Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 Next
Comments 27551 to 27600:
-
Joris van Dorp at 19:09 PM on 21 September 2015Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago
@16. Fossil industry leaders are not against solving climate change, but they are against the idea that unilaterlally enforcing investment in uncompetitive technologies is going to solve climate change. Only *global* carbon regulation has any hope of success. Individual nations attempting to become zero-carbon by using uncompetitive technologies will merely weaken their own economies, not solve the AGW problem. As Kyoto has demonstrated, attempting to reduce carbon emissions unilaterally merely stimulates energy intensive industry to move to other countries. And that's exactly what happened. China became the worlds manufacturer by massively increasing the burning coal. Kyoto countries gained the psychological satisfaction of achieving some paper promises, but the AGW problem is global and Kyoto did absolutely nothing to solve it.
This is why some fossil fuel companies have aided and abetted climate 'skeptics'. They view the policy proposals coming out of popular sustainability sentiment as being ineffective, inappropriate and harmful.
-
Joris van Dorp at 18:52 PM on 21 September 2015Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago
@13. What alternatives are there to nuclear for baseload? There are none which are remotely competitive or abundant enough. Hydro and biomass are limited resources. Fossil CCS is an option, but only temporary and hard to mandate globally. solar and wind paired with storage is a no-go, due to the cost of storage. Only nuclear does the job. Why deny this?
@14. Exxon did come out with their research findings at the time. It was the basis of their decision to invest in clean energy, and they used their research to convince shareholders of the need to invest in developing alternatives. To suggest that they hid this research is nonsense.
That said, I think this discussion will go nowhere if it is denied that nuclear power has suffered from negative PR campaigning by antinuclear groups. If anything, the only way to understand why nuclear has not already solved the global climate/energy problem is this wellfunded, decades-long running negative PR. To deny the role of antinuclearism is to misunderstand why nuclear stopped expanding in the '70's and 80's.
The decision by the moderater to deny that nuclear (and by extension humanity) has been a long-term victim of antinuclear propaganda means that the discussion about solutions to climate change on SkS remains meaningless, fruitless and not up to the task. We will be discussing solutions forever, while the world burns.
I notice that many commenters are free to assert the most obvious untruths about energy and energy technology, but that only I - when I mention nuclear - get warned about it, despite the fact that I have never posted anything on SkS or elsewhere that is not backed up by solid evidence and clear reasoning. So it seems that antinuclearism is endemic in SkS moderation. Get your act together SkS!
Moderator Response:[PS] This is final warning. This deleted because it is offtopic. If you cannot comprehend this and insist on talking nuclear on unrelated threads, then you will not post here.
-
Magma at 12:39 PM on 21 September 2015In a blind test, economists reject the notion of a global warming pause
Michael & Tom, @17-19: I interpreted the study's methodology exactly as Tom did. As well, the sentence before his quote in 18 started "The sample of economists 202 (N = 25) was tested online..." which I interpreted as likely being a survey carried out with limited time and opportunity for analysis. Note that this is different from the Associated Press 2009 article by Seth Borenstein referenced in the paper, which clearly stated that its disguised data was sent to economists for analysis. See Statisticians reject global cooling
Re. 'questions' vs. agreement or disagreement with statements, yes, I was somewhat careless with my choice of words. However I stand by the assertion regarding the leading or biasing nature of the statements the economists were asked to agree with, particularly the fifth one (incompetence/fraud). -
Tom Curtis at 09:56 AM on 21 September 2015In a blind test, economists reject the notion of a global warming pause
Magma @16, with regard to your point (3), no "questions" were posed to the experts. Rather, statements were presented with the experts being asked to agree or disagree based on a six point scale. As disagreement is as easy as agreement, it is difficult to see how the survey items can be "leading questions".
In other respects, I agree with your comment.
-
Tom Curtis at 09:48 AM on 21 September 2015In a blind test, economists reject the notion of a global warming pause
michael sweet @17, the paper says:
"All experts held at least a Master’s degree or a PhD in economics or an allied discipline, with all but 4 experts reporting 5 or more years of professional experience. Participants were shown the GMST data through 2010, but presented as “world agricultural output” (see Figure 3). The graph was accompanied the following statement that experts had to evaluate in light of the plotted data ..."
In that statement, they use "graph" and "data" interchangably; the experts where "shown", not given the data; and the data is referred to as the "plotted data". All of these strongly suggest the data was presented in the graph shown as figure 3, and not also given as numerical values. Further, the stimulus given in such experiments is of the essence of the experiment. Had the experts also been given the numerical data, and that not been explicitly mentioned, that would represent a significant breech of experimental protocol. Therefore, absent clear statement to the contrary by one of the authors, we can safely assume that only the graph was presented.
-
michael sweet at 09:38 AM on 21 September 2015In a blind test, economists reject the notion of a global warming pause
Magma,
I do not see anywhere in the paper wehre it states that the economists were not given the raw data from the graph to evaluate. It also does not say that they were given the data. It seems to me that you are assuming that the data was withheld without supporting information. It seems to me that in asking for a complete evaluation the data would have to be available if the economists wanted to look at it. It would be simple to convert the temperature data into agricultural data.
Please provide support for your claim that the economists were not shown the data.
-
Magma at 04:45 AM on 21 September 2015In a blind test, economists reject the notion of a global warming pause
I have a number of serious difficulties with accepting the value of the "blind" test using economists that formed part of this paper. Had I been a reviewer it would have received harsh treatment; I don't know that it could have been salvaged.
1. Based on the text of the paper, the economists appear to have been asked to evaluate the validity of the claimed pause by visual inspection of a graph. What statistical tools can be brought to bear in such a case?2. The graph of GISS LOTI was disguised as the value of global 1880-2010 agricultural output. However a) the LOTI plot has been widely reproduced and is quite recognizable; b) world agricultural output in constant dollars does not resemble the curve shown; and c) the scale of the plot values 'World Agricultural Output' at ~80% of global GDP. All of these may have led a knowledgeable economist to suspect a ruse, and reduced the 'blindness' of the test.
