Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 Next
Comments 26201 to 26250:
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:07 AM on 9 January 2016Why is the largest Earth science conference still sponsored by Exxon?
cs41y,
Popularity, profitability, perceptions of prosperity and any other side-benefits thought to be obtained like tax revenue ...
None of that excuses any group of people who actually try to keep others from fully better understanding what is going on.
The fact that an organization as big as Exxon has developed and allowed its leadership to be controlled by such attitudes and resulting actions is unacceptable and damaging. There is no 'kind non-passionate' way to refer to what my better understanding of what is going on has made me aware of.
And the belief that this type of group should be 'negotiated with or have its selfish interests balanced with the advancement of humanity' would be laughable if it wasn't for the tragic consequences of any success obtained by these type of people through their efforts to get away with what they can understand is unacceptable.
The real trouble-makers in every organization or society are fairly well known by powerful wealthy people (because they illigitimately got away with becoming part of the powerful and wealthy). Too many people like that succeeding is a serious detriment to the advancement of humanity (and advancement of humanity to a lasting better future through better understandinga nd awareness has to be the objective of science, not temporarily unsustainably increasing profits, employment or taxes)
That understanding is the best explanation of the damaging developments that have kept humanity from advancing to a lasting better future for all. I do not care what major global problem you choose to look into, that understanding explains it as well or better than beliefs that something else like 'religion' or 'race' is the root cause (because in almost every one of those cases callous greedy people have chosen to allow, support or promote intolerance to gain more undeserved advantage).
So the 'science issue' of Exxon is not 'just science' and should not be considered without passion. There is too much at stake to prolong the success of callous greed and intolerance defying and fighting against the developing better understanding of who they are and how unacceptable their attitudes and actions are.
The focus needs to be kept on the important matters being investigated and better understood. That is what scientists, engineers, any other professionals and all other 'responsible adults' are supposed to responsibly and conscientiously do. That is the only path to a better future for humanity (it is actually the only viable path to any future for humanity).
So what has been done by people through Exxon has to be called out for what it is, regardless of any other interests. The advancement of humanity to a lasting better future for all life on this or any other amazing planet has to trump any other considerations.
-
wili at 06:16 AM on 9 January 2016Why is the largest Earth science conference still sponsored by Exxon?
Readers should be aware that there is no guarantee that some posters here are not in the pay of Exxon.
-
cs41y at 05:03 AM on 9 January 2016Why is the largest Earth science conference still sponsored by Exxon?
I have a separate opinion that I think is perfectly on topic but feel free to not agree with me on that. The more emotional and passionate anyone appears to be when it comes to a science issue that is highly polarized the more they can be erroneously accused of being the "liberal left". That whole conspiracy nonsense used to turn the issue into college elitists versus the working class. I am not saying it is wrong to have emotion or passion. It is an issue with very disturbing consequences for not taking action. But we should not take actions or include language in articles which would make us appear to no longer be impartial scientists (which most of us are impartial and approach this appropriately). So unless there's a valid reason to reject funding, such as being required to withhold any unfavorable conclusions, then it does more harm to exclude them.
-
cs41y at 04:45 AM on 9 January 2016Why is the largest Earth science conference still sponsored by Exxon?
I understand the initial emotional reaction some might have when they see or are told something like this. There are no compelling reasons to exclude funding from Exxon. The AGU has been by upfront about its position on climate change which is in direct opposition to some of Exxon's interests and claims. Take away those funds from Exxon and the only thing that will change is the budget has now been reduced for scientists which support measures to combat climate changes caused by people. So Exxon will attempt the same strategy of disinformation only it may be more successful as scientists who are in direct opposition to Exxon's disinformation now have less funds to get their own findings out there. I would say it's puzzling why Exxon would fund it as there appears to be no benefit to them for it.
But if you look up the organizational structure of Exxon Mobil it is an incredibly huge corporation. Somewhere in the ballpark of 75000-100000 employees. Dozens of departments or affiliate companies. Most don't interact with each other. They only seem to tie in through the corporate headquarters itself. So there are very legitimate sciences going on within Exxon. Unfortunately the corporate level is the face and brains of the company with respect policies and the need to squeeze out every drop of revenue possible. So they simply ignore their scientists or even worse try to think of ways to discredit their own scientists findings.
So take into account all that. Also take into account how difficult and competitive it can be to getting any type of funding in science programs/research or even a job and it quickly becomes clear why someone would accept a job with them or accept funds from them. The scientist is typically not doing anything unethical, although some could do so at times. But if you can get funded and there are no restrictions on what you can publish. You can't control what the marketing, accounting, lawyers, etc do with it at the corporate level. You only know they will do the same thing to the science of climates no matter how you get your funding. You may potentially make a positive impact at the company or within the energy production industries, even if it's only very small. Then why reject those funds. There are no logical or ethical reasons to reject it. The only argument against it would be fairly weak and mostly ideological reasoning. But rejecting it based on those ideological reasons will not actually achieve very much (if anything) towards those ideals.
