Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Term:

Settings

Beginner Intermediate Advanced No Definitions Definition Life:

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Comment Search Results

Search for logic

Comments matching the search logic:

More than 100 comments found. Only the most recent 100 have been displayed.

2024 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #46

Cleanair27 at 02:58 AM on 19 November, 2024

I am willing to accept that there may be a positive efficiency difference between using a stochastic parrot and a human, or humans, to hunt for relevant articles that readers of this site will find informative or even useful. I'm not entirely convinced, and the link in this Story of the Week post is broken regarding AI vs. human writing and illustrating work. And it sounds a little too much like the John Henry fable updated.

There is also the ethical question that comes with using the products of large corporations whose investors who don't give a fig about the climate impact of the energy use from running LLMs. What they want is to continue to capture huge swaths of surplus value from the labor of others (as the Marxists would call it) and use their profits to extract excess rent (as economists would call it) in the form of public policy that favors their interests.

I don't know what the best solution is for the humans working very hard to maintain this site. For my own purposes, the chronological listing of reports and articles is more than satisfactory. It is easy to sift through to find what interests me, which tend to be the peer-reviewed research. So please accept my thanks for all that you do to inform us. I accept that it is best to leave up to you how to improve the product and ease your burdens.

Climate Risk

Bob Loblaw at 00:58 AM on 5 November, 2024

Paul @ 5, 7:

I wouldn't say that Curry has flipped - but I have to admit that I have not being paying a lot of attention to her and I have never had the impression that she has a coherent, logical, consistent position on much related to climate science. She would have to actually hold a position in order to be able to flip away from it. She has a history of broadcasting all sorts of whack-a-doodle stuff (calling it "interesting") - but in a way that she can deny she supported it (or opposed it) when the cards line up.

So, in that tweet, what the heck is she really claiming she has been saying for over a decade now? Only the contents of David Wallace-Wells' tweet, which says little? If you interpret his tweet as saying that there are other factors besides CO2 driving the current warming trend, and stopping CO2 emissions will have little effect, then maybe that fits her history of obfuscation and attacks on climate science as we know it. But is that what David Wallace-Wells really means?

We could try to find David Wallace-Wells' article at The Conversation. Not hard. It's here. Want more detail? The article at The Conversation links to the actual paper it is based on. It is here.

I have not read the paper in detail - it is moderately long and technical - but I can get the gist of it. It certainly does not support any argument that CO2 levels are less important than presented in the IPCC reports and positions. What the paper does seem to present is an argument (from model simulations) that the expected drop in CO2 levels after reaching net zero - due to fast parts of the carbon cycle continuing to remove CO2 - will be offset by other slow feedbacks in the climate system that will cause continued warming.

The paper uses the Australian Community Climate and Earth System Simulator Earth system model (ACCESS-ESM-1.5), which appears to include a number of slow-response feedbacks related to ice, ocean circulation, etc. (The paper provides references that explain that model in more detail, but the details are not apparent from a quick read of the current paper.)

So, the gist of this new paper seems to be that slow feedbacks often not included in many models will make things worse than expected, once net zero is reached. They also indicate that the longer we wait to reach net zero, the worse things will be.

This may fit into Curry's Uncertainty Monster scenario ("See, I told you there were things the models didn't get right!), but it is an uncertainty that will bite us in the posterior regions - not Curry's favoured "everything uncertain will fall to our benefit".

I would not be surprised if Curry hasn't actually read the paper (or maybe even the Conversation article), and just saw what she wanted to see in the tweet - without actually understanding it.

Why widening highways doesn’t reduce traffic congestion

nigelj at 05:42 AM on 24 October, 2024

I live in New Zealand, and we have experienced the issue of induced travel, and in quite dramatic form. About 30 years New Zealand started experiencing increasingly severe traffic congestion due in part to accelerated rates of immigration, and in part to a policy that allowed the importation of cheap used Japanese vehicles. You can imagine the ressult of this!

About 15 years ago it reached crisis point and the Government engaged in a large road building programme, and on occasion widened existing roads primariy to reduce this traffic congestion and travel times. It worked for a few years, and then those traffic times start to creep back up, so induced travel is a very real thing.

The filling up of the new roads is not all due to immigration pressure or cheap cars because those trends have stabilised. Its induced travel. The roads mostly had a rather poor cost benefit ratio and this assumed congestion would stay low. So its like we are constantly running to try to catch up, and we are throwing a lot of money and resources at the problem for meagre returns.

In my view the problem goes back to urban design. Cheap fossil fuels have enabled massive technological advances and this created a model of centralised cities with their factories, and this separates people from the food supply and their workplaces, and makes it essential to have effective long distance transport links. And instead of compact walkable cities countries like America and New Zealand opted for spread out suburban living because the wealth creation allowed everyone to own a car and a suburban home. But this whole structure is utterly dependent on the car and a complex roading system.

New Zealand has experimented with pushing things back to the walkable city concept, (which I personally quite like) with encouraging highrise apartments and high density living, making improvements for pedestrian travel, and creating bicycle lanes on the roads, and car free zones, and reduced car parking in shopping areas and improvements to things like buses and train transport.

The problem is there has been enormous push back from all sorts of groups of people. People resent losing their sunlight and views when high density homes are built next door. Car owners are frustrated that dedicated bicycle lanes create less space on the roads for cars, and less car parks available. Retailers are angry that reduced car parks outside their shops is allegedly loosing them business. As a result the current conservative leaning government are downscaling cycle lanes and building more roads.

Some of these complaints seem valid - such as having a 4 story height apartment block cutting out your sunlight and privacy, but some complaints are less valid. Complaints that buiding bicycle lanes and reducing car parking badly affects buiness are less valid. Studies show it doesnt cause business to suffer, probably because its countered by easier access for people walking or cycling. Refer:

thespinoff.co.nz/science/17-05-2024/cycle-lanes-are-good-for-business-actually

However making public transport work better has proven very difficult.You need a lot of buses to get people exactly where they need to go in one trip and this becomes costly. People arent so keen on getting two or three buses to get to their destination, which is understandable and especially when buses are notoriously unreliable. But obviously there are at least some things you can do to improve and expand public transport.

Of course change on the scale we are looking at is rarely smooth or quick or easy, but we do face an enormous challenge, because trillions of dollars of infrastructure are designed around the car (essentially) so changing this wont happen overnight. However other living options to the walkable city are not so viable. We cant all live idyllic lives in little settlements in the country because we need at least some big cities that are closely integrated with industrial production, assuming we want a technology based future.

So the walkable big city concept seems like its the best option overall. I doubt even that can totally replace the car, for obvious reasons, but it could make us a lot less car dependent and that helps. Famous quote: "The perfect is the enemy of the good" (Voltaire)

You will not escape the climate crisis

prove we are smart at 07:59 AM on 9 October, 2024

Of course no life will escape the increasing effects from climate change and we know dealing with its consequences will vary from annoyance to survivability depending on many factors - especially your bank account.

Further checking out Mr Dressler's re-post and his informative articles, i could particulary relate to this comment ...
John Hardman
John’s Substack
Aug 4, 2023
Liked by Andrew Dessler

"I am reminded of the silly Monty Python skit where the knight confronts the king and is progressively dismembered while staying defiant. “It is but a flesh wound!” he bellows as his dismembered arm lies at his feet. Denial is not bound by sanity.

Change happens using the same path as the grief cycle: denial, bargaining, anger, surrender, and acceptance. Logically we should be feeling the pain of climate change wounds and the financial pinch of accruing costs, but we are looping in a cycle of denial, bargaining, and anger. The question becomes what level of pain will knock us (and the rest of the natural world) to our knees and accept responsibility for our fate?

Looping in the first three stages of change allows us to play the victim and shift the blame to others which is easy and addictive. But, inevitably a reckoning happens where the wound is felt deeply and personally. The pain sears through the fog of illusion bringing us out of the clouds and back into our humanity. I shudder to think what must happen to bring us down to earth but the power of denial is formidable and we now have a lot of distractions from our pain. Monty Python showed us the bounds of our absurdity. We may just exceed them."

The distractions are increasing and I have always believed when we are faced with a common "enemy", the whole tribe would unite-put our differences to one side and work together- people, how bad does it have to get before this happens? Are we just too de-sensitized to human suffering now?

Skeptical Science News: The Rebuttal Update Project

Cedders at 19:44 PM on 6 October, 2024

I would also welcome any expansion of the 'it's too hard' section of myths, as this has been such a boom area since about 2015. Generally industry and society has moved from denial that climate change is a human-caused threat, to delay and sometimes fatalism ('it's too late' could be a whole new top level of the taxonomy). While there are a small rump of people with 'dismissive' attitudes to climate science, a majority of people accept there is a major problem, but are helped to feel powerless to do anything (per Michael Mann's The New Climate War).

Addressing this trand could be seen as straying into technological and economic and policy questions, but objectivity is still possible (eg citing whichever economic opinions are expressed and a range of informed views where there are no scientific facts).

This would be very helpful to deal with in the same format as there are certainly a lot of myths circulating in political circles and media. Typically the misguided arguments concern technology and what can be permitted within remaining carbon budgets, but also sometimes groups of scientists and activists. For example in the context of a climate mitigation conversation, policy-makers can express a preference for hydrogen cars over EVs or even public transport. At that point someone lie Auke Hoekstra or Michael Liebreich can explain simple facts about energy losses in electrolysis and fuels cells or combustion engines. This makes it clear that the most efficient use of renewables will not be hydrogen cars or heating, so investmeet in some hydrogen infrastructure would be a misguided dead end, rather like 'low tar' cigarettes or diesel engines. This is also a consequence of understanding from about 2009 that carbon pollution has to be cut to ('net') zero.

Essentially to get a major policy through needs people to agree it is fair, effective and beneficial. Incumbent industries want to preserve their business model and deny access to new entrants by influencing regulation. So they need to suggest clean technology uptake is inherently unfair, or that it has inherent environmental costs. Informing people about not just why stopping fossil fuels is fundamental but that the transition can generally improve equity and have environmental co-benefits is the hard task ahead.

I hope this take wasn't too off-topic. My thanks to all the SkS authors and editors for their continuing work.

The doom spiral

MA Rodger at 00:07 AM on 23 September, 2024

Jan @4,

I don't think I can agree with your assertion that with AGW, "we are now flying blind."

Climate scientists are well aware of the potential for nasty surprises being stoked by humanity's greenhouse gas emissions. For some time now, the message has been that anything warmer than a +1.5ºC world is running the risk of bringing on some of those nasty surprises. (This safety limit was originally +2.0ºC prior to ~2010.) Mind, extinction of the human race will be far from the first nasty surprise to arrive. Of course, logically it would be the last but, that said, it would be a long long way down the road in terms of global tmperature rise.
The big risk we face not addressing AGW (which is where we are today) is messing the climate enough to bring the global economy crashing down around our ears, an economy the vast majority of humanity rely on to keep them fed and watered.

You do make some very brave assertions which I consider are difficult to support.
As an example, I would question some of your comment on the "methane feedback."
Present natural methane emissions have not been easily quantified but they are included in the climate modelling and their growth has been a part of the projected methane forcing. Certainly recent work suggests the modelled natural emissions are running behind the assessed natural emissions and projections are not capturing the full picture. But this is not to the extent that natural methane would become a significant feedback mechanism. (See for instance Kleine et al (2021) or Zhang et al (2023).) However, the increase in natural methane emissions is one of the potential nasty surpises.

One area of natural methane emissions where people often express great concern is the Arctic emissions, an understandable concern but one which is misplaced. Years ago I went down this road myself.

But it should be said that your brave assertions do require supporting evidence.

The doom spiral

Eclectic at 05:07 AM on 21 September, 2024

Jan @4 , your ideas are all very fine.

But rather than basing your thoughts on climate models and/or on speculations ~ you could look at the Earth's geological history. Such as what happened during the warmer period of the Eemian, around 120,000 years ago.

The doom spiral

Jan at 19:49 PM on 20 September, 2024

Sadly, climate scientist have no time to follow the path single discussions on feedbacks take. Therefore, they think models can in anyway predict what is comming. Unfortunately they can't! So many models errors of Earth system developments now amerging that one can only vomit.

Thererby, models miss way too many feedbacks which are now soming into motion.

The Amazon is now trapped in the vicious cycle, speeding up its collapse decades earlier then predicted. Antarctic heatwaves and see ice losses also happens decades earlier then predicted.

The methane feedback has started while models did not see a significant signal till 2100 to emerge. The methane modul of models is crap! But do not know if the new one is already deployed.

Be it as it may, the warmings of the Arctic methane bomb are now out and will increase the comming years as recent observational studies are quite worring. Not only Yedoma permafrost emits much more, but the real danger will be geological methane from methane hydrates and gas rich sediment layers, which is a wild card, which is ever more observed and documented - methane of thermogenic origion reaches the atmosphere where measurements have been made, while ground water melts its way downward through cracs driven by osmosis.

Marine heatwaves, a feedback of oceans warming too fast, are also not predicable by models as they are driven by small scale to global circulation patterns in the oceans and atmosphere. We have now the first MHW in the North Pacific reaching in its peak regions some 7-8°C above the 1981-2011 average (one cause: Asian flooding amplifying the subtropical North Pacfic high via hot upper air currents).

Not only that marine heatwaves expanded non-linear, they are also a game changer in terms of ocean heat uptake, circulation patterns, and extreme events. Models were not able to predict their spread which can only be described as nuts.

Next problem we face is that over the oceans first 300m ocean heat is now building up, in the mode water and intermediate water mass regions the heat buildup spreads to deeper layers with subsurface water masses warming, freshening, and expanding. Very bad sign indeed!

First study came now out that vertical mixing of the oceans could already be suppresed by increasing stratification. Further, we see worrying changes in mode water masses in the Northern Hemisphere. At the same time recent changes around Antarctica (e.g. warming and hemispheric temperature gradient declining -oops!) are also worrying as it has been the Southern Ocean that had been mostly responsible for the monotoic trend of incrasing heat uptake the last 20 years - intensfying winds around Antarctica the major reson (Ozone hole supported that development of increasing hemispheric temeprature gradient).

Just now the experts of ocean mxing and ocean heat uptake trying frantically to find out which processes controlls heat uptake of the oceans as we did never really loocked into it. But now the changes become so worrying that our simple assumption that the oceans would continue their monotoic trend in increasing heat uptake like nothing was amiss doesn't matter how fast we warm our planet had been way too simple.

If ocean heat uptake declines from 90% of the extra energy to 80%, the whole goes fast bam, as a too fast warming had been the problem in the first place.

And if oceans should start to take less than 90% of the extrem energy kept in the system, all the other feedbacks will be triggered.

This can go very fast! Doomer? Stupid framing of the system, as the above is in all points a real possibility as we do not know when and how fast feedbacks could start to synchronize.

And if this should happen the only chance humanity will have, will be to reduce GHG conrentrations in the atmsphere as fast as we can do it united as a species figthing for its own survival!

Sadly, many climate scientist have become statisticans and thereby they have lost contact with reality as the discussions deep in the mechanics of our climate systems point something very clear out:

We are now flying blind and even an extinction level event is a possibility whch can progress fast!

2024's unusually persistent warmth

Bob Loblaw at 05:21 AM on 20 September, 2024

pattimer:

To have chemistry or biology affect atmospheric temperatures, you need to argue that there is a mechanism by which those changes in chemistry and/or biology lead to a physical change in atmospheric heat storage.

For ocean chemistry, you would need to have chemical reactions that release enough energy to lead to increased ocean temperatures, which would then lead to increased atmospheric temperatures. This seems highly unlikely, but I'm open to suggestions.

For biological activity, the same applies. Photosynthesis is a possible suspect, as that consumes energy at the surface. The energy that goes into photosynthesis would otherwise go into the other energy transfers that occur at the surface: emission of IR radiation back to the atmosphere, transfer of heat (thermal energy) into the atmosphere, transfer of heat into the ocean or land, or the evaporation of water (which then goes into the atmosphere in the form of latent heat, and is released to thermal energy when the vapour condenses again). If there is less photosynthesis, then more energy would go into the other fluxes, but where?

...but photosynthesis is already part of the system (as is heat released as carbon is oxidized), and you'd have to argue a change in biological activity that is pretty large.

2024's unusually persistent warmth

Bob Loblaw at 05:07 AM on 18 September, 2024

pattimer:

My first reaction is to think "nothing chemical or biological". The energy sink that we see as global warming is entirely physical - thermal energy. Plant photosynthesis does store energy from the sun, but that is essentially offset by the release of energy as biological carbon decomposes.

Most of the energy imbalance (solar radiation absorbed, minus infrared radiation emitted out to space) goes into oceans. The heat capacity of air (the entire atmosphere) is a tiny fraction of the heat capacity of the oceans.

Our routine temperature observations only cover small proportions of the ocean/atmosphere systems. Our most detailed ones are air temperature near the surface - your everyday weather station data. When you see global air temperature fluctuating during El Nino cycles, we are seeing a shift between what stays in the atmosphere and what goes into oceans.

I think it will take time to figure out just what part of the oceans is storing less heat during this period of warmer atmospheric temperatures. And even more time to understand just exactly how the physics has played out.

...but my gut says "physics", not chemistry or biology.