3. The wording of some of the questions posed to the test subjects is leading, in one case egregiously so. If such terms as 'misleading' and 'ill-informed' are arguably hostile, what can one say about "If incompetence is ruled out, the claim made about the data by Mr. X is fraudulent"?
I can only speculate, but I wonder if some of the hostility that has been directed at authors Lewandowsky and Oreskes by so-called skeptics is being returned, and is reflected in this work. If so, it would be a deeply ironic example of the 'seepage' that three of these same researchers discussed in their recent Global Environmental Change paper.
-
Tom Curtis at 19:34 PM on 20 September 2015Measuring CO2 levels from the volcano at Mauna Loa
Andrew LB @25:
1) The active volcano (Kilauea) is located on the South East side of the Island, and South East of Mauna Loa itself. As can be seen below, the prevailing winds at the site of the observatory (on the ridge between Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea) flow from the east, and do not pass over Kilauea. The prevailing winds passing over Kilauea (map area) are to the South West, and carry fumes away from the observatory.
This is illustrated well be the modelled plume for January 26th (of uncertain year), which (as you can see) comes nowhere near the observatory site.
Both of these figures are drawn from the page to which you linked, and show clearly your claim that the observatory is typically affected by the plume is false.
2) The summit of Kilauea is only 1,247 meters above sea level. According to the site to which you linked, the plume affects an altitude "from 151 meters to 2452 meters". This is shown anecdotally by the photo from the site to which you linked, which shows the inversion layer distinctly lower than the summit of Mount Haleakala (3,037 meters). That in turn is significantly lower than the 3,397 meters of the observatory. Doing the maths, we find that the plume typically does not rise to within 940 meters of the observatory. So, once again, your source refutes your claims.
3) The site you link to is an old site, with its first appearance on the wayback machine dating to January 21st, 2003.
-
Tom Curtis at 15:50 PM on 20 September 2015In a blind test, economists reject the notion of a global warming pause
The statistics in table 1 of the paper are interesting, and reveal a couple of problems. To make them easier to interpret, I report them below with the agreement, mean, T-stat and an approximate estimate of the 95% range. That estimate assumes the distributions are near normal, which of course cannot be the case given that only whole numbers can be selected.
1) "The data confirm the claim made by Mr. X" .36 2.84 −2.72 1.1 4.6
2) "The data contradict the claim made by Mr. X" .68 4.12 2.58 2.4 5.8
3) "The claim made about the data by Mr. X is misleading" .76 4.28 3.67 2.8 5.8
4) "The claim made about the data by Mr. X is ill-informed" .76 4.04 2.38 2.4 5.6
5) "If incompetence is ruled out, the claim made about the data by Mr. X is
fraudulent" .64 3.84 1.49 2.2 5.5
6) "The statement by Mr. X is compatible with the data in a narrow sense, but the
data do not support the implication of his statement, which is that world
agricultural output is no longer growing" .52 3.60 0.34 1.5 5.7The first thing to note is that the level of agreement (first number) of item (1) and item (2) sum to 1.04. That is, 1 in 25 economists both agreed that "the data confirmed the claim" and that "the data contradicted the claim", ie, they agreed with two contradictory statements. Some might cynically suggest that in this survey, the economists performed better then they typically do at avoiding contradiction. More kindly, we may just assume this represents a problem as to how to parse the three effective claims made in the sample quotes into a single claim. (See 9 above)
A similar problem exists between the first, third and fourth items, in which at least 3 respondents both agreed with item (1) and item (3) and/or (4). Presumably the same 3 that agreed with both (1) and (3) also agreed with (4), but that is not certain. In any case, while not strict contradictories, agreement with both (1) and (3) or (4) represents an incoherent position, requiring that you believe both that the data confirm Mr X's opinion, but that Mr X's opinion is either misleading or ill informed given that data.
This most likely indicates that at least 12% of respondents treated the questions as asking about the disjunction (ie, A or B or C) of Mr X's three effective statements rather than their conjunction (A and B and C).
The second thing to note is that although the statistics are correctly calculated (SFAIK), that is consistent with 6 out of 25 respondents considering Mr X's "claim" to not be misleading, and/or to not be illinformed; while 9 out of 25 consider Mr X's "claim" to have been supported by the evidence. That is, the survey results show that the idea that Mr X's "claim" is supported by the data is controversial among economists, rather than that "economists reject" his claim given the data. (Based on this, I think the title of this post should be rewritten by inserting "a majority of" in front of economists to maintain accuracy, with similar corrections throughout the text.)
The third thing to note is that neither of results for items 5 and 6 are statistically significant. (See Table 1 in the paper)
Given these three things of note, it is worthwhile reviewing the claims made in the paper, which states:
"It is clear that the experts disagreed with the invocation of a pause: Experts rejected the idea that the data confirm the statement and instead find that the data contradict the statement. The experts also found the statement to be misleading and ill-informed. The experts were divided on whether or not the statement is fraudulent, although nearly 2/3 of them endorsed that possibility as well. The experts were also divided on whether the statement might be compatible with the data in a “narrow sense”."
Going through these claims, it is clear that "in aggregate" or "the majority of" experts "rejected the idea that the data confirm the statement and instead find that the data contradict the statement". It is certainly not true that "the experts" (without further qualification) did so, for a significant proportion found the opposite. The same is true (to a lesser extent) as to whether or not the experts found "the statement to be misleading and ill-informed".
Overall, I think the paper significantly overstates the nature of the results of the survey.