-
davidsanger at 04:34 AM on 9 January 2016Latest data shows cooling Sun, warming Earth
please correct to: "note the text does not say that at all"
-
davidsanger at 04:33 AM on 9 January 2016Latest data shows cooling Sun, warming Earth
Although the text of this posts is fine I believe the way the graph is presented can be misleading. The choice of the Y-axis units for total solar irradiance (1360-1363) give the impression that until roughly the 1970's changes in irradiance led ot temperature changes, and that after that there was "divergence." (note the text does say that at all).
If TSI were plotted with Y-axis units from 1350 to 1375 it woudl give a different visual impression. 1300-1400 would be different again.
I know you have to make some choice of units, and making both graphs fill the visual space makes some sort of sense, but it can lead people to make the wrong conclusion about how the two sets of values are related.
Here's another version (scaled to show actual contribution) from a Bloomberg animated graphic :
-
tmbtx at 17:48 PM on 8 January 2016Why is the largest Earth science conference still sponsored by Exxon?
Regarding plastics, of course they have their own problems although mass extinction is probably not one them. Plastic has revolutionized many industries. Has it been a net positive? I don't know. That's not a question I can answer really. There are days I regret industrialization, not that dwelling on it accomplishes anything. It's done.
I would like to see society in general stop externalizing all its costs. This would include, for example, companies being responsible for the disposal of their products when they are used/broken etc. If Sony had to take back all their TV's once they were obselete I imagine we'd see a lot less planned obselescence. Some of that is accomplished by recycling now, but it seems pretty marginal compared to the size of the problem. But I digress.
Back on topic, I think they are correct overall to push AGU to reconsider its sponsorship policies. I would just ask the people pushing it to also allow the organization to be deliberate about it and take the time to mitigate any financial consequences. Maybe they can afford to quit cold turkey with the corporate funding, but I kind of doubt it. Then again if they decided to just drop them and let the chips fall where they may I'd support that too.
-
ryland at 17:21 PM on 8 January 201695% consensus of expert economists: cut carbon pollution
DB I have read the comments policy and cannot see where my post @4 contravenes. I didn't make anything up or post graphs or make offensive comments and thought the emissions from agriculture could have been considered by the economists. Is that off topic? I understand that moderation is not open to discussion but if a commenter does not understand why a post is considered unacceptable then it woiuld be most helpful if the reasons for this are made clear.
Moderator Response:[DB] This claim of yours is unsupported sloganeering and off-topic on this post:
"livestock are responsible for a bigger share of total global GHG emissions than is the whole of global transport"
If you wish to pursue that topic, bring credible evidence for your claims and present them on this thread.
-
SirCharles at 15:04 PM on 8 January 2016Why is the largest Earth science conference still sponsored by Exxon?
"No more than one third"? We have to leave 75% of all known fossil fuel reserves in the ground if we want to have a chance to stay under 2°C warming by the end of this century, not just 67%.
=> Scientists warn 75% of known fossil fuel reserves must stay in the ground
-
cs41y at 10:48 AM on 8 January 2016Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
I study physics and statistical analysis. An easy analogy to explain concepts like chaos would be the random processes involved by individual atoms or molecules in an object. That would be like weather. Much more complex then weather. Weather is at least predictable with confidence. It tends to normalize fairly quickly so a butterfly flapping its wings in China does not have any effect on a weather event in the future. That's a part of chaos theory. You have to show that the dynamic system is actually sensitive to minor changes in initial conditions. I would not consider weather let alone climate to be that sensitive to minor fluctuations.
Statistical mechanics makes use of all the individual random probabilities associated with each particle (a very crude definition but the best one in simple terms I can think up). When you include all the probabilities everything normalizes so you can't do a good job of describing the individual particles but you can define the entire object, region, whatever your calculating. That could be kind of like climate.
I believe this was attempted to be explained earlier. In physics and statistics stochastic processes have been validated in great depth and high degree of confidence. I am not a climatologist but the concept applies to a broad range of sciences so when they use some of these methods I generally accept the results if there were no errors in their calculations. I am not sure what the relevance of a lot of the statements on chaos being made so I did not get the best impression that chaos theory and statistical mechanics was well understood by some of the commenters. I'm not naming anyone and some people do grasp it here. But in the future a good guideline to use is if you understand something you then you can generally explain it without having to take the explanations straight out of a book. You also would not take a small part of a science theory in this case statistics or thermodynamics and try to make it sound more important to the overall results then it really would be.
I have an undergraduate degree in physics and mathematics. And I'm currently studying to be a statistician. So I am only commenting on specific instances here. I won't pretend to know climate models very well but I can assure you the methods being applied as far as the physics and math is not in question. if anyone would wish to argue against anthropogenic climate change these are not the areas you want to try and dispute.
-
wili at 06:33 AM on 8 January 2016Why is the largest Earth science conference still sponsored by Exxon?
Sooo, plastics are not an evironmental problem???