2024's unusually persistent warmth

pattimer at 19:57 PM on 17 September, 2024

Could there be some change in the Oceans other than the El Nino cycle, perhaps chemically or biologically that is limiting the oceans previous ability to absorb as much of the global to absorb as much of the global warming
?

How mismanagement, not wind and solar energy, causes blackouts

One Planet Only Forever at 08:52 AM on 11 September, 2024

I agree with Michael Sweet’s comment @3. However, David-acct does raise important points:

electricity generation systems need to perform essential services adequately under extreme circumstances.

it is important to be more fully aware – less misunderstanding (David-acct raises this general concern while appearing to fail to be ‘more generally aware’ as noted by Michael Sweet)

Regarding the need for robust performance:

The existing electricity system in Texas obviously failed to be developed robust enough. This is a ‘marketplace failure’ that the leadership of Texas failed to act to correct (especially their action to keep the Texas grid isolated to avoid federal requirements that would have made it more robust).

There is indeed a concern that a renewable electricity system compromised by marketplace interests would also fail to be developed to be robust enough. The marketplace could also fail to make the renewable system as harmless and sustainable as it could be (less harmful and more sustainable ways tend to be more difficult and more expensive. Easier and cheaper generally wins marketplace competitions).

Additional matters that people should be more aware of or have a fuller and better understanding of:

There can be conflicting interests regarding water storage for hydro-electric generation. A desire for water for irrigation could lead to a reduction of water stored for electricity. And a desire to have capacity in the storage reservoir to act as a flood abatement measure would reduce the storage for electricity. The solution would be to build bigger storage features that have adequate capacity for electricity plus these other interests.

Reduced energy demand needs to be the objective. Technological development that reduces energy demand needs to be prioritized over developments that do not reduce energy demand. The marketplace has a history of failing to do that sort of thing.

Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

Bob Loblaw at 05:05 AM on 3 September, 2024

Yes, another good video from Potholer54. I think I share his sarcastic sense of humour - and at some point as you look at this level of denial from a politician you have to make a choice between crying and laughing at it.

I am currently reading Authoritarian Nightmare - Trump and his Followers, by John Dean and Bob Altemeyer. (Yes, John Dean of Watergate fame). Much of the social psychology it discusses is from Bob Altemeyer's career studying what he termed authoritarian follower psychology. You can access much of Altemeyer's material (including an ebook The Authoritarians), at https://theauthoritarians.org/.

Dean and Altemeyer discuss two psychological aspects of the extreme devotion to the sort of politicians' messages exposed by Potholer: they refer to "social dominators", who treat every interaction as a situation where they need to dominate others (or other groups), and authoritarian followers, who are highly susceptible to being led down the garden path by authority figures. When someone comes along that tells them what they want to hear, they lose any ability to critically evaluate what they are being told. Being lied to isn't a problem as long as the message confirms what they deeply want to believe.

Large numbers of authoritarian follower voters and lying power-hungry demagogue politicians is not a good mix.

CO2 lags temperature

Blusox69 at 22:00 PM on 6 August, 2024

Thanks for the replies so far. I read the paper over a few times and it didn't sit right with me. Under section 4.1 he neglects to show data or even graphs for the CO2 to T as he states they "did not provide useful results". Straight away that rang alarm bells. I've never omitted data from my studies, even if the results were not useful as it lays the foundation for being accused of cherry picking data/results. I'm not a statistician, but I'm sure the same logic would be applied to their work too.

Why were the 1930s so hot in North America?

nigelj at 08:08 AM on 25 July, 2024

Read a study somewhere saying Americas unusually strong heatwaves during the 1930s (the heatwave index was off the chart) were a statistical outlier resulting primarily from both the pacific and atlantic oceans being in a strong natural warming phase at the same time, combined with local meteorological conditions favouring heatwave formation. This combination was a very uncommon coincidence, but it seems to me that a similar combination of factors in the future is inevitable sooner or later, and when you add in anthropogenic warming since the 1930s, a new heatwave record would be set and by a wide margin, and the impacts would be huge.

Heatwave intensity and frequency has also increased in America in recent decades. Refer:

www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-heat-waves

2024 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #29

One Planet Only Forever at 07:04 AM on 25 July, 2024

I agree with the comments made by nigelj, Cleanair27, and Bob Loblaw.

I would add that part of the 2025 weapon of mass destruction is “The Seven Mountain Mandate” (link to Wikipedia here). Note that many prominent New Right (Wikipedia link here) Republicans have chosen to promote the Seven Mountain Mandate.

And, building on nigelj’s @1 suggestion that “we need to come back to some of the core problems we face as a society, and why this lead to the administrative state”, I would add the need to collectively effectively address anti-intellectualism (wikipedia link here), particularly the dislike for ‘learning to be less harmful and more helpful’ that applies to denial and attacks on climate science.

The core problem of the popularity of anti-intellectualism is an understandable threat to social democracy. Anti-intellectualism claims that emotional instinctive beliefs are superior to the results of rigorous skeptical investigation and thoughtful consideration.

A clear recent example of the harmful popularity of anti-intellectualism is Michael Gove’s, a misleading promoter of Leave in the Brexit referendum, declaration that “Oh we’ve had enough of experts”. His “we” was only himself and easily impressed anti-learning types.

The Wikipedia item regarding anti-intellectualism is quite informative. But the Nature Human Behaviour article “Anti-intellectualism and the mass public’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic” includes the following helpful description with my addition in [ ]:

“People tend to be persuaded by speakers they see as knowledgeable (that is, experts), but only when they perceive the existence of common interests [when the expert’s statement supports their preferred belief and interests]. Some groups of citizens, such as ideological conservatives, populists, religious fundamentalists and the like, may see experts as threatening to their social identities. Consequently, they will be less amenable to expert messages, even in times of crisis.”

Origins or causes of anti-intellectualism can be complex. Protestants opposed to being dictated to by The Vatican educated experts are an example. But evangelists also used it against established Protestant groups. However, it is clear that there have always been, and always will be, some anti-intellectualism.

It is important to understand that everyone can choose to learn to not be anti-intellectual. Nobody is ‘born to be, and destined to be, intractably anti-intellectual’. Being anti-intellectual is a ‘learned behaviour’.

In Alberta, I encounter many non-religious people who are selectively anti-intellectual and resist learning about climate science. They really dislike the related importance of rapidly ending the harmful impacts of fossil fuel use and making amends for the damage done. I also encounter many religious people who are more open-minded regarding climate science and the required corrections of what has developed and making amends for damage done.

There are many examples that highlight anti-intellectualism attacks on ‘climate science and the need to rapidly end the harmful impacts of fossil fuel use’. Al Gore presented this ‘problem in America’ in his 2007 book “The Assault on Reason”. In that book Gore presents many ways that the New Right Republicans make-up misleading attacks on evidence-based and reasoned understanding that ‘is not in common with their interests’.

A detailed explanation of the source/cause of anti-intellectualism in America was presented by the originator of the term ‘anti-intellectualism’, Richard Hofstadter, in his 1963 book “Anti-Intellectualism in American Life” (Wikipedia link here). In the 1700s anti-intellectual evangelism grew quicker in the US than organized established religions. That anti-intellectual revolution of religion extended into secular aspects of society, with business interests becoming engaged with evangelical interests in the 1800s.

The need for the welfare state to address the unjust inequities (marketplace failures) of freer misleading marketplace capitalism in America, free to fail to investigate the potential for harmful results and free to misleadingly excuse or deny that harm has been done, fuelled growth of anti-intellectualism beyond the Protestant-Evangelical anti-intellectual religious movements.

I will end my comment with an edited quote from the Hofstadter’s Introduction, Chapter 2, Section 4, with my inserts in [ ]. Note the ending lists targets (supporters) of anti-intellectual misleading politics that will look very similar to today’s New Right-wing targets of unjustified attack. Being anti-climate science is a major part of the New Right-wing anti-intellectual agenda because it connects to other anti-intellectual targets of attack.

“Compared with the intellectual as expert, who must be accepted even when feared, the intellectual as ideologist is an object of unqualified suspicion, resentment, and distrust [Now even the expert can be dismissed, disrespected, and attacked by the misleading New Right]. The expert appears as a threat to dominate or destroy the ordinary individual, but the ideologist is widely believed to have already destroyed a cherished American society. To understand the background of this belief, it is necessary to recall how consistently the intellectual has found himself ranged in politics against the right-wing mind. This is, of course, no peculiarity of American politics. ...

“... if there is anything that could be called an intellectual establishment in America, this establishment has been, though not profoundly radical (which would be unbecoming of an establishment), on the left side of center. And it has drawn the continuing and implacable resentment of the right, which has always liked to blur the distinction between the moderate progressive and the revolutionary. ...

“... The truth is that the right-winger needs his Communists [unjustified made-up threats] badly, and is pathetically reluctant to give them up. ...

“... Had the [McCarthy] Great Inquisition been directed only against Communists, it would have tried to be more precise and discriminating in its search for them: in fact, its leading practitioners seemed to care little for the difference between a Communist and a unicorn. ...

“... The inquisitors were trying to give satisfaction [create misleading anti-learning attacks] against liberals, New Dealers, reformers, internationalists, intellectuals, and finally even against the Republican administration that failed to reverse liberal policies [like the Tea Party and Freedom Caucus radical factions in the Republican Party. What was involved, above all, was a set of political hostilities in which the New Deal was linked to the welfare state, the welfare state to socialism, and socialism to Communism. In this crusade Communism was not the target but the weapon, ...

“... The deeper historical sources of the Great Inquisition are best revealed by the other enthusiasms of its devotees: hatred of Franklin D. Roosevelt, implacable opposition to New Deal reforms, desire to banish or destroy the United Nations, anti-semitism, Negrophobia, isolationism, a passion for repeal of the income tax, fear of poisoning by fluoridation of the water system, opposition to modernism in the churches.”

What’s next after Supreme Court curbs regulatory power: More focus on laws’ wording, less on their goals

Bob Loblaw at 23:05 PM on 15 July, 2024

TWFA @ 52:

Of course, you are right that you have no obligation to answer questions posed to you. You also have no obligation to support any of the assertions you make. You have no obligation to provide a consistent position, nor any obligation to clarify unclear statements that you make. You have no obligation to connect your opinions to reality, or base them on any observable phenomena. You have no obligation to change your opinions when others point out the errors in your logic, or provide information that contradicts your opinions.

And nobody else has any obligation to think that you have any constructive contribution to the discussion. Nobody else has any obligation to think that you really understand any of this, or that you have really given this any sort of comprehensive thought. Nobody else has any obligation to respect anything you say.

...and you finish with "it's about who has the final say over the regulators if their mandate is unclear", in spite of the fact that after many comments, you still won't actually explain who has "the final say" (clue: even with the Chevron deference, the courts always had the option to decide that the regulatory agency position was not reasonable) and you still won't say who you think should be regulating the regulators, and how that would work differently from the experts in the agencies in question.

In other words, you are unwilling to explain or defend your position or elaborate on your opinion. You just keep re-asserting it, as if repetition is some form of discussion. But I knew that would be the case. It has been your MO since you started commenting here.

What’s next after Supreme Court curbs regulatory power: More focus on laws’ wording, less on their goals

One Planet Only Forever at 03:21 AM on 15 July, 2024

I will limit my comment to ‘the SC judgment regarding Chevron deference’ and ‘related applicable understanding regarding judgments’.

TWFA’s @1 prompted me to consider making a response. I thoughtfully and reasonably revisited Daniel Kahneman’s (an expert on the matter of human judgment) recent book “Noise – A Flaw in Human Judgment” (with Oliver Sibony and Cass R. Sunstein). Kahnemans’s earlier book “Thinking Fast and Slow” is also relevant as it points out the flaws of System 1 ‘gut reaction, impulsive, instinctive (mediocre)’ decision making vs. the better System 2 slower process of thoughtful thinking).

I have been following this discussion while working on developing a hopefully helpful contribution. Hopefully everyone is passionate about he pursuit of learning to make better judgments, with the understood objective being limiting harm done and helping those who needs assistance to live decent lives, including assistance with learning to be less harmful and more helpful.

Regarding the SC ruling on Chevron deference

Good governing judgment would have the people wanting to benefit from an activity that needs to be restricted to be sustainable and limit harm done (avoiding a Tragedy of the Commons result from too much freedom) pay for reasonable required monitoring of the activity. The alternative is ‘increasing taxation on everyone else’ to monitor the activity which is understandably less desirable (except for people wanting to benefit in less sustainable and more harmful ways desiring the avoidance of costs or other restrictions). If the legislators who wanted monitoring of the fishing operators had not wanted the monitored operations to pay for the monitoring they would have included a budget line item for the costs of monitoring. A lack of such a provision would lead a reasonable judge to decide that the legislators intent was to have the operators, and ultimately the consumers, pay for the monitoring. The ‘majority decision’ based on a simplistic interpretation of the written law can reasonably be judged to be an ‘Unreasonable and unjustly biased Judgment’.

It is a tragedy for the future of humanity that humans can be easily impressed by bad judgments based on misunderstanding things, especially when they are competing for personal benefit and status relative to others. Poorly governed (inadequately limited – too much freedom) systems like capitalism tragically amplify the problem of popular misunderstanding, especially if there is freedom to promote misunderstanding to fool people and excuse understandably unacceptable beliefs and actions.

A major problem, affecting more systems than capitalism, is the desires some humans will develop to evade the understandable objective of a written rule by strictly interpreting it as they wish and ignoring a rule they dislike (the rule breakers vs abiders of rules). That makes the making of written rules less effective than the constantly improved presentation of the objectives (based on learning from experts) that are to be thoughtfully used to evaluate what is being done.

Related relevant points from Daniel Kahneman’s book “Noise”.

Quote from Chapter 18 with my additions in ( )

Judgments are less noisy and less biased when those who make them are well trained (in the subject matter of the judgment), are more intelligent (have fundamentally high levels of cognitive ability), and have the right cognitive style (are passionate about learning). In other words: good judgments depend on what you know, how well you think, and how you think (italics by the authors). Good judges tend to be experienced and smart, but they also tend to be actively open-minded and willing to learn from new information (new evidence and reasoning).

Quote from Chapter 4 about Matters of Judgment

...A matter of judgment is one with some uncertainty about the answer and where we allow for the possibility that reasonable and competent people might disagree.
But there is a limit to how much disagreement is admissible. Indeed, the word judgment is used mainly where people believe they should agree. Matters of judgment differ from matters of opinion or taste, in which unresolved differences are entirely acceptable.”

If there are different resulting judgments it is expected that differing ‘good judges’ would learn through collective interaction and reduce the ‘noise’ in the collective judgment group. Bias would restrict the ability of the judges to reduce the noise. It only takes one judge being unreasonably (ideologically) biased to maintain (and potentially amplify) the noisiness, degree of variation among the differing judgments. And all the judges being ‘biased the same way’ would result in Bad Judgment without the appearance of noise (Authoritarian groups think this way).

Other thoughts

I would add that an essential governing criteria for good judgments is that the open-minded learning of ‘good judges’ be focused on being less harmful and more helpful to others.

A last note: Believing that actual experts make poorer and more harmful judgments than the less informed and potentially seriously biased representatives collectively elected by ‘mediocre citizens’ is Absurd no matter how popular or common that non-sensible unreasonable belief is.

What’s next after Supreme Court curbs regulatory power: More focus on laws’ wording, less on their goals

Bob Loblaw at 11:34 AM on 13 July, 2024

Phillippe @ 26: "In fact, "the price" that people pay is exactly the reason why regulations and their strict enforcement are very much needed in this particular area,"

I have spent time dealing with government procurement of meteorological sensors. For larger contracts, a bidding system is required. Many people complain about the complexity of the bidding process, but one of the main reasons for that complexity is because you need to be very careful about all the specifications.

Why? Because you know that there are vendors that will lie and cheat and steal and be dishonest about their product in order to win the bid. And once they have a contract, they know the government will have to pay them - because the product "met the specs" - even if it turns out that the product is a piece of $#!^,

Same thing with regulations. If you say "that factory cannot release waste water containing more than 1g/L of arsenic", they'll just add more water to the arsenic mix until is "passes". You need to specify absolute amounts that can be released, regardless of dilution levels, if the river's ecosystem if affected by the total, not the dilution.

When high levels of integrity exist, nobody needs lawyers.

What’s next after Supreme Court curbs regulatory power: More focus on laws’ wording, less on their goals

Bob Loblaw at 11:17 AM on 13 July, 2024

TWFA @ 25:

Ah, yes. The good old "if they're such experts then why can't they explain it to morons?" argument. I'm sorry, but I've spent 45 years learning about climate, and I'm still not finished, and when I run into someone like you - that has steadfastly refused to learn much of anything during your time spent here at SkS - I don't think you have a good argument for "the average Josephine can always learn enough" to be able to deal with a lot of complex decisions.

Court cases depend on the judge or jury deciding "which experts do I believe?", and that belief is not going to be related to the jurors learning enough science in a highly specialized area to be able to understand and analyze the science itself.

In the U.S. a lot of time is spent is screening potential jurors to avoid people with obvious bias and inappropriate background. Lawyers are always in search of jurors that they think will actually listen to the evidence and be able to come to a logical conclusion. (Unless, of course, they have no case, at which point they want jurors they can bamboozle.) This takes much time and money. It is not an efficient process.

