Recent Comments

Prev  421  422  423  424  425  426  427  428  429  430  431  432  433  434  435  436  Next

Comments 21401 to 21450:

21401. One Planet Only Forever at 08:54 AM on 9 January 2017
       Prepare for reanimation of the zombie myth ‘no global warming since 2016’
       

       The following statement in the OP incorrectly refers to 'terms' as 'phrases'.

       
       "Moreover, the scientific community adapted the use of inaccurate phrases like “hiatus” and “pause” to describe what was..."

21402. michael sweet at 06:54 AM on 9 January 2017
       Prepare for reanimation of the zombie myth ‘no global warming since 2016’
       

        Baron,

       While you have a lot of interesting links in your post, none of them appear to me to support your claim that grasslands are the primary carbon storage method in nature.  You have no link to the IPCC report that discusses this type of subject.  You make very strong claims on very old, unrelated links that discuss grasslands generally, but do not make the claims you are trying to support.

       Your link to biosequestration, which seems to be most on topic, discusses reafforestation as a primary method of fixing carbon first.  It later mentions grasslands and herding animals but your claim that grasslands are the best pathway is not supported.

       Please link to citations that specificly claim that grasslands are the best method to fix carbon in soil.  The links should not be more than 5 years old without more recent support.

21403. bjornstjerneb at 06:24 AM on 9 January 2017
       Rose and Curry Double Down on Global Warming Denial
       

       Last link in article is broken, I believe this is the correct one: https://www.carbonbrief.org/this-weeks-top-six-rebuttals-to-david-roses-warming-has-stopped-claim

21404. RedBaron at 05:10 AM on 9 January 2017
       Prepare for reanimation of the zombie myth ‘no global warming since 2016’
       

       @nigelj As I have pointed out many times on other portions of this website. You got the wrong biome. It is not the forests that can be a significant mitigation tool, but rather a different biome. We already have discussed this in detail. It’s called C4 perennial grasses in symbiosis with AMF. [1]

       C4 carbon fixation - Wikipedia

       C4 metabolism originated when grasses migrated from the shady forest undercanopy to more open environments,[2] where the high sunlight gave it an advantage over the C3 pathway.[3]

       … Today, C4 plants represent about 5% of Earth's plant biomass and 3% of its known plant species.[4][5] Despite this scarcity, they account for about 23% of terrestrial carbon fixation.[6][7] Increasing the proportion of C4 plants on earth could assist biosequestration of CO2 and represent an important climate change avoidance strategy.

       Glomalin is Key to Locking up Soil Carbon

       Of course that “mitigation tool” while capable of cooling the planet: Cenozoic Expansion of Grasslands and Climatic Cooling it is currently plowed, herbicided, burned, overgrazed, undergrazed, eroded, paved over and otherwise molested to the point that it basically no longer works very well.

       If you seriously want to claim that we don't need to entirely eliminate fossil fuel use due to fixing the other side of the biological carbon cycle, please at least get the correct biome and correct biochemical pathway. Otherwise your arguments are quickly and easily shot down once the details and quantified impacts are put pencil to paper. Using the bucket analogy, reforestation give you a slightly bigger temporary sink. But they do very little in the way of removing carbon from the short term cycles and into the long term cycles. Gives you a bigger bucket but doesn't impact fluxes much once that bucket saturates.

       In my opinion, no scientist can complain about a politician like Trump getting the science completely wrong, if they also remain stuck on equally false myths like Dyson's just plant a bunch of trees to solve AGW myth.

21405. nigelj at 14:42 PM on 8 January 2017
       Prepare for reanimation of the zombie myth ‘no global warming since 2016’
       

       Donald Trump will no doubt be "tweeting" climate zombie myths on a weekly basis. America is a lost cause on climate change for at least 4 years. The guy has a terrible range of policies on absolutely everything from climate change to economics, because he doesn't correctly diagnose any problems.

       I actually think this aircraft travel issue is another climate myth where people claim it can't be solved. Firstly you dont have to eliminate all air travel to stop dangerous climate change, just reduce it moderately. This has been documented in numerous reports.

       Secondly we don't have to stop using air travel. There are numerous mitigation strategies including carbon sinks like planting forests, and use of alternative low carbon or zero carbon fuels like ammonia based fuels (which are viable for short to medium distances).  I'm not saying any of this is easy, just that the problem is not insolvable, even just with existing technology.

21406. Tom Curtis at 14:34 PM on 8 January 2017
       Russian email hackers keep playing us for fools
       

       adamski @29, I refer you to my comment @ 13.  With regard to the idea that the emails was leaked, leakers do not leave the footprints of malware on the targeted computer.  They certainly will not leave malware used by hackers associated with the Russian government.  So, if we assume that Craig Murry is being truthful, and that his source was being truthful, we are then left to believe that Russian hackers penetrated the DNC files at the behest of the Russian government, but that their nefarious aims were preempted by an internal leaker.  We are also to assume that the leaker coincidentally took an action that would damage Hilary Clinton, and help Donald Trump when public statements by Putin show that is an outcome he would have been very happy to achieve.  Further, we must assume the internal leaker had complete access to the DNC computers, so would be easilly identified if it was revealed that there was a leaker, which he himself reveals.

       At the same time, if we believe that the alleged internal leaker exists, we also have to beleive that the purported Romanian hacker Guccifer 2.0, who also claims credit is lying (even though he made the claim, and released some documents four weeks prior to the wikileaks leak).   (With regard to the relationship between Guccifer 2.0 and the Russians, see here.)

       I do not consider that credible.

       What I do notice is that Julian Assange's leaks are exclusively damageing to the US and its allies.  No leaks of Chinese or Russian material are, apparently, to be found.  He is an intelligent man, and must realize he is being used as a pawn for some power inimical to the US, and conincidentally to Australia.  That he continues to release the material on those terms makes him not a champion of free information, but a selective releaser of confidential material of the US and its allies, and therefore a traitor to his own nation (Australia).  Any close associate such as Craig Murry is tarred with the same brush.  Given that assessment, it is no surprise that they would attempt to disassociate their source from the Russian government; even if the data was dumped in their files anonomously.

       In short, I do not believe the alleged leaker to have been dishonest because I believe the allegations of the existence of the leaker to be fictions. 

21407. chriskoz at 13:39 PM on 8 January 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #1
       

       rkrolph@1,

       It would be good (for AGW mitigation efforts) if Judy retired completely (i.e. do not utter any word about climate science anymore and spend the rest of life e.g. fishing) but that's not the case according to this article:

       She's instead going to focus on growing her private business, Climate Forecast Applications Network, which provides insights into climate and weather risks for agriculture and energy companies.