-
PhilippeChantreau at 04:05 AM on 8 January 2016Why is the largest Earth science conference still sponsored by Exxon?
tmbtx, I assume you are talking about plastics. If so that is indeed a pertinent remark. I would add that, in fact, we should be concerned about preserving oil reserves for that very purpose instead of burning them. Plastics have innumerable applications that have become vital in medecine/surgery as well as countless other areas. We're not as close as replacing oil as a primary material for these as we are to produce electricity by other means than burning fossil carbon.
I'd say it is also not a problem to use petroleum for plastic production, so long as the energy for the processes comes from something else than burning carbon. The medical field has yet to solve the problem of single use item that are bio contaminated since, as of now, disposal is mostly by incineration. So, not only the material is lost, but the fossil carbon is released in the atmosphere as well. I'm sure it is a small contribution compared to coal and oil burning, which should be addressed in priority, especially coal.
-
wili at 02:18 AM on 8 January 2016Why is the largest Earth science conference still sponsored by Exxon?
Exxon gets huge benefits of international legitimacy from sponsoring this high-profile event. We have to make it clear to the world that the basic 'business model' of Exxon and its ilk--profiting from baking the planet--is not only illegitimate, but morally repugnant.
Their sponsorship of AGU is like medical conferences being sponsered by tobacco companies--not only does it legitimize the sponsor, but it tends to delegitimize the good work of conference itself.
-
Yvan Dutil at 01:39 AM on 8 January 2016Latest data shows cooling Sun, warming Earth
Note that the sunspot number and group sunspot number have been completely revised recentely. Accordingly, the XXth century solar maximum is now inexistant.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 00:55 AM on 8 January 2016Why is the largest Earth science conference still sponsored by Exxon?
I disagree with suggestions that the actions of Exxon that delayed the development of global better understanding of what is going on regarding the impacts of burning fosil fuels can be excused because of 'other things Exxon does'. Exxon's actions are particularly unaccepable becasue 'they actually did know better'.
The actions of Exxon regarding the development and acceptance of climayte science were clearly contrary to proper science. That needs to be understood and acted upon, or there is little hope for humanity to have a better future on this or any other planet.
If the power players in control of what Exxon did were (does are) willing to try to delay or discredit the developing better understanding of climate science because of interests in maximizing 'profit, employment, tax revenue' or any other temporary regional 'perception of benefit for a portion of humanity', what other developing better understanding regarding the potential unacceptability of their pursuits would they also be 'interested in carefully but deliberately fighting against'?
The advancement of humanity can only occur through the constant improvement of the understanding of what is going on with the objective of sustainably improving the conditions for all life on this amazing planet (the only viable future for humanity is a robust diversity living in a diversity of ways that are a sustainable and locally adapted appropriate parts of the robust diversity of life on this or any other amazing planet). Any 'effort to understand how to temporarily profit more in ways contrary to the true advancement of humanity' need to simply be understood to be unacceptable.
Advancement requires efforts to effectively and rapidly undo damaging developments regardless of the perceptions of prosperity that have regionally temporarily been created through the deliberate efforts to generate poular support for activity and attitudes that can be understood to be unacceptable and unsustainable.
It is irrational and unacceptable to pursue a 'balance' between the 'benefits obtained by a portion of the totality of humanity through time' with 'the reduced opportunity and consequences faced by others (particularly the reduction of opportunity and the increasing of challenges for future global generations)'.
-
Tom Curtis at 23:08 PM on 7 January 2016Tracking the 2°C Limit - November 2015
Angusmac @10:
1) Even if it would be convenient to state the increase in global temperature relative to the 1961-1990 average, the 2 C guideline for dangerous global warming is currently stated relative to preindustrial (approx 1750) temperatures. If you adjust the baseline for this series to 1961-1960, you ought also to adjust the guideline for dangerous global warming to the same baseline. Adopting the convention that preindustrial temperatures equal the 1880-1809 mean, that means adjusting the guideline down from 2 C to 1.669 C. Similarly adjusting the figure in the OP, we obtain 0.764 C above the 1961-1990 mean. Importantly, the result is that there is no change in the 0.905 C estimate remaining relative to the guideline.
In sum, even if we allow that your pedantry has a reasonable basis, it makes not substantive difference.
2) It is far from clear that MWP temperatures were globally beneficial. Yes, anecdotal evidence suggests they were beneficial in Greenland, and Western Europe but the data to claim it was globally beneficial does not exist, despite your statement of faith.
What we can be fairly confident about is that the warming to 1980 plus the accompanying CO2 fertilization effect was economically beneficial in the global average. Since 1980 the combined effect has possibly continued to be beneficial in Western nations, but has likely been harmful in poorer, particularly tropical nations. From the relevant community of experts, 41% think the global gains to 1980 have already been wiped out. A further 22% think it will be wiped out within the next 10 years, with a further 26% thinking it will be wiped out within 35 years. In all, that makes 89% of relevant experts who think impacts will be net negative by approximately 2 C above preindustrial temperatures
3)
"...but Huang et al do not state explicitly in the paper if they are comparing their land-only proxies with land-only instrumental temperatures"
"The variance-adjusted version of the global land only surface air temperature anomaly time series we used was retrieved from the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit web site on November 1, 2007 (CRU, http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/crutem3vgl.txt, 2007)"
(My emphasis)
Note, as a land only temperature series, temperature variations will be overstated relative to global (land plus ocean) temperature variations in both the instrumental and reconstructed temperature histories.