That does not establish that using economists as a benchmark establishes that there has indeed been a pause in the increase in global temperatures. For a start, at best it establishes that, using economists as a benchmark, such a claim is highly controversial (at best). However, we cannot go even that far due to the poor wording of the survey (discussed @9 above), it is very uncertain how various economists parsed the claims by the putative Mr X into a claim (singular) as required by the survey questions. The inconsistency may be entirely a product of different parsing methods. Ergo, it is entirely possible that the 36% of economists who considered "Mr X's claim" to have been supported by the evidence to have done so because they considered only the best supported of the three claims presented as having been supported. Given that the vast majority of those who thought the claim was supported gave it a rank of 4 out of 6 (ie, the lowest possible level of agreement) that is particularly likely.
Unfortunately, the ambiguity of the survey cuts both ways so that I think the survey can be used in support of a claim that there was no pause. In particular, even my conclusion @9 must fall by the wayside as the result about "fraudulence" was not statistically significant. Further, those economists who disagreed with "Mr X's claim" may have been testing against the stronger possible interpretations of the claim.
This is all beside the point in that the nonexistence of a "pause" or "hiatus" is already well established by statistical tests. Ambiguous results from economists eyeballing a graph has no bearing on that.
-
grindupBaker at 14:23 PM on 20 September 2015Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
arationofreason @210 You state water vapour "has done a pretty good job" by balancing the radiation by NET radiation to space. I disagree on 2 points. I disagree below on another assertion of yours.
(1) "a pretty good job" is relative and you haven't related it to anything. In point of fact water vapour has done a lousy job of radiating energy to space compared to the job Earth's surface could do if we could get rid of all the dratted water vapour and well-mixed GHGs in the atmosphere with a giant Kleenex. It's 35 degrees worse. It's a slacker employee. That's because it radiates in random directions but Earth's surface radiates upwards only. This random directionality means WV & GHGs in the atmosphere that send 83% of the needed radiation to space to match Sun's non-reflected input must send a matching 83% downwards into WV & GHGs in the atmosphere layers below. Furthermore, there must be more energy radiating in the atmosphere layers below because, in a coarse 2-layer simple example, atmosphere below must send 166% downwards to match the 166% it sent upwards, and so on down to the surface. I've overstated it by using a coarse 2-layer example with the lower layer getting 0% radiation to space because it's actually 333 w/m**2 getting sent back down to the surface in order to get a large enough shimmer of radiation into WV & GHGs in the atmosphere to get 199 w/m**2 sent to space. So, WV & GHGs efficiency radiating to space is 199/532=37%. Considering that the surface would radiate to space at 100% efficiency if all the WV and GHGs in the atmosphere were gone, that 37% is not a "pretty good job" at all. It's lousy efficiency is why there's the current mix of life on Earth. Thus, if there were no WV and GHGs in the atmosphere at all then efficiency radiating to space is 100% (100% of radiation from Earth's surface goes straight to space). With the current WV & GHGs in the atmosphere efficiency radiating to space is 37% (I've explained why above, due to radiation in random directions from WV and GHGs in the atmosphere, the actual quantification 199 & 333 w/m**2 was developed by climate scientists). Obviously, it didn't jump from 100% to 37% efficiency in a unit step at some magical WV and GHG quantity, it steadily reduced efficiency in step with increasing WV and GHG quantity. Obviously, there's nothing magical about the present quantities and the present 37% so efficiency will continue lowering from 37% with increasing WV and GHG in the atmosphere. Since the 199 w/m**2 needs to get sent to space to limit the imbalance at the present 0.7 w/m**2 then if increasing WV and GHG in the atmosphere reduces efficiency to, say, 36% as it eventually must if WV and GHG keep increasing as per prior simple obviously-correct logic, then it follows that 199/36%-199 = 354 w/m**2 must get sent back down to the surface in order to get a large enough shimmer of radiation into WV & GHGs in the atmosphere to get 199 w/m**2 sent to space. That example is an increase of 354 - 333 = 21 w/m**2 at Earth surface. That extra downward LWR warms land surface and traps some extra Sun's SWR in the oceans' top few centimetres, from where it gets mixed down and is variously available both for bigger El Ninos and for warmer deep ocean for millenia.
(2) It isn't only WV radiating to space as you assert, the GHGs do it also.
(3) The "local temporarly and spatially" complex, unpredictable variations you mention are not relevant to the strategic topics of "global warming" and ecosphere heat increase. They are relevant to the inability of current science to predict timing, location and severity of specific severe weather events, to predict which periods of several years will have less warming and which will have more warming and to predict how climate of specific regions will change over time scales of only a few decades with the obvious exception of the well-known "Arctic amplification". We all know this. Climate scientists call it "natural variation". When temperature data are analyzed for suffiently long periods over large enough geographic areas, they are clear enough.
-
Andrew LB at 14:18 PM on 20 September 2015Measuring CO2 levels from the volcano at Mauna Loa
Claim:
"the prevailing winds are offshore breezes, which bring clean air from high in the atmosphere down to the observatory"
Truth:
This is absolute nonsense. The typical wind currents on the big island are in fact that exact opposite of what you claim. Air currents blow across Kilauea which has been in constant eruption since 1983 and creates a "plume" which has a clear effect on Mauna Loa. So much so that it's created a phenomena called "Vog" that is a major health risk to residents.
http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/met/Faculty/businger/poster/vog/
-
grindupBaker at 12:39 PM on 20 September 2015Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
The note that H2O causes a +GMST feedback of ~100% causes me to infer that H2O feedback is 50%. Example: suppress additional water vapor by technology and raise GMST by 1.0 degrees. Release the suppression of additional water vapor. This causes additional 0.5 degrees, which causes additional H2O feedback at 50% of 0.25 degrees, causing additional 0.125 degrees,...and so on. An asymptotic (not exponential runaway) +ve feedback loop of 0.5+0.25+0.125+0.0625..... adding to 1.0 degrees 100% feedback. Basic feedback>100% is runaway until the fuse blows. Below 100% feedbacks can be huge multiples of the initial cause or smaller in accordance with the basic feedback %age.
