Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 Next
Comments 22401 to 22450:
-
jdeutsch at 12:07 PM on 29 November 2016Trump or NASA – who's really politicising climate science?
And lest we forget, LBJ in 1961...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/LBJ-climate-1965.html
Moderator Response:[PS] Fixed link
-
michael sweet at 12:01 PM on 29 November 20162016 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #48
This New York Times article describes loss of value in beach front property from sea level rise. If more articles like this one are published, it will start to draw attention from developers and their potential buyers. Perhaps if scientists emphasize damage to beach front properties it will become an important point faster.
Hit them in the wallet to get the most attention. Trump and his ilk do not care about poor people starving due to climate change. He will care a lot when the insurance on his Mar A Largo property goes up 200%.
-
Tom Curtis at 07:45 AM on 29 November 2016It's the sun
jflqam @1214, the correlation between the Central England Temperature Series and the Sun Spot Number using annual means from 1749 to 2015 is 0.122, with an R-squared of 0.015. That is, ignoring other correlated or anti-correlated causal factors, solar variation accounts for just 1.5% of annual variation in the Central England Temperture series. Given the weak correlation between SSN and CET series, the complete breakdown of correlation after 1990 (r=0.101; r^2 =0.01) hardly needs special explanation.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 07:05 AM on 29 November 2016It's the sun
Not only that, HK, we know the radiative forcing of solar relative to human related forcings. It's clear that solar plays a very small role.
-
It's the sun
I made this graph showing the 11-year moving average of sunspots and global temperature, using annual data between 1880 and 2015. It’s obvious that the sun’s contribution to the global temperature has been somewhere between insignificant and non-existent after the 1950s.
The apparent correlation before that may be partly due to the scaling of the two y-axes, as the change of TSI is too small to explain the warming before 1940.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:13 AM on 29 November 2016Scientists rate Canadian climate policies
The phasing out of coal burning in Canada by 2030 is a great ambition. However, there is more to understand about this planned action.
In Alberta that action will cost current and future Albertan's $1.1 Billion (CBC Article). The cost to current and future generations is the result of approvals of new coal burners in Alberta that previous governments made during the past 25 or more years when the unacceptability of such approvals was clearly understood (but obviously not accepted as a basis for decision making) by Alberta and Canadian Leaderhip in Business and Politics.
That cost was a benefit recieved by previous generations of Albertan's who did not care to limit how they benefited. And none of that undeserved benefit (lower cost electricity) is able to be taken away from those people (that is what makes it so tempting for any current generation, or individuals and corporations, to try to get away with less acceptable ways of benefiting).
Also, the Alberta plan is to increase Natural Gas burning. In addition to the increased fugitive emission of methane from expanded natural gas operations, the natural gas burning will need to be terminated by 2050.
That creation of new natural gas burners will likely lead to future costs for future Albertans. Any gas burner built today would only operate for 33 years, less than investors would claim they are owed the opportunity to profit from. And future Albertan's will face that cost while their predecessors benefit by getting less expensive electricity.
The more responsible way for already well developed regions of the world to generate electricity are well understood and have always been able to be built. They just "cost a current generation more tghan the y can get away with in a system tghat determines acceptability by popularity and profitability".
That clear flaw of economic and political systems needs to become common sense understanding among the entire population, contrary to the many desired interests in pursuit of unjustifiably profitable activities that could easily have unjustified popular support Trumped-up for them.
And a big push-back on these plans (they can be terminated as easily and quickly as the Trumped-up about-face of America) is claims that if Trumped-up America doesn't responsibly increase the fossil fuel burning costs or reduce the related profits of its citizens and corporations then it is competitively disadvantageous for Canada (or any other nation) to act more responsibly.
Success of irresponsible leadership in business and politics is clearly one of the most tragic developments ever created by humans, clearly contrary to the advancement of humanity in so many ways.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 02:58 AM on 29 November 2016It's the sun
jlfqam... The more relevant point might be: Why do you think there is a correlation? And, why any possible correlation to a very tiny part of the planet (central England) have any meaning at all?
It seems to me you're stretching too far to find something that is not there.
Again, there are researchers out there for whom this is their area of expertise. They clearly tell us that solar irradiance is not the cause of surface warming over the past 50 years.
Moderator Response:[PS] Indeed. I feel that participants in this discussion are talking past each other.
I would note the following in hopes of more focussed discussion please.
1/ The total energy reaching the earths surface is absolutely related to temperature, so both changes in the sun and GHGs are acknowledged as causes of warming or cooling.
2/ Small variations in solar output in solar cycle affect temperature but AGW (climate) is concerned with trend. Please focus on data averaged over longer than 11 years.
3/ As with RH comment, please provide some actual evidence, not eyeballing of graphs, for correlation and use global temperatures.
4/ I strongly suggest you read existing papers examining solar influence or their summary in the IPCC report (p688f) so you can make more informed comment. See also here and
here for computation and validation of various influences.
5/ Simply repeating statements without addressing the points of commentators will result in posts being deleted as per comments policy. -
jlfqam at 01:51 AM on 29 November 2016It's the sun
thanks HK,
This is the key point, why the correlation between CET and SSN or 10.7cm disappeared since the mid 1990's. You can also see the 2009-10 minium was still visible, but briefly.
