHHHHHTHH 7 3
- HHHHHHTTTT 6 4
- THHTTTTHTT 3 7
- THHTTTHHTT 4 6
- TTTTHTTHTH 3 7
- HHHTTHTHTT 5 5
- HTHTHTTTTH 4 6
- TTHHTTTHTH 4 6
Now, you may notice that there are 10 sequences, not nine. I also did one real coin toss sequence, and generated one more random number to decide where to place it in the order. One of the above ten sequences is real; the other nine are modelled.
Note that none of the sequences are the same - therefore none of the model sequences exactly matches the real sequence. You cannot conclude from this that the model is wrong, however. It may be, but you can't tell that from this data.
Can you identify the real sequence? If not, then the nine modelled sequences are realistic enough to pass this sniff test. And with the global temperature record, we can have many model runs but only one real sequence, just as I have done with the coin tosses.
On to question 2: "If the physics explain this 25 year increase in temperatures (1975-1998), how do you explain the temperature increases and decreases that I had referenced earlier, especially the .3C rise from 1900 - 1940 or so."
The earlier period is more difficult to deal with because we do not have sufficient data to force the models - measurements of essential variables such as radiation, atmospheric dust, etc. were fewer and less accurate.
Again, I will use simple analogy with a simple model.
- My model says that A + B = C.
- Today, I know that A = 3.03 and B = 7.64, and that C = 10.71, with all values uncertain to +/-0.05.
- My model predicts that C = 10.67 today, with an uncertainty of +/-0.07 (because of the uncertainty in A and B). My model is 0.04 off the known value of C, but within the error bars of both my estimate and the measurement.
- In the past, A was 4.1 and B was 3.7, both with uncertainties of +/-0.5. The model says C would be 7.8+/-0.7.
- The known value of C was 8.5+/-0.05. The model error of 0.7 is not necessarily due to a poor measurement of C or a poor model, however - it could be due to the lack of knowledge of the input values A and B. The error is larger, but the uncertainty bounds are also larger.
- I could play with the values of A and B to get better agreement, but there is little point. Without a time machine to go back and get better measurements, I would not know if the better agreement is because I got a better value with a good model, or whether I just managed to get the errors in A and B to offset the errors in the model.
Does this clarify what can and cannot be done with a (climate) model?
-
scaddenp at 10:50 AM on 11 July 2017Why the Republican Party's climate policy obstruction is indefensible
NorrisM - " If the models are capable of predicting the future then they should have had an answer for the supposed "hiatus" "
You are still not grasping the point I already stated that the models have limitations on what they predict and in particular have a/ no skill at decadal prediction and b/ dont pretend too. Model evaluation is subject of chp9 of the IPCC report. If you want to know the answers to your questions, then try reading it. Insisting model predict what they catagorically state they cannot is denier rhetorical ploy.
Mid-century cooling is discussed on this site here.
Prev 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 Next