       So, now she's going to be a consultant for energy companies, likely downplaying the impact of their business, like Bjorn is doing. Cross "agriculture" from the above because it may not work due to conflict of interests.

21408. chriskoz at 13:10 PM on 8 January 2017
       Prepare for reanimation of the zombie myth ‘no global warming since 2016’
       

       Daniel Mocsny @3,

       We might see a "global warming stopped in 2016" denier argument, but maybe only if we get another 10-year or longer pause in surface warming... We might not get another 10-year pause in the near future. The odds went down with Trump getting elected. If positive feedbacks start kicking in, the base rate of warming might increase, shortening the time before the trend overrides short-term noise.

       To better understand the impact of new US presidential term on global CO2 emmisions and consequently future warming, read this:

       Trump carbon and the Paris agreement

       which postulates that said impsact will be minimal, at least in the short term.On the other hand the impact on the level of scientific understanding of AGW in this administration cannot be any starker: from a decent, appropriate level (Obama), to the utter moronic ignorance of everything that a selfish 12y old childish brain cannot grasp. Such mind is able to deny not just AGW and the social origin of this problem but also all elements of human morality and decency. In such environment, as opposed to in previous environment, I'd argue that all AGW myths, including "global warming stopped in XXXX" myth, has better chances to come back, even regardeless of what will happen with surface temperatures. That's because the new perpetrator is a crackpot, denying everything that's inconvenient to his 12y old childish brain. He's shown time and time that he does not care about reality when it comes to his opinions, so all climate myths have much higher chance of resurfacing under his administration, regardeless of the reality. Therefore, I think your statement I quoted above (that the caption myth will die due to realities of AGW) is incorrect, or at least very improbable. It would be probable if DEM (who do not deny the reality) had won the election.

21409. adamski5807 at 12:09 PM on 8 January 2017
       Russian email hackers keep playing us for fools
       

       Nigelj @ 27 - i dont think Clinton spoke about policy during the campaign. Dont recall her raising the issues about wealth inequity, corporation not paying tax, wages, globalisation and the rise of part time/casual employment. I do recall her stance on foreign policy in terms of being more aggressive which concerns me. 

       Tom @ 25. Sanders did really well considering he openly declared himself as a socialist, (which in america equates to being the devil), the backing of wall street for the clintion campaign and with 95% of U.S. media backing Clinton during the campaign.

       Have you read Craig Murry blog where he states that he has spoken wih the democrate who leaked the emails? Wouldnt this seem a more plausible explanation of what happen with a member upset with the rigged DNC election process rather persuing cold war mcarthyism.  

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Political sloganeering snipped.

       Warning #1

       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.

21410. Tom Curtis at 10:13 AM on 8 January 2017
       NOAA was right: we have been underestimating warming
       

       Further to Echo_Alpha_Zulu @7:

       1)  Echo_Alpha_Zulu, in a confused passage, says that he won't dispute my data because it is correct, but then disputes that current NH temperatures are greater than those shown for circa 900 AD (he continues to insist the graph shows temperature 2000 years ago); and that furthermore my "correct" data is misleading because:

       "Even the past 400 years temperatures have been at a steady incline. I do not argue that. The point I am making is that this warming period has little to do with us. It would have happened even if humanity didnt exist."

       Here is the graph in question:

       

       First, it is evident from that graph that the Greenland borehole data shows an increase in temperature, followed by a sharp decline until about 150 years ago.  The "hockey stick" (Mann Bradley and Hughes 1999) shows declining temperatures until about 130 years ago.  The "multi-proxy" (Moberg 2005) shows essentially flat temperatures, with a sharp rise starting about 1850.  Finally, the instrumental record (HadCRUT3) shows declining temperatures from 1860-1900, a sharp rise to the 1940s, followed by a plateau for about thirty years followed by another sharp rise.  The only "steady incline" over 400 years is from the "worldwide boreholes" (Pollack and Smerdon 2004), but that is because conduction within the rocks smooths out the signal so that no detailed signal can be expected.  In short, Echo_Alpha_Zulu's claim to find a "steady incline" over 400 years comes in complete disregard of the information he himself presented.

       It also disregards more recent multi-proxy temperature reconstructions such as the Mann (2008) global EIV reconstruction:

       

       That, again, shows effectively flat temperatures from 1600 to 1900.  Echo_Alpha_Zulu's "steady incline" in temperature over 400 years is a fiction.

       Second, as already noted that HadCRUT4 temperature for the Northern Hemisphere "... shows an anomaly of 1.041 C for 2016, with all annual anomalies from 2001 forward being 0.554 C or higher".  That is much more than the 0.3 C increase of the scaled ice bore temperatures (Left hand side of the graph).  It is not more than the unscaled values (Right hand side), but the unscaled values differ between the two bore holes.  That emphasizes the point that these are purely regional records, not agreeing in absolute value of change even between two fairly close locations in Greenland.  So, if Echo_Alpha_Zulu insists that is the relevant scale, he needs to point out why we should expect Northern Hemisphere temperatures to match particular, different regional values.  Failing that, his refusal to accept the actual data showing NH temperatures to be 0.2 - 0.7 C greater than the scaled borehole temperatures as showing they are in fact greater shows him to be in simple denial of the actual data which he vaunts himself on consulting.

       2)  Echo_Alpha_Zulu says:

       "The sun is now just exiting one of the most violent maximums ever recorded in history. Fewer sun spots but the amount of energy released from CME's and solar flares was something we have never seen."

       In fact the (possibly) most recent Solar Maximum had the lowest energy output of any since instrumental records of Total Solar Insolation began.  That, however, is not what Echo_Alpha_Zulu is discussing.  He limits the discussion to solar flares and Coronal Mass Ejections only.  Unfortunately it is difficult to get direct information on that.  Wikipedia states:

       "In modern times, the largest solar flare measured with instruments occurred on November 4, 2003. This event saturated the GOES detectors, and because of this its classification is only approximate. Initially, extrapolating the GOES curve, it was estimated to be X28. Later analysis of the ionospheric effects suggested increasing this estimate to X45. This event produced the first clear evidence of a new spectral component above 100 GHz.

       Other large solar flares also occurred on April 2, 2001 (X20), October 28, 2003 (X17.2 and 10), September 7, 2005 (X17), February 17, 2011 (X2), August 9, 2011 (X6.9), March 7, 2012 (X5.4), July 6, 2012 (X1.1). On July 6, 2012, a solar storm hit just after midnight UK time, when an X1.1 solar flare fired out of the AR1515 sunspot. Another X1.4 solar flare from AR 1520 region of the Sun, second in the week, reached the Earth on July 15, 2012 with a geomagnetic storm of G1–G2 level. A X1.8-class flare was recorded on October 24, 2012. There has been major solar flare activity in early 2013, notably within a 48-hour period starting on May 12, 2013, a total of four X-class solar flares were emitted ranging from an X1.2 and upwards of an X3.2, the latter of which was one of the largest year 2013 flares. Departing sunspot complex AR2035-AR2046 erupted on April 25, 2014 at 0032 UT, producing a strong X1.3-class solar flare and an HF communications blackout on the dayside of Earth. NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory recorded a flash of extreme ultraviolet radiation from the explosion."