In fact it appears a temperature buffering or thermostat effect has taken control since the 1990's. The most obvious cause of that change could be the ocean cooling as consequence by the 1991 Mnt. Pinatubo eruption, it's the most significant abrupt event that took place during that decade, and capable of such a change in trend.
That volcanic eruption aerosol cooling added to the ongoing solar irradiance (especially in the microwave range) since the mid 1950's. This process of synergy between solar irradiance and volcanic winter cooling, has happened many times before and can be seen in paleoclimate proxies. The recovery of temperatures will have to wait until the sun enters a new high activity phase. Until then we cannot do anything else.
In the linked plots you may see, how the sun had an effect on the recovery of the Asian Monsoon since the Maunder Minimum that would otherwise continue down to the next glaciation following the decrease in NH insolation.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BzqxWkmUnvnyaFZfVndOaFZ6Q0U
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/speleothem/china/dongge_2004.txt
Moderator Response:[RH] Shortened link that was breaking page formatting.
-
Tom Curtis at 01:39 AM on 29 November 2016CO2 increase is natural, not human-caused
jlfqam @18, fossil fuels are completely depleted in C14. That is, there Δ14C = -1000 per mill, as per this chart:
(Source)
In contrast, the Δ14C of abyssal oceanic waters averages about -160 per mill, with minimum values of about -240 per mill (See figure 1 here). Taking those minimum values, you would need an increase in atmospheric CO2 4.2 times greater than has been observed to obtain an equivalent reduction in atmosperic C14 to that which has been observed as a result of the combustion of fossil fuels. Therefore the C14 evidence by itself is sufficient to show the primary source of the increased CO2 is from the combustion of fossil fuels.
That being said, it is a bad practise to relly on a single indicator in making these sorts of determinations. In fact there are at least 10 different lines of evidence that help us determine the source of the increase in atmospheric C14. Some lines only provide evidence regarding a single potential source, while some provide relevant evidence for all four "major" theories. Overall, only a fossil fuel source is not contradicted by any line of evidence. Further, it is strongly supported by five of the ten lines of evidence, and given moderate support by a further two. This evidence is discussed here, and summarized by this chart:
I have not come across a discussion of Δ18O in this connection, but given the strength of the evidence from other sources, I would be flabberghasted were it to show anything different.
-
jlfqam at 00:09 AM on 29 November 2016CO2 increase is natural, not human-caused
Thanks for the figure of the evolution of atmospheric O2 concentration.
A comparison of simultaneous variation O2(atm) with CO2(atm) can be seen in the plots from Scripps measurements
http://scrippso2.ucsd.edu/plots
for example.
http://scrippso2.ucsd.edu/sites/default/files/pdfs/plots/daily_avg_plots/mlo.pdf
I am sorry, I did not explain properly the figures, the fourth plot refers to the Oxygen isotope composition of O atom in the atmospheric CO2 molecule,
the isotope ratio 18O/16O, in this molecule refers to the ratio of 12C18O16O+12C18O2(less abundant) over 12C16O2, for example.
According to two possible sources of CO2, biomass/fossil fuel burning or ocean sources: (equations are not stoichiometric)
In the first case, burning, the oxygen source is atmospheric Oxygen (O2), which is produced by photosynthesis, and ultimately bears the isotope composition of the water used
by photsynthetic organisms during the water photolysis reaction: H2O=>O2 + (2H --->sugars (CnH2nO))
combustion #CnH(2n+x)+*O2=> #C*O2+H2*O
#C has the isotope signature of the fuel organic Carbon, and is measured in the 13C and 14C plots in the previous posting.
*O is the isotope signature of the O2 used in the combustion, and is represented in the 18O plot from Scripps CO2(atm) measurements.
The second case, the marine source of CO2, has also isotope signatures
remineralisation of organic matter from ocean bottom organic rich sediments $CnH(2n+x)+^O2=> $C^O2+H2^O
$C has the isotope signature of the marine biomass remineralised, as it's of biogenic origin is depleted in 13C, and since it's old, it's mostly depleted in 14C, hence in principle it's difficult to distinguish from fossil fuel carbon
^O is the isotope signature of ocean waters, either deep or shallow, as bicarbonate or dissolved CO2 rapidly equilibrate with water.
"C·O2+H2^O<=>"C^O·O+H2·O
"C^O·O+H2^O<=>"C^O2+H2·O etc.
In principle the measurement of the 18O isotope ratio in atmospheric CO2 should tell us which of the two sources is the dominant.
Is this argument correct?
Which one of the two sources can explain the plots in the previous posting 16.jlfqam
-
Tom Curtis at 22:59 PM on 28 November 2016CO2 increase is natural, not human-caused
jlfqam @16, total oxygen content in the atmosphere is showing a trend, as shown in this graph from the 2001 IPCC TAR:
You will notice that the trend is in parts per million. The graph you show of the d18O isotope is in parts per mill, ie, parts per thousand. A reduction of 30 ppm over 10 years (as shown above),ie, three parts per hundred of the scale, will not register on a graph scaled in parts per thousand.
-
jlfqam at 22:39 PM on 28 November 2016CO2 increase is natural, not human-caused
Hi,
I agree with the CO2, 13C and 14C could be attributed to fossil fuel burning. But the oxygen isotopes in the CO2 molecule are not mentioned in the explanations.