-
tmbtx at 21:31 PM on 7 January 2016Why is the largest Earth science conference still sponsored by Exxon?
Oh I forgot my only technical disagreement - as for careers, oil and gas are used for more than just burning. There will be demand for hydrocarbons even after the eventual shift to renewables for energy. Not as much demand as now, obviously, but it's not zero.
-
tmbtx at 21:30 PM on 7 January 2016Why is the largest Earth science conference still sponsored by Exxon?
I have a very mixed reaction to this article, probably because I have ties to AGU, find the evidence for AGW blindingly obvious, and I also work in oil and gas as a geophysicist. The sentiment I understand completely, but it seems a bit naive and black and white. Big Oil supports a substantial number of earth science programs (not just petroleum programs) around the world with lots of money. I personally benefitted from their scholarship funding while doing research that had nothing to do with oil and gas. On the other hand, it would be fascinating (and admittedly fun in a way) to watch it play out if organizations like AGU and GSA started refusing industry funding as a matter of principle. They can certainly justify it to some extent given the behavior they've cited. Although I do wonder how big of a funding hole that would leave.
-
Eclectic at 20:06 PM on 7 January 2016Tracking the 2°C Limit - November 2015
Unfortunately, Angusmac, the Huang paper is currently off-line at the link you gave.
My memory is sketchy, since it is some 2 years since I was reading on the NOAA website that the Medieval Warm Period . . . was more a North Atlantic phenomenon ~ during which, the Andean and West-Canadian glaciers were still advancing (plus some other Southern Hemispheric evidence). The gist of it was that the MWP was greatly overrated as an event of global importance.
Whether the (so-called) MWP should be discounted 50% or 75% (or not at all! ) in the discourse about "climate baseline" . . . there still remains the question of why you yourself should not equally favour the use of the Dark Ages Cold Period as the criterion baseline for AGW consequences. And like the MWP, the DACP is also susceptible to criticism !
In reality, neither Period is worthy of much consideration, because the vast amount of hard evidence we have about the Modern Period, is entirely superior as a basis for making important decisions (about climate).
-
angusmac at 17:37 PM on 7 January 2016Tracking the 2°C Limit - November 2015
Tom, Rob, Eclectic & Glenn
The point I was trying to make was that the MWP is certainly preindustrial and not affected by anthropogenic CO2. Furthermore, paleo reconstructions show that the MWP was significantly warmer than 18-19th century temperatures and that this period was not dangerous. Consequently, it would be logical to use the MWP temperature as a baseline to decide what temperature is and isn’t dangerous as we progress into the 21st century.
For example, Huang et al (2008) state that, “The reconstructed peak temperatures in the MWP appear comparable to the AD 1961–1990 mean reference level”. Therefore, if we were to use Huang et al (2008), it would be logical to compare dangerous temperatures with those that are comparable to the 1961-1990 baseline. Interestingly, Ljungqvist (2010) also shows the MWP mean to be similar to the 1961-1990 mean, albeit (as Glenn points out) for the NH.
I now respond to individual comments.
Eclectic, the MWP was global and there are several papers that confirm this, e.g., Huang et al (2008) above.
Glenn, it was not my intention to infer that we should compare NH proxy temperatures with global instrumental. This is why I stated that we should use a reasonable paleo reconstruction. You could choose your own to compare apples with apples.
Additionally, the reference level for Huang et al (2008) paper is the 1961-1990 global mean instrumental record. This appears to be CRU but Huang et al do not state explicitly in the paper if they are comparing their land-only proxies with land-only instrumental temperatures
Moderator Response:[DB] "paleo reconstructions show that the MWP was significantly warmer than 18-19th century temperatures"
And
"the MWP was global"
Not only is that claim NOT established, the bulk of the credible evidence attests to quite the opposite.
Per the PAGES 2000 reconstruction, current global surface temperatures are hotter than at ANY time in the past 1,400 years, and that while the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age are clearly visible events in their reconstruction, they were not globally synchronized events.
Source SkS PostPlease ensure that future comments do not contain such outright factually incorrect statements.
-
ryland at 16:14 PM on 7 January 2016Why is the largest Earth science conference still sponsored by Exxon?
Perhaps Exxon are accepted as sponsors as they have spent millions on research into renewables, predominantly and predictably biofuels from algae, as well as millions on campaigns against climate change. I guess like many massive companies Exxon is happy to walk both sides of the street as in that way it reduces risk to profits.
-
uncletimrob at 15:35 PM on 7 January 2016Why is the largest Earth science conference still sponsored by Exxon?
Good article, but I'm not convinced that it is completely out of line for Exxon to be sponsoring an avent such as this. Afterall the procedues they use to discover new reserves and then extract them are based on geophysical knowledge. I agree that what they have not said publicly about climate change is concerning by the way.