       Note, however, that the solar flares from preceding solar maximum were far more energetic than those currently.  Further, wikipedia is also clear that the largest flare observed was the September 1, 1859 Carrington event, a flare so large it was visible to the naked eye.

       Given this, Echo_Alpha_Zulu's claims are at best, unsupported, and likely false.  Absent his citing and linking to a credible source for this claim, I think we should regard it, as so many others of his claims, as so much spindrift. 

        (Note:  I say "possibly" because it is not yet certain we have reached the maximum.) 

21411. nigelj at 10:13 AM on 8 January 2017
       Prepare for reanimation of the zombie myth ‘no global warming since 2016’
       

       Daniel Mocsny @3

       I was also thinking that the global warming has stopped argument may be getting weak. I won't speculate on temperatures in the coming decade, but basically the staircase pattern has become more clear over time, and can't disguise an obvious longer term increasing trend.

       However there are many other zombie arguments with no sign of them stopping. There are powerful vested interests at work related to this climate issue.

       "The only way to shrink emissions fast enough to avoid cooking civilization - since we've left it for so long now - is to shrink the economy."

       You offer no evidence of this. The Stern Report found it is possible to stop dangerous climate change at the cost of 1.5% of global gdp per year. This equates very approximately to 1.5% of our incomes, so is not onerous, and theres no evidence this would shrink the output of the economy. Even a higher figure than 1.5%  is something most people could live with, and poor people could be compensated.

       Remember the cost of renewable electricity has fallen a lot since the Stern Report.

       It is also possible to stop dangerous climate change without drastic changes to air travel, provided other measures are comprehensive. Read the various research on the issue such as the Stern Report.

       Greed and selfishness is a part of the issue, but like most of your comments you stop with this considerable simplification and also offer no solutions. Nobody wants to sacrifice a plane trip for a very small change to emissions, thinking they may be the only person who does this, and that it won't make much difference. It would possibly be ethically right to stop flying but it's not entirely logical. This is why it's important to have things like carbon taxes that put the pressure on people bt using a price signal.

       It has been pointed out to you by several people now that this is not all about personal choices or morality. Of course we all want people to take climate change seriously and alter their lifestyles or "do the right thing" without coercion, but in the real world carbon taxes make plenty of sense.  And only governments can promote renewable electricity and this then makes electric cars a more viable option.

       I don't think you are listening to what people say.

21412. rkrolph at 09:57 AM on 8 January 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #1
       

       Apparently, Judith Curry has retired.  The interview in the article was interesting.  On one hand, she thinks scientists are overstating the human effect on global warming, and then admits they may be right, in which case the Paris Agreement falls way short of what would be necessary to effectively change anything.  She doesn't then say what should be done.  Seems a bit strange to me.

       Sorry if the link is not working.

       http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060047798

21413. Daniel Mocsny at 09:53 AM on 8 January 2017
       Prepare for reanimation of the zombie myth ‘no global warming since 2016’
       

       The jobs issue promises to get worse going forward. I'm reading the book Rise of the Robots: Technology and the Threat of a Jobless Future. It is basically 350 pages elaborating on the themes that also appear briefly in the YouTube video, Humans Need Not Apply.

       Trump got elected partly by hammering on voter fears of job insecurity, although Trump, being either misinformed or a liar, blamed the problem solely on global trade, regulation, and outsourcing. Technological progress and right-wing policies have also played critical roles in hollowing out the middle class and wiping out well-paying manufacturing jobs. People who are gainfully employed are often anxious, because a surprising number of people even in wealthy countries are in financial distress. See the book: Financially Stupid People Are Everywhere: Don't Be One Of Them and the Neal Gabler article: The Secret Shame of Middle-Class Americans. Gabler writes: "Nearly half of Americans would have trouble finding $400 to pay for an emergency. I’m one of them."

       Rise of the Robots paints a grim picture of increasingly capable robots and narrow-AI software systems wiping out category after category of jobs that were previously beyond the reach of automation. Switching to a green economy doesn't really address this beyond perhaps delaying job losses for a few years. Robots are just as happy to take a clean job as a dirty job, and perform it at a fraction of the cost of a human worker.

       What's the political landscape going to look like in a future when unemployment hits 50%? Even before the problem becomes a crisis, a demagogue like Trump can get elected by playing on just a small version of the fear. To get people to care about the climate, we have to move that concern up their list of priorities. If they are in fear of losing their jobs, incomes, homes, etc., it's hard to see people focusing on much else.

21414. Daniel Mocsny at 09:21 AM on 8 January 2017
       Prepare for reanimation of the zombie myth ‘no global warming since 2016’
       

       We might see a "global warming stopped in 2016" denier argument, but maybe only if we get another 10-year or longer pause in surface warming. The argument worked better the first time around, since before 1998 the global warming argument was fairly new. Public awareness of climate change was still new enough in the 2000s that people didn't have a memory of an earlier version of the denier argument that had been destroyed in 1998. (Such as "warming stopped in 1988" or whatever the previous hot outlying year was.)

       We might not get another 10-year pause in the near future. The odds went down with Trump getting elected. If positive feedbacks start kicking in, the base rate of warming might increase, shortening the time before the trend overrides short-term noise.

       Plus we have many other indicators of warming that aren't subject to similar pauses, such as sea level rise. Every year the king tides along America's east coast get higher. Flooding under a clear sky is pretty definitive, since there's nothing abstract or relying on complex models about it. Anybody can see that the familiar road, pier, seawall, etc. that people built to stay above water is now routinely getting submerged in fine weather.

       Eventually the deniers will quit trying to deny on the basis of any scientifically testable claim - because they can't, and they don't need to. They'll retreat to their last and insurmountable line of defense: jobs.

       Despite the hypothetical promise of green jobs, we still have an 85% fossil fueled economy. The only way to shrink emissions fast enough to avoid cooking civilization - since we've left it for so long now - is to shrink the economy. This is easy to see living on your carbon fair share (the globally equitable individual greenhouse gas emission allowance), or less than two tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year. You just can't buy most of the stuff you see advertised. You'll save gobs of money - fixing the climate is not "expensive", but if everybody does this then most of the economy goes poof. For starters, there can't be any flying. A single jet flight can blow your entire carbon allowance for the year, leaving nothing for, say, eating food. Since the overwhelming bulk of flying is unnecessary, the first tiny measure of our willingness to take climate change seriously is to shut down all the airports. If we won't even take that first baby step, then we're just marking days off the calendar on our way to cooking civilization into nonexistence.