Can anyone explain why CO2, 13C and 14C isotopes follow a trend while 18O isotopes of CO2 do not show a clear trend?
Data Sources:
http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/assets/graphics/png/co2_sta_records.png
http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/assets/graphics/png/c13_sta_records.png
http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/assets/graphics/png/c14_sta_records_all_sta.png
http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/assets/graphics/png/o18_sta_records.pngModerator Response:[RH] Fixed image width. Please keep your images down to 500px.
-
It's the sun
Jlfqam 1212:
Your second graph (CET vs sunspot number) is the one I tried to insert in my posts 1206 & 1207.
It's hard to detect a trend visually when the oscillations are so large, but if the curves are smoothed, it should be obvious that CET and sunspots have moved in opposite directions the last few decades, just as sunspots and the global temperature have done. -
jlfqam at 21:13 PM on 28 November 2016It's the sun
My apologies for the CET vs 10.7cm solar flux, I reused an excel figure from paleo climate proxies and paid no attention to x-axis label.
Here is the updated figure link
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BzqxWkmUnvnyVkZLTWNmU0xZX0k
Le me apologize for the tone of my writing, english is not my mother tongue.Let me please ask you, do you know where I can find or, perhaps, could you please write a set of more specific questions to be answered in order to satisfy those in favor or anthropogenic or non anthropogenic cause of climate change?
You know real data will not fit as one may desire.
Thanks for your comments
Best
JLF
The other plots
CET vs monthly mean SSN
and gmsst vs 10.7cm solar flux
it may be intersting to find out why do temperatures sometimes follow the solar cycle and sometimes do not.
Moderator Response:[RH] Fixed image width.
-
MA Rodger at 19:42 PM on 28 November 2016It's the sun
jifqam @1203 & 1208.
You say @1204 that "it appears the sun is the main driver of climate. " In terms of the recent global warming this is entirely wrong, as has been pointed out in recent comments. The situation is illustrated best with a numerical analysis.
You link to a graph @1204 which compares the time series of Central England Temperature with Sun Spot Number. (Do note the X-axis is labelled thousands of years before present; not a good advert for the graphic.) The relationship between CET & SSN cannot be determined by 'eyeballing' two noisy data plots.
What we can say is that the full annual CET data set (back to the 1700s) and the full annual SSN data set (back to the 1700s & derived from observational records) do show a linear correlation between CET & SSN that is just statistically significant at 2sd if autocorrelation is ignored. By using 11-year rolling averages autocorrelation should be reduced. This shows that the 11-year average CET increases 1ºC (+/-1ºC at 2sd) for 190 increase in 11-year average SSN.
The result should be no surprise. A stronger sun will result in a warmer world. That the result remains statistically significant given the global and regional variation is perhaps a surprise to some.
The implications of this result are that the +0.7ºC increase in CET 11-year average CET since 1970 would have been +0.9ºC(+/-0.2ºC) if there had been no change in solar output. And thus I can tell you that when you say "it appears the sun is the main driver of climate, " you are entirely wrong.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:50 PM on 28 November 20162016 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #48
chriskoz@1, I agree that already more fortunate humans should not benefit from any steps toward sustained improvement of life for less fortunate humans that may be achieved from a known to be damaging activity that needs to be rapidly curtailed.
If Australian coal was to be properly employed it would be used in a way that only benefited the least fortunate and sped up their transition to a lasting better way of living (which means rapid advancement to ways of living that do not need coal burning).
However, India has plenty of its own coal. So a better way to help would be for Austarlian mining expertise to be donated to help the Indian nation most safely and effectively extract their resource for the benefit of their least fortunate (no wealthy or already more fortunate citizens of India getting any benefit from the activity).
The same goes for the extraction of Tar Sands in Alberta and its export for burning. It should only be done in a awy that only benefits the sustainable improvement of ways of living of the least fortunate.
That would be what should happen if advancing humanity to a constantly improved future as part of a robust diverstity of all life on this amazing planet was the objective of "Winners and Leaders".
Clearly, the problem is that unjustifiable understandably damaging pursuits of profit and Trumping-up support for them can succeed 'Famously Tragically' contrary to that objective.
The threat of unLeaders and unWinners who try to excuse 'unacceptable exploitation of their potential freedom to get away with things' or 'dismiss or discredit better understanding of what is required to advance humanity' needs to become the common sense understanding globally if humanity is to have a future on this or any other amazing planet.
The following recent Opinion article on the CBC News website highlights how the twisted attacks of groups like "Unite the Right" have pushed reasoned 'common sense' (consensus of understanding by people who think about things from a collective perspective) to become senseless passion (individual's encouraged to base their 'understanding' on their gut emotion about an issue).
"How 'common sense' came to mean its opposite under Donald Trump"
-
chriskoz at 08:05 AM on 28 November 2016Trump or NASA – who's really politicising climate science?
lepidolite@10,
If he [Trump] had been unable to connect and comprehend things, I don't think he would have won the election
No. I don't think the result of this election and the ability by the candidates to connect and comprehend things are related. It they were, Clinton would have won by a landslide. This election turned out to be the result of voters' emotions (mainly white middle classs resentment of the establishment) rather than any rational decision. Pre-election polls of the rest of the world (i.e. of people who have no emotional interest in it) consistently showed preference for Clinton to be future president as much as 85%. A stark difference to some 50.5% support domestically (remember: more people within US showed their support for Clinton, T-man won the White House by a procedural fluke of Electoral College).