Do you really think that hundreds - no, thousands - no, probably tens of thousands - of regulatory decisions can be made in a reasonable time frame by having a court case for every one? Trials should be the last place to try to decide anything of this sort. A functioning regulatory structure is needed so that most of these decisions can be made in a reasonable length of time.

You said you were (maybe still are) a pilot. Do you really think that the decision of whether or not you should get a pilot's licence should be made by a jury? When I got my licence, I had to do a flight test with a qualified examiner. If I had not passed, I would not have expected to have the right to a jury trial, where the examiner presented his evidence, and I presented mine, and a jury made the decision.

You keep ignoring the fact that the Chevron deference decision was not a dictum that the agency was always right. I quoted the OP in comment #9: "if Congress is silent or unclear, then the court should defer to the agency’s interpretation if it is reasonable". If the agency's interpretation is unreasonable (in the court's view), the agency loses. The plaintiff opposing the agency has the opportunity to refute the agency's argument and try to show that it is unreasonable. The deference applies when the law is unclear, and the agency is considered to be "innocent until proven guilty". You, on the other hand, have clearly decided that the agency and it's experts are guilty, and no evidence will every get you to change your mind.

Time will tell if the courts end up rejecting a huge number of agency regulatory decisions as a result of this Supreme Court decision. Rest assured that the people that can challenge things in court will be the rich industry people, not the small individuals. The power shift is not headed in your direction.

I'm still waiting for answers to the questions I asked in comment 23.

What’s next after Supreme Court curbs regulatory power: More focus on laws’ wording, less on their goals

Bob Loblaw at 06:41 AM on 13 July, 2024

Oh, my. TWFA has continued his baseless accusations that regulators bear no consequences for their decisions. In previous comments, he used phrases such as "presumed infallible", "word of God", "masterminds", etc. Now he is adding phrases such as "love regulation", "regulators's interest", "activists", "sacred scrolls", etc.

And he continues to assert the falsehood that public servants can't be fired, etc. I've seen public servants get fired. I've seen public servants in temporary positions not be renewed (effectively ending their employment). I've seen people working for government on contract where contracts are not renewed. And I've seen government programs get cut. TWFA's use of "never" does not hold water. (I have also known more than one government employee to lose their life in work-related activities.)

TWFA says he's "not against regulation in the public interest," and "I simply want to make sure we are regulating the regulators". Yet I see nothing in TWFA's posts to tell us how he thinks such "regulation of the regulators" would occur.

Regulators must, by law, perform regulatory actions as prescribed in the enacting legislation. If they don't, they can - and will - end up in court to defend that. They don't get to just "make stuff up".

TWFA mentions "FOIA requests to see what pharma reps have been meeting with which regulators". This goes to Regulatory Capture - where regulations get crafted in favour of a particular interest group. To quote the Wikipedia page I link to: the regulator "is co-opted to serve the commercial, ideological, or political interests of a minor constituency, such as a particular geographic area, industry, profession, or ideological group".

Who does most of this co-opting? Private industry, politicians funded by private industry, etc. Exactly the kind of people that TWFA seems to think should be "regulating the regulators".

There are industry-funded think tanks in the US (and other countries) that invest much time in supporting sympathetic politicians, and will literally provide them with draft legislation or regulations that favour their industry supporters. These people are not acting "in the public interest".

Politicians can be accused of many the bad things TWFA accuses government experts of: only interested in their own careers, how to keep their political funding, how to derive the most personal financial benefit, etc.

TWFA: you issue a challenge on "salesmanship". That works two ways: we are not buying what you are selling. If you want to sell your view, you might start with the following:

Since you seem to dismiss any government-employed "expert" as corrupt (due to lack of accountability, it seems), explain exactly how you would modify the process of hiring and using experts within a framework where government plays a role in regulation.

If your answer involves the legislative or judicial branches of government, explain how those branches will employ "experts" that are not subject to exactly the same problems that you see in executive branch "experts".

If your answer involves moving government completely out of the equation, explain how your alternative ensures regulation in the public interest, rather than just private self-interest.

When it comes to "regulating the regulators", please explain how the people that are doing the second stage of regulation will meet the following needs:

Develop suitable expertise to be able to act as experts capable of judging the actions of the first-stage regulators.

Avoid the pitfalls of 'unaccountable regulators" that you are convinced saturate the group of first-level regulators.

Explain whether you think that the people "regulating the regulators" also need to be regulated. And if so, by who (and how they'll be different from the previous stages - i.e. not corrupted the same way.) Try to not end up in a "Turtles all the way down" loop.

Basically, what is needed is some form of regulation that can be carried out with a minimum of influence by small special-interest groups. And that independent regulator, for scientific questions, needs to have suitable expertise. Handing the "regulation" over to people without the necessary expertise is not a good solution.

To tie back to the OP, the Chevron deference was a decision that said that when the agency provided a reasonable interpretation of vague or unclear legislation, the agency is the most likely place to find suitable expertise.

I don't expect TWFA will actually make any attempt to answer any of those questions - but maybe he'll surprise me.

What’s next after Supreme Court curbs regulatory power: More focus on laws’ wording, less on their goals

nigelj at 06:51 AM on 12 July, 2024

Eclectic @112

"Why is it that Libertarians, as well as Communists, are unable to look at human history and draw sensible conclusions? It's a mystery, why these doctrinaire flag-wavers can remain so blind to all the evidence around them. TWFA, can you explain it?"

Can I make a comment on this. I did a bit of psychology at university.
Psychological research indicates a genetic basis to our political leanings. People tend to be born either liberal or conservative. And people are born either preferring the freedom of action of capitalism or the perceived security offered by communist / socialist systems. Its not a rigid tendency, because people do sometimes change their preferences ,but something innate is going on in combination with environment.

For some people the leaning might be very strong and this might explain why they stick to the beleifs despite the evidence - but im not 100% sure of this. Others may have some knowledge of recent research on it.

Its also possible that people persist with these beliefs even although the evidence says the dogmas clearly dont work, because they are unusually stubborn and can't let go of the ideas. This might be because they have narcissistic and very egotistic personalities. Changing beliefs is hard for these people because it means acknowledging they got something wrong and this hugely hurts their ego . Of course we are probably all a bit like this, but with some people its extreme to the point of being some sort of mental disorder (Narcissistic Personality Disorder). So they persist in absurd beliefs despite the evidence to the contrary, where the rest of us modify our beliefs. This obviously applies to some of the climate denialists as well. Im 100% certain this would be a big factor in why people adhere to ridiculous beliefs.

But I would say belief in absurd dogmas is probably not due to just one thing. Some people also adhere to dogmas due to peer group pressure and group think.

What’s next after Supreme Court curbs regulatory power: More focus on laws’ wording, less on their goals

Eclectic at 10:43 AM on 11 July, 2024

Nigelj @4 and TWFA @5 & prior :

Nigel, since you speak as a Non-American, it is likely that you have not considered all of the peculiarly American aspects of the situation. On that assumption, please allow me to recommend the viewing of a "fresh" Youtube video posted within the last 12 hours. It is issued by the LegalEagle channel, and has the appallingly Clickbaity title: "The Supreme Court Destroyed The Government While You Weren't Looking". (the length is about 22 minutes, after subtracting ads)

You (and TWFA) will find the video entertaining as well as instructive. They've packed a lot into the 22 minutes, about the SCOTUS reversal of of the so-called "Chevron Deference".

TWFA, I have traveled 1000's of miles by bus on country roads ~ and it sounds like you have not. I can assure you that everyone inside (and outside) the bus has a far better likelihood of safe travel where there is a single (though imperfect) driver holding the steering wheel . . . . compared with a group of judges & lawyers & their clients all fighting for control of the wheel (which would be bad enough on a straight road, let alone on a twisty mountainous road).

TWFA, you have not really thought things through, regarding government and the functioning of society. As shown by history (and common sense) ~ the system you propose would result in more damage & oppression to the Little Man (that's me & you) as we endure a rather chaotic courts system where deep-pocketed individuals & corporations throw their weight around (even worse than they do at present).

TWFA, your ideological objections might possibly be satisfied if Congress provided far more detailed legislation to cover the great complexities and ongoing changes of modern life. But that would require extensive & numerous committees of reviews & inquiries & oversight. And in view of the Kindergarten scientific education level of (the majority of) Congressmen . . . then they would (if not corrupt) require the advice of the very experts that you abhor.

Sadly, TWFA, that would require the large expansion of the Senate to 600 maybe 2,000 senators . . . and a far larger Lower House ~ maybe to 4,400 or even 12,000 representatives.

Be careful what you wish for, TWFA.

Of red flags and warning signs in comments on social media

Bob Loblaw at 06:08 AM on 18 June, 2024

OPOF:

Yes, it's amazing how so many of these zombie myths keep coming back in slightly altered form.

The OP does include a link to SkS's list of common myths (https://sks.to/arguments), and lo and behold we find "CO2 limits will hurt the poor" at #67. In that rebuttal, there is a map of Climate Demography Vulnerability Index (CDVI) that shows much of Africa as being highly vulnerable. (Go to the link above to see details on the source).

Vulnerability

...but you also raise another important "red flag" not specifically mentioned in the OP here: logical inconsistencies in the arguments being made. It takes a significant level of psychological compartmentalization to be able to hold strongly contradicting beliefs at the same time. As you state, how can action make poor countries richer and poorer at the same time?

SkS used to have an online list of contradictory "contrarian" viewpoints, but it became too difficult for our limited number of volunteers to keep up-to-date. Too many contradictions, I suppose.

2024 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #21

michael sweet at 02:45 AM on 30 May, 2024

There was an article today in The Guardian about the health benefits from currently installed renewable energy. The original study is here.

Installing wind and solar from 2019 to 2022 resulted in reductions of SO₂and nitrogen oxides NO_xin the USA. Both these cheicals cause respiratory damage. They found that the reduction of pollution resulted in $249 billion dollars in health and climate benefits. I note that these benefits will continue for the foreseeable future and will be much greater than the cost of installing the renewable energy. In addition, the renewable energy is cheaper than fossil energy.

Jeremiah Johnson, a climate and energy professor at North Carolina State University who was not involved in the study said :

The public “is often focused on the challenges we face” when it comes to ecological damage, he said. “But it is also important to recognize when something is working.”

It would be interesting to see what David-acct thinks about these massive savings from installing renewable energy.

Skeptical Science New Research for Week #21 2024

Bob Loblaw at 03:18 AM on 27 May, 2024

Michael Sweet @ 3:

Technically, David-acct has not actually made any argument at all in comment 1. All he did is quote some numbers. We are left to speculate as to what argument he was trying to make. I agree that he was probably trying to make an argument along the lines of "oh, my, look at how huuuugely expensive this is!!!", to which the rejoinder is "compared to what?".You have pointed him in the direction of "what?"

Maybe his argument was intended to be "look at how cheap this will be!!!", but I somehow doubt it. If David-acct's past commenting habits are a guide, I also doubt we'll see him return to be more specific or actually make a logical argument.

My analogy to David-acct's "argument" is to compare him to a homeowner who has been told "Your roof is leaking badly. It will cost $20,000 to replace it." The homeowner balks at the cost, and decides not to do it. Meanwhile, he's doing $60,000 of renovations to upgrade the kitchen to granite counter tops and walnut cabinets, and has spent $40,000 to create a media room on the second floor, with flat screen TV, 7-channel sound system, etc. ...and all those renovations get destroyed a few months later when the leaking roof causes major flood damage. He expects insurance to cover the cost, but when the insurance company finds out he was told about the leaking roof earlier and chose to ignore that advice, the insurance company says "you're on your own".

There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature

Bob Loblaw at 04:30 AM on 14 May, 2024

Martin Watson @ 184:

The diagram you post is not radically different from the graphs and data presented in the intermediate tab of the "CO2 was higher in the past" rebuttal. That rebuttal gives a fairly detailed look at CO2 history over longer periods, and discusses many of the other factors that also affect temperature at geologic time scales.

From a brief point of view, many other factors would have been different at the time you ask about (25 million years ago), so one would expect that temperatures would not exactly match those of today.

I suggest that you look over that rebuttal for possible answers, and then continue the discussion on that thread.

The science isn't settled

Bob Loblaw at 00:51 AM on 11 May, 2024

I agree with Eclectic that TWFA seems to be getting some rather bad information from dubious sources. Given that TWFA often seems to just jump to a different "talking point" when challenged on his interpretation or argument, it seems that he lacks understanding of exactly what point his snippets of information are supposed to represent.

As an example, after arguing about the features of the Jevrejeva sea level reconstruction, in comment 99 I pointed to a RealClimate post that shows the Jevrajeva methodology is suspect. In comment 100, TWFA did not make any attempt to justify the use of Jevrajeva - instead, he made a bogus general argument about trends and processing, and did a "Look! Squirrel!" about comparing 1600 with 1750. After I commented in #101, he continued with more Just Asking Questions.

I will attempt to respond to TWFA's comment 102 in two ways. First, to address his general question about past climates, what we know, and what does it tell us.

The information we have about past climates is limited, and often requires use of proxies (geological records, tree rings, ice cores, etc.) That does not mean we "know nothing". though. In essence, the proxies are the result of past climates, rather than direct measurements of the temperature, precipitation, etc.

By understanding the physics of climate (including physics of solar output, etc.), we can use the evidence we do have about past climates to determine what factors were playing a role at that time. And we can compare that to what we can directly measure about those factors now.

...and we see that the best explanation for current trends must include greenhouse gas changes (mostly CO2 from fossil fuel use) to get things anywhere close to right. Other factors were active in the past to a sufficient degree to cause changes we see in the past - but they are not sufficient now to cause the changes we are seeing now.

To directly respond to TWFA's "I don't understand how what is now deemed to be abnormal can be so determined if prior normal cannot be",

We can determine what "prior normal" was - at least to some limited extent. But that limited extent contains a range of uncertainty due to our limited information. (Even today, we have limits on what is measured.)

When we interpret our evidence of the past, we have to include that uncertainty range. Hence Eclectic's question in comment 98: the broad mauve band versus the smooth calculated curve in the graphs that were being discussed.

The second approach I'll take is by analogy. A thought experiment.

Let's assume I am on trial for stealing money from TWFA's bank account.

The prosecution has shown evidence of an electronic transfer of $10k from his account to mine on a particular date last month, and evidence that this transfer was initiated for a login from my IP address. At the time, TWFA was on vacation in central Africa, with no internet access.

I have presented evidence that TWFA's bank account balance in the past has gone up and down by thousands of dollars from month to month. I do not have information about individual transfers in the past, but I do have evidence of TWFA's approximate income and typical monthly expenses.

I argue that this past range of bank balances raises doubt that I stole the money. How can we be sure that some expense that existed in the past did not cause the removal of $10k?

On cross, the prosecution presents detailed records that show each transaction for the past year (when detailed records are available). None of the historical expenses that cause $10k changes in the older historical bank balances were happening during the period I am accused of stealing money. They again point out that the current detailed records include a transfer to my account.

The judge ends up saying "it's settled - guilty as charged".

Climate scientists have spent a lot of time looking at past climates, using the available (albeit limited) evidence. We've spent time to understand the physics, analyze the data, and determine the range of effects that have caused past climate changes. And now we've looked in detail at the role of CO2, and we are observing the effects of increased CO2 that are in broad agreement with theory.

There are things we still want to learn (always), but the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, has caused most (if not all) the warming in the recent past, and will continue to cause warming in the future is settled science.

The science isn't settled

TWFA at 15:38 PM on 9 May, 2024

Sorry, you're wrong again, perhaps your eyes didn't notice the first chart starts at 1700 and the second at 1800.

In the second chart the authors used data from the 2014 study, which basically took some of the noise out of the '08 paper but did not change the overall curve from 1700, however this particular evangelist cut off the data prior to 1810 to show the slight dip between 1810 and 1860 in order to make an apparent human caused reversal to fit the Industrial Revolution chronological orthodoxy, even though the lagging emissions curve still needed quite a bit of explaining... perhaps in the future they will discover or "adjust" preceding emissions to better fit the narrative.

By the way, I am not "regurgitating" anything, I first noticed the second chart about six months ago when somebody posted it as some sort of devastating proof of the coming inundation we are to be blamed for, it didn't make sense to me based upon the lagging emissions curve, then I drilled deeper into the source data and it all made even less sense.

In any event whether the science is settled (an oxymoron if there ever was one, no theory or law following the scientific method can ever be proved right, only not yet proved wrong) or not is moot, the evangelists ARE getting their way and we WILL be spending hundreds of trillions over the next four or five decades, probably forgoing a chunk of liberty along the way as well, seeing if we can operate a global CO2 controlled thermostat, either it will work, or nature will have something to say about it.

My money, if there is any to be left over, is on the buckets.

Welcome to Skeptical Science

Eclectic at 15:40 PM on 1 May, 2024

Brtipton @123 :

Bob, you are correct. As you know, roughly 83% of society's energy use is coming from fossil fuels. And total energy use is continuing to increase. And it is unhelpful & misleading, when "renewable" wind & solar gets reported not as actual production, but as the potential maximum production (the real production being about 70% lower, on average, than the so-called "installed capacity").