       People are greedy and selfish. That's why the climate gets destroyed. If selfish people could get more of what they want by not destroying the climate, then they wouldn't destroy it. It's easy to focus on explicit deniers, but the climate gets just as destroyed by the person who pays lip service to scientific reality and then jets off to the holiday spot or scientific conference anyway.

21415. Doug Bostrom at 09:20 AM on 8 January 2017
       As Seas Rise, Miami Development Continues Unabated
       

       A lot of "maybe" there, KGB. Maybe we're all living in a simulation and somebody will tweak our code, fix everything. 

       "Maybe" doesn't apply when you're standing on the smooth spot where your home was, or skimming sediment out of the living room. Try "maybe I'll sleep on my wet, fungus-ridden mattress." Does it sound appealing? Maybe not.

21416. nigelj at 06:26 AM on 8 January 2017
       Prepare for reanimation of the zombie myth ‘no global warming since 2016’
       

       The global warming zombie myths persist. This is partly because plenty of people spend most of their time on facebook, or reading about Kim Kardashian, as opposed to reading something informative.

21417. william5331 at 03:33 AM on 8 January 2017
       Prepare for reanimation of the zombie myth ‘no global warming since 2016’
       

       With the crazy ice behaviour this year, there is more than a reasonable chance that the coming northern hemisphere summer will see unprecidented ice melt and hence unprecidented world heat gain as the Arctic ocean turns into a giant heat collector.  If so, the step function may turn into an exponential function.  While this will be great for shooting down the deniers, it is a hollow victory if we have now exceeded one of the coming cascade of tipping points.  We can all stand together in the ever warming pot like frogs, croaking, We told you so.  The one necessary condition to sort out this CF we find ourselves in is to get vested interest money out of polics.  Without that we are pushing a huge pile of the brown stuff up hill with a spoon.

21418. gws at 02:13 AM on 8 January 2017
       It's cosmic rays
       

       It may be useful to add that the CERN group has long since dropped the argument that cosmic rays affect climate. Their latest paper (with Kirkby a co-author) in Science summarizes (abstract):

       "... A considerable fraction of nucleation involves ions, but the relatively weak dependence on ion concentrations indicates that for the processes studied, variations in cosmic ray intensity do not appreciably affect climate through nucleation in the present-day atmosphere."

       ... and that position has been in place for some time.
       

21419. michael sweet at 22:48 PM on 7 January 2017
       NOAA was right: we have been underestimating warming
       

       KGB,

       All data has bias.  Scientists work hard to collect the best data possible and then they review the data carefully to find any new biases that appear.  There was never a "mistake" in this data.  New data aways has to be compared with old to ensure it is exactly the same.  In this case there was a very small difference.  Since the difference was small it took some time to measure and correct it.

       In this case, new bouys were put in place to monitor sea surface temperatures. iIt was known that parts of the ocean were not being monitored as well as could be done by the old method.  The new data stream was added to the existing data stream.  The old data was primarily from ships.  The data was carefully compared when it was obtained and was very similar, so they were just added.  After the passage of 15-20 years, much more data was collected.  This data was carefully checked and a very small adjustment was made to the record.  The old record was not bad but it turned out that the bouy data was very slightly colder than the ship data.  It was determined that the ship data was slightly warmer than the ocean really was.  Data sets are updated like this all the time.  Usually no-one notices these changes because the data for surface temperature is so good that the adjustments are very small.

       The reason that there has been so much talk about this particular update is because it contributes to the argument that there was never a "haitus" in global temperature rise.  Tamino (who is a very good statistician) and many others have shown that there was never a "Haitus" in the original data set.  The update makes Tamino's argument stronger, but the old data set never really showed a haitus in AGW anyway.  Deniers complain because their incorrect argument has been affected by this change.  They hope people will disregard all the data because of this minor update.

       Scientists know that there remain minor issues with their data sets.  They continue to review them and correct them.  The corrections to the surface data set (the data set we are discussing) have been very small since around 1990.  If you use the raw data (which is available on the internet) the increase in temperature is greater than using the corrected data.  You reach the same conclusion.  There was never a "haitus" in either data set.

       We always have to use the data we have.  Would you prefer to not correct for known issues in the collection of the data?  Go with the raw data which shows much more warming.  Scientists try to use the best corrections possible and keep in mind that there might still be some issues.

       For comparison, major changes in the satallite data sets are made all the time.  Deniers claim these data sets are better to use because they are noisier and it is harder to clearly show the warming.   

       Keep reading here and you will learn more about how to interpret data sets in the real world. Data is never perfect, but the surface temperature data set is very solid and has not had major changes for decades.

21420. Tom Curtis at 21:27 PM on 7 January 2017
       NOAA was right: we have been underestimating warming
       

       Echo_Alpha_Zulu, I have discussed your views on cosmic rays on a more appropriate thread.  I also recommend you read the advanced version of the main article on that thread, in addition to the first link by Tom Dalton @11. 

21421. Tom Curtis at 21:21 PM on 7 January 2017
       It's cosmic rays
       

       Elsewhere Echo_Alpha_Zulu is arguing that cosmic rays "...play more of a role in climate than anything else".  He attributes that view to unnamed "CERN scientists", and provides no links or citations so we can confirm that that is indeed what "CERN scientists" are saying.  Curiously Echo_Alpha_Zulu says, "I am a real scientist I study the data itself. I dont rely on some 'Expert' to interpret the data for me".  Despite this claim, he provided no relevant evidence with regard to cosmic rays, instead rellying on the authority of "experts" who are carefully kept of page and uncited.

       Echo_Alpha_Zulu may consider that characterization unfair, given that he linked to this graph, which is a truncated version of Figure 1 from Kirkby (2008):

        

       However, that graph shows nothing interesting because, the temperature proxies do not agree among themselves about the temperature pattern over the last 1000 years, let alone with the cosmic ray proxies.

       That lack of correlation can be seen in modern records where, if the theory had any substance, the more accurate records should make the connection obvious.  Instead, taking the montly values of the  OULU neutron record and the Berkeley Earth Land Ocean Temperature Index, a regression analysis shows a positive trend of 7.4 (+/- 6) x 10^-5 C/(Count/Min).  That is the opposite of the negative trend predicted by the theory.  Worse, the correlation is just 0.097 with an R^2 of 0.009 indicating cosmic rays to be a negligible causal factor with regard to global temperatures, if relevant at all.