I would share your optimism that DJT could overturn "Republican Establishment" and even contributed to the process of denial eradication therein (a process that must happen sooner or later, or our GOP is doomedd to simply implode in future) but I see not a single saign of it. I admit even a person with a "trumpesque intelligence" can be a good leader if he surrounds himself with good experts and knows how to turn their advice into good decision and has good morale to choose the best decision of conflicting interests. But T-man has been showing consistently opposite qualities: he surrounds himself with fake experts (e.g. Myron Ebell Takes On the E.P.A.) and I've already mentioned the level of his morale. The recent signs of his "softening" on his key "election promisses" indicate he's not a man on hard will but rather a cowardly bully. He likes to shout "I'm the winner" but when faced with difficult realities he just silently retreats. The prospect of such a leader looks good for GOP establishment who would like to see him as his puppet and that's abviously the worst possible prospect for climate mitigation in US
-
It's the sun
Moderator:
I tried to post the first link in #1203
(https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BzqxWkmUnvnyVlhLUzh5bDY5SG8)
It was a graph showing annual CET and monthly sunspot numbers back to early 18th century. It appeared briefly in the preview, but disappeared shortly thereafter. And now the link seems to be dead.Moderator Response:[PS] I have converted to a link. A URL to a google drive image viewer is not a suitable source. Actually, if I fetch content link instead, (ie LINK) this works.
[RH] Shortened [PS]'s link. :-)
-
Rob Honeycutt at 04:02 AM on 28 November 2016It's the sun
"I guess very few scientists have done so and consequently there are only a few who have the answer."
That's quite a bold assumption on your part. There are many 10's of thousands of researchers actively working on various climate related issues as their daily profession. These are people who have the relevant education and who've spent their entire lives working on this area of science. And you honestly think you're coming up with something they've all missed?My suggestion would be, as a first step, give yourself a healthy shot of humility. The chances that you're seeing something that actual scientists have missed is infinitessimally small. But, you clearly curious about the science, and that's a good thing. Instead of assuming you see something the professionals don't, take some time to educate yourself on this topic. There's lots of good reading material on this website. All that material is backed up with citations of published scientific research. Read and learn.
-
jlfqam at 01:40 AM on 28 November 2016It's the sun
Hi,
thanks for the replies. And the links.
There are no running means on the plots of CET vs solar flux or SSN.
It's just the available data from the links plotted as such. SSN is the monthly mean.
Your running average plot (1205) is interesting, as it show that something has changed since 1990’s, and the cause of the
Cold CET during the second half of Maunder’s Minimum.
In climate data is not as anyone would like to be. Take a look, please, at the plot of NOAA global land and ocean temperature (gmsst) vs solar flux.
Notice, how, after the mid 1990's, gmsst no longer follows the solar 10.7cm flux. Only
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BzqxWkmUnvnyNFpzbXkwaGxOM1k
Remember that 10.7cm is radiation in the microwave region, which is fully absorbed by water in either state liquid or solid, and converted directly into heat.
Not to mention that, although TSI variations over the solar cycle are in the order of 1-2 per mil.
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/science_information.php?page=TSIdata
Or in the past centuries
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TIM_TSI_Reconstruction.png
however variations in the 10.7cm range
Between solar maxima and minima, and even between maxima, are significantly larger
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BzqxWkmUnvnyNFpzbXkwaGxOM1kgmsst data link:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/correlation/gmsst.data
If someone has time and patience, I recommend taking a look at the past climate data.
There are two comprehensive databases,
NOAA Paleo:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/paleoclimatology-data/datasets
and Pangea:
https://pangaea.de/
Freely available but very costly in the resources invested in obtaining valuable data enough to provide the explanation to what’s going on, not only during past times, but also during the present time.
There you may find a great variety of climate proxies that combined in a global picture tell us how the climate works over the last 50Ma (yes, 50,000,000 years).
After that stroll to the past, examination of present day climate data is more easily understood.
I guess very few scientists have done so and consequently there are only a few who have the answer.
On the other side, those who have only examined data with limited span in time or with a lesser variety of proxies or narrow spatial coverage, frankly, do not have the criteria and even less the authority to criticize, refute or anything of the kind.Moderator Response:[DB] As others have already noted, please read the entirety of this post and the comments following it to get a better understanding of the Sun:Climate connection, as far as it's impact on the timescale of human lifetimes. Simply making a visual comparison of a graphic and drawing the inference of a correlation is no substitute for a physics-based analysis.
Inflammatory snipped. Please abide by the Comments Policy of this venue.
-
It's the sun
The graph in my last post disappeared!
I’ll try to post it again:Hope it stays put this time.
Moderator Response:[Rob P] I had a look at the image, in order to fix it, but there was nothing there. Link?
-
It's the sun
1203 jlfqam:
I’m not a statistician, but the graph in your first link looks more like chaos than correlation to me:If that graph is your work, I suggest you redo it with 5-year or 11-year running means for both the sunspots and temperature to make the trends easier to detect visually. Use global temperature instead of central England, as that is more relevant for the discussion here.
Links to some datasets for global temperature:
NASA-GISS
HadCRUT4 (the last column is the annual temps)
Berkeley Earth -
Daniel Bailey at 23:07 PM on 27 November 2016It's the sun
Here's a post on the background of the CET. Tamino expertly unpacks it.