-
william5331 at 07:21 AM on 20 September 2015Southern sea ice is increasing
Another factor may be at play in the increasing sea ice. At dept, the melting temperature of fresh water ice is about minus 3C. The water from the melting ice mixes with the salt water and flows upward under the sloping ice. It pours out on the surface, fresher than full salinity sea water and super cooled with respect to the freezing temperature at the surface. This out-flow of water from under the ice pulls in more deep water to melt more ice from the bottom of the ice shelf.
-
psthomas01 at 06:45 AM on 20 September 2015It hasn't warmed since 1998
plfreeman and stewart: Here is a relatively simple statistical analysis for 2014 global records which indicates there is a special cause for the percentage of hot all time records.
Thanks
Stephen Thomas (psthomas01@yahoo.com)
M.S., Mathematics, NorthwesternBased on around the globe weather station reports and historical records, in terms of all time Hot and Cold records set: 74 New all time high temperature records were set this past year (NOAA global records summary) and 19 New all time cold temperature records were set this past year. So we have set 79.6% Hot records vs. Cold records. Based on the binomial distribution for percentages, assuming a 50% underlying probability (the null hypothesis of no global warming) the expected range for 50% based on N=93 is 34.4% to 65.6%. I.e., expect by chance over 99% of the time for actual percentage to be between 34.4% to 65.6%. But for 2014 the actual percentage of Hot records set out of total records set is 79.6%, which is considerably above the P-chart 'upper control limit' of 65.6%. We see the data gives us an objective conclusion that it is NOT 50%. There must be a special cause.
-
michael sweet at 03:18 AM on 20 September 2015In a blind test, economists reject the notion of a global warming pause
Thanks Tom.
-
Christopher Gyles at 02:26 AM on 20 September 2015In a blind test, economists reject the notion of a global warming pause
@gregcharles #8In addition to the weaknesses you mentioned, which I agree with, try doing a reverse image search on the graph Rob provided and see what you get. Not saying the economists would have done that, especially if they were given hard copies rather than digital, but it's certainly a possibility. Otherwise I quite like the irony in the concept. -
Tom Curtis at 01:14 AM on 20 September 2015In a blind test, economists reject the notion of a global warming pause
ryland @11, no it does not. It addresses different points entirely. It certainly makes no attempt to justify the breath taking double standard of drawing attention to the El Nino at the end of the data (with 2010 also being an El Nino year) while ignoring the El Nino at the start.
-
ryland at 23:34 PM on 19 September 2015In a blind test, economists reject the notion of a global warming pause
The analysis by Tom Curtis @9 answers your post.
-
michael sweet at 22:34 PM on 19 September 2015In a blind test, economists reject the notion of a global warming pause
Ryland,
It takes time for papers to be published. Looking at the graph given to the economists, the current El Nino you are concerned about had not yet started when the data for this paper was collected. Current data shows even more clearly that there has never been a pause. Economists were consulted because many deniers are economists. Your attempts to deny anything that supports AGW become weaker and weaker with time. Perhaps you should ask why you cannot accept data at face value.
-
Tom Curtis at 15:10 PM on 19 September 2015In a blind test, economists reject the notion of a global warming pause
gregcharles @8, the economists where shown the NASA GISTEMP LOTI from 1880-2010 complete with a 5 year running mean, with the running mean value for a given year being the mean of that year plus the four previous years. The data they were shown is shown as Fig 3 of the paper. (Note, because this is a preprint, all figures and tables are shown at the end of the paper after the references.) The economists where told:
“A prominent Australian critic of conventional economics, Mr. X., publicly stated in 2006, that ‘There IS a problem with the growth in world agricultural output—it stopped in 1998.’ A few months ago, Mr. X. reiterated that ‘. . . there’s no trend, 2010 is not significantly more productive in any way than 1998.’ ”
The six "test items" the experts where asked to respond to each refer to "the claim" by Mr X, but at least three claims are made in the quoted sentences, ie,:
1) That there was no growth in global "agricultural output" from 1998-2006 (first quote);
2) That there was no trend in global "agricultural output" from 1998-2010 (second quote, first clause); and
3) That 2010 was not significantly more productive "in any way" than 1998 (second quote, second clause).
Depending on how each economist filtered this into one claim, they may have had different responses. In particular economists who parsed the claim as "there was no trend" may well have responded differently to those who parsed it as "2010 was not significantly more productive than 1998". Further, although these claims are in fact claims made by Bob Carter, with "world agricultural output" subsituted for "global means surface temperature" (or what ever equivalent Carter used), they are not the more typical claim that "the trend from 1998-2010 is not statistically significant". This ambiguity raises questions about the interpretation of the economists responses.
More troubling are the introduction of "Mr X" as a "prominent ... critic of conventional economics", which arguably might prime economists to disagree with Mr X; and (most troubling of all) that NASA GISTEMP was used when Bob Carter always uses either HadCRUT or UAH. That is, the economists were not presented with the same data that Carter uses in support of his claims. With HadCRUTv3 (the data actually avaible from the CRU and Hadley center in 2010), the economists might have supported Carter's claims, or not. But this survey does not tell us.
The latter point means we cannot infer from the economists conclusions about incompetence and/or fraud that Carter himself is incompetent and/or fraudulent (although there is far stronger evidence of this elsewhere). Given the assumption that GISSTEMP better represent global temperature variation than HadCRUT, however, we can still draw the weak conclusion that it is either incompetent or fraudulent to conclude that there was no trend from 1998 to 2010 given the best available GMST index. We cannot, however, similarly conclude from the economists responses that it is incompetent and/or fraudulent to conclude that the trend is not statistically significant, or that 2010 was not more productive than 1998, within statistical significance. The reason for the restricted claim is that given ambiguity of the test items, the test results can only support the weakest claim.
-
gregcharles at 12:19 PM on 19 September 2015In a blind test, economists reject the notion of a global warming pause
@ryland — the point of using economists is that they have expertise at analyzing time series data, and didn't know that the data represented global temperatures. That's the most interesting part of the paper to me. The economists were told that the data represented world agricultural output, and that it had been claimed that there was a pause in its increase starting in 1998. They were asked to evaluate this claim. The general consensus was that the claim was misleading and/or fraudulent. The implication is that if the strong partisanship associated with global warming is removed, no hiatus or pause is evident from the data.