       It becomes a little more interesting when we look at the timeseries of the BEST LOTI and the inverted OULU Neutron count:

         Here we see that where there may have been some slight justification for the theory in data up to circa1995 (Regression: -1.9 (+/-0.47) x 10^-4; correlation: -0.388; R^2: 0.15), thereafter temperature continues to increase steadilly while the inverted cosmic ray count plummets.  The complete breakdown of the relationship post 1995 shows the weak statistical relationship apparent beforehand to have been largely coincidental.

       A simple linear regression is not the only test that could be applied to the data, but no theory which claims cosmic rays "...play more of a role in climate than anything else" survives the data shown.  At best, the relationship is that found by Tsonis et al (2015), who write:

       "Our results suggest weak to moderate coupling between CR and year-to-year changes of GT. They resonate with the physical and chemical evidence emerging from laboratory studies suggesting a theoretical dynamic link between galactic CR and GT. However, we find that the realized effect is modest at best, and only recoverable when the secular trend in GT is removed (by first-differencing). Thus, it is important to stress that they do not suggest that CR influences can explain global warming and should not be misinterpreted as being in conflict with the IPCC. Indeed, the opposite is true: we show specifically that CR cannot explain secular warming, a trend that the consensus attributes to anthropogenic forcing. Nonetheless, the results verify the presence of a nontraditional forcing in the climate system, an effect that represents another interesting piece of the puzzle in our understanding of factors influencing climate variability." 

       (My emphasis)

21422. KGB at 18:03 PM on 7 January 2017
       As Seas Rise, Miami Development Continues Unabated
       

       humans fear factor, everyone just seems take it for granted that nothing can change, what would cause a ice age, if earth is warming don't the core warm also? Maybe a super volcano soon, maybe someone will make a simple spray released from aircraft that break CO2 down, maybe we could just vent it into space just run some long pipes lol

21423. KGB at 17:17 PM on 7 January 2017
       NOAA was right: we have been underestimating warming
       

       You state that the old data has a cold bias so scientists data was off, how could the scientific community make this mistake and how are we suppose to know they haven't made another mistake?

21424. Glenn Tamblyn at 15:13 PM on 7 January 2017
       NOAA was right: we have been underestimating warming
       

       Echo_Alpha_Zulu
       
       Aside from generally following Tom Dayton's advice and looking at the various rebuttals, here is some actual data relating to your claim about volanoes and CO2. From the World Data Centre for Greenhouse Gases, run by the Japanese Meteorological Agency here.
       
       Measurements of CO2 from Cape Grim in Tasmania. 1992 was one of the biggest volcanic eruptions this century - Mt Pinatubo in the Philippines.
       
       Spot the huge volcanic spike EOZ? No trace, nada of a volcanic component.
       
       

21425. nigelj at 06:05 AM on 7 January 2017
       NOAA was right: we have been underestimating warming
       

       Echo Alpha Zulu @7 says:

       "According to borehole samples collected from Greenland only temperature anomolies still have not increased to what they were 2000 years ago. I am not invalidating your data as it is correct, it is just misleading."

       Echo, Greenland is just one place, and could be an anomaly as different places change at different rates. You have to look at a wide selection of countries, and reach an average. Many studies of the medieval warm period do this, and find it was a weak event, eg Briffa, Esper, Jones. Unfortunately it is your post that is misleading.

21426. Tom Dayton at 05:34 AM on 7 January 2017
       NOAA was right: we have been underestimating warming
       

       Echo, for global temperatures extending far earlier than the previous 2,000 years, see the post on "the wheelchair" graph.

21427. Tom Dayton at 05:16 AM on 7 January 2017
       NOAA was right: we have been underestimating warming
       

       Echo, for information about the Sun's role in recent warming (not just how a grand solar minimum would affect temperature), see the post about that--Basic, then Intermediate, then Advanced tabbed panes. Comment on that topic there, not here.

21428. Tom Dayton at 05:11 AM on 7 January 2017
       NOAA was right: we have been underestimating warming
       

       Echo, you wrote "CERN found that cosmic rays play more of a roll [sic] in climate than anything else."

       You are incorrect. See the post about that, both Basic and Intermediate tabbed panes. For more thorough and more up to date information about cosmic rays' influence on climate (not just CERN results in particular), see the Basic, Intermediate, and Advanced tabbed panes on the post about that. And if you want to discuss those topics, do so in the comments on those posts, not this one.

21429. Tom Dayton at 05:04 AM on 7 January 2017
       NOAA was right: we have been underestimating warming
       

       Echo, you wrote "A single major Volcanic eruption can put more CO2 and other "greenhouse gasses" into the atmosphere than humanity has done it's entire existance this is a fact."

       But no, that is not a fact, it is a myth. See the post about that (Basic tabbed pane, then Intermediate one), and if you want to comment on that topic, do so there, not here.

21430. Tom Dayton at 05:01 AM on 7 January 2017
       NOAA was right: we have been underestimating warming
       

       Echo, you wrote "Just like the upcoming mini ice age....The sun is now just exiting one of the most violent maximums ever recorded in history. Fewer sun spots but the amount of energy released from CME's and solar flares was something we have never seen. Now we are entering a solar minimum. Which is expected to be one of the weakest since the maunder minimum or last mini ice age."

       In fact, the amount of cooling that would result even if there is a reduction in solar output similar to that of the Maunder Minimum would be zero--no cooling, because the rise in warming from greenhouse gases would swamp the cooling from lower insulation. All it would do is temporarily and slightly reduce the rate of warming. See the post on the effect of a grand solar minimum. If you want to discuss that topic, do so in the comments on that post where it is on topic, not this one.

21431. Tom Dayton at 04:56 AM on 7 January 2017
       NOAA was right: we have been underestimating warming
       

       Echo, you wrote "I will ask you to provide us with a chart of temperature records over the past 2000 years." Okay--see the post on the Medieval Warm Period. After you read the Basic tabbed pane, read the Intermediate one. For more information about the PAGES 2K study that is cited and graphed there, see a post on that. If you want to discuss those topics, do so in the comments on those or similar posts, where your comments will be on topic.

21432. Echo_Alpha_Zulu at 02:47 AM on 7 January 2017
       NOAA was right: we have been underestimating warming
       

       First off let me start off by saying this graph was provided by the scientists at CERN. Im not invalidating your data because it is correct. According to borehole samples collected from Greenland only temperature anomolies still have not increased to what they were 2000 years ago. I am not invalidating your data as it is correct it is just misleading. Even the past 400 years temperatures have been at a steady incline. I do not argue that. The point I am making is that this warming period has little to do with us. It would have happened even if humanity didnt exist. Just like the upcoming mini ice age. There are multiple naturalally occuring events that directly impact our climate. The sun, Cosmic Rays, Volcanic and seismic activity and Pole instability. A single major Volcanic eruption can put more CO2 and other "greenhouse gasses" into the atmosphere than humanity has done it's entire existance this is a fact. The sun is now just exiting one of the most violent maximums ever recorded in history. Fewer sun spots but the amount of energy released from CME's and solar flares was something we have never seen. Now we are entering a solar minimum. Which is expected to be one of the weakest since the maunder minimum or last mini ice age.
       