-
Daniel Bailey at 23:04 PM on 27 November 2016It's the sun
Scientists use a metric called Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) to measure the changes in output of the energy the Earth receives from the Sun. And TSI, as one would expect given the meaning behind its acronym, incorporates the 11-year solar cycle AND solar flares/storms.
The reality is, over the past 4 decades of significant global warming, the net energy forcing the Earth receives from the Sun had been negative. That's right: negative. As in, the Earth should be cooling, not warming, if it was the Sun.
-
jlfqam at 22:14 PM on 27 November 2016It's the sun
Hi,
it appears the sun is the main driver of climate.
Please, take a look at the plot in this link
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BzqxWkmUnvnyVlhLUzh5bDY5SG8
As an example, It can be observed how the CET follow quite well the microwave flux from the sun. There's however a significantly different behaviour of CET relative to solar 10.7cm flux after 1991, that's likely the consequence of the Pinatubo eruption cooling on the ocean surface.
Looking back in time we can see a good correlation between CET and the monthly SSN on this linked plothttps://drive.google.com/open?id=0BzqxWkmUnvnyUGw4ejJhZHVlOG8
Data sources:
CET
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/data/download.html
10.7cm fluxhttp://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/correlation/solar.data
SSN
http://www.sidc.be/silso/datafilesThanks for your attention
JLF
-
MA Rodger at 21:07 PM on 27 November 2016Models are unreliable
jchoelgaard @997.
The answer is evidently 'yes' as Knutti et al (2002) demonstrates. However, the literature seems to show neural network models being used mostly to analyse particular aspects of climate rather modelling the global climate as a whole.
But as scaddenp @998 says, the main causes of historical global temperature fluctuations is ENSO. Add in a few other factors and a model can be built to fit certain historical data and having been thus 'curve-fitted' used to calculate an output that can be tested against other 'non-curve-fitted' historical data, as this recent Tamino post demonstrates.
-
Tristan at 18:25 PM on 27 November 2016Models are unreliable
Question: Is a potential reason for three record hot years in a row the fact that aerosol production is peaking?
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 17:57 PM on 27 November 2016Geologists and climate change denial
David
Some extra points. If it were a further breakdown of the ozone layer, that wouldn't change the amount of sunlight absorbed, just where it is absorbed. The UV would still be absorbed, just now it would be in the lower atmosphere. And nobody has reported any such change and since the advent of the ozone hole, we are monitoring that kind of stuff.
Also we are seeing cooling throughout the stratosphere, not just the ozone layer. This is a signature of more GH gases, particularly CO2. -
nigelj at 12:53 PM on 27 November 2016Trump or NASA – who's really politicising climate science?
lepidolite @10, sure I agree we should encourage Trump to take climate change seriously, reduce emissions and start seeing the upside of all this for business and the country. Yes Trump appears more flexible than the Republican Congress. (That would not be difficult).
However Trump is just so changeable its distinctly unusual. Basically I suppose people have to just hope he is pragmatic and does the right thing on the day. It's hopelesss predicting what he will do.
However at least 4 of Trumps companies have gone bankrupt owing billions and Trump is lucky to have excaped in one piece. This is the guy the whole world is supposed to trust to make the right decisions. I think it will be a very rough ride, and will not end well.
-
chriskoz at 12:44 PM on 27 November 20162016 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #48
Worth reading the latest series about the deswtruction of GBR:
Especially the pro-Adani arguments by QLD govs that have fast-tracked this project:
- Emissions are measured in the country where they are released so those from the Carmichael mine belong to India, not Australia.
- About 300 million Indians don’t have access to electricity. India will build new coal power stations, and it will get the coal from somewhere. Why shouldn’t the Australian economy and Queensland communities benefit?(my emphasis)
My response: it's like giving your younger brother matches to start afire and then saying "my brother burnt my house not me. And BTW, if I did not give him matches someone else would". How could anyone listen to and agree with such logic? Unless they deny AGW & what's happening with GBR of course.
-
scaddenp at 10:57 AM on 27 November 2016Models are unreliable
jchoelgaard, the main influence on year to year temperature is the ENSO cycle which is appears to be chaotic and neural networks are no better than any other curve-fitting in predicting such processes. You have a limited no. of inputs (measured values) and you know that imperfect measurement and subscale unknowns will invalidate the prediction eventually.
The situation is analogous to predicting mid summer day temperature 3 months out. You can state with great confidence that the temperature will likely be higher than mid winters day, because (like with increased GHG), there is more incoming radiation. However, exactly what that temperature will be is dependent on weather - an inherently chaotic process. Applying the ANN approach to climate modelling would face the same formidable challenges as applying to a long term weather forecast.
You can however make a pretty good punt at what the long term average mid summer day temperature will be and climate model predictions are like that.
-
scaddenp at 10:41 AM on 27 November 2016Geologists and climate change denial
Also David, we are measuring the change in the incoming radiation (or outgoing radiation) and it has the spectral signature of CO2. The match between calcuated radation spectra and intensity for the CO2 increase and the measurement is extremely good. See the papers on this discussed here.