However, the biggest need is for more technological advancement of the renewables sector (and especially in the economics of batteries). Maybe in 15-20 years, the picture will look much brighter. And maybe there will be progress in crop-waste fermentation to produce liquid hydrocarbon fuel for airplanes & other uses where the (doubtless expensive) liquid fuels will still be an attractive choice.

Carbon Tax (plus "dividend" repayment to citizens generally) would be helpful ~ if political opposition can be toned down. But technological advancement is the big requirement, for now. There is political opposition to more-than-slight subsidies to private corporations . . . but surely there is scope for re-directing "research money" into both private and non-profit research ~ so long as it can avoid being labelled as "a subsidy". Wording is important, in these things.

With the best will in the world, it will all take time.

Simon Clark: The climate lies you'll hear this year

nigelj at 05:54 AM on 28 April, 2024

Some commentary on a recent form of climate scepticism that I thought was interesting:

Prof Jem Bendell: When my book Breaking Together came out in May, some of my climate activist friends were surprised that I gave significant attention to rebutting scepticism on the existence of manmade climate change. I also surprised some of my colleagues at COP27 a year ago, when I gave a short talk on the rise of a new form of scepticism. That new form is couched in the important desire to resist oppression from greedy, hypocritical and unaccountable elites. I think the surprise of some that we still need to respond to climate scepticism reflects the bubble that many people working on environmental issues exist within. That’s a bubble of Western middle classes who believe they are well-informed, ethical and have some agency, despite relying on the Guardian, BBC or CNN for much of their news. Outside that bubble, there has been a rise in the belief that authorities and media misrepresent science to protect and profit themselves, while controlling the general public. That was primarily because of the experience of the pronouncements and policies during the early years of the pandemic. When people who are understandably resistant to that Covid orthodoxy have discovered the way elites have been using concern about climate change to enrich themselves, such as through the carbon credits scam, many have become suspicious of the whole agenda on climate change. Those of us who know some of the science on climate, and pay attention to recent temperatures and impacts, can feel incredulous at such scepticism. My green colleagues ask me: “How can someone deny what’s changing right before their very eyes?”

My correspondence with people expressing a new type of freedom-defending climate scepticism has led me to conclude that something else is needed than simply correcting their views with clear logic and evidence. My answers to the questions, which you can read below, may not have been perfect (he presents a list of climate myths and correct information similar to skepticalscience.com) . But the responses from sceptical people have sometimes seemed irrational. For instance, one type of response is an inconsistent switching between epistemologies (the fancy word for describing our view of how we come to know things about the world). That inconsistency involves sometimes claiming to reject all scholarship as untrustworthy instead to trust only firsthand experience. It is inconsistent because they ignore lots of firsthand experience contrary to their view, while also reaching for second hand and poorly referenced or debunked scholarship (often in the form of a blog or video clip) that might seem to support their view. Another irrational approach is the repetition of a claim that has already been debunked, which is the intellectual equivalent of raising one’s voice. One example is sending a blog or a video that repeats previously debunked claims. Another approach is to switch topic on to values and principles, while repeating false binaries given to them by the media. Specifically, that is the binary that climate change can’t be real because globalist elites are profiting from the issue and trying to control us. Instead, both the former and latter can be true at the same time (yep, quite elementary logic). Finally, the most widespread and pernicious irrationality is to regard these discussions as just one topic, and then choose criticism of the globalists as being the most important response, rather than understanding the situation of the natural environment and responding to it in a better way. That happens when people think “after all this debate, I’m not sure about climate change but I’m certain about resisting the globalists, so I’ll focus on that.” If one’s motivation for inquiring into public affairs is to feel like a moral agentic person and experience a burst of energy from belonging to the good guys in a fight, then such a conclusion is seductive. That is especially because it requires no painful recognition of the ecological tragedy, no sacrifices, no risk taking, no changing of lifestyles, and no complicated participation in community projects. It also generates easy likes on social media from people similarly addicted to narratives that avoid difficult self-reflection and change. Unfortunately, the result of this irrationality is people don’t begin to prepare emotionally and practically for what has already started unfolding around them.

wijembendell.com/2023/10/10/responding-to-the-new-wave-of-climate-scepticism

( I don't entirely agree with the writers own tendency towards criticism of globalism and elites, and of the mainstream authorities motives, and of the idea of covid lockdown policies, but I thought he makes some good points on other issues as above)

At a glance - Does CO2 always correlate with temperature?

Eclectic at 12:19 PM on 12 April, 2024

William @1 , you are making multiple failings in logic.

Bigly confused politicians tend to use a "word salad" ~ but William you are using a "logic salad".

Maybe somewhere you have some good points to make . . . but it's certainly not obvious! Please slow down a bit, and make your points one at a time ~ and use a carefully considered logical analysis. The "close your eyes and use a shotgun" approach is unconvincing and counterproductive, if you are seeking to persuade readers.

A data scientist’s case for ‘cautious optimism’ about climate change

nigelj at 05:10 AM on 4 April, 2024

William @ 38

"At what point - would you start to not trust a climate alarmist - if deaths continue to fall or not rise for another 40 years - would you think maybe we should not trust those who make these predictions and fuel the narrative. Or do they just get a forever pass - and you will always accept more predictions - even though the people and movements who made them before have always been wrong."

Scientists are making the best predictions and projections they can. The best evidence they have says heatwaves have already become significantly more frequent and intense (refer last IPCC report), and that this situation will get worse over time particularly as warming gets above 2 degrees C. I see no reason to doubt them. The predictions are rational, logical and evidence based. I am a sceptical sort of person but Im not a fool who thinks all predictions should be ignored or that everything is fake or a conspiracy.

Scientists generally predict heatwave mortality will increase and be greater than reducing deaths in winter due to warmer winters, as per the reference I posted @34. What scientists cannot possibly predict is what advances there might be in healthcare and technology that might keep the mortality rate low. All we know is there will likely be further improvements in healthcare and technology, but quantifying them is impossible and it would be foolish to assume there will be massive improvements. We have to follow the precautionary principle that things could be quite bad.

If warming over the next 20 years causes less harm than predicted mitigation policies can be adjusted accordingly. This is far better than just making wild assumptions that global warming would be a fizzer.

Please appreciate that contrary to your comments elsewhere, multiple climate predictions have proven to be correct. Just a few examples:

theconversation.com/20-years-on-climate-change-projections-have-come-true-11245

www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/oct/25/charlie-kirk/many-climate-predictions-do-come-true

"I think people just want to believe things will be terrible and there are primed believe end of days narratives."

Some people yes. Other people think things will always be fine. Both are delusional views. I would suggest the vast majority of people between those extremes have a more rational, nuanced view and that they look at the overall evidence. Polling by Pew Research does show the majority of people globally accept humans are warming the climate and we need to mitigate the problem.

"Yes - anything could happen in the future and deaths and damage levels could rise again- but it is nor healthy to ignore the present - or trust people that wilfully distort it."

I'm not ignoring the present or past. The mortality rate from disasters has mostly fallen over the last 100 years and that looks like robust data. I didn't dispute this above. I dont recal anyone disputing it. However you cant assume that trend will always be the case. The climate projections show deadly heatwaves are very likely to become very frequent and over widespread areas, and so obviously there is a significant risk the mortality rate will go up.

It's almost completely certain that at the very least considerably increased resources will have to go into healthcare, air conditioning, adaptation, etc,etc. This means fewer resources available for other things we want to achieve in life. Once again its not all about the mortality rate per se. So when I look at the big picture there is a strong case to stop greenhouse gas emissions and transition to a new zero carbon energy grid.

Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

jimsteele24224 at 12:21 PM on 3 April, 2024

Eclectic, you missed something basic in physics and in logic ?

Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

Eclectic at 12:13 PM on 3 April, 2024

Jimsteele @76 :

You have answered incompletely. Have I missed something basic in physics or in logic ? e.g. ~

Solar shortwave radiation -> ocean

ocean heat -> atmosphere by molecular vibration and by IR radiation

atmospheric heat -> ocean (predominantly by molecular vibration, but a small component of IR radiation too)

CO2 -> greenhouse effect -> lower atmosphere warming [lapse rate]

Ergo, CO2 provides a large (but indirect) amount of ocean warming.

A data scientist’s case for ‘cautious optimism’ about climate change

Bob Loblaw at 04:25 AM on 3 April, 2024

William @ 24:

You refernce a newspaper story from 2015. The actual study is probably this one:

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)62114-0

Have you read the actual study? (The Lancet copy is paywalled, but Google Scholar will find free versions.)

The RealClimate post I linked to (and you chose to ignore) is newer, and written by an expert in the field (not a journalist). And it looks at more than one study, including a more recent one (2017) written by many of the same authors as the one your newspaper story mentions.

In that newer study, their interpretation is:

This study shows the negative health impacts of climate change that, under high-emission scenarios, would disproportionately affect warmer and poorer regions of the world. Comparison with lower emission scenarios emphasises the importance of mitigation policies for limiting global warming and reducing the associated health risks.

So, the authors of that study do not seem to share your "nothing to worry about" point of view.

A data scientist’s case for ‘cautious optimism’ about climate change

William24205 at 03:19 AM on 3 April, 2024

lchinitz 13,
It is interesting to compare Covid with climate change. With Covid I was ( certainly at the beginning ) very much on the precautionary side. It was a brand new unknown virus and rising exceptionally .

Climate change is of a completely different order - with Covid speed because of the exponential growth speed was of the essence. No such things occurs with climate change - there is no exponential threat as such . Very importantly the threat is extremely slow moving - if a low lying island is threatened we have years to adapt .
There are no upside benefits to a virus - warming/less cold might be good.
We panicked over Covid because people died and very quickly - we were right to panic - and even if we might ( or might not ) have panicked too much - we did the right thing at the time without hindsight.
We are now more relaxed about Covid because fewer are dying - we have had 40 years of climate change coverage and fewer people are also dying.
I am much more worried about a future pandemic than climate change - a pandemic hist you quickly - we can adapt to climate change and we have plenty of time.
nuclear war , biological terrorism even AI worry me a lot more than climate change - they are scary and unpredictable.
In 2019 the WHO cited climate change as the greatest threat to huma health in the next 12 months. Talk about looking in the wrong place and getting things wrong.

A data scientist’s case for ‘cautious optimism’ about climate change

Eclectic at 00:17 AM on 3 April, 2024

Ichinitz @16 :

Quite so ~ it would be a gargantuan task to undertake a full analysis of the type you would wish.

A decade by decade costing of a rapidly-expanding probability tree, having increasing levels of uncertainty also.

And how to put a dollar cost on individual suffering . . . or how to use other yardsticks (would 10,000 philosophers be enough, over a decade?). Ignoring ecological damage ~ how to cost societal disruption and instability . . . with all the possible consequences in political and other fallout that history has been teaching us (even very modern history).

Daunting. And probably the best we could do is apply some dispassionate commonsense to our estimations. Along with caritas (in the Christian sense).

What we should not do, is ratchet up our Motivated Reasoning, and slide into denial of real-world problems.

Pragmatically, we know of the social & technological inertias that will slow the whole response to AGW. But at least we can be walking fast in the right direction, where we ought to be running.

Half a loaf .....

A data scientist’s case for ‘cautious optimism’ about climate change

Eclectic at 23:24 PM on 2 April, 2024

William , your Motivated Reasoning is in overdrive. Give it up.

Air-conditioned barns for farm animals in the poor parts of the Third World? Have you costed that ~ and with where the electricity will come from? And the social disruption, with mass refugees? Costed that?

And now you are falling back on: Predictable problems will not occur because Mr Malthus was not 100% right in his predictions 200 years ago. William, you know that is not a logical argument.

Yes, the Do-Nothing approach will result in adaptation by poor people in the hotter zones of the planet . . . they will adapt by migrating. Costed all that?

A data scientist’s case for ‘cautious optimism’ about climate change

Bob Loblaw at 22:44 PM on 2 April, 2024

Regarding heat deaths vs cold deaths, RealClimate had a post on that a few years ago:

Will climate change bring benefits from reduced cold-related mortality? Insights from the latest epidemiological research

From the introduction:

Climate skeptics sometimes like to claim that although global warming will lead to more deaths from heat, it will overall save lives due to fewer deaths from cold. But is this true? Epidemiological studies suggest the opposite.

As for William's latest @8, once again William simply does not accept the extensive economic calculations that say avoiding the problems will cost less than dealing with them.

Air conditioning will not help people that have to work outside. Air conditioning will not save agriculture. Air conditioning will not stop flooding.

William demands "absolute certainty" before any action should be taken to prevent a problem.

Do you have car insurance, or fire insurance, William? Or are you waiting until you have absolute certainty that a car accident or fire has already happened?

As a general rule, it seems that people that argue "there are bigger problems" [cough]Lomborg[cough] never seem to actually put any effort or resources into taking actions on those "bigger problems".

[Courtesy of XKCD]

XKCD Bigger Problem

A data scientist’s case for ‘cautious optimism’ about climate change

Eclectic at 21:32 PM on 2 April, 2024

William @4 , @5 :

William, you are again failing to think logically.

The people of the Global North are fairly well accustomed to deal with the cold. ( Even in harsh Greenland during the Medieval Warm Period, the farmers kept their cattle in the barn for 5 months of the year. Later, a 0.5 degreeC temperature cooling did not cause their societal collapse ~ that collapse was due to socio-economic changes.)

The coming problems of further global warming do affect the people of the impoverished "South". The poor cannot afford house airconditioning ~ even if the national electricity prices were halved. And airconditioned barns . . . are a fantasy. Like the idea of solar panels for barn coolers. And most of the poorest are a long, long way from (expensive) transmission lines.

Yes, agricultural scientists have done some good work in breeding for more heat-resistant staple crops. But nature imposes genetic limits, and there is no Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free card to ultimately save the day.

And the increasing sea level rise will also contribute to mass migrations. Think of "border crises" and demagogues ranting against them thar furriners. It will get a lot uglier than now.

William, you are intelligent enough to know all this. Please put aside your Motivated Reasoning, and skip past all the Denial, Anger, and Bargaining (and the Depression stage, too) . . . and move on to the Acceptance that real action needs to be taken against AGW.

A data scientist’s case for ‘cautious optimism’ about climate change

Eclectic at 10:20 AM on 2 April, 2024

William @1 :

William, you are being illogical in your objections ~ illogical because (a) you are avoiding looking at the big picture . . . where "weather disaster deaths" are only a very small part of assessing the ongoing problem of rapid global warming

.... and (b) because you are handicapping yourself by using emotive and very poorly defined terms such as "emergency". Emergency?? ~ "How dare you" . . . speak like Greta Thunberg ;-)

IMO the two biggest threats (from AGW) are the longer-term ones ~ more frequent bigger/longer heat waves affecting crops & humans . . . and rising sea-level over the next 100 years. Both will cause a massive refugee problem, measured in 100's of millions of desperate migrants, with resultant huge social disruption in the "receiving" countries. And huge dollar costs, too.

As Michael Sweet points out, climate consequences produce $ costs in the billions & trillions. William, you seem to be forgetting that these $ costs will be occurring on both sides of the ledger. Not just on one side.

Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

michael sweet at 05:10 AM on 2 April, 2024

Two Dog,

In 1989 Dr Hansen spoke before congress and warned the USA about Global Warming. He projected the temperature increase expected from human emissions. It is now 45 years after Dr Hansens projections. The temperature has increased almost exactly along the line Dr Hansen forecast. How do you explain the extraordinary accuracy of Dr. Hansens projections if scientists do not understand the climate system? You need to say what are very the strong natural processes causing the climate to change exactly at the time humans started releasing large amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere?

I note that the climate had been cooling for the 4,000 years previous to humans starting to release large amounts of greenhouse gasses. Can you explain why the Earth was cooling before humans started releasing large amounts of greenhouse gasses but now unknown natural processes have turned into heating at a rate not seen in the geological record for many millions of years? What a wild coincidence!! Human emissions are estimated to have caused 105% of current warming (ie that natural forcings woud have cooled the Earth in the absence of human pollution). You are simply uninformed about the facts of global warming. If you inform yourself you will find out that scientists have investigated everything you question and found out that natural processes currently are cooling the Earth.

Scientists predicted in 1850 that increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would increase surface temperature. Arhennius projected in 1894 the approximate amount of heating from increasing carbon dioxide would be similar to what has been observed. Why are the scientists of the 1800's "a group who are highly unlikely to admit the strength and frequency of natural factors"?

Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

Bob Loblaw at 04:38 AM on 1 April, 2024

It's also worth noting that the trend values OPOF is providing from the SkS Trend Calculator use 2σ ranges for the uncertainties.

...and if you look closely, none of the trends OPOF mentions are significantly different from 0. So, the "cooling from 1940 to 1970" is really "no significant warming [or cooling] from 1940 to 1970". To argue "cooling", you need to

ignore the statistical significance of the linear fit

choose your starting point carefully.

In comment 41, Two Dog makes the point "...then only a few years "blip" in warming must presumably call the theory into question? ". That depends on "the theory" being that CO2 is the only factor causing warming on an annual or several-year basis. As we've been pointing out, this is not "the theory" that climate science is working with.

Two Dog is making the classical logic failure that is discussed in the SkS Escalator.