       Prior to the maunder minumim we see an increase in Volcanic activity paired with a decrease in solar activity. This is the exact scenario we are facing now. 
       
       Nothing I said was contradictary. I have done a significant amount of research on the topic and my data even though provided by CERN is apparently not satisfactory so I will ask you to provide us with a chart of temperature records over the past 2000 years. This way you can not blame me for not having peer reviewed material. I will be more than happy to elaborate on any of the points I just made. 

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] The many assertions contined in your post lack proper references and supporting documentation. Your personal beliefs carry little weight on this site. 

21433. Tom Curtis at 01:31 AM on 7 January 2017
       NOAA was right: we have been underestimating warming
       

       Echo_Alpha_Zulu @4 claims, "I am a real scientist I study the data itself"; but he does not present us with this data, only a graph from a non-peer reviewed paper from 2008.  Of that graph he says, "This is a link showing the data for the past 2000 years", but the data only covers the period 1000 to 2000 AD, ie, the last one thousand years, not the last 2000 as he would have it.  

       Further, on the basis of that graph, he then claims, "We have not even reached a warming point that we were at 2000 years ago".  The graph, however, compares three proxy series to the instrumental record (red), and of those three series, the most recent date on the instrumental series is greater than any value over the last 1000 years.  His claim is only valid, therefore, if the strictly regional Greenland ice sheet data gives a better presentation of hemispheric temperatures than do proxies from across the hemisphere.  What is worse, the instrumental series used (HadCRU Nothern Hemisphere) shows an anomaly of 1.041 C for 2016, with all annual anomalies from 2001 forward being 0.554 C or higher.  That is, for the last 16 years NH temperatures have been 0.2 C or more higher than the greenland ice core data peak around 1000 AD.  Indeed, you have to go back 20 years to 1996 to get a NH temperature as low as the peak shown by the Greenland data.  So when Echo_Alpha_Zulu says "We have not even reached a warming point that we were at 2000 years ago" he is contradicting the data he presents.

       Of course, he may well not be aware of that, given that he bases his analysis on eyeballing graphs rather than the actual data itself.

       Of couse, a real scientist, ie, somebody with an advanced degree in science who works professionally in the field, and actively publishes in the literature, would know not to make that mistake. Echo_Alpha_Zulu's claim to be a "real scientist" is therefore revealed as a falsehood used (ironically) to plump up his authority lest we should look at the data ourselves. 

21434. Echo_Alpha_Zulu at 00:33 AM on 7 January 2017
       NOAA was right: we have been underestimating warming
       

       Zeke, Kevin this is why your charts only go back the past 20 years. Because thats the only way your "Evidence" shows any credibility at all. Amateurs

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Inflamatory statements of deception snipped.

       You are already on the cusp of relinquishing your privilege of posting on this website. Three strikes and you are out.

       Warning #2

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

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

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

21435. Echo_Alpha_Zulu at 00:30 AM on 7 January 2017
       NOAA was right: we have been underestimating warming
       

       The earth is warming but its about to stop and start cooling. Actual science suggests that earth is headed for a mini ice age. CERN found that cosmic rays play more of a roll in climate than anything else. The sun was at its maximum and is now entering the minimum. Volcanic activity is higher than it ever has been.

       https://regmedia.co.uk/2009/11/16/sven_northernhemi.jpg

       This is a link showing the data for the past 2000 years. We have not even reached a warming point that we were at 2000 years ago. Humans had 0 effect on climate then. If you are going to promote global warming you need to think of better lies than that. I am a real scientist I study the data itself. I dont rely on some 'Expert' to interpret the data for me.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Link activated. Inflamatory accusation of deception snipped. 

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

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

21436. Rob Honeycutt at 14:06 PM on 6 January 2017
       As Seas Rise, Miami Development Continues Unabated
       

       Glenn... Totally right. And not only that, often companies, and even entire industries, become resistant to change. Keeping things the same is easy. Changing is hard. The auto industry is a perfect example.

       Back in the 1970's the US auto industry would swear up and down, and until the cows came home, that "Americans love big cars!" Truth was, they couldn't efficiently produce a small car profitably. But rather than try to learn how they merely relied on this "big cars" rhetoric. 

       The Japanese auto companies did figure out how to make small cars efficiently and as a result they ate the US auto industry's lunch.

21437. Glenn Tamblyn at 11:55 AM on 6 January 2017
       As Seas Rise, Miami Development Continues Unabated
       

       Daniel Mocsny
       
       "even though the goal of all the high-level actions is to nudge individuals to burn less fossil fuel"
       
       I disagree somewhat. That is one of the goals. Individual changes contribute, but there are limits to what an individual can do to burn less. Smaller car, better insulated house, walk more etc. But they can't individually drive the bigger changes, and certainly not quickly.
       
       Take for example their car. They can buy a smaller car, they maybe can buy a more fuel efficient car. But the best they can do is buy the best that is available on the market. If car companies aren't investing in the design of seriously more efficient cars, the consumer can't buy them. So taxes and other policies  need to pressure the companies as much as targeting consumers. So too electricity generation, will a utility build a coal plant, a gas plant or a wind farm. Its all electrons to the consumer.
       
       Policy is aimed at a mix of influencing individuals and influencing organisations and companies. And a broader range of policies can be employed against the organisations than individuals.

21438. Tom Curtis at 11:18 AM on 6 January 2017
       Global weirding with Katharine Hayhoe: Episode 7
       

       Daniel Mocsny @18, one point you are missing is that the price of an item gives a signal as to the amount of resources, including energy and labour resources, used in manufacturing the item.  Currently that signal does not include any information about carbon pollution generated by the item.  A carbon tax changes that.  It means that, all else being equal, an equivalent product with a lower price also generates a lower carbon foot print.

       Given the complexity of the manufactoring process of most modern items; and the contradictory claims made about what goes into their manufacture; it takes substantial research to determine which of two otherwise equivalent products has the lower carbon footprint.  You need to research the sources of material, transport methods and distances, energy mix at point of manufacture, energy source at point of production of raw materials, and so on.  These problems apply even if you are not avaricious, and own relatively few goods.  They are excacerbated in that manufacturers often try to conceal this data so as to avoid being excluded from consideration by ethical purchasers.