-
TonyW at 14:09 PM on 7 January 2016Latest data shows cooling Sun, warming Earth
Thanks, Mark. Is there any research which validates the sunspot calculation by comparing those calculations, after 1978, with the sattelite measurements?
By the way, there are other "data" which contrarians pin their hopes on - the UAH and RSS data, not just the data sets you mentioned. I fully realise that the calculations from those measurements are questionable, but how do they fair in the comparison of solar irradiance and lower troposphere estimated temperatures?
-
Eclectic at 13:08 PM on 7 January 201695% consensus of expert economists: cut carbon pollution
Sorry, Ryland, but I can't speak for what the economists were considering . . . other than that they foresaw major economic damage from our ongoing Global Warming.
If they had considered your concern about "fossil-oil" carbon pollution from food production/transport, versus CO2/methane output from livestock . . . then probably they would have expressed it in this way :-
~ Petroleum-oil liquid fuels produce a semi-permanent (and therefore cumulative) increase in carbon pollution, but livestock's CO2 output is not cumulative (because it's merely recycling organic carbon already "in the system"). Yes, more cattle [compared with 50 or 100 years ago] has caused a higher output of the GHG methane . . . but that methane is in itself rather short-lived and has nearly reached a plateau (compared with cattle numbers from 20 years ago ~ and cattle numbers are not likely to be very much higher in 20 or 40 years' time) . . . so we have reached a "steady state" with livestock methane. [The increasing arctic release of methane from arctic warming, is of course a separate issue from the livestock one.]
So there's no real comparison between steady-state livestock GHG's, and the cumulative carbon pollution from fossil fuels. I reckon it will be very much easier to phase out carbon pollution from transport & agricultural machinery over coming decades, than it would be to change human dietary desires into the (almost) purely Vegan vegetarian.
-
MA Rodger at 08:44 AM on 7 January 20162016 SkS Weekly Digest #1
criskoz @1,
Those annual MLO CO2 growth rates from NOAA are a simple subtraction of the 1st January level from the 31st December for the year in question. Using a couple of single day readings in this manner does add a bit of extra noise which an annual average increase would even out.
That said, with the increase in emissions since 1997/98, you would expect a significantly higher annual rise today, assuming El Nino behaves in an equivalent manner. It would be about +0.5ppm/year.
The wobbles in CO2 growth rates are graphed here in red (usually 2 clicks to 'download your attachment'). Note the wobble in 1997/98 was far in excess of 0.5ppm, approaching 1.5ppm above the long term growth rate.
-
keithpickering at 05:42 AM on 7 January 2016Latest data shows cooling Sun, warming Earth
Just to be clear: The SATIRE model of Krivova et al. actually measures magnetograms (records of the Sun's magnetic field) to determine solar irradiance, rather than a direct count of sunspots. It can be (and has been) applied to raw sunspot numbers in older epochs, but is less accurate beyond the late 19th century.
-
bbrowett at 04:05 AM on 7 January 2016Why is the largest Earth science conference still sponsored by Exxon?
Great article. It is wonderful that you have been so direct. There have been attempts to create a "Hippocratic Oath for scientists". Certainly ethical standards for industrial scientists are a challenging subject. At the heart of the challenge for industrial scientists is the "Non-disclosure Agreement" that we must sign to gain employment. Although, often, I was able to speak openly within a company, outside the company all communication had to have prior approval, i.e., only positive comments/reports about the company, its science, and products were allowed. Of course there is no real protection for transgressions of the "Non-disclosure Agreement". For industrial scientists to be taken seriously, we will need to be able to discuss industrial science without fear or favour.
-
Joel_Huberman at 01:03 AM on 7 January 2016Latest data shows cooling Sun, warming Earth
Thanks, Mark. A very clear summary!
-
chriskoz at 20:21 PM on 6 January 20162016 SkS Weekly Digest #1
NOAA has added 2015 to the CO2 annual growth rate records. 2015 turns the highest ever rate of 3.17ppm/a, beating the current reigning 1998 (2.93) by a considerable margin. The exact 2015 number is preliminary but there is no doubt it'll beat 1998 regardeless potential correction.
I remember Indonesian massive pit fires (with estimated 2Pg of carbon burned) have been blamed for the 1998 spike. A now famous super ElNino was listed as a secondary cause.
So, it's interesting how we are going to explain current unprecedented spike, esp. considering that emissions have stalled (peaked?) in 2014. I don't have any preliminary 2015 data. So such large departure from mean growth rate (which recently have been around 2.1) demands explanation. The blame on current ElNino is insufficient.
-
ryland at 19:43 PM on 6 January 201695% consensus of expert economists: cut carbon pollution
Eclectic I didn't make myself clear, irrespective of the GHG emissions from transport/industrial food processes, livestock are responsible for a bigger share of total global GHG emissions than is the whole of global transport. That's a very significant amount and I found it surprising that this and the emissions from agriculture in general, appeared not to have been comsidered by the ecomomists.