The Escalator

In fact, Two Dog is also arguing with himself. On the one hand, he is arguing that climate science can't possibly know all factors that might be affecting global temperature, no matter how many factors they have already considered in the relevant scientific literature. And then on the other hand, he is criticizing climate science because any blip in temperature that is not explained solely using CO2 as the only factor "...must presumably call the theory into question?". The two positions he argues are mutually contradictory.

Unfortunately this is a common thing in "skeptical" arguments against well-supported climate science - mutually-contradictory (and often impossible) positions on the subject. It's like the Queen in Alice in Wonderland:

I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the Queen. 'When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.

Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?

Eclectic at 05:33 AM on 30 March, 2024

Res01 @46 : thank you for resuming the conversation of 2023, and the mention of the new [2/2024] paper by Dr P. Bierwirth (please note the second "r" in Bierwirth).

His 2024 Abstract quotes: "Protein malfunctions in cells due to elevated CO2 and associated low pH has [sic] the potential to cause threats to life including cancer, neurological disorders, lung disease, diabetes, etc. ... overexpression of carbonic anhydrase, the enzyme that catalyses CO2 in the body, causes calcification in the kidneys arteries and tissues, along with other diseases and this may be an existential threat."

Please excuse my adding of underlining emphasis, in the above. The body of the paper does not really add much, I think, to earlier comments on the topic. # It is all rather breathless [please forgive my feeble attempt at a pun, of sorts].

Looking at the bigger picture, we see that the dinosaurs survived millions of years of "high" ambient CO2. Were their bodily proteins shaped by evolution to perform satisfactorily at high CO2 levels ~ or did their kidneys simply compensate for high CO2 ? We don't know ~ and yet we know that the dinosaurs did survive and thrive.

Is there any experimental evidence to support Dr Bierwirth's gloomy comments about long-term CO2 exposure? # Well, for what it's worth, there is a 3-month study in mice, by C. Wyrwoll et al (2021). Gestation through to 3-months of age. Despite some slight ambiguity in the Abstract, they quote: "There were no clear anxiety, learning, or memory changes. Renal and osteological parameters were minimally affected." [my emphasis]

If there be some clear-cut evidence of failure of the mammalian body to make (renal or other) adjustment/compensation in high ambient CO2, then I would be pleased to learn of it.

At SkS , we all know the potential of increasingly severe adverse effects of higher atmospheric CO2 levels. But these dangers are terrestrial, rather than physiological, for mammals.

Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?

res01 at 02:45 AM on 30 March, 2024

Skeptical Science Team, Eclectic @42, et. al,

Recent paper by P. Bierwith (2024)* notes, "There is now substantial evidence that permenant exposure to CO2 levels in the future will have significant effects on humans." The article goes on to summarize recent findings; all of which generally support the subject article here. I find though the article does contain a few "technical errors" as it was written with the knowledge as it was best known a few years back, it is in no way unnecessarily "alarmist." The problem I believe is that to some the subject itself is "alarmist", and in truth it should be.

To address Eclectic's concern a bit more succinctly; the human body's CO2 compensary mechanisms have been considered in the papers being questioned. Basically, though the body can compensate for very high levels of CO2 for short periods of time, eventually these mechanisms will "give out" over time as one is continually immersed in even mildly elevated levels of CO2; the effect becoming noticeable around 800-1200 ppm. The general effects are bone dimeneralization, calcification of soft tissues, and neurological agitation which will give rise to a range malidies not favorable for human health and well being.

*P. Bierwith, (2024), "Long-term carbon dioxide toxicty and climate change: a critical unapprehended risk for human health. Australian National University. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311844520_Long-term_carbon_dioxide_toxicity_and_climate_change_a_critical_unapprehended_risk_for_human_health

Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

John Mason at 09:42 AM on 29 March, 2024

Re - post #36:

The second questions's rhetorical and since I neither own nor moderate Skeptical Science it's irrelevant to me.

Thr first question is more interesting. On a geological time-scale, the answer is no.

Earth has continually rearranged itself through slow processes such as plate tectonics that operate over tens of millions of years. Since landmasses and oceans move around during such goings-on, climate is bound to be affected, but the fossil record indicates no big problems because of the time factor. Stuff could adapt.

However, rapid change is and has been dangerous.

Past instances of rapid change fall into two camps with a spectrum in between. We have bolide impacts (instant major change) at one end and Large Igneous Provinces (thousands to tens of thousands of years of major change) at the other.

Large igneous province events only occur every few tens of millions of years. Humans have never seen one. It's volcanism on another level.

The trouble with such rapid events is they are associated with mass-extinction with rapid climatic changes having a big role. The geological record preserves clear evidence for such things.

What we've done with carbon since pre-industrial times is directly comparable to a Large igneous province in terms of pollution created and dispersed around the globe. This current climate change may not feel fast - you may not see remarkable events on a daily basis - but geologically speaking it is going along at breakneck speed. I guess I could now ask a question back:

Just HOW bad do you want things to become before you take notice?

Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

nigelj at 04:55 AM on 25 March, 2024

Nick Palmer says "It's becoming increasingly clear that virtually all of the 'engine' behind 'denialim is the Machiavellian manoeuvring of highly motivated political ideologues who believe their cause is so overwhelmingly important that it justifies the use of mass deception and the naked propaganda that is in this film."

Love this statement. So accurate. It concisely sums up the whole thing.

At the level of the general public denialism is probably a bit more broadly based, including people with vested interests in the fossil fules industry, or just worried about costs, and others with a more ideological or political agenda. Or a combination. Just based on my anecdotal impression and reading studies by various people but the pattern is very clear.

As to Margaret Thatcher, not my favourite politician, but not totally bad either. She had a chemistry degree. She undestands science and accepted anthropogenic global warming. Probably also a bit opportunistic promoting nuclear power but at least she accepted the science. The idea it was all to impoverish poor people is in the realms of tin foil hat conspiracy theory.

Certainly I have read many comments by deniers where they cant help reveal their political ideologies, and its frequently small government, libertarian freedom loving (taken to an extreme), or very conservative, or sometimes hard left concern trolling (mitigation will hurt poor people). Sometimes the right use the same argument that mitigation will hurt poor people, but I would suggest they couldnt care less and just use any ammunition they can get.

According to psychological studies people who value security as a priority tend to vote left, those who value freedom (of action) as the main priority tend to vote right. However these tendencies exist on a spectrum and most people value both. The freedom loving libertarian ideologues are way out at the extreeme to the point its a bit pathological and where they resent all laws except very minimal and basic criminal and property law. You cannot run a society like that. It doesnt work. An example:

www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/21534416/free-state-project-new-hampshire-libertarians-matthew-hongoltz-hetling

Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

Doug Bostrom at 04:04 AM on 24 March, 2024

"Climate vs. Freedom" is the main point of the movie, the mainspring of the climate denialist clockwork. Careful disassembly and reverse engineering of this particular brand of synthetic ignorance inevitably reveals solipsism expressed in ideology as the movement's power source; so-called "freedom" here means "I get to do whatever I want regardless of costs to others," and powers the entire affair.

The film's funders would like us to confuse the freedom to think that is central to enlightened governance with freedom to dump sewage at our property line. This brings us into the territory of irony. Enlightenment thinking delivered the facts governing the anxieties of the film's producers— and this film is essentially trying to wind back the clock on several hundred years of the results of freedom to think.

The producers of the film are not at all concerned with freedom of thought and its outcome of science and enlightened understanding of our world. Their fears are centered on application of scientific results to public policy dealing with climate effects of CO2 emissions, circumspect and informed decisions proscribing unaccounted external costs. This will threaten any ideology founded on "everything's all about me."

Is application of climate science to public policy decisions itself ideological, even socialist? In a way it's true that climate policy is "socialist" if we're thinking in terms of social vs. antisocial, if we're employing the word "social" in its basic meaning.

Climate policy is an outcome of "socialist ideology" in the same sense that traffic regulations are a social response to selfish automobile drivers. Individual irresponsible actions come at cost to bystanders. Society is generally concerned with fairness and rejects that one person may destroy another for no good reason.

Some small percentage of persons are so poorly socialized as to care nothing about others, so we must resort to various forms of coercion to force societally-compatible behaviors. Reckless driving is discouraged by force of policy and law, ranging from fines to imprisonment because we attach such high value to fairness.

So it's proving to be the case with the external costs of vending fossil fuels, and hence we end up with climate policy that ultimately will end up with sharp edges of coercion to deal with diehard antisocial elements, given that some very tiny fraction of our society is composed of people truly uncaring of anybody but themselves.

If vast amounts of money were to be made by driving over the speed limit, we'd find a vigorous public relations industry centered on denying that e=1/2mv². The intent would be the same as with climate science and climate policy, to fool us into thinking we don't know established facts and by extension the outcomes of those facts.

We'll never see "Traffic Tickets: The Movie" because there's no group of people for whom a vast revenue stream is threatened by being forced to drive safely. In this case of climate science and (more importantly) climate policy there is indeed a postively astronomical vector of money that will change due to policy arranged around facts and fairness and informed by science. So here we are, dealing with a slickly produced film created entirely for the purpose of prolonging profoundly anti-social behavior and employing the tactic of propagating synthetic ignorance.

Freedumb isn't freedom. It's the opposite. Freedom to think well and to make informed choices isn't the same as freedumb, feeling free to make stupid decisions because we've been fooled into believing we're ignorant.

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

John ONeill at 19:26 PM on 23 February, 2024

'Please provide one example of a peer reviewed proposed future world power system that uses more nuclear than the currently built reactors.'

'The IPCC found that, on average, the pathways for the 1.5°C scenario require nuclear energy to reach 1 160 gigawatts of electricity by 2050, up from 394 gigawatts in 2020. 1 160 GW by 2050 is an ambitious target for nuclear energy, but it is not beyond reach.' https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2021-10/nuclear_energy_and_climate_change_-_cop26_flyer.pdf

Insisting on peer reviewed papers is a good way of ensuring that I can't read them. Here's a calculation on the cost of moving the United States to 100% nuclear electricity. As Joris van Dorp writes, it's a thought experiment on the cost of providing percentages of nuclear from 0 to 100, at various interest rates and build costs. '..It looks like solar and wind are today cheap enough to allow them to work economically as a fuel saving technology with natural gas. And if nuclear costs stay as high as they are today, it even looks as though a combination of storage, wind, solar, demand response and nuclear may be an optimal mix for a zero carbon energy system. However, this does not detract from the fact that nuclear power as a single technological concept is evidently sufficient to allow achieving a low-cost zero-carbon energy system, with no help needed at all from any wind power, solar power or anything else, which is the only thing this article was intended for.'

https://medium.com/generation-atomic/how-much-would-a-100-nuclear-energy-system-cost-3dd7703dd5d3

UAH atmospheric temperatures prove climate models and/or surface temperature data sets are wrong

Bob Loblaw at 02:48 AM on 14 February, 2024

Regarding an individual's religious viewpoints and conflicts with their behaviour, it helps to understand the psychological concept of compartmentalization. It's a psychological defence mechanism that allows people to believe two (or more) conflicting things.

...and there is always the George Costanza defence:

Jerry, just remember, it's not a lie if you believe it.

Skeptical Science New Research for Week #5 2024

One Planet Only Forever at 15:59 PM on 2 February, 2024

Thank you for another informative and enlightening curated set of research reports.

I particularly recommend: How Economics Can Tackle the ‘Wicked Problem’ of Climate Change, Stiglitz et al., School of International and Public Affairs/Institute of Global Politics, Columbia University (from this week's government/NGO section)

The entire document is a relatively brief presentation. I am a fairly slow reader. And it only took me 40 minutes to read all of the document.

The following extracted points may encourage people to read the full document.

Introduction ends with:

This report describes how the tools of economics, when combined with insights from other disciplines, can help policymakers address tradeoffs, implement climate policies that are both equitable and cost-effective, and help the world achieve a more sustainable future.
The Conclusion ends with:

We cannot “optimize” climate actions with any useful precision by balancing the benefits and costs of action — understanding risk and uncertainty and the concomitant urgency of addressing climate change are central to climate policy. Carbon prices work best when combined with other policies to support the development of infrastructure, institutions, regulations, and alternative technologies. In addition, international treaties are most effective when they combine sticks and carrots to encourage deeper cuts in emissions over time while maintaining broad — if not universal — participation. As befits a “wicked” problem, we need to continue to learn from the past and adapt our strategies for reducing emissions as we go.

What I found particularly informative was in the section headed WHAT SHOULD BE THE GOAL OF CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY? The following quote is from the middle of the section:

A surprising source of fodder for the climate action naysayers has come from a group of economists who use models that generate so-called “optimal” pathways by attempting to balance the benefits and costs of climate action. While these models can be calibrated to show virtually any result, the versions that have received the most attention show that the “optimal” level of action would be to allow the earth to warm between three to four degrees Celsius by 2100 — a level of warming that most scientists say is truly frightening.4 Recent updates to the model suggest an optimal warming of 2.7 degrees in 2100.5

This level of warming is still high. Researchers at Columbia and elsewhere have investigated these models, called Integrated Assessment Models (or IAMs) because they integrate environmental effects with economics, something that all good models do. The assumptions ingrained in these models about the environment, the economy, and how they interact are badly flawed.

The section then elaborates on the flaws including the following selected quotes:

... while climate change is a threat multiplier that will affect societies in countless ways, damage estimates focus on the few effects of climate change that are easiest to capture. Many or most categories of climate damage — migration, conflict, ocean acidification, biodiversity loss, etc.— are not included in state-of-the-art models.

...the models usually ignore distributional concerns, which are highly relevant to policy responses because climate change has the greatest impact on the poor, who have the fewest resources to protect themselves.

Future generations will also be disproportionately harmed by climate change, and they are typically undervalued in IAMs as well. Indeed, a critical assumption in the IAMs is how future benefits are “discounted.” A dollar today is worth more than a dollar 100 years from now, but how much more? And how do we value the reduced risk of a climate catastrophe confronting our grand-children? Most climate damage estimates implicitly undervalue future generations by discounting future benefits using market rates of return, which are determined largely by the preferences of individuals today over consumption at different points during their lifetimes — thus failing to grapple with the ethical issues raised by taking on risks that will be borne by future generations.

More reasonably, and more ethically, we should value our children and grandchildren as much as we value ourselves. Consider a situation where climate change’s effects turn out to be particularly severe, which is a realistic possibility that most IAMs ignore. Incomes of future generations will be reduced as a result — but they will have to spend a lot to repair the damage and to adapt to the new climate, at precisely those times when they are least able to do so.

In addition to undervaluing the benefits of action, the IAMs do not provide useful estimates of the costs of climate action, in part due to the extreme difficulty of forecasting technological innovation over centuries. The models also assume that markets are perfectly efficient, or that they would be efficient if only we could get the price of carbon right — the only distortion is caused by green-house gas pollution. But, as we discuss further in the next section, research over the past 50 years has highlighted the multiple inefficiencies in market economies that serve as barriers to emissions reductions — imperfections of competition, of information, of absent markets, and ill-informed or less-than-rational individuals.

To be sure, the most recent studies have produced enormous improvements over earlier versions of IAMs. For example, an analysis by Danny Bressler of Columbia University shows a seven-fold in-crease in climate damages from incorporating an estimate of human mortality caused by temperature increases.9 The latest estimates from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency now includes damages from temperature-related mortality.10 However, even the state-of-the-art estimates of climate damages are plagued by the same limitations noted earlier.

Skeptical Science New Research for Week #2 2024

One Planet Only Forever at 14:33 PM on 20 January, 2024

gerontocrat’s recommended reading (comment @2) is informative and enlightening.

It is well aligned with the pursuit of the Sustainable Development Goals and the Green-washing item I commented on @1.

The Introduction opens with:

Modern humans and millions of other species face an unprecedented number of existential threats due to anthropogenic impacts exceeding our planet’s boundaries.1 We are in dangerous territory with instability in the known realms of biosphere integrity, land system change and novel entities such as plastics and synthetic toxins, climate change, freshwater change and biogeochemical flows.

Considering the dynamic, closed and interconnected nature of Earth’s systems together, these threats pose an increasingly catastrophic risk to all complex life on Earth. Many scientists privately believe it to be already too late to avoid the tipping points that will trigger devastating and irreversible feedback loops.2

It is increasingly acknowledged that all of these threats are symptoms of anthropogenic ecological overshoot. Overshoot is defined as the human consumption of natural resources at rates faster than they can be replenished, and entropic waste production in excess of the Earth’s assimilative and processing capacity.

And the opening of the Conclusion is:

In summary, the evidence indicates that anthropogenic ecological overshoot stems from a crisis of maladaptive human behaviours. While the behaviours generating overshoot were once adaptive for H. sapiens, they have been distorted and extended to the point where they now threaten the fabric of complex life on Earth. Simply, we are trapped in a system built to encourage growth and appetites that will end us.

And the Conclusion includes the following:

The current emphasis for overshoot intervention is resource intensive (e.g. the global transition to renewable energy) and single-symptom focused. Indeed, most mainstream attention and investment is directed towards mitigating and adapting to climate change. Even if this narrow intervention is successful, it will not resolve the meta-crisis of ecological overshoot, in fact, with many of the current resource-intensive interventions, it is likely to make matters worse. Psychological interventions are likely to prove far less resource-intensive and more effective than physical ones.

We call for increased attention on the behavioural crisis as a critical intervention point for addressing overshoot and its myriad symptoms.