Unless you wish to abandon conservation of energy and Plancks Law, then you need explain why that measured increase in radiation from CO2 has not caused warming if you want argue for other causes.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 09:58 AM on 27 November 2016Geologists and climate change denial
davidbennettlaing... One would be to look at the relative radiative forcing of all the potential factors. As here:
-
davidbennettlaing at 02:44 AM on 27 November 2016Geologists and climate change denial
Devil's advocate here (non-economic geologist!). You state that increased radiative output from Earth is proof that rising CO2 causes warming, but suppose it's not really rising CO2 that has caused the warming, but something entirely different, such as anthropogenic chlorine photodissociated from CFCs depleting the ozone layer and admitting more high-frequency UV-B. What actual hard-data proof is there that CO2 is actually responsible for the observed warming and not something else? Tx.
-
jchoelgaard at 01:07 AM on 27 November 2016Models are unreliable
I repeat this due to many typhographical errors:
It seems that many models give more or less accurate long term predictions of average temperature rises in the sea, land and atmosphere as well as ice and snow coverage. The major contributors are supposedly atmospheric levels of CO2 and water vapor and possibly methane and other gases, all assumed to induce positive feedback effects with some (presumeably individual) delays. The effects of volcanic eruptions, cloud coverage, ocean currents, sun spots, wobbling/perturbation of the earths axis, distance from the sun, etc., may or may not be inputs or possibly outputs from some of these models.
Being a layman, all this suggests a complexity that make it difficult for any model to simulate yearly variations in any historically known output of interest based on all (or allmost all) historically known ( measured) inputs. To me this suggests that a sufficiently sophisticated neural network could be trained to accurately simulate any climate effects (one or more chosen outputs) and causes (using the effects of several assumed driving forces as inputs). If such a model was implemented and sufficiently well trained (millions or billions of runs) it might reveal some surprising relationships, that could explain some short term known analomies or it might even reverse some theories about cause and effect (eg. by trying to exchange certain inputs and outputs and studying the results). If sufficiently accurate, such a model might even convince the sceptics.
Al, this is hust a lead-up to my question: Has any such neural network already been implemented or contemplated and if so what are the capabillties?
-
350ppm at 23:49 PM on 26 November 2016Mitigation in Australia
On the topic of travel, I read today that 92 million barrels per day of oil are consumed globally (mostly for transport I assume). Apparently there is 315kg of co2 per barrel when burned. According to my pretty ordinary maths, this is 3Gt p.a.....the plan is to continue this with a small downward trajectory to 75million bpd in 2050....we have to stop converting the terrestrial C into atmospheric C and start using the abundance of atmospheric C for our fuels, but this needs to be economically rewarded. We must recognise the value of the commons (the commom wealth) in our Commonwealth.
-
MA Rodger at 23:16 PM on 26 November 2016The simple, cheap instruments measuring global warming in the oceans
A final comment on plato525 - when I searched to see where else he may have had a web-presence, all I came across was an image of Plato with the incorrect dates (525-456 BC) which appears to be courtsey of (!!Yaggy and T. L. Haines is inosent!!) the Florida Center for Instructional Technology. (The dates are of course those of the dramatist Aeschylus.) So it is possible that even plato525's chosen name stems from a bad error.
Moderator Response:[JH] Off-topic.
-
lepidolite at 21:12 PM on 26 November 2016Trump or NASA – who's really politicising climate science?
chriskoz @9
If he had been unable to connect and comprehend things, I don't think he would have won the election. He has been able to realise where the battleground was and campaigned with the right messages in places that were more useful to him that where Clinton did, for example.
Why do I see an opportunity? If Obama says that global warming is a thing, he convinces zero Republicans.Now, imagine, if this time someone convinces DJT to say something or take some action. Or even just leave the Clean Power Act as it is.
He has the power to settle the issue and completely leave hardcore oil-backed Republicans alone. Not even Republicans believe the Republican establishment anymore, the proof being DJT getting elected.
And DJT has proven to be as malleable as it gets. Even if he has said what he said in the past.
I guess it boils down to: who is more likely to change his ming on global warming? Mitt Romney/any other ideologically conservative establishment Republican, or notoriously "practical" Donald Trump?
Even his actual written positions give quite some room for global warming action:
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/energy/Yes, he (for now) wants to push fossil fuels, but he wants full energy independence, something which is heavily aided by moving away from fossil. Let's find the common ground in there and try to push him for the latter rather than the former.
-
lepidolite at 20:55 PM on 26 November 2016Trump or NASA – who's really politicising climate science?
I agree with rkrolph. I actually believe climate associations should be trying hard to reach Donald Trump, and they could actually sway him into taking action or, at the very least, not taking counter-action. He is no hard-core conservative. He is not a believer in completely free markets if he wants to keep companies from moving abroad.
It is time to find some common ground. The smugness that liberals have been accused of, and that probably got DJT elected should be avoided.If DJT wants to fight manufactured products from abroad, one excellent way would be to heavily tax products that do not meet certain environmental requirements. Companies in the US face tougher enviro. regulations than those in China, US products will be neatly favoured by such legislation. Let's pitch that idea and others to him.
A few Republican congressmen and senators may always be convinced for some action. -
chriskoz at 17:38 PM on 26 November 2016Trump or NASA – who's really politicising climate science?
rkrolph@5
I assume you responded to my post @4 but please note that 'christoz' is not me, next time please avoid such mistake.