Moderator Response:[DB] 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, off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up. 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, as no further warnings shall be given.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 16:32 PM on 6 January 2016Tracking the 2°C Limit - November 2015
angusmac
From Ljungqvist - "A new temperature reconstruction with decadal resolution, covering the last two millennia, is presented for the extratropical Northern Hemisphere (90–30°N)"
So your comment "I suggest that the MWP mean from Ljungqvist (or any other reasonable paleo reconstruction) would be an appropriate baseline for preindustrial temperature." isn't a very good idea.Comparing an old record taken from 25% of the earths surface with a modern record for 100% of the surface is comparing apples and oranges.
In contrast, here are the zonal graphs from GISS instead of the global graph Rob used. The top one is Northern extra-tropics. They aren't using 30N as the cutoff but 23.6N but it is still closer than using the entire globe.
For the period around 1900 to the present that is a temperature rise of around 1.4 C
Superimpose 1.4 C on the graph from Ljungqvist starting around 1900 and what do you get?
Next, the graph you show isn't directly from Ljungqvist which can be found here. Ljungqvist does have some modern temperatures shown. They use CRUTEM3 & HaddSST2. So a land and ocean dataset, and a slightly older one at that. Yet when you look at their paper virtually if not all their proxies are land based. So are the trying to compare a land-only proxy record with a recent land and ocean dataset? If so, since land temperatures vary more than ocean there is a good chance an apples with apples comparison would show results similar to GISS. And the GISS graphs is land and ocean as well.
So all in all, using Ljungqvist as a baseline doesn't seem like a very good idea. -
wili at 14:33 PM on 6 January 20162016 SkS Weekly News Roundup #1
Nice shout out to SkS from Dr. Jeff Masters toward the end of this good interview at www.voanews.com/media/video/hashtagvoa/3132077.html?z=1433&zp=1
-
Eclectic at 14:13 PM on 6 January 2016Tracking the 2°C Limit - November 2015
Why indeed not use for comparison the Medieval Warm Period ?
Or indeed, Angusmac, why not use the Dark Ages Cold Period, instead, as the baseline for comparison ?
Then also, for the MWP, we have the little problem ~ that the Southern Hemisphere did not have a comparable "MWP" . So, to avoid fruitless bickering . . . best if we stick with the much-better documented temperature information that we have for the latest couple of centuries. Clearly the best choice, by far.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 13:30 PM on 6 January 2016Tracking the 2°C Limit - November 2015
One more thing... Why would you think it appropriate to use a "previous warm period" as a baseline instead of the most recent preindustrial temperature?
-
Rob Honeycutt at 13:28 PM on 6 January 2016Tracking the 2°C Limit - November 2015
I would also note, angusmac, that Ljundqvist is "extratropical Northern Hemisphere (90–30°N)," thus not only is it not global, it's not even inclusive of the entire northern hemisphere. (Stated right there is the abstract you link to.)
-
Rob Honeycutt at 13:25 PM on 6 January 2016Tracking the 2°C Limit - November 2015
angusmac... What I've done is limit myself to the GISS data. 1880-1909 is the earliest 30 year period in that that set.
Going back to the MWP would be inappropriate since (a) itsn't not inclusive of the data I'm using, and (b) it's several hundred years prior to the industrial revolution.
As Tom states, my preindustrial baseline likely underestimates actual preindustrial temperature, but it's as close as I can get with GISS.
-
Tom Curtis at 10:39 AM on 6 January 2016Tracking the 2°C Limit - November 2015
angusmac @3, fairly obviously, the forcings in operation in 1000 AD did not have the same strengths as the forcings in operation in 1750, or 1890. Therefore the value of the forcing in operation in 2015 are not the value of the forcings in 1000 AD plus the anthropogenic forcings. Rather, they are the values of the forcings in 1750 plus any changes to natural forcings, plus the anthropogenic forcings. It follows that the temperature comparison needed to determine the impact of forcings is that between 1750 and 2015 - not 1000 and 2015. By best estimate, Rob's baseline underestimates the temperature rise since 1750 by about 0.2 C.
More fundamentally, the reason for tracking the temperature is the widespread concern that temperature increases of 2 C above preindustrial temperatures (defined as those in 1750) will cause significant harm to the global economy, and catastrophic effects to some individuals. For tracking progress towards that target, again obviously the 1750 temperature is the appropriate temperature.
Where you not more keen on making a silly rhetorical point than in understanding the debate, I doubt you would have missed these nuances.
-
denisaf at 10:16 AM on 6 January 20162015 SkS Weekly Digest #52
I had a career as an aeronautical research scientist. Imagine my surprise in eventually learning that science at large did not accept until recently that the combustion of fossil fuels to supply energy had the unintended consequences of producuing the vast amounts of greenhouse gases that have contibuted to climate disruption and ocean acidification and warming.
This type of failing of scientists has been common for centuries but the lack of understanding of the deleterious consequences of using fossil fuels must go down as the most influential to date. However, the current failure to understand that that technological systems are irreversibly using up limited natural material resoures, including the fossil fuels, will hit hard in the future, as it is an unsustainable process.
-
angusmac at 10:03 AM on 6 January 2016Tracking the 2°C Limit - November 2015
Rob
Using the 1880-1909 baseline for preindustrial temperatures could be construed as cherry picking because it represents a period of very low values in the temperature record.