We advocate increased interdisciplinary collaboration between the social and behavioural science theorists and practitioners, advised by scientists working on limits to growth and planetary boundaries.

We call for additional research to develop a full understanding of the many dimensions of the behavioural crisis (including the overwhelming influence of power structures) and how we can best address it.

We call for an emergency, concerted, multidisciplinary effort to target the populations and value levers most likely to produce rapid global adoption of new consumption, reproduction and waste norms congruent with the survival of complex life on Earth.

We call for increased interdisciplinary work to be carried out in directing, understanding and policing widespread behaviour manipulation.

I bolded the last item because it is a key point. The paper indicates that efforts to raise awareness and improve understanding of the problem, promoting the science, are not bringing about the required rate and magnitude of changes of behaviour.

The section immediately preceding the Conclusion is titled: Directing and policing widespread behaviour manipulation. It is brief and is quoted below:

Behavioural manipulation has been intentionally used for nefarious purposes before, and as we’ve just explored, has played a critical role in the creation of the behavioural crisis and consequential ecological overshoot. Eco-centric behaviour is the heart of any sustainable future humanity might wish to achieve. Moreover, we are at a crossroads,with three paths ahead:

We can choose to continue using behavioural manipulation to deepen our dilemma,

We can choose to ignore it and leave it to chance, or

We can use an opportunity that almost no other species has had and consciously steer our collective behaviours to conform to the natural laws that bind all life on Earth.

This raises ethical questions, for example, who is worthy of wielding such power? At present, the answer is anyone with the necessary influence or financial means to exploit it. However, we should not entrust this to any individual human, company, government or industry. Instead, any continued use of widespread behavioural manipulation should be firmly bound by, and anchored within a framework built upon the laws of the natural world, as well as the science on limits to growth.

We urgently call for increased interdisciplinary work to be carried out in directing, understanding and policing widespread behaviour manipulation.

What the authors are calling for will require ‘policing of political marketing’. That will require ending the legitimacy of demands for the freedom of competitors for leadership and higher status to claim whatever they want as the justification for doing whatever they please, with popularity and profit being the measures of acceptability.

That ‘systemic change of what is allowed in competition for status and leadership' is essential for humanity to have a lasting improving future on this one, and potentially only, amazing planet that humans could have a long future on.

It's only a few degrees

John Mason at 23:43 PM on 18 January, 2024

#10, Retiredguy

A link to any such argument would be useful, if you would be so kind. But see the responses to Jasper above. They should at least partially answer your question. Denier logic is always badly flawed but we need more details of the argument to point out why.

Skeptical Science New Research for Week #2 2024

gerontocrat at 05:24 AM on 14 January, 2024

I recommend this paper....

World scientists’ warning: The behavioural crisis driving ecological overshoot

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/00368504231201372?utm_source=nationaltribune&utm_medium=nationaltribune&utm_campaign=news

Skeptical Science New Research for Week #2 2024

One Planet Only Forever at 13:33 PM on 12 January, 2024

Greenwashing and sustainable finance: an approach anchored in the philosophy of science, by Lagoarde-Ségot, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, presents an interesting evaluation of the ways that a business-finance focus, a belief that economic interests are the most important consideration, can be understood to systemically create harmfully distorted perceptions of reality, perceptions that really have no future (like the evaluations that significantly discounted the future costs of climate change, and did not fully account for the future impacts, to excuse more economic benefit obtained today by being more harmful).

It is fundamentally flawed to consider ‘economic financial interests’ to be more important, to govern over, social or environmental concerns (especially having economic finance interests govern over concerns that can be seen to be ‘costs to the economic system without appearing to maximize the benefit for investors’)

A related flaw is to be focused on what can be empirically observed and measured like:

only what can be monetized ‘really matters’

monetized items are valued even if the perceptions of value are distorted, unreliable, or mythical

and if something can’t be monetized, or is not chosen to be monetized, it doesn’t really matter

The following quote is part of the Introduction

This paper employs a critical realist lens and contends that the mainstream finance paradigm is based on several flawed hypotheses regarding the nature of reality. These inaccurate ontological hypotheses frame controversies in finance within a specific worldview by shaping and limiting the range of acceptable questions, acceptable methods, and acceptable answers. They have far-reaching implications for greenwashing, to the extent that corporate and financial executives, as well as policymakers, see the world through the distorted lens of financial theory. For instance, corporate and financial executives typically consider environmental, social and governance (ESG) ratings as another causal variable in their quest for short-term financial ‘materiality’ rather than adjusting their mission to tackle the social and ecological crisis. Similarly, sustainable finance policies lead to a further expansion of financial markets (through the increased commodification and financialization of nature) rather than embedding capital accumulation within planetary and social justice boundaries.

The last paragraph in the section headed “The (social) world is not flat” includes the following:

The science of business administration, where theories function as instruments of managerial control, clearly belongs to such a structure 5••, 25, 26. In particular, the mainstream belief that unfettered financial markets could reveal the ‘fundamental’ (monetary) value of the Earth System has accelerated the financialization of nature.

And the conclusion is as follows (highlighting the need for systemic change to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals – which requires ‘no successful greenwashing’.

Conclusions

This paper has made two claims. First, the growth of green financial markets2 in recent years does not necessarily imply that the economy will become ‘greener’. Green finance does not protect global commons but accelerates the inclusion of nature and society within financial logic, narratives, and interests. The mainstream finance paradigm is a powerful structure that accelerates the financialization of nature by providing a ‘software of the mind’ to corporate and finance actors as well as regulators. Senior professional investors indeed typically consider ESG simply as ‘another data set’ 1, 45, 46, 47.

As pointed out by Chiapello [49], the ‘green’ financial industry has been pushed by so many policy and corporate actors as a solution precisely because of its subordination to the mainstream paradigm. This entails considering nature and society as the next frontier for capital market development, when the current context requires us to turn the order upside-down and re-embed global capitalism within planetary boundaries [44].

Second, we have argued that the mainstream’s empirical and reductionist biases prevent financial economists from addressing sustainability issues, with unfortunate consequences for the design of sustainability policies. It follows that placing the financial sector under the control of society to hit the Sustainable Development Goals would imply a scientific revolution in finance. In this process, we contend that critical realism could provide a consistent metatheoretical alternative to the mainstream paradigm.

By approaching their study object through the lens of critical realism, progressive financial economists could inquire into the real processes by which global finance shapes social and ecological conditions; and gain a fresh understanding of how the latter retroact against economies and societies, at various scales. This research agenda project should then pave the way to identifying new global collective institutions and binding rules ensuring global prosperity and resilience in the 21st century.

At a glance - Is the CO2 effect saturated?

Just Dean at 09:44 AM on 11 January, 2024

I think this is where data from paleoclimatology can help as well. Three recent studies have looked at the earth's temperature vs CO2 during the Cenozoic period, Rae et al., Honisch et al., and Tierney et al. . Each of those show that the temperature of ancient earth continues to rise as CO2 increases. As I understand it the first two are based solely on proxy data while the Tierney effort includes modeling to try and correlate the data geographically and temporally.

All of these are concerned with earth system sensitivities that include both short term climate responses plus slower feedback processes that can take millenia, e.g. growth and melting of continental ice sheets. Both Rae and Honisch include reference lines for 8 C / doubling of CO2. In both cases, almost all the data lie below those reference lines suggesting that 8 C / doubling is an upper bound or estimate of earth's equilibrium between temperature and CO2. Also notice that there quite is a bit of spread in the data.

In contrast, when Tierney et al. include modeling they get a much better correlation of T and CO2. They find that their data is best correlated with 8.2 C / doubling, r = 0.97. Again, this represents an equilibrium that can take millenia to achieve but does to my way of thinking represent "nature's equilibrium" between T and CO2.

In these comparisons, the researchers define changes in temperature relative to preindustrial conditions, CO2 = 280 ppm. For Tierney's correlation then on geological timescale, the temperature would increase by 8.2 C at 560 ppm. At our present value of 420 ppm there would be 3.7 C of apparent warming potential above our 1.1 C increase already achieved as of 2022, i.e., global warming in the pipeline if you will.

Bottom line, based on paleoclimatological data, there is no apparent saturation level of CO2.

Skeptical Science New Research for Week #26 2023

Eclectic at 10:27 AM on 1 January, 2024

Just Dean @6 :

The 2017 study you link [by W. Jackson Davis] is quite bizarre. And overall, is a waste of time for anyone to read.

Red flags can be seen in the Author's voluminous Conclusions. Such as his statement: "... that other, unidentified variables caused most (>95%) of the variance in [temperature] across the Phanerozoic climate record" <unquote>

Variables unknown to modern science, apparently?

In his final paragraphs, he seems to have a political axe to grind. Indeed, his whole extensive paper shows much Motivated Reasoning ~ a triumph of weakly-based statistical analysis over logical analysis.

I rate his paper as 10/10 for length and 0/10 for scientific substance.

I drove 6,000 miles in an EV. Here’s what I learned

nigelj at 05:37 AM on 29 December, 2023

Prove we are smart @5

Regarding the video:

.www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiRzpKWshwU

Its just more material from the same guy. Again I'm not going to tolerate that incessant stream of foul language and insults so I didn't watch it in full. I skipped though it very, very quickly stopping at a few random points:

He talked about "entitled twats" driving Ev's. Its just an unsubstantiated, empty appeal to hate, emotion and envy. Plenty of ordinary people are driving EVs and who cares who drives them, since its reducing emissions that matters. The same entitled twats would be driving ICE cars.

He stated that building smaller houses would reduce emissions more than taking an ICE car off the road. This is not good argument not to build EVs, because just building smaller homes wont fully solve the climate problem.

He complained about extra tire wear due to the weight of EVs. But its is a trivial issue. "A Tesla Model 3 Performance with AWD weighs 4,065 pounds — 379 pounds more than a BMW 330i XDrive.". Yes the EV is heavier but not hugely so therefore extra tire wear is trivial and pollutants from the tire wear are trivial. Refer for weight comparisons:

www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/americas-new-weight-problem-electric-cars/He

He mentioned that cars are only a small part of the transport fleet so why bother with Ev's. It's illogical reasoning along the same lines as his comments about houses. And we are starting to develop electric trucks etc,etc (eg Tesla)

These sorts of talking points have been long since debunked, so Im not prepared to go through the entire video for probabaly more of the same in a giant gish gallop.

I agreed with a couple of his criticisms of EV's and his factual statements about how much of the grid is renewables, etc,etc, seem correct, but his arguments agains't renewables and EV's I listed above lack basic logic and understanding.

Climate Adam: The tough reality of Carbon Capture & Storage

One Planet Only Forever at 08:44 AM on 17 December, 2023

nigelj,

While reading the report I mention in my comment @3, I came back to re-read your comment.

There is indeed a concern about the scale of required DAC's. But the math appears to be:

currently 37 Gte of emissions

20% assumed to be impractical to stop is 7.4 Gt, not 4,625 Gte

Number of 8 kte DAC plants is 925,000 (as you correctly indicated)

The report I refer to @3 indicates a higher possible range of required Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) in the following quote:

Thus far, estimates of how much CDR might be needed range from almost none up to more than 300 gigatonnes (Gt) cumulatively by 2050, or over 1,200 Gt cumulatively by 2100 [Citation10] – that is, up to about 10–15 GtCO2/year starting immediately, contingent on simultaneous rapid emissions mitigation, to meet 1.5° or 2 °C targets. Such estimates are purely mathematical, balancing positive with negative emissions: in theory, CDR could be used to counteract any emission (currently about 60 GtCO2e/year [Citation5]). As such, CDR requirements will be higher for less rapid and/or lower levels of emissions mitigation. To date, binding requirements for decarbonization that clearly articulate which emissions should be mitigated and which remain residual emissions to be addressed via CDR [Citation12] are rare, and CDR remains voluntary, contributing to a lack of clarity on necessary scope, scale, pace, and degree of resource competition.

Also note that the author's CDR includes many actions, not just mechanical DAC, as described in this quote:

Here, we define CDR to mean intentional, additional actions taken to capture CO2 from the atmosphere (either directly or via intermediaries like biomass or the ocean) and permanently store it such that the CO2 will not return to the atmosphere on time scales that at least match the lifespan of its impacts on the atmosphere and ocean [Citation5]. Commonly proposed approaches that are potentially capable of delivering CDR include (but are not limited to) direct air carbon capture and storage (DACCS); biomass carbon removal and storage (BiCRS);Footnote1 direct ocean carbon capture and storage (DOCCS); enhanced rock weathering (ERW); forestry; and soil carbon management. Some storage mechanisms, particularly those that rely on biological sinks like forests and soils, are not permanent in the sense of matching the lifespan of CO2’s impacts. As such, we distinguish between CDR-capable interventions (e.g. an afforestation project) and actual CDR, which might entail consistent rehabilitation or replacement for projects where CO2 is stored for less than geologic time (and which necessarily imposes greater administrative burden for strategies requiring relatively short replacement intervals).

A New 66 Million-Year History of Carbon Dioxide Offers Little Comfort for Today

One Planet Only Forever at 04:12 AM on 14 December, 2023

MA Roger,

Thank you for pointing to alternative approaches to global warming scenario development. And thank you for pointing out those justified concerns about how the limited scope and method of presentation of an evaluation can be misleading.

In all honesty, I conceptually created the 3 situations to try to make the point that how we get to a global warming impact temperature value at 2100 and what is done after 2100 makes a difference. I hoped to present the understanding that there are a variety of ways of achieving a value of 2100 warming impact, with an ‘important differentiating consideration’ being what happens beyond 2100. And I simply chose to call the three created example situations ‘scenarios’.

I chose 1.7 C in an attempt to be brief but clear that I am not referring to any of the formally presented scenarios. I am pessimistic that the 2100 warming impact level of SSP1-1.9 is likely to be achieved. But I am hopeful that something better than SSP1-2.9 can be achieved. The important point is that there are many ways to conceptualize getting to the same 2100 impact result. And the variety of ways of getting that 2100 result, including what happens after 2100, are not ‘equivalent levels of harm reduction’.

I will add that my MBA included Organizational Behaviour and Design where I learned that it is incorrect to believe that a specific set of policy or operational rule changes can be certain to produce a desired ‘objective change’ (I believe this is part of the reason for the range of results for each IPCC scenario). New policies and rules may result in changes, or they may not, or they produce unanticipated changes.

When there is a need to change the collective behaviour of the members of any organization, including the organization of all of global humanity, a diversity of hoped to be helpful policy and rule changes can be conceptualized. And some of those changes would be based on improved understanding developed in the very hard to investigate fields of social, political, and economic behaviours where irrational behaviours can, and do, significantly occur. Irrational behaviour, including resistance to learning to be less harmful and more helpful to others, can especially occur due to the potential to benefit unjustifiably, especially from from secrecy (people less aware than they could be) or the popularity of misunderstanding (abusing the powerful science of marketing).

Therefore, when pursuing an objective correction of unsustainable or harmful developed behaviours by changes of policy or rules it is important to diligently monitor the changes that actually occur and revise the policy and rule changes as required to increase the chances of achieving the desired correction of collective behaviours. (hopefully accomplished by each COP session).

I have to add that when I got my MBA education in the 1980s it was rather rare to have the MBA program include ‘social and psychological’ considerations. Most MBA programs of the time, particularly the most prestigious programs, were focused exclusively on ‘maximizing making money matters most’, like Economics, Accounting, Finance, Efficiency of Operations and Material supply, Marketing, and Legalities related to financial activities and contracts.

A New 66 Million-Year History of Carbon Dioxide Offers Little Comfort for Today

nigelj at 05:38 AM on 13 December, 2023

The information on earth system sensitivity of 5 - 8 degrees C is very sobering. There are many accounts of what a 6 degree world is like easily googled and its very inhospitable for humans and other species. Because ESS develops on long time frames we might adapt to some extent, but that doesn't really make it any less inhospitable.

This is one authors depiction of a 6 degree world based on available research. The description is based on such a world developing over the next couple of centuries and a failure to curb emissions, but even if it takes thousands of years as a result of ESS, many of the outcomes would be similar.

"Special coverage is given to the positive feedback mechanisms that could dramatically accelerate climate change. The book explains how the release of methane hydrate and the release of methane from melting permafrost could unleash a major extinction event. Carbon cycle feedbacks, the demise of coral, the destruction of the Amazon rainforest, and extreme desertification are also described, with five or six degrees of warming potentially leading to the complete uninhabitability of the tropics and subtropics, as well as extreme water and food shortages, possibly leading to mass migration of billions of people."

LINK

The IPCC seems to have focused most attention on warming and sea level rise rates by 2100. We have projections of around 3 degrees C of warming and worst case about 5 degrees, and SLR around 1 metre with a worst case 2 metres. The details on longer term trends several centuries into the future, or millenia into the future like earth system sensitivity, are buried away in their reports or not given much attention.

The IPCC have a chart buried in their reports showing a worst case of about 10 degrees C by about 2300 if equilibrium climate sensitivity turns out to be high and we just go on burning fossil fuels. Likewise by 2300 SLR could be well over 2 metres. This may be somewhat attenuated by the impacts of renewable energy already reducing projected coal use, but it would still be a big number and theres a lot of SLR already baked in even if we stop warming right now.