I do not share your optimism about T-man's possible transformation. I also do not share pessimism of some doomsayers who predict rise of fascism or similar degeneration of US political system - opposing forces in Congress won't alow it. I'm simply a pragmatist, whose opinions about the world are shaped by the available evidence and can change as more evidence becomes available.
In case of T-man, the available evidence does not indicate that he cares any bit about US. Quite opposite: he cares how to deceive and ruin his country's economic balance. Proof: he extorted almost $1bln from Uncle Sam through a tax loophole. No need to say anymore about his morale. And there is no single piece of evidence about his ability to comprehend and connect the things. Everything, his incoherent & rambling speeches, his use of emotions therein and total lack of any substance in everything he says, point to opposite: an empty headed narcissist driven by random whims. This video by Sam Harris(watch just from 2:00 to 5:00 where Sam explain how the ideasin human brain are connected, therefore it is impossible to "pull out a diamond" out of it when you've pulled out tons of junk) matches my opinion quite well.
So, any signs that T-man recently may be "coming to his senses" cannot be inrterpreted as such, given the evidence above. Rather, they should be interpreted as a signs of a con man changing his propaganda because he realises he cannot go far with his previous deceits. Regarding climate science, I'm affraid, there is nothing that can stop the con man, with REP Congress in ever widening denial. I'm pessimist here and think this is the area most damage will be done in next 4 years of "dark age" in US mitigation policies. Unless of course you can show me something that will stop the con man in his ravings.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 15:27 PM on 26 November 2016Global weirding with Katharine Hayhoe: Episode 5
Another brilliant brief presentation.
The only problem with brevity is the need to 'not say something'.
In this presentation it may have helped to add that the 'Curve of climate change' will be difficult to predict regionally. That means that planning regionally for the change is a gamble, and also means so much more.
What is certain is that almost all regional climates will be changing. What is less certain is exactly what the regional weather changes will be. And the faster the rate of change the more difficult it will be to use observations of recent regional changes to reliably forecast what will regionally occur in the near future, like an upcoming crop growing season.
So it is worse than needing to plan for the curve. It is more like being a batter trying to figure out if a curve or knuckle or fast ball is coming and what part of the plate it is going across. In baseball the batters get several attempts in a game and sometimes figure it out or guess right.
Unlike baseball which is just a game for the entertainment of humans, this economic game gambit of competing to get away with benefiting the most from burning fossil fuels will create more uncertainty and risk and challenges for others, particularly future generations of humanity.
Too many people have developed a taste for the possible benefits and are addicted to the pursuit of more. They excuse their desires by claiming everyone is to be freer to think for themselves and do as they please for their convenience, entertainment and enjoyment. And they will irrationally and unjustly fight against limitations to that freedom.
Unlike batters in baseball, future generations of humanity shouldn't have more 'swings that miss' just because a portion of a generation of humanity did not care to limit their personal pursuits of personal desire and do not care to actually understand how their desires and demands for freedom to do as they please are impediments to the advancement of humanity to a lasting better future for all, a future where climate science actually can improve the forecasting of regional growing seasons rather than scrambling to try to figure out what is going to happen (and not being sidetracked by the need to try to grab the attention of a population of people that are developing attention spans like goldfish and the desire to not have to do something harder and less personally entertaining if they might get away with an easier and cheaper more enjoyable action plan without having to consider that it is likely to cause problems others will end up having to deal with).
This leads to need to understand the way that a Business Mind can regard risk (My MBA helped me more clearly understand powerful motivations of the business mind). The business approach to risk is mitigation. Not mitigating the consequences created that others have to deal with. Mitigating the magnitude of potential negative consequences for the investors-executives (and hoping to be able to find someone responsible, like an employed professional person or other scapegoat, that they can blame for failing to keep them from getting away with what they very powerfully wanted to get away with). There is ample evidence of the damaging 'success' of this approach. Things like the 2008 global financial debacle, Deepwater Horizon and Union Carbide's Bhopal disaster each limited the consequences faced by investors and executives who benefited from the more profitable riskier approach to taking in money quicker (Trump proudly declared he would do that as America's Boss - grab and gather quicker than the others can, any way that can be gotten away with).
-
Digby Scorgie at 13:00 PM on 26 November 2016Trump or NASA – who's really politicising climate science?
ubrew12 @2
We now know that Exxon actually did fund climate science in the 1970s. Their team of climate scientists confirmed what other climate scientists had concluded. Exxon used the information to safeguard its installations against the expected effects of climate change in the future. However, they also realized that to combat climate change, people had to reduce the burning of fossil fuel — which would hit Exxon in the pocket. To safeguard their profits therefore, they launched their campaign of deceit about climate change. You know the rest.
-
nigelj at 10:42 AM on 26 November 2016Trump or NASA – who's really politicising climate science?
Trump's original position was climate change is a Chinese scam and he was adamant the USA would pull out of the Paris accord. Now Trump says humans are implicated in climate change to "some extent", and he is open minded about Paris. This has been in the news the last couple of days.
I suspect Trump lacks sincerity on this change of mind, and is just trying to be all things to all people. I hope Im wrong of course.
More significant is this. Trump is not going to find it so easy to get what he wants all the time, whatever that may be. He is used to running his family empire and will find government quite different. He has already appointed hard line climate sceptics, and his election has empowered the Republican Congress. Trump simply doesn't have the power to dictate what all these people think and do, and they are mostly all climate denialists. So even if Trump softens his position personally, it will spin out of Trumps control.