Would it not be more logical to use a previous warm period as representative of preindustrial temperature, say Moberg et al (2005)?
For example, I present Ljungqvist (2010) which shows that the MWP mean is similar to the 1961-1990 instrumental mean.
Reconstructed Extra-tropical (30-90 °N) Decadal Temperature Anomaly to 1961-1990 mean (after Ljungqvist, 2010)I suggest that the MWP mean from Ljungqvist (or any other reasonable paleo reconstruction) would be an appropriate baseline for preindustrial temperature.
-
dana1981 at 08:48 AM on 6 January 201695% consensus of expert economists: cut carbon pollution
knaugle @2 - I'd argue that 195 countries signing onto COP21 is virtually 'every country' agreeing to cut emissions.
chriskoz @1 - 'no opinion' is a bit tricky. For example, in Cook13 we included papers that said the human contribution to global warming was uncertain (in the 3%). 'No opinion' is pretty analogous to that. It's only papers that didn't take a position (analogous to 'no response') that we excluded.
-
knaugle at 02:03 AM on 6 January 201695% consensus of expert economists: cut carbon pollution
@Criskoz
I would argue that one could also include the "only if everyone else does" as actually a "do nothing" opinion because it sets a nearly impossibly high bar. It's what one says when you don't want to do something, but don't want to be seen as a lone naysayer. Still, anything over 90% is a pretty compelling level.
-
grindupBaker at 13:49 PM on 5 January 2016Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
oldmanthames @ 226. Yes, you've nailed the underlying misunderstanding about that. The unlearned assume that it's about radiation from surface either getting to space or not, helped by the infotainment cartoons. But of course, it isn't and the energy shimmer is actually throughout the atmosphere since GHGs (inc. H2O) exist. I've heard it noted by a scientist that the *average* transmission point to space must be at an average temperature of 255K and that is not the surface, it's at ~4.7 km altitude and most water vapour is below this point so it obviously cannot affect radiation from here heading off to space. I've been posting this table I made as a YouTube comment for 12months. I've been hoping to occasionally trigger some corrections because the source data was thin and fattened out by my estimates. But of course it's YouTube so I've never received a single worthwhile response.
Water vapour *was* the most significant greenhouse gas when it was released into the atmosphere but now the effect is almost 100%
saturated except for a 10% frequency band that gets from surface to space. It's been incapable of being the major driver of temperature
change for billions of years because its freezing point is too high. The +CO2 "global warming" is happening at 6km-16km altitude and there's
37.6x as much CO2 as H2O at 15km altitude. That's why climate scientists keep calling CH4, CO2, N2O, CFCs "well mixed", it means they go
high without freezing out. Water doesn't. Like:----------
alti- air air
tude tempe- density --— atmospheric ppmv --
km rature g/m3 CO2 water vapour
0 16 1,290 400 14,000
0.5 12 1,235 399 11,000 **84% already caught and shimmering around**
1 9 1,180 398 8,500
1.5 5 1,130 398 6,400
2 2 1,075 397 4,900
3 -6 965 395 2,900
4 -13 860 394 1,700
4.7 -18 783 392 1,200 This is the average point from where Earth's radiation is
sent to space (temperature of 255K).
More CO2 then water vapour above to intercept radiation.
5 -20 750 392 1,000
6 -27 680 390 600
** zone above approx. this height has more CO2 than H2O **
** zone above approx. this height is not "saturated" with GHGs **
** zone above approx. this height produces most +CO2 & +CH4 warming **
7 -34 610 389 350
8 -42 540 387 200 Contrails typically higher than this
9 -49 470 386 120
10 -56 420 384 70
11 -56 370 384 40
12 -56 320 381 25
15 -56 200 376 10 ** 37.6x as much CO2 as H2O **
** not much +CO2 & +CH4 warming above approx. this height, air too thin **
20 -56 90 368 8
25 -52 40 360 8
30 -47 20 352 8
40 -25 5 344 8
50 -3 1 336 7
60 -18 0.39 328 7
70 -50 0.125 320 5.5 to 6.5
80 -83 0.027 312 2.5 avge (2 to 4.5) -
chriskoz at 07:49 AM on 5 January 201695% consensus of expert economists: cut carbon pollution
The "cut carbon pollution" consensus number 95% assumes those who did not respond "no opinion" and "no response" (4%) have been lumped into the contrarian cetegory. Is it correct? Should they be simply excluded from the consensus number like those abstract that did not express opinion about AGW were excluded in Cook2013 survey of climate science literature? The true contrarian "under no circumstances" represent only 1%. So the "cut carbon pollution" consensus would be much higher: above 98%.
-
StBarnabas at 22:29 PM on 4 January 2016The strong economics of wind energy
keithpickering (#29) many thanks for the PV lifetime references. Sadly the one with actual data, Mallineni (2013) is for Arizona (which I know well from my PhD days) is for a very different climate to Northumberland; a lot colder and wetter. I will keep my eye on the literature.