I wonder if this focus on year 2100 is a deliberate psychological strategy to focus on our immediate future. If they focused on the longer term trends there might be a risk that people would say why worry that won't effect me or my children.

However warming of for example 3 degrees by 2100 and one metre or so of SLR doesnt sound very scary to some people, while numbers like 5- 8 degrees longer term and SLR of 10 - 20 metres are obviously intuitively far more scary and certainly get my attention. Clearly we do need a focus on year 2100, for obvious reasons, because its in our lifetimes and adaptation would be very costly, but I wonder if a bit more attention on longer term time frames would have really shown people the huge scale of change we are facing.

At a glance - Has the greenhouse effect been falsified?

Eclectic at 05:43 AM on 7 December, 2023

Eunice Foote certainly deserves to be more notable. History is often unfair, in its "colloquial" form.

bf@4 : Thanks for those thoughts.

I was intrigued that you had described the color box as dark orange tab ~ rather than the dark red tab which I had automatically pictured.

As you say, it is a devilish job to design even a simple black&white "form" for people to fill out correctly (without danger of misinterpretations).

Then we get to the devilish question of colors themselves ~ and how they are perceived (even at different illumination levels) by the "mainstream" viewers, versus the various so-called "anomalous" genetic subgroups that make up each & every population (and are exhibited differently in males/females). Fortunately, these different color perceptions are usually not of great importance . . . although camouflage-designers and traffic-light-designers would disagree on that. [You may have idly wondered why the green "GO" traffic light has a faint tinge of blue.]

And then there is the psychological component, where humans may mentally perceive the color that they expect to see (in a certain object or context).

And nowadays we have the problem of designing eye-catching layouts for a target population of people who are busy and/or distractable ~ and who are viewing on screens (usually without standard color calibration) of widely-differing sizes . . . sizes down to even a few inches, quite commonly.

But enough of this off-topic verbiage from me. The small groups of volunteers managing the SkepticalScience website have a wickedly big load on their shoulders, in all sorts of ways.

At a glance - Has the greenhouse effect been falsified?

nigelj at 05:04 AM on 7 December, 2023

"By the end of that century, Eunice Foote and John Tyndall had proved him quite correct through their experiments with various gases..."

Exactly so. It might be good to include a brief statement about how the experiments worked (with canisters of CO2 exposed to a radiant heat source and measurements taken?). I say this because this is really the crucial foundation of things, along with observations of the planets climates and deducations from that.

In order to make sense of the whole complicated issue as a non expert, I have always done this. It seems to we know for a fact from laboratory experiments that CO2 is a greenhouse gas because it (simplifying) absorbs heat while oxygen and nitrogen etc,etc do not. Therefore if you add even very, very small quantities of CO2 to the atmosphere, even one single molecule, it must absorb heat and thus have at least some warming effect on the atmosphere, and the issue is entirely about how much CO2 is added to the atmosphere, and what warming effect results in total. This is simple logic.

Arrhenius did some calculations in the 1890s I dont fully understand but they seem robust as they made accurate predictions about warming in the 20th century. While I generally dont like assumptions, it seems safe to assume our current climate calculations are more sophisticated. So I see no need to be scepetical any longer about the greenhouse effect, and the proclamations in the climate myth box that the greenhouse effect contradicts so called physical laws is just ignorance or made up nonsense.

Disinformation campaigns are undermining democracy. Here’s how we can fight back

abostrom at 11:55 AM on 29 November, 2023

It was Thanksgiving of 1993 when I caught a ride with my brother, to join him, his wife and two cats for the traditional meal. Widespread use of the internet was in its infancy and we whiled away hours of the trip excitedly chattering about all the potentials this new medium might unlock. Looking back, I think we were a bit naive about just how experimental and unpredictable this all was, and I don't mean technologically. There have been undeniable benefits (this site is proof), but given how 'social media' and the near global resurgence of authoritarianism seemingly have paralleled one another, one can't help but wonder whether what good, in the big picture, has come out of that phenomenom.

Perhaps I see social media too darkly. It has been pointed out, that very likely even the likes of Mark Zuckerberg did not fully grok the impacts of what they were doing as they cashed in. Too bad for democracy.

Disinformation campaigns are undermining democracy. Here’s how we can fight back

nigelj at 06:05 AM on 26 November, 2023

I have a comment regarding this terrible explosion of misinformation and disinformation. So whats gone so horribly wrong recently that we have an explosion of misinformation and disinformation? IMO its largely the internet causing this upsurge. Certainly various analysis easily googled implicate the internet. There are obviously political motives as well. So here is my understanding of it all...

Firstly we need to remember that misinformation and disinformation been around forever, and its often linked to partisan politics, but generally it seems to have been at lesser scale than presently and a fringe thing with the vast majority of people accepting basic information and facts coming from scientists and officials and mainstream media (even if they disagree with opinions, interpretations and ideologies).

Our education system was designed to encourage respect of authorities and for scepticism to be rational scepticism. Our core information sources were mostly academia, official sources, mainstream media, etc,etc.

Any basic text on sociology will tell you all this.

However it appears the internet has changed everything, by giving a free or low cost platform to every individual (or group of individuals) who can thus spread their message globally and near instantly and gain a huge audience. We can effectively all now be our own media platforms at little or no cost. And the reach is amazing. This is a serious challenge to the old media and other information sources.

And not everyone is honest, well informed, or rational and sadly the inflammatory misinformation that contradicts official sources is inherently like a maget so it attracts a large following. It gains traction.

The end result is the proliferation of misinformation and huge and unjustified distrust of the mainstream authorities and naive trust in fringe "alternative" internet sources. While the mainstream sources of information have never been perfect, the "alternative" sources are in 99% of cases far worse.

And society has been completely unprepared for this onslaught, because its exploded in just a decade or two at most. The misinformation and disinformation is not only suddenly prevasive it uses techniques most people were never educated to recognise. I was lucky that as a young teenager I stumbled across a book on logical fallacies which is the core of the misinformation, so I'm reasonably ok at recognising fake information and junk science (as are many other regulars on this website). But if you haven't read that sort of thing at some stage, you simply dont have the skills, and they dont appear to be taught in school. If you are really smart you will work some of the skills out for yourself, but...not everyone is really smart.

We are effectively in catch up mode. I applaud the efforts of this website to help educate people to recognise misinformation. I feel it should also be front and centre of every schools curriculum. Sensible people on all sides of politics will benefit from this.

Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?

res01 at 13:24 PM on 4 November, 2023

Eclectic @40,

Thank you noting my post.

I am not sure if you read the RE Stumm article*, or watched the movie, but the calculations made by Stumm in his article shifts the curve by Robertson over a bit, but generally confirms what is being said here by M. Popkiewicz; the CO2 physiological danger is not being overblown. If we are not already done in by climate change, the direct effects of CO2 on us and other life forms will start haunting us around the end of the century. I suppose it depends on one's age if this is alarmist or not. If you're a senior with no kids like I am who is going to check out in a few years anyways then the whole subject is simply academic. However, if I were a twenty something or younger who may likely otherwise live to see the end of the century, I'd be freaking out right now.

*The R.E. Stumm article unfortunately is behind a paywall. However a preprint that is not too significantly off from the peer reviewed published article can be found at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4500439. Recommend reading as it should answer your questions on CO2 impact on human body physiology.

Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?

Eclectic at 20:01 PM on 3 November, 2023

Res01 @39 :

Agreed ~ as stated in a number of comments [2014 onwards] earlier in this thread, this whole question of CO2 physiological danger is overblown.

The original research article was of poor quality and poor experimental methodology, and hence poor conclusions. Or so I gather from others' comments [for me, the linked Robertson article showed as Page Not Found]. I would also argue from basic principles of bodily homeostasis, that whatever transient mental incapacitation (minor, I gather) would occur for a few hours at higher ambient CO2 ~ the body would respond (by increased renal excretion of acid) in the longer run, with the effect of raising the blood pH back to the normal range.

No need for any alarm, for man nor beast (nor fish).

Res01 ~ pehaps you might be kind enough to comment specifically on that R.E.Stumm article, and also the "Die Back" video you mentioned. I am unclear whether you mean they are alarmist or not.

At a glance - Climate scientists would make more money in other careers

Philippe Chantreau at 09:31 AM on 31 October, 2023

Interesting theory.

From the chronological point of view, would it not be possible to observe the emergence of a consensus of research results before the accumulation of investments that resulted from that consensus? If that is the case (it assuredly is), does that not make it impossible for these investments to be the cause of the results, since effects can not precede cause?

What is the source for that 5 trillion figure? This would correspond to a vast array of very diverse and numerous separate "industries" and interests, how do they coordinate their influence on those scientists anxious for their jobs? How can said scientists know where the money is coming from and ensure they say what is expected of them? Once a large number of studies from.many different sources all converge in one direction, is it still reasonable to assume that it is just the result of efforts to satisfy funding sources? How about studies coming from sources that have an interest against belief in AGW that also confirm these results?

What are the criteria to declare that a business existence and success are dependent on "belief" in AGW?

Is there a figure for the level of investment dependent on delaying energy transition policies?

Not that I would engage in deflection but, to pursue the same logic, what level of public opinion manipulation can be expected from a single industry that generates hundreds of billions of profits (not talking about investments here, simply profits)? Would it not be easier to coordinate an effort to manipulate when only a few very large interest groups are involved?

Just asking questions.

John F. Clauser: the latest climate science-denying physicist

Eclectic at 12:12 PM on 28 October, 2023

TWFA , it is clear from your discursive writing style that you are an intelligent guy. At the same time it is transparent that you are engaging yourself in Motivated Reasoning ~ you have set your goal, your conclusion, and you have assiduously worked backwards to justify it to yourself.

I am sure that part of you is aware of that . . . while part of you rejects that insight. Part of you wishes to test yourself against those damn mainstreamers at SkepticalScience website ~ maybe "they" will give you added information to resolve your conflict, either by allowing you to be persuaded to the mainstream . . . or by allowing part of you to achieve a (self-assessed) performative triumph of intellectual conquest.

And maybe part of it is to enjoy the hubris of "not running with the crowd". But whatever way, it comes back to the exercise of Motivated Reasoning.

Good luck in your journey to self-understanding.

(And yes, we all need improvement ! )

********

Rob Honeycutt : quite right, the biological sciences field is many orders of magnitude more complex than climate physics. No comparison !

John F. Clauser: the latest climate science-denying physicist

Rob Honeycutt at 06:32 AM on 28 October, 2023

TWFA... "It's not that I don't care about surface temperature, I care about whether the models for surface temperature have been applied to predicting temperatures above and below, a perfectly logical query."

Yes, this is a perfectly reasonable and logical query. So, pause right there before you move forward with any assumptions.

The answer to the best of my understanding:

Yes, climate models are applied to the surface and up through the various layers of the atmosphere. Once you get above the surface you run into challenges with measuring those various layers. The surface has the advantage of extensive direct data, above that you have to rely on either balloon data (which is sparse) or satellite data (which is an indirect measure of temperature and actually poorly measures some layers, like the mid-troposphere).

For deep ocean models, I'm unsure. But I would imagine those would have little affect on shorter time scales and is more important measure as a longer term reservoir for accumulating heat energy.

For sea surface or near surface modeling, there is a lot of coupling between the ocean and atmosphere, thus those are going to be inherent to climate models.

The other important point to understand about climate modeling is that they are, as mentioned earlier, "boundary conditions" modeling.

You can think of "initial conditions" modeling like the hurricane storm tracks you see on the news. We know where the model is and the models project the likelihood of where it will track over the following days.

Climate models are different. What they're doing is running model ensembles. Essentially, they're doing longer term weather/climate runs, over and over, in order to see what the mean state is. As they say, "All models are wrong, but they are skillful." We're not asking models to tell us whether this year will be warmer or cooler than the last. We know that's inherently noisy. We're asking climate models to tell us, over time, how much warming we can expect to see.

Understand that? They're wrong because one model run will say next year is warmer and another will say it's cooler. But they are "skillful" because they can tell us, with a high degree of confidence, the longer term trend for the climate system.

John F. Clauser: the latest climate science-denying physicist

TWFA at 06:09 AM on 28 October, 2023

It's not that I don't care about surface temperature, I care about whether the models for surface temperature have been applied to predicting temperatures above and below, a perfectly logical query.

If we have a model that can replicate historical data there is a good chance it can predict as well, but if the models have only been devloped using surface data, adjusted to match history, then you should be able to take the exact same model and run it to replicate historical and predicted data for temperatures aloft or level of thermocline below.

Sure the values and rate of response will be different, but the trends should not, and that is what I am looking to see. As you know, any temperature observtions at flight levels would be at pressure altitude and need to be corrected to true altitude. There are decades of oceanic route position reports, I seem to recall it was typically four or five on the North Atlantic tracks, probably there are double that on the Pacific, don't know if that data is in a silo somewhere or integrated into other, but it is historical and of interest to me.

At one site on "the other side" they showed data that indicated temperatures aloft at 200 hPA have NOT been increasing above 1.7 per century but the models predicted 4-4.5, so of course ALL the models are crap.

When I explained to them I would not expect them to if the readings were at pressure altitudes because I know from experience that unless there is a significant diversion from the standard lapse rate, weather, they will not... even if all the forests on earth were afire, at a 200 hPA pressure altitude of about 40,000' I would expect virtually no variation, and at 5,000' without including the world inferno lots of noise in the signal and would want to look deeper at such a data set to make sure it was as closer to standard atmosphere conditions as possible and corrected to AGL.

As you can imagine, I got the same kind of crap there, what does it matter, I don't have a clue, all the studies studying all the models of the other studies show them all to be wrong, etc., etc. Nobody is right all the time, but nobody is wrong all the time either, even if they turn out to be right for the wrong reasons.

So, my search will go on, if there is anybody else here who understands what I am looking for and has something to offer other than, "Get a PhD in climate studies, otherwise believe what we say" I would love to hear from you.

John F. Clauser: the latest climate science-denying physicist

TWFA at 11:44 AM on 27 October, 2023

Without a time machine the answer as to whether Clauser or "everybody else" is right or wrong is not and cannot as yet be known, theory is not an outcome, consensus is not data, only measurement is, as Spock would say, "Insufficient data, captain".

No, I am not claiming to be as intelligent or logical as Spock and you are not going to be able to insult or castigate me into agreement or silence. I and doubtless others do not find such an approach the least bit persuasive, and the biggest problem the experts have is being persuasive instead of dismissive.

Whether you like it or not there will be other old geezers like me and Clauser who have only earned their advanced degress in ignorance through a lifetime of experience and observations of nature, people, their predictions and outcomes, most recently all the peer reviewed scientists and experts claiming that a vaccine, a mask and two weeks to flatten the curve was all that was necessary to bring things to a halt, but in my case a serial entrepreneur and inventor investing in my own ideas and predictions as well as those of others.

We have learned that it is not the answers that make the case, it is the questions that precede them, and we know how to ask them. Do not dismiss the value of lay participation in an esoteric field, especially when it affects them directly, you never know where wisdom and breakthrough may come from.

I mean, who would ever expect that a dumb playwright without an advanced degree in probability theory like Bernard Shaw could ever be able to explain it to the masses in a public debate of his day not unlike the one we are engaged in right here.

However I am pleased to learn from you that we have some kind of recorded data of planetary cloud cover history, presumably from cave drawings forward, or perhaps Martian observations contained in journals carelessly left behind after landing and departing Nazca International Spaceport, instead of inferred or imputed data through a chain of supporting inferred or imputed data, and because the effects of cloud cover and weather is my primary area of interest I would appreciate links to that data.

John F. Clauser: the latest climate science-denying physicist

Eclectic at 09:19 AM on 27 October, 2023

TWFA, you are skirting around the issue ~ of whether John Clauser is "yer average emeritus fruitcake" or whether he has achieved a brilliant Galileo-like stroke of genius . . . showing that all the prior scientific experts have been grossly wrong. While I do enjoy reading your discursive philosophical/lawyerly rhetoric, nevertheless you are failing to discuss the matter logically.

Please concentrate on whether Clauser is right or wrong about climate matters. (And note that the planetary history indicates that he is essentially wrong in his suppositions about clouds.) Do not dwell on whether Gore and/or Gates and/or China are offending your political identity issues or your personal economic-theory sensibiities.

Waffling discursions are quite easy ~ for instance , you will be aware of Kuebler-Ross's famous Five Stages of Grief. TWFA, you seem, climatically, to be showing the first two grief stages : Denial and Anger.

Have you reached the Bargaining stage (in hoping that that Clauser is right, despite a mountain of evidence that he is wrong) . . . or even the Depression stage? (Depression can indeed co-exist with the other stages of Anger etcetera.)

Are you fearful that the Acceptance stage threatens to change your inner character of personal identity? Personal change can be difficult for the ego to face up to ~ in the shorter run it's easier to keep in Denial.

See ~ rhetorical waffle is easy-peasy. And entertaining when it has an admixture of truth !

New report has terrific news for the climate

One Planet Only Forever at 03:58 AM on 23 October, 2023

I have an important concern about the examples presented in the NPR article “How gas utilities used tobacco tactics to avoid gas stove regulations” I refer to in my comment @9 regarding the way that ‘conservative’ has been used by some scientists regarding evaluations of risk of harm.