Some weaknesses I see: there were only 25 economists surveyed. They were told that 1998 was the start of the pause, so they might have suspected the purpose behind the study. It's not clear what dataset they were using ... probably the NASA GISS global temperatures (but starting when?) ... so the results might have been different with different datasets.
Moderator Response:[Rob P] - This is the graph presented to the economists. It's NASA GISTEMP data disguised as world agricultural output - in order to eliminate, or reduce, any preconceived biases associated with climate change.
-
ronald myers at 10:51 AM on 19 September 2015Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago
As a past environmental regulator, industry has varied in their acceptance of scientific evidence of the hazards associated with their core business. The list of examples where they denied the facts is long and the list of examples where the wiled eyed environmentalists overstated the hazzards is short. Exxon and other industries could have accepted the scientific facts as early as 1988 when James Hansen testified to Congress on the scientific validity of climate change. Then instead of funding a myriad of organizations to foment public opinion that there was a conspiricy by scientists to line their pockets with Federal grant dollars they could have supported Federal grants to improve carbon free methods to produce electricity, fuel automobiles (or improve gas milage), supply energy for manufacturing processes etc. Industry lobbied congress to avoid a cap and trade bill for CO2 (equivalents) even though this is very succesful for acid rain pollution. By selecting a date in 1990 is likely that research could have allowed a near zero CO2 emissions in 2020 or 2030 with little adverse economic impact. It is unlikely that zero CO2 emissions are easily achievable within my lifetime especially since the industry funded lawyers and lobiests continue to be succesful with politicians that are in the majority.
-
Sunspot at 10:45 AM on 19 September 2015In a blind test, economists reject the notion of a global warming pause
Jenna - year-to -year warming is how global warming is measured. This doesn't mean that the average worldwide temp must increase every single year or global warming is disproven, but when that does happen, as it certainly is currently, it sure looks like global warming to me. And pointing out these facts hardly seems like "desperation". As I said, Jenna, the weather in New England has been running above normal for the past couple of months. And, yes, that can be blamed entirely on the position of the jet stream, that is what determines the weather for the northern latitudes of the northern hemisphere. But scientists who have been studying the jet stream for decades will tell you that its behavior is bizzare and without historical precedent, and that is a likely consequence of global warming as the northern regions of our planet warm faster than the rest due to the loss of reflective ice.
There have been some significantly cooler than normal periods in New England, most notably the second half of last winter. Even though last December averaged a whopping 4 degrees f above normal. But these cooler-than-normal periods are also a likely consequence of global warming due to the slowing of the thermohaline circulation in the northern Atlantic ocean caused by the melting glaciers.
I get my global warming information from climate scientists, and they are currently extremely concerned with what they are observing on this planet. I will certainly listen to what they have to say, and will easily dismiss comments from anyone who presents information contrary to what the experts say. I feel confident that the vast majority of reputable climate scientists will easily agree with any comment I make regarding global warming.
Check and mate. Goodnight...
Anyway, I don't get my global warming information from internet
Moderator Response:[RH] This is not an issue that anyone is in competition to win. Please tone it down.
-
ryland at 10:40 AM on 19 September 2015In a blind test, economists reject the notion of a global warming pause
Why is the effect of the current El Nino not mentioned? Does it not have an effect? As for the article to which the links in this piece take the readerwhy is the opinion of economists so crucial to the proponents of anthropogenic climate change as to be published here? They are not climate scientists so why shuld they be consulted? If a Denialist wrote a paper that relied on comments from anyone other than a "Climate Scientist" it would be stridently decried as not coming from a "Climate Scientist". The comments on the piece in The Guardian suggest that not everyone considers it to be a valuable contribution to the debate.
-
Sunspot at 09:46 AM on 19 September 2015In a blind test, economists reject the notion of a global warming pause
Let's go over the facts again:
Fact#1 - everyone is predicting that 2015 will be the warmest year on record. Again.
Fact #2 - The temps in New England have been above average for most of the past two months. I don't need noaa to tell me this, I watch the local weather every day, they report on the high for the day and what the historical average high is for that day. Most days we were way over the average, ten degrees or even more. This week it's been more.
So I made the simple observation that this obviously COULD BE could be the result of global warming, but it is NEVER never discussed in the media. I did not say that this warm spell is conclusively because of global warming, if the global average suddenly went up more than ten degrees we'd all be dead soon anyway. But to implicitly imply there can't be any connection by pretending that this weather is business-as-usual sure seems like another form of denial of reality, which is our biggest enemy at this point.
Knaugle - you say it isn't. Then you say that noaa agrees it probably is. Make up your mind...
Bwilson - I assure you I know the difference between weather and climate.
Moderator Response:[RH] Please, no use of all caps. And also please try to tone it down a little.
-
jenna at 09:43 AM on 19 September 2015In a blind test, economists reject the notion of a global warming pause
I'm a long time New Englander here, just back from a hiking trip with friends to the White Mountains where it was quite warm for this time of year even at altitude.
We need to remember, though, that this summer, at least in the Boston and metro west area, struggled to reach over 90°F until mid July. Below normal conditions. So far it seems to be averaging out.
Long term trends are Climater, that's what matter. Although I believe the world is (clearly) warming, I don't always like this year-to-year or even month-to-month keeping score with the temps. Seems desperate to me somehow.
-
Andy Skuce at 04:57 AM on 19 September 2015Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago
Other oil companies, like BP and Shell, decided much earlier to get out of the business of promoting science denial. Exxon did not have to obfuscate nor go into voluntary liquidation. The world's energy infrastructure is so vast that even with the best imaginable climate policies it will take decades before we can wean ourselves off oil and gas.