-
denisaf at 21:18 PM on 4 January 2016The Ghosts of Climate Past, Present and Future: Part 3
This has been a fascinating anthropocentric discussion that touches on only a little of reality. Future generations will have to try to cope with the demise of the infrastructrure that provides them with services they have become so dependent on. The operation and maintenance of this irrreocably aging infrastructure entails using up the limited natural material resources as it generates the wastes that are polluting land, sea, air and all organisms, including people while devastating the environment, including the climate.
-
Tom Curtis at 10:08 AM on 4 January 2016Why the 97 per cent consensus on climate change still gets challenged
Dar Dedar @31, I do not have access to the Skeptical Enquirer in print so I am going to ask for several points of clarrification, but before that two points of criticism:
1) First, the time between obtaining results of a study and seeing it published are in the 1 to 2 year range. It may take substantially longer to undertake the research leading to the publication. Therefore a two year publication window may be distorted for this sort of survey simply because of the timing of results. Therefore I would not accept a firm figure for the consensus for any literature survey with so small a time frame.
2) Far more concerning is the evident reasoning. Specifically, he finds just 4 authors rejecting AGW and concludes that there is 99.9% consensus in favour of AGW. The thereby assumes that nobody is on the line, ie, undecided on the issue. Given that Cook (2013) found that 1% of those abstracts indicating a position on AGW were uncertain, that is an unwarranted assumption.
Worse, JL Powell only considers explicit rejections of AGW. He does not consider the percentage expressing no opinion which should be excluded from calculalation of the headline result. Nor does he consider implicit rejections (0.45% of all abstracts; 1.35% of abstracts expressing an opinion). He has in fact adopted the same flawed strategy of the denier critics of the Cook et al paper who claim the real endorsement level is only 0.54% (the percentage of explicit, numerically quantified endorsements from all abstracts). The reasoning is no more valid in service of a good cause than in service of a bad one.
Moving on to the clarrifications, JL Powell excludes duplicate 'skeptical' authors. Did he also exclude all duplicate authors from the other papers? Did Powell classify all the abstracts by himself, and if so did he explicitly read all abstracts or classify by word search?
-
Dar Dedar at 09:08 AM on 4 January 2016Why the 97 per cent consensus on climate change still gets challenged
As we see through this thread, it's commonly claimed that 97% of climate scientists accept human caused climate change.
Climate change deniers and various conservatives have vehemently denied this and it turns out they are right. The 97% number is not correct.Excerpt from the most recent issue of Skeptical Inquirer.
---
The Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming.
"In 2013-2014, only four of 69,604 publishing climate scientists rejected anthropogenic global warming. The consensus
on anthropogenic global warming is not 97 percent, as is widely claimed; it is above 99.9 percent"
-
"I used the Web of Science to review the titles and abstracts of peer-reviewed articles from 2013 and 2014, adding the search topic "climate change" to "global climate change" and "global warming."
Of 24,210 abstracts, only five--one in 4,842 or 0.021 percent--in my judgement explicitly rejected AGW. Two of the articles had the same author, so four authors of 69,406 AGW. That is one in 17,352, or 0.0058 percent.
This result would allow the claim that 99.99 percent of scientists publishing today accept AGW. To be conservative, I prefer to say above 99.90 percent.
Excluding self-citations, only one of the five rejecting articles has been cited and that article only once.
Remember that the 99.9 percent figure does not represent what we usually mean by consensus: agreement of opinion. Rather it is derived from the peer-reviewed literature and thus reflects the evidence therein. It tells us that there is virtually no publishable evidence against AGW. That is why scientists accept the theory.
The consensus on AGW is not 97%. Instead, publishing scientists are close to unanimous that "global warming is real, man-made, and dangerous" as President Obama put it."
In another article this author notes: "Anthropogenic global warming is as much the ruling paradigm of climate science as plate tectonics is of geology and evolution is of biology."
---
James Lawrence Powell is executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium. He has been president of three colleges and of the Franklin Institute and the Lose Angeles County Museum of Natural History. He is also a former member of the National Science Board.
Excerpt from article: "The Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming." Published in Skeptical Inquirer, Nov/Dec 2015, pg 42.Excellent article and magazine. Check it out.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 08:42 AM on 4 January 2016Of Averages and Anomalies - Part 1A. A Primer on how to measure surface temperature change
declan
Thanks for the catch, it wasn't clear enough - even after 4 years proof reading never ends.
I have alrered the text to clarify the point. -
Digby Scorgie at 07:47 AM on 4 January 2016The strong economics of wind energy
Rob, to date we have not succeeded, but I hope you're right and things will start to happen soon. I'll wait and see.
-
Rob Painting at 05:09 AM on 4 January 2016Tracking the 2°C Limit - November 2015
As Sou points out, December 2015 was very hot in the RSS satellite record, the warmest ever in fact. Should prove interesting in the next few months as the 1998 record monthly temperature for the lower atmosphere may be under threat.
Here's what Tao Triton shows is happening in the equatorial Pacific Ocean for the surface...
and subsurface.....
Prev 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 Next