Memes do get out in the public, deliberately so. People hear the memes they like, and close their mind to anything that makes them feel uncomfortable. So many people are driven by gut feelings and emotions its scary.
-
ubrew12 at 09:39 AM on 26 November 2016Trump or NASA – who's really politicising climate science?
Just a heads-up: The UK telegraph is saying the Robert Scott and Earnest Shackleton expeditions of the 1910's prove Antarctic sea ice area has not changed in a century. To quote the article "the levels in the early 1900s were between... 5.3 and 7.4 million square kilometres". The article goes on to suggest the current value is '6 million square kilometres'. Hence the title of the article: "Antarctic sea ice is not shrinking [in]... 100 years". This is all well and good, except the current minimum Antarctic sea ice extent is not 6 million square kilometres, but 3 million square kilometres. A Tamino reconstruction of Antarctic sea ice extent (10^6 km2) over the 20th century is shown here. The Telegraph will probably retract their statement in a week, claiming that they got their units (mi^2 versus km^2) confused. But the 'meme' will be out there, and that will not be retracted: which was the entire point of the article.
-
rkrolph at 09:24 AM on 26 November 2016Trump or NASA – who's really politicising climate science?
I understand what christoz is saying but I am trying to be optimistic and hope Trump comes to his senses regarding climate science. He has already changed his tune some since the election. Does he really want to take the U.S. in a different direction that the rest of the world on this?
-
rkrolph at 09:16 AM on 26 November 2016Global weirding with Katharine Hayhoe: Episode 5
Another fine video from Katharine. And I spelled her name right also.
-
chriskoz at 09:03 AM on 26 November 2016Trump or NASA – who's really politicising climate science?
That is the start of the fallout from this irresponsible presidency by a con man. I'm really worried what will happen to Gavin and his staff. The con man realizes some of the grossest deceitfull and childish promisses that absurdly gave him a White House job (like prossecuting his opponents and building border walls) are getting him nowhere so he backs off with no regrets. But fighting the climate science is not one of them, so in his selfish, abhorrent desire, he will proceed dismantling climate science together with climate regulations. Like a child who does not see the reason the regulations are needed (FF burning -> AGW) trying to find a scapegoats (climate scientists) instead. Is there any way to stop that? Petition/letters of disapproval from world academies of science?
-
nigelj at 07:07 AM on 26 November 2016Trump or NASA – who's really politicising climate science?
Excellent article.
"Climate research conducted at NASA had been “heavily politicised”, said Robert Walker, a senior adviser to US President-elect Donald Trump.This has led him to recommend stripping funding for climate"
I think the claim is empty. Walker provides no evidence, because there is none and hopes that bluff will win the day. The media need to start demanding these right wing schills provide hard proof, and it needs to be something more than some trivial rubbish or sophistry.
In my opinion the accusation is also a subtle form of bullying to try to cripple and intimidate the researchers by wearing them down with constant false accusations. We have seen other attacks on scientists documented on this website. Its more off the same.
In contrast the rhetoric of the denialists is full of political statements about liberal scams, Chinese scams, etc, etc, in a gish gallop of click bait designed to inflame people. Yet most in the media are so weak they let people get away with this without challenge.
I agree that climate denail is clearly related to political ideologies opposing government actions and roles. The correlation is striking. The reason is ultimately fear of change or constrraints on personal activities, and letting this reach an unhealthy level.
The consensus is really important, as it shows the climate community is of one mind (apart from a few eccentics that you will always get,) so hence the sceptics attack the consensus. I have emailed this consensus material to local media, and encourage others to do the same. The consensus studies are reasonably recent, and not part of IPCC releases, so many of the mainstream media are likely just not aware of them, and certainly not that there are several consensus studies finding much the same thing.
-
ubrew12 at 01:42 AM on 26 November 2016Trump or NASA – who's really politicising climate science?
If the climate scientists are conducting a hoax, it could devastate the fossil fuels industry. Is the richest industry in the history of capitalism just unable to find the money to 'fact check' the climate scientists, and make sure this isn't a hoax? Yet, instead of the clamor of directly-fossil-funded scientific opinion challenging the IPCC, its the silence that is deafening here. It's the absence of directly-fossil-funded climate science, countering the standard viewpoint, that informs us more than the presence of fossil-funded doubt-mongerers. In fact, if you ask Exxon its direct opinion, you'll get a weak admission that the scientists are right and we should be preparing for warming.
So, of course the climate science is 'political'. Exxon just finds it more effective to 'make it political' than to do its own science, which it knows would just add more evidence to what scientists have compiled. There are two incidences in history, that I'm aware of, when fossil fuels directly funded science to challenge the standard viewpoint. In both cases, those efforts did little more than confirm the standard viewpoint. So, for the fossil fuels industry, it's Plan B, first elucidated by WC Fields: 'if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull'.
-
mbryson at 00:50 AM on 26 November 2016Trump or NASA – who's really politicising climate science?
Singer, eh? Why am I not surprised. Multiple real surveys are obviously biased, but the mere opinion of a washed-up right-wing scientist who has a long history of getting things wrong ('Star Wars,' anyone?) is obviously reliable. That way madness lies (in truth we're already there).
Prev 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 Next