None of the big oil companies deserve a merit badge (they all fund lobby groups to delay regulations), but Exxon does merit being singled out as the worst.
It has disappointed me that oil and gas companies have not done more to develop and promote carbon capture and storage. This technology would allow them to extend the lifetime of their core compentency of getting carbon out of the ground, while providing an opportunity for getting paid again for putting the carbon back. Of course for CCS to work economically (there are huge political obstacles and technical challenges, too) requires hefty carbon pricing. That would result in a reduction in the short term of demand for hydrocarbons (and thus the price received by the oilcos), while the economic benefits of a growing CCS business to the oilcos would be longer term. The short-term benefit always wins over the long.
-
bwilson4web at 04:27 AM on 19 September 2015Skeptical Science reader survey - your chance to give us your feedback!
Will we see the results of the survey?
Bob Wilson, Huntsville, AL
-
bwilson4web at 04:05 AM on 19 September 2015In a blind test, economists reject the notion of a global warming pause
Living in North Alabama, we are used to having hot spells and even warm periods any year. You might google "noaa climate data <your city state>". This will give you insights to compare with the historical record.
Weather is 'the dice' and climate is 'their loading.'
Bob Wilson, Huntsville, AL
-
knaugle at 03:26 AM on 19 September 2015In a blind test, economists reject the notion of a global warming pause
@Sunspot,
Well, it's not. Not really. Summer-like periods in fall are pretty common. Still, the NOAA state of the climate report seems to affirm what you are saying. From Long Island to Maine looks like it was about 5°F warmer than usual. Particularly since the June report shows much of New England was maybe a couple of degrees below average, it was a nice swing.
-
Sunspot at 02:10 AM on 19 September 2015In a blind test, economists reject the notion of a global warming pause
Seems strange to me: here in New England today it's in the mid-80s. Again. Temps have been above normal for most of the last two months, and not by just a little. But yet, I haven't seen or heard ANYONE anyone even suggest that this might be due to global warming.
Moderator Response:[RH] Please don't use all caps.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 01:16 AM on 19 September 2015Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago
Joris @10... If Exxon had come out at the time stating that their research showed that CO2 emissions were a serious problem, as their research clearly did show, then the entire dynamic of the discussion would have changed for the entire FF industry, and for the entire world.
-
barry1487 at 00:02 AM on 19 September 2015Skeptical Science reader survey - your chance to give us your feedback!
Done (yesterday).
-
PhilippeChantreau at 23:31 PM on 18 September 2015Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago
I too am concerned about Joris' ability to participate in a constructive fashion. I see words like "bona fide", "honest" and "truth" all loaded with emotional content, all that tend to be heavily used by, fo instance, candidates running for elections. This is obviously a discussion for another thread, but there are alternatives to nuclear for GH free baseload. As for Exxon, them "loosing" a few billions over a project that had a lot of merit is not going to make me shed a tear. They only lost because their expectation was that it would return within certain time frame. If they had stayed the course, they would have eventually had a good investment. Now we could get into the debate about the merit of being in this world for the long run, vs considering quaterly reports.
Furthermore, I find it funny that one would be so outraged by what he considers a "fear, uncertainty and doubt" campaign on a given subject, while ready to find excuses for a corporation that has done exactly that for decades. Honesty cuts both ways.
-
barry1487 at 21:36 PM on 18 September 2015Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago
Part II is here.
insideclimatenews.org/news/16092015/exxon-believed-deep-dive-into-climate-research-would-protect-its-business -
betlem at 21:36 PM on 18 September 2015Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago
Joris van Dorp #10. There was a third choice. There was also the choice NOT to get into the desinformation business and NOT to start discrediting each and every critical voice.
-
Joris van Dorp at 17:35 PM on 18 September 2015Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago
Betlem #7 I'm suggesting that Exxon (like other major FF companies) attempted to find alternative energy sources but did not find them. They were left with two choices:
1. Get out of the fossil fuel business and be praised for a day or two by environmentalists, while their competitors take over their market share and global fossil fuel polution would continue anyway.
2. Stay in the fossil fuel business and try to make the best of it, generating revenues and jobs for the american people.
They chose the second option. What option would you have recommended?
@Dcrickett #9. That's a recognisable annecdote. It makes a lot of sense.
N.B It is true that I am a supporter of nuclear energy technology development and implementation. I believe that this technology is the only credible hope humanity has of eliminating GHG emissions and solving the totality of the energy/climate nexus in a timely fashion, thereby securing our common future in a bona fide way. I know from personal research and twenty years of talking to people in all walks of life and in all civil societal capacities, that the single most important barrier to rational and effective nuclear power development is fear, uncertainty and doubt. And I know that this fear, uncertainty and doubt is manufactured by antinuclear propaganda organisations which for the most part constitute well known major environmental organisations. I know this for a fact. I request to not be unfairly censored or banned again for holding this to be the honest truth to which I would swear under oath on the lives of my family and children. Thank you.
Moderator Response:[PS] Joris, I argued for your reinstatement here because I think you have valuable things to contribute to the discussion and because I hoped you would in future abide by the comments policy. The earnestness, honesty or even the correctness of your beliefs does not give you some right to boorishly inflict those beliefs into every conversation nor give you licence to ignore the policy here. Furthermore, you are asking for your views to be respected but when I see words like "propaganda", I have grave doubts about your ability to respectfully discuss the topic with someone holding different views just as honestly.
If I am interested in the debate about nuclear power, I go to BraveNewClimate. For discussions around the science of climate change, I come here. I strongly suggest you do likewise.
Abiding by the rules in not optional here. Before you press the "post comment" button, you need to review your comment for compliance with the comments policy. If the topic is not about nuclear power, then chances are that any comment on nuclear power is offtopic and in breach of rules. If you want respect, then show respect. Should this prove too onerous, then your posting privileges will be removed.