       A carbon tax, however, would introduce a signal on carbon production in manufacture and transport that could not be concealed.  It would be imperfect because of other price inputs, but it would be there.  It follows that a carbon tax is helpful for those who are interested in doing the right thing ethically.  Indeed, even if 100% of consumers were determined to act ethically, a carbon tax would still be a good thing.  That it would also shape the behaviour of those who had no interest in ethical consumption is a bonus.

21439. timeforarks at 10:29 AM on 6 January 2017
       As Seas Rise, Miami Development Continues Unabated
       

       Developers in South Fla are already having trouble with financing coastal development with out requiring overly large pre-construction down payments ! The Federal Flood Insurance is already deep in debt and only meeting current needs by using private reinsurance ! These private rates are rapidly increasing and I believe the Fed Ins is up for renewal this year and they had a hard time passing the previous legislation ! Our  Coastal Condo dropped its flood ins policy last year due to cost increase ! The Coastal Cities tax base are going to crash as values drop and these properties become tax liabilitys !

21440. nigelj at 07:22 AM on 6 January 2017
       Global weirding with Katharine Hayhoe: Episode 7
       

       Daniel Mocsny @ 18, ok I concede taxation relates to self interest and weighing costs and benefits.

       However I'm a pragmatist, and carbon taxes are highly likely to work at least to some extent! Remember rates of smoking have declined from almost 50% of the population in the 1960s to 15% (in my country), and theres strong evidence tobacco taxes form a large part of that drop.

       Humans are indeed self interested creatures. I just think this is pretty deeply coded in our genes, and won't be changing fast. Therefore we might as well target this with something like a carbon tax.

       However we also have evolved to have an altruistic tendency that helps us make moral choices. However you give no indication of how you would promote this. So far appeals to consider the third world or future generations "fall on deaf ears" with some people.

       I dont think its an "either or" situation where we must go with self interest or altruism. It is more likely to be a combination of both. They are not mutually exclusive and history shows they have co-existed for a long time. However right now we probaly have the balance a bit too tilted to self interest.

       I think the air travel argument is wearing very thin. This is the only option to attend multinational conferences. I also know for a fact plenty of greenies do take personal responsibility and have voluntarily made some better lifestyle choices.

       Of course there are also hypocrites who talk about the need for climate action but do precisely nothing, but not everyone is like this.

       A big factor in the climate issue is renewable energy generation, and practically speaking only governments can really push this. Polls show popular support even if it does introduce some costs in the short term (and studies are showing these costs are very small or near break even). Governments however are ignoring the will of the people in some countries, maybe because they are captive to campaign donors.

       My point is things are complicated.

       But coming back to your moral values point, you offer no indication of how you change peoples moral values. At least a carbon tax sends the signal that fossil fuel use is considered a problem. This at least provides the information people need in order to make moral choices.

       Hopefully people learn to do the right thing and rather fast! Sometimes it takes a while for people to make these sorts of decisions but if you look at history, many things in life reach "tipping points" and suddenly there is quite rapid mass change in attitudes, actions and laws.

21441. nigelj at 06:31 AM on 6 January 2017
       As Seas Rise, Miami Development Continues Unabated
       

       EliofVA @13, I think as a general rule people mentally calculate the odds of some problem, and rank that against the advantages of living in some fashionable area, or one that may also have jobs. I would do this. Psychological and economic research has found we mentally calculate the odds and trade offs, and its totally normal.

       Floods have some level of predictability: For example maybe once a year on average in locations near where I live. This makes it easier to make a mental risk and cost assessment, and many people decide to live with flood prone environments. ( Not eagerly, but having considered the costs and benefits)

       I would suggest sea level rise is different. It is an increasing phenomenon and harder to quantify costs and effects, other than to say it's not looking good. As you say people are ignoring the vulnerabilities. We also have people claiming global warming is a scam. People are thus likely to be making poor quality decisions, and not doing well informed mental calculations, or taking sufficient precautions.

21442. Philippe Chantreau at 04:52 AM on 6 January 2017
       NOAA was right: we have been underestimating warming
       

       Cooper13, anything and everything will be seized by some as opportunities to claim that the data are unreliable, regrdless of the vacuity of the argument. We live in a post reality, post information world that is no better connected to reality than the melanesian cargo cults. There is nothing that can be done to prevent some to make noise about the unreliability of this or that; the noise itself is their goal and achievement.

21443. Cooper13 at 03:54 AM on 6 January 2017
       NOAA was right: we have been underestimating warming
       

       One concern I have with how these studies are communicated in the press and in blogs, is the use of the terms 'cooling bias' in previous NOAA datasets. This basically tees up the ball for the denial crew to use those quotes and words in claiming 'funny business' with the data.

       I think it is more clear to the layperson and to the press to simply explain that older ship-based engine room data imposed an 'artificial warming' bias on the older data, by a small amount. When datasets were shifted over to buoys, that older 'artificial warm' bias disappears, which is the reason things 'looked cooler', because that superimposed warmer data was no longer used. We went from a dataset which should have had a small temperature correction subtracted from it, to one that did not need that correction. Almost like an LP record 'skipping back a track' when the data were switched from one source to another.

       Thus, for decades prior to buoy use, we were unknowingly and slightly overestimating the warming, up until the late 1990s, because the engine room data were not corrected properly. With the new correction, "the LP record no longer skips" and ALL of the datasets are better harmonized. And you can easily see with the updated corrections, the 'LP record skip is now gone'.

       So, this is really more a correction to the 'older' datasets (in absolute temperatures) than to the 'new' datasets. Maybe explaining the data in 'absolute' temperature measurements instead of 'deltas' would help, too....

21444. enSKog at 03:50 AM on 6 January 2017
       NOAA was right: we have been underestimating warming
       

       Nice way to start the new year, with some proper science.

       Why are there 3 Argo records and why are they different?

21445. ELIofVA at 02:05 AM on 6 January 2017
       Climate change in 2016: the good, the bad, and the ugly
       

       I do not know James Lovelocks ideas on the reversal of Climate Change? However, this is more than pure science.  Scientest examine the physical world to determine the truth.  However, as new truth's are revealed, it is important for creative people learn how to adapt to live within the truths that are revealed.  This is a very important role for non scientist.  What is clear to me and needs to be considered in our culture is that when we emit more carbon than can be sequestered atmospheric concentrations go up.  If you discern that is the problem, the only solution is to limit human carbon emissions to what can be sequestered.  All emissions below the net zero line are within the carbon cycle and do not add to carbon concentration.  Net Zero is an important reference that needs to be understood.  The only way to reduce carbon in the atmosphere is to develop a net sequestration economy where human emissions are less than what cana be sequestered.  Imagining how we can achieve a net sequestration economy moves us toward a vision of how to build a place for the human community that protects the life resilience we are blessed to live among.   

21446. ELIofVA at 01:23 AM on 6 January 2017
       As Seas Rise, Miami Development Continues Unabated
       

       My cousin and his husband live in a high rise condominium a few blocks from the ocean in Fort Lauderdale.  They are on the ground floor.  I encouraged them to consider how they would respond to a major hurricane.  A month later, Hurricane Mathew came by.  They hunkered down.  Fortunately the storm's eye did not follow the coast line as predicted.  The eye was 20 miles out in the ocean.  Therefore they were spared a Sandy scale storm surge.  They got away with it.  They are only leasing the apartment, therefore are not as at risk financially.  If a significant storm surge  put them under, they can take the stairwell to upper floors to protect themselves.  However, it is a personal example a couple that is comitted to being in a hip location by ignoring the vulnerabilities.  

21447. Tom Curtis at 19:25 PM on 5 January 2017
       Sea level rise due to floating ice?
       

       Spaded Ace @60, the argument is not whether the melting of glacial ice will, or will not, raise sea level; but whether the melting of sea ice, ie, the ice that forms on the surface of the sea at low temperatures, will (or will not) raise sea levels.

21448. Spaded Ace at 16:03 PM on 5 January 2017
       Sea level rise due to floating ice?
       

       I'm following this but I have to say it appears as though the lab experiments have been conducted in error. Glaciel ice does not solely precipitate from beneath, when ocean levels reach tempuratures below 28.8f - the tempurature at which water with a salinity content of 35ppt will freeze. Most glacial ice precipitates from above, and is compacted by its own weight, coupled with occasional rainfall and warmer air tempuratures. With all this is mind, it is time to do the "melt test".
       If you fill a 5 gallon bucket with snow and melt it, you will get approximately 10%wbv. If you fill the same bucket with glaciel ice, melting results in 30%wbv, on average. Glacial ice, or compacted snow, can be as much as 70%wbv if it is trapped in a valley on a hard surface, with no exit, and low air tempuratures. Glacial ice which flows, melts underneath, or forms above water seldom reaches 50%wbv. On average, 35%wbv.
       Understanding these factors, realize that clear ice cubes are clear because they are more than 90%wbv, while glacial ice or snowpack is not clear becuase its composition includes more oxygen than water due to its crystaline structure. To conduct an accurate lab test, scrape the snowy sides of your freezer and compact it into an ice tray. Drop your snowballs into a glass of 35ppt NaCl (salt) and record the level. Melt the snowballs, and record the level. Be surprised. The displacement of glacial ice, which floats 90% below surface and 10% above surface, is a definite factor. With warmer ocean tempuratures due to sea ice dissipation, evaporation increases resulting in heavier precipitation.

       Legend:

       ppt: parts per thousand, or 35grams of salt per 1000grams of water

       wbv: water-by-volume, or 1gallon of water per 10gallons of snow

21449. Daniel Mocsny at 10:54 AM on 5 January 2017
       Global weirding with Katharine Hayhoe: Episode 7
       

       nigelj@17:

       "I don't think such a tax is playing quite to self interest, as much as it would just be sending a signal."

       Sending a signal to what? To the self-interest-maximizing brains of market players. Prices and taxes send signals to buyers and sellers who use the information as they seek to maximize their individual self-interest. You're not going to spend $300 on a banana when you can buy one for $0.30. That's a basis for economic theory, that individuals are selfish and we use money to keep score of how many benefits to self we manage to gouge out of other people and avoid giving away to other people. Adam Smith's concept of The Invisible Hand is how economists transformed the individual moral vices of greed and selfishness into public virtues. (Free market fundamentalists go too far, by ignoring the negative externalities that can wipe out the unintended public benefits from individual greed.)

       A carbon tax is a type of Pigovian tax which internalizes a negative externality - it forces a greenhouse gas emitter to pay for some or all of the damage his or her emissions will inflict on other people or the natural world. But only an immoral selfish person needs to be forced to take responsibility for the harm he or she inflicts on others. Inflicting external costs on other people is a form of theft, and moral people don't steal. If people weren't selfish, they would already be treating fossil fuels as if their real prices were much higher than the selling prices. Morally responsible people would already be behaving the way the carbon tax signals the selfish people to behave.

       By analogy, consider a person who only refrains from committing crime because he thinks he'll be caught and punished. That's why we have police and jails - because a fraction of people lack the moral integrity to behave civilly.

       Criminals try to resist and undermine the justice system. Every form of coercion has its limits. We tax tobacco, but we are far from eliminating tobacco, even after decades of taxing it. Tobacco still kills over 400,000 Americans every year, and vast numbers of children still take up the habit.

       There are limits to coercion - if you push people harder than they want to be pushed, they push back. If tobacco taxes go too high, you get more tobacco smuggling and black market activity to circumvent the tax. You have to spend more resources on enforcement. Similarly with income taxes - the higher the tax rate, the more you stimulate an industry of tax evasion.

       There is really no substitute for changing people's moral values. A person who actually wants to do something will do it better than someone you have to coerce.

       But merely telling people the facts about climate change doesn't cause them to stop contributing to climate change. Just look at all the climate meetings filled with activists who burned jet fuel to get there. The problem is that no snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible. When people take an interest in climate change, their first response is usually to think about grandiose government action rather than their own action - even though the goal of all the high-level actions is to nudge individuals to burn less fossil fuel. Almost all of the official messaging on climate change contributes to this denial of individual responsibility. This is because almost every influential person is in the top few centiles of the carbon footprint distribution. Politicians, journalists, prominent activists, etc. - they all ply their trade with jet fuel. This is an enormous barrier to getting honest discussion and real action on climate change. Imagine trying to get rid of heroin if everybody in government, the press, etc. was a heroin addict. No politician is going to propose that we limit everyone to their individual fair share of greenhouse gas emissions, because you can't have a political career on a fair share. Most people have no idea there is such a thing as an individual fair share of greenhouse gas emissions - that's one of the best-kept secrets in the whole climate issue.

21450. nigelj at 10:47 AM on 5 January 2017
       As Seas Rise, Miami Development Continues Unabated
       

       Daniel Mocsny @10, what you say applies to floods. In my country we are going further with information on sea level rise trends tailored to specific cities. It may not alter behaviour, but at least people would be informed and have nobody else to blame, and can make informed choices.

       "My advice to anyone living within a vertical meter of high tide: sell now while there are still climate science deniers or ignorers dumb enough to buy."

       Totally agree. And if people must build on very low land at least think about foundation heights. The cost of this may be small compared to preserving good resale value, especially if  you intend to live in one place for a lengthy time. Sea level rise is expected to follow an accelerating trend and may catch unwary people out.

       However I admit good foundation height would be of limited value if other infrastructure is vulnerable.

Prev  421  422  423  424  425  426  427  428  429  430  431  432  433  434  435  436  Next