-
Dcrickett at 04:34 AM on 18 September 2015Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago
Joris van Dorp #6 — I think I agree with what you wrote. However, I would venture that corporations (or more accurately, the folks who wind up running them) tend to balance their short-term and long-term interests and those of the outside world inconsistently and differently. An interesting example is the US automobile industry and air pollution.
In the 1950’s, Arie Haagen-Smit established the link between automotive exhaust and Los Angeles air pollution. (He later became the first Chairman of the California Air Resources Board. First he was nominated by CA Gov Ronald Reagan, then he was fired a few years later by CA Gov Ronald Reagan for speaking truth to power.)
Thru the 1960’s, the automotive industry denied the cause-and-effect, “persuading” the US government to agree. In the early 1970’s, there was a massive change of attitude in the auto industry. At that time I was working at the GM Tech Center (in Warren MI). All of a sudden engineers were taken from other areas and put to work on fighting automotive air pollution. (I was taken from development of novel forms of shipping cars from assembly plants to dealers.) Some novel ways to reduce or even eliminate pollution were under development, several of which we engineers felt were highly promising. Unfortunately, the most promising would involve long development times and costs. In not too much time the catalytic converter was chosen because it could be made to work within the mandated time frame. (We engineers referred to it as “the Catholic converter” and several deletable expletives. It was and is a kludge.)
Had the R&D work begun in the 1950’s, history would have turned out different and much economic + personal trauma might well have been avoided. (At least as far as automotive air pollution is concerned. Peak Oil (et al), Global Warming, they’re other stories.)
By the way, the GM Tech Center is still a worthy place to visit, look around at and enjoy, even today. But the guys (all guys, back then) who decided to do nothing but deny and then do a Chairman Mao type great-leap-forward all retired rich and today are buried in the finest, most prestigious cemeteries.
-
CBDunkerson at 23:28 PM on 17 September 2015Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago
IMO, the transcript of Black's speech shows that, while he acknowledged much of the prevailing science, there was also already a clear 'skeptical' slant. The word 'uncertainty' is everywhere, he argues that the polar ice caps would likely be unaffected, and he even claims that the atmospheric CO2 increase might be natural rather than caused by fossil fuels... despite covering the fact that the atmospheric increase rate was roughly 50% of the fossil fuels emissions rate - which indeed proves that fossil fuels are responsible for 100% of the atmospheric increase.
Basically, it seems like Exxon was willing to spend money on global warming research so long as they could convince themselves that they might not be causing it or that it might not be too bad. Once they'd established otherwise they stopped funding research and started funding disinformation.
-
betlem at 23:12 PM on 17 September 2015Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago
Joris van Dorp. Are you suggesting Exxon acted responsibly all along? And why the stab on 'psychological desirability', when you could also stick to the facts?
-
CBDunkerson at 21:50 PM on 17 September 2015Republicans are becoming the party of climate supervillains
I'd say rather that the Republican disinformation campaign has gotten so bad and gone on so long that it is no longer just their voters who are deluded... there are now party leaders who have spent their entire lives believing in a completely fictional reimagining of the world around us.
It isn't that they are 'stupid', 'evil', or don't care... it's that they are so misguided/brainwashed that they really believe fossil fuels do no harm and efforts to curtail them are driven by financial anarchists who want to destroy civilization, rather than by actual concern for the planet's ecosystem.
In their minds, environmentalists and other 'liberals' are the 'stupid' and 'evil' people who don't care about human society or even their own children. Republicans are heroically attempting to save the world... it's just that the world they are 'saving' doesn't really exist.
-
Joris van Dorp at 19:10 PM on 17 September 2015Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago
There is more untold history about Exxon, namely that Exxon was the first US company to seriously invest in solar power R&D, and became the first major purchaser of solar power technology in the 1970's. In the '90's an even greater wave of investment in solar technology manufacturing from many major oil and gas companies (including Shell and BP) laid the foundation for solar power technology as we know it today.
http://alternativeenergy.procon.org/view.timeline.php?timelineID=000015
Exxon also invested heavily in nuclear power, as did many other fossil fuel companies.
However, neither solar power not nuclear power were able to compete with the bargain basement fossil fuel prices which persisted until the early 2000's, so their investments in solar and nuclear ended up being multibillion dollar losses. In the case of nuclear, persistent, international antinuclear propaganda made commercialising the advanced 4th generation technologies pioneered by these oil companies even harder than it already was. Hence virtually all solar and nuclear business components were spun-off and the fossil fuel companies returned to their core business as we know it today.
This is just to say that the history described in this article is incomplete and misleading. The article paints a picture of an evil industry callously disregarding the hazards of co2 emissions and hindering the solution to these hazards. In reality, things are not as cut and dried. The poor economics of solar power and the extraordinary resistance to nuclear power application (no matter how advanced, sustainable or safe) have been important factors defining the history of the fossil fuel industry, which cannot be said to have not tried to develop zero-carbon energy sources that could compete with fossil fuel. They did in fact try quite seriously, and they lost billions doing so.
While it may be psychologically desireable for some to believe that Exxon and other fossil fuel companies are Satan's bedfellows, such an understanding does not necessarily contribute to an accurate perception of reality.
Moderator Response:[PS] Fixed link. However, I will repeat (again) that you must avoid sloganeering. I frankly think you will stand a better chance of maintaining your posting privileges here if you avoid the temptation to turn every comment into a pro-nuclear statement.
-
bozzza at 16:36 PM on 17 September 2015It's not bad
Loss of sea ice is currently the greatest in the Barents Sea area, York explained, where the summer ice-free period is now 20 weeks longer than when records began in 1979.
How can a "summer ice-free period" being 20 weeks longer than 36 years ago be a good thing
-
One Planet Only Forever at 13:41 PM on 17 September 2015Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago
Other examples, let me count the ways. Rather than count them all I will present an example and an explanation for why there are so many of them.
In the late 1970s when the need to dramatically reduce sulphur emissions was clearly understood, a significant number of wealthy US people and the industries they invested in declared that, unlike Europe, the US economy would not survive the technically possible reduction of SO2 because of 'the cost'. Even now the US standards for sulphur in diesel fuel are below the levels in Europe. That keeps the more efficient and cleaner diesels of Europe off the roads in the great US of A.
The reality is they simply wanted to get as much unfair economic advantage as possible by getting away with the least acceptable behaviour. That is also why they continue to burn so much coal in the US (and Alberta, and Australia)
That desire to get away with the least possible acceptable behaviour fueled efforts to expand the rate of extraction and sale of Oil Sands in Alberta to irresponsible levels taht are now declared to be a perception of prosperity that cannot be allowed to diminish.
And that unacceptable desire fuels the development and prolonging of all manner of unacceptable activity. The potential to win through the ability to create perceptions of popular support contrary to the understandable unacceptabilty of pursuits of profit is evident in almost every "area of economic pursuit".
-
Digby Scorgie at 13:27 PM on 17 September 2015Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago
Sugar.
When the WHO was established after the Second World War, one of their first reports included mention of the dangers of sugar in diet. The US sugar industry was outraged; at their behest the US government blackmailed the WHO into deleting reference to sugar in exhange for the funding the US had promised.
Also, DDT.
Think of the vilification to which the chemical industry subjected Rachel Carson after she published her book "Silent spring".
Any others?
-
Ian Forrester at 11:20 AM on 17 September 2015Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago
Agricultural pesticides https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/monsantos-sealed-documents-reveal-truth-behind-roundups-toxicological-dangers
-
gregcharles at 10:07 AM on 17 September 2015Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago
Lead, particularly leaded gasoline.
-
uncletimrob at 08:18 AM on 17 September 2015Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago
Just the same corporate behaviour:
- Asbestos mesothelioma.co/mesothelioma/understanding/the-role-of-asbestos/
-Tobacco http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/16/6/1070.full
Any others?
-
Tom Dayton at 02:37 AM on 17 September 2015Models are unreliable
dvaytw, I'll expand scaddenp's answer: Models are fed actual ("historical") values of anthropogenic and natural forcings up through some date that the modelers decide has reliable forcing data. The actual running of the models can be years after that cutoff date. The vertical line you see in model projection graphs demarcates that cutoff date. For dates beyond that cutoff, the modelers feed the models estimates of future forcings. Although those are "predictions" of those future forcings, the modelers rarely are very confident of those "predictions," because those modelers are not in the business of predicting forcings. Indeed, those models themselves are not predicting forcings; these models take forcings as inputs.
An ensemble of model runs such as CMIP5 generally uses the same forcings in all the model runs. See, for example, the CMIP5 instructions to the modelers. Differences across model run outputs therefore are due to different constructions of the different models, and tweaks across runs within the same model. (CMIP5 has more than one run of each of the models.) The goal is replication in the sense of seeing whether the fundamental characteristics of the outputs are robust to what should be minor differences in approaches. See AR5 WG1, Chapter 11, Box 11.1 (pp. 959-961) for more explanation. See Figure 11.25 (p. 1011) for detailed graphs of only the CMIP5 projections.
Modelers almost never rerun old models with new actual (historical) forcing data, because too much time, money, and labor are required to run the models. Instead they run their latest, presumably improved, version of their model. But several authors have made statistical adjustments to model results to approximate the effect of rerunning those models with actual forcings.
Dana wrote a post with separate sections for the different reports' projections, but it is three years old so does not show the recent upswing in temperature.
I know there are graphs combining all the IPCC reports' different projections, but I can't find one at this moment. Somebody else must know where one is.
-
Tom Curtis at 22:34 PM on 16 September 2015There is no consensus
KR @709, Verheggen et al argue that the percentage of respondents excluding undetermined results (ie, "unknown", "I do not know" and "other") for both the qualitative and quantitative responses are equivalent. Specifically, 84 +/- 2% of respondents agreed that 50% or more of "global warming since the mid 20th century" can be attributed to "human induced increases in atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations"; while 86 +/- 2% agreed that greenhouse gases had a moderate or strong warming contribution to the "reported global warming of ~0.8 degrees C since pre-industrial times".
As an aside, the unequal time periods for the quantitative and qualitative questions substantially weaken that argument. However, I think it is a no brainer that "I do not know" and "other" responses should not be included. On the other hand, arguably "unknown" responses claim scientific ignorance (ie, it has not been determined adequately by scientists) rather than mere personal ignorance, and so should not be included. Against that, an "unknown" response may merely indicate the respondent thinks it is not yet determined whether the greenhouse gas contribution was 75-100 or 100-125% (quantitative question) or a moderate or strong warming contribution (qualitative question). Therefore while presumable some respondents answering "unknown" do not agree with the consensus, it is problematic including the "unknown" figures because doing so assumes that all who so answered disagreed with the consensus which is not at all certain.
More important are the figures with no "unconvinced", ie, those deliberately invited to participate because of their "skeptical opinion" rather than because they are just scientists. Excluding both "undetermined" responses and "unconvinced" invitees, 87 +/-2% agreed that 50% plus of recent warming has been due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases. That does not lie in the uncertainty range of Doran et al. As Verheggen et al. is much more recent then Doran et al, we must therefore either conclude that there has been an approximately 10% slide in agreement with the concensus among climate scientists; or that differences in the questions made a substantial (approximately 10%) difference in the response. The later is what I argue above, based on the difference between "a significant contributor" and "the major contributor".
I completely agree with your final two paragraphs, but do not think that reason to by imprecise or selective when quoting determination of the size of the concensus. That is, to the best of our current knowledge, ~87% of climate scientists (on attribution), and ~97% of climate science papers. IMO those figures show that the approximately 13% of climate scientists who do not agree with the IPCC on attribution do not do so based on publishable evidence. Put another way, it means that political opinion has influenced the scientific views of some climate scientists, but against the IPCC position, not for it (ie, in the opposite direction of the bias claimed by "skeptics").
Prev 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 Next