As an engineer my learned conservative concern is to severely limit the potential for harmful results. An opposite use of ‘conservative’ appears to be abused as justification for higher risk of harmful outcomes. Tragically, trending to be more harmful, fighting against developing evidence of harm or potential harm, seems to align with what some ‘political interests’ want to claim is conservative – maintaining, excusing and defending the status quo - avoid harming/restricting developed popular or profitable activities that are potentially, or actually, harmful.

Many portions of the NPR article present versions of this twist of political influence on science.

A specific (lengthy) quote is the entire section headed Identifying uncertainty and highlighting it: (I bolded the secific words in the quote, but the rest of the quote contains presentations of thinking that are also contrary to 'conservative meaning limiting harm', especially contrary when limiting harm requires 'change')

Another strategy deployed by the gas industry focused on uncertainties in the emerging body of indoor air research and amplified them. Uncertainty and questions are part of research, but giving them disproportionate emphasis makes the science seem shakier than it is.

The Gas Research Institute, which funded research for the gas industry, hired the firm Arthur D. Little to produce this kind of material. Arthur D. Little had a history of conducting similar work for the tobacco industry. A 1981 paper completed by Arthur D. Little surveyed available research on the health effects of gas stoves but focused on questions the research did not answer and found the epidemiological data was "incomplete and conflicting."

The company says it doesn't have access to records for this project, conducted more than 40 years ago. "We have no reason to believe that the GRI report wasn't conducted with the same high standards of rigor and objectivity with which Arthur D. Little approaches all client engagements," Etienne Brumauld des Houlières, global marketing and communications director, wrote in an email.

The industry also favored reputable scientists who were considered scientifically conservative, for generally wanting to see a larger body of evidence than their peers before reaching conclusions.

Among them is Dr. Jonathan Samet, dean of the Colorado School of Public Health, who has a long history as an epidemiologist and researcher. A 1995 review produced by tobacco company Philip Morris concluded that his reputation "as an authority in pulmonary medicine and epidemiology" was "probably due at least in part to his scientific conservatism."

Samet's 1993 study of infants living in Albuquerque, N.M., homes found no connection between respiratory illness and the presence of a gas stove. It was funded by the Health Effects Institute, which received funding from a wide variety of sources, including the gas industry.

Samet says he never did research for the tobacco industry and that it set "a high water mark for egregious behavior and discrediting science." He does not see that same behavior when it comes to the gas industry and health effects of cooking with gas.

"Over my career, there are people who felt that I waited too long before perhaps saying that X causes Y. But that's because I don't think we want to have false positive determinations," Samet told NPR. Scientists say accomplishing that in epidemiology can be tricky because often there are multiple factors present that could be causing a health problem.

When it comes to assessing science that will inform new policies, Samet says it's rare that one study is enough to reach a conclusion. "I've been involved in enough of the development of authoritative reports in different contexts to take the view that the right way to understand what the science shows is to put it all together," Samet says. "And sometimes, unfortunately, the answer is that we don't have enough. So if that's conservative, that's fine."

As evidence around the health effects of gas stove use has accumulated, Samet's views are changing. "If I had a child who might be particularly susceptible because of asthma, for example, then I would probably think carefully about what I could do to make my home safer and a gas stove would be on that checklist," Samet says.

From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation

Bob Loblaw at 04:33 AM on 18 October, 2023

Rabelt @ 28: "quote which part I said anything dismissive about the carbon cycle."

The fact that you say virtually nothing coherent at all about it - when it is essential to understanding the graph/data you criticize - is all the evidence that is needed.

@ 29: "I love how the guy putting words in my mouth is acussing me of strawmaning his arguments,"

I am not accusing you of strawmanning my arguments - you have strawmanned "the main narrative" (in the context of what climate science - e.g., the IPCC - has said). If you want to provide a counter-argument, you need to give a thorough explanation of "the main narrative" (including the carbon cycle). Until you provide actual evidence that you have at least a basic level of understanding the carbon cycle (not just an assertion), then you're just blowing smoke.

Also @ 29: "Quote my comments and explain why they follow your supposed "logical consequences"

I did quote you, in my comment 19.

You finish with "I said Delta changes previous to human emissions following co2 concentration not FF emissions as there were none, and the ones that existed were accountable for insignificant amounts of co2." The way you have worded this suggests that you think that either CO2 concentration changes cause C13 changes ("delta changes ... following CO2 concentration"), or that C13 changes cause CO2 concentration changes ("delta ... accountable for ... CO2").

You have not responded directly to that, to provide any sort of clarification or indicate what you really meant. Yet you come back with "Again, never said co2 concentrations cause changes in Delta C13..." From this view, it looks as if you are just dodging the question.

And now you are stating "Differences in the carbon cycle are expected, yet only are accepted if they dont contradict the main narrative,"

Congratulations. You have now scored a third point on FLICC - the 5 techniques of science denial. - Conspiracy theories.

Since you clearly are unable to actual specify what "the main narrative" is, your speculation about what contradicts it is not worth the electrons used to transmit it.

And finally, @ 30 "I am talking about emissions not co2 concentrations"

Yet the graph that you began this whole flood of nonsense over is a graph that shows two things as a function of time: CO2 concentrations, and C13 isotope ratios. There is no coherence or consistency to what you say. Buy a clue please: CO2 concentrations, CO2 emissions, CO2 uptake - all are part of the carbon cycle that you keep dismissing. Oh,, sorry - not "dismissing" but just "ignoring".

From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation

Rabelt at 23:57 PM on 17 October, 2023

Bob Loblaw,

I love how the guy putting words in my mouth is acussing me of strawmaning his arguments, 10/10.

Quote my comments and explain why they follow your supposed "logical consequences", just saying it again, as you dont show the ability to read the comments I am posting.

"You see a correlation over the period 1750-1860, and then expect to see the exact same response at later times" During this entire period is a stable trend downwards, yet emissions during this period are incapable of generating such a trend. This is only one of the multiple periods I talked.

Again, never said co2 concentrations cause changes in Delta C13, I even said that there had to be other natural mechanism capable of producing this effect. What a great ability to read.

Differences in the carbon cycle are expected, yet only are accepted if they dont contradict the main narrative, unless you wanna say that the decrease during the beginning of the industrial revolution was natural, which I completely agree.

Again another fantasy about what I belive or think, saying I am trying to invalidate climate science, I only talked about 1 specific thing but the entire field will crumble to the ground for just this specific inconsistency, what a joke of an argument.

Sorry to say that your ability to read degrades quite quickly, I never said you didnt have knowledge on the carbon cycle, I said you didnt have any authority to say what the main narrative states, and I was right, as you are just another of the thousands of people that provide research and not a spokesman or director of the main organizations.

From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation

Bob Loblaw at 23:20 PM on 17 October, 2023

Rabelt:

Again, you are saying "I never said..", and avoiding the logical consequences of what you are saying.

The conversation has all the hallmarks of the following sequence:

A person says:

A = 3

B = 8

C = A+B

Someone else says "So, you are claiming that C = 11?

And the first person says "I never said that C = 11. Stop putting words in my mouth."

You keep referring to "the main narrative". Unfortunately, what you have written here tells me that your idea of "the main narrative" is pretty much a strawman. I don't think you have any clue how the carbon cycle works, how different carbon isotopes fit into that cycle and why they would change over time.

Your comment at 23 illustrates this very well. You see a correlation over the period 1750-1860, and then expect to see the exact same response at later times. You seem incapable of realizing the following:

There is no direct cause-effect between C13 ratios and atmospheric CO2 levels. They are part of the same large carbon cycle, but one does not cause the other, regardless of any fantasies you have about "the main narrative". As long as you ignore all the indirect connections (known as "the carbon cycle"), you will continue get everything wrong.

The different time periods have different conditions, different fluxes, and different relative important of atmospheric inputs and sinks of carbon as a result, they would be expected to show slight differences in the patterns.

Your overly-simplsitic "I see with my little eye..." analysis is telling us nothing about the global carbon cycle. Where you see inconsistencies you think can't be explained (because you won't look) and invalidate climate science, climate science sees the carbon cycle working as expected (because they have looked).

You are hitting two of the five main components of FLICC - the 5 technicques of science denial:

Logical fallacies [your misunderstanding of "the main narrative" is just one]

Impossible expectations [your overly-simplistic view of what you think should be happening, and your belief that this disproves something]

FYI, yes I have some authority with respect to carbon cycles, having been involved in analysis of forest carbon cycles and storage, and having my name on several publications related to that. You can read more about my background on the SkS Team page.

From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation

Bob Loblaw at 10:41 AM on 17 October, 2023

Frankly, Rabelt, you are not making any sense. You are throwing out vague assertions, and you are not providing any logical argument for those assertions.

Carbon cycles are not interpreted solely on the basis of correlations, which is essentially all that you have referred to.

You state "..that Delta C13 is a precise indicator of FF usage...", which clearly shows that you do not understand what C13 ratios tell us. As I explained, it is one small piece of the puzzle, and it is combined with additional information to draw conclusions. You seem to expect a perfect correlation - but if you understood why C13 ratios change (different sources and sinks over time), then you would realize how the specific C isotope characteristics of different sources can help us identify which sources are active.

I have provided additional links to places that will explain it to you, and all you can say is that you think part 1 is irrelevant. I see no evidence that you have understood anything in part 1, or any indication that you have bothered to read any of the other links I provided.

You also state "I have never said that because there was change before any other change is normal/justified in nature", but that is essentially the logical consequence of what you say. Read Michael Sweet's comment at 10. You are assuming that behaviour patterns of C13 ratios and CO2 concentrations prior to 1800 must follow the same variations that occur once fossil fuel sources are added to the mix. Any argument that you make includes the logical consequences of what you state, whether you state it explicitly or not.

You finish with "I said Delta changes previous to human emissions following co2 concentration not FF emissions as there were none, and the ones that existed were accountable for insignificant amounts of co2." The way you have worded this suggests that you think that either CO2 concentration changes cause C13 changes ("delta changes ... following CO2 concentration"), or that C13 changes cause CO2 concentration changes ("delta ... accountable for ... CO2"). This is not even wrong. Both CO2 changes and C13 ratios are the result of other factors in the global carbon cycle. As long as you persist in ignoring the carbon cycle overall, you will be doomed to drawing erroneous conclusions.

From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation

Bob Loblaw at 07:40 AM on 17 October, 2023

Rabelt @ 9, 11, 13, and 14:

You are really missing the big picture on carbon isotope ratios. The C13 levels alone are not "proof" that the fossil fuels are causing the atmospheric rise in CO2 - they are one line of evidence that rules out other sources. You are over-interpreting what you are reading here (or elsewhere).

This post is titled "Part 2". I suggest that you also read Part 1. It gives essential background about how isotope ratios differ across C12, C13, and C14, depending on the source.

You should also read Climate Change Cluedo. Steps 4 and 5 note the significance of changing C14 and C13 levels. To quote,

Declining C14 ratio indicates the source is very old, hence fossil fuel or volcanic (ie, not oceanic outgassing or a recent biological source);

Declining C13 ratio indicates a biological source, hence not volcanic;

Isotope ratios are also discussed on How we know human CO2 emissions have disrupted the carbon cycle, and on What is causing the increase in atmospheric CO2.

The caption on figure 3, which states that declining C13 ratios tell us it is fossil fuel combustion should really be interpreted as "the declining C13 ratio tells us that it is not volcanic. Since volcanoes are the only other possible source of C14-depleted carbon, the only remaining explanation is fossil fuels".

And none of those explanations require that C13 ratios be solely dependent on fossil fuel combustion. Figure 3 shows that for 800 years, C13 ratios were only slightly variable, and have now changed significantly once fossil fuel combustion began.

Your argument that "it changed before, so it can't be fossil fuels now" is just a peculiar flavour of the general "climate's changed before" myth that is number one on the hit parade listed on the upper left of every SkS page.

Just because you don't know of or understand an explanation does not mean that there isn't one.

Climate Confusion

Eclectic at 04:59 AM on 30 September, 2023

Markp @51 :

Your link to the extract from Wim Carton's 2020 book is not (IMHO) particularly useful. Carton supplies many paragraphs of general discussion ~ mainly equal parts vagueness and bloviation.

2020 may have been a bit early for ChatGPT as a co-author. Then again, Carton may have been an early adopter, and was contracted for a 100,000 word book. Yes I am being a bit harsh : but a book with extensive sociological commentary is always in great danger of being vague and so all-inclusive that it ends up failing to produce a clear message ~ it can be Bible-like, in that you (the reader) can find & select almost anything your heart desires from it.

At a glance - How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?

Evan at 06:37 AM on 28 September, 2023

rip71749@2, to add to the impact of your analogy, coming out of the last glacial cycle CO₂ rose at a rate of 1 ppm/100 yrs for 1000s of years. So even the relatively slow increase you note of 1 ppm/year during the early years following the Industrial Revolution were, in geological terms, extremely rapid.

2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory

Likeitwarm at 04:38 AM on 28 September, 2023

Sysop, Thank you for allowing this conversation with scaddenp and myself to continue.

1562 scaddenp
You said "What I am asking is whether you can remember what switched you into looking for sites like CO2Science or temperature.global? Was it just disbelief about trace gases or were there other considerations?"

I've been thinking about an answer for you.
I started looking into "global warming" back in the mid 2000s, 25 years ago,
I think with this site https://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html.
Many other places and books since then.
I find a lot, 1000s or more, of scientists that disagree with AGW.
One is Nasif Nahle who has calculated the emissivity of CO2 at less than .003 and and says that it doesn't absorb or emit much if any IR. You can see his calculations at https://jennifermarohasy.com/2011/03/total-emissivity-of-the-earth-and-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide/
Then there is the Club Of Rome, a bunch of rich elitists that think they know best for the rest of us. Back in 1968-1974 they decided they needed a scare tactic to get people to reduce births, thus reducing the population of the earth and the resources used by them. They settled on AGW because CO2 is emitted when fossil fuels are burned. Reduce the available energy and you will reduce the birth rate.
The U.N. IPCC was not charged with finding out what makes the climate change but rather how to pin it on human causes. See https://shalemag.com/manmade-global-warming-the-story-the-reality/ and https://principia-scientific.com/the-club-of-rome-and-rise-of-predictive-modelling-mafia/
UN’s Top Climate Official: Goal Is To ‘Intentionally Transform the Economic Development Model’
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism/
You see, the goal was not to save us all from overheating the planet or acidifying the oceans. The goal was to scare everyone into giving up cheap fossil fuels.
I don't know what the goal of you and your colleagues at Skeptical Science is but I do know you can create logic and equations to describe anything, so I remain skeptical of your site.
Now you know where I'm coming from. See www.ourwoods.org.
Cheers

2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory

Rob Honeycutt at 04:11 AM on 28 September, 2023

Likeitwarm... Well, I guess Peter Ward believes, in effect and contrary to conversion of energy, that energy can be destroyed.

Ward also claims, "...however, [ozone depletion] provides a much more detailed and precise explanation for changes in climate observed since the industrial revolution and throughout geologic history." And this us pure, unadulterated BS.

You might be interested to know that Ward is a Seismologist, not an an atmospheric scientist nor a physicist. He speaketh from an orafice unbecoming for a serious researcher.

2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory

Likeitwarm at 02:56 AM on 28 September, 2023

1585. Rob Honeycutt
"what's it do? a u-turn?"
Ha! You're funny!
Not exactly a u-turn, but effectively.

Re-radiated IR cannot warm the surface according to Peter L Ward at the U.S. Geological Survey.
https://ozonedepletiontheory.info/wp-content/uploads/Papers/Ward2016OzoneDepletionExplains.pdf
He explains as follows:
"Thermal energy can only transfer
physically via resonance in this way from higher
amplitude to lower amplitude at a given frequency
and, through mechanical contact in matter, from
higher frequency to lower frequency, thus
explaining the second law of thermodynamics.
…
It is the
frequencies and amplitudes of these radiating
oscillations that, when absorbed by cooler matter,
increase the amplitudes and frequencies of the
internal oscillations of the absorbing matter,
thereby increasing the absorbing matter’s
temperature. It is these frequencies and amplitudes
that appear to be reflected, rather than absorbed,
by warmer matter [22]. When radiation has lower
amplitudes of oscillation at each frequency than
the prevailing amplitudes of oscillation within
receiving matter, heat cannot flow into the matter
by resonance, cooler to hotter. Therefore, by
conservation of energy, “colder” radiation must be
reflected. It can only flow away from the matter,
hotter to cooler. There is no physical way for
warmer matter to absorb “colder” radiation.
Resonance does not work in that direction. The
flow of thermal energy is all about the propagation
of a broad spectrum of oscillations in matter, in
space, and in gas molecules from higher
temperature to lower temperature."

It's cosmic rays

MA Rodger at 21:33 PM on 22 September, 2023

sailingfree @120/121,
The H. Svensmark input into AGW science has been in general seen as entirely overblown unless you are in denial about AGW when the idea that the sun plays a much bigger role than the climatology shows is usually seen as supportive of their denialism.

Svensmark first published a cosmic ray climate effect back in 1997 demonstrating a remarkable fit between cosmic rays and global cloud cover. The fit proved to be spurious while experiment has demonstrated the causal link between cosmic rays and cloud formation to be very very weak. Undeterred by these setbacks, Svensmark has since been examining the detail of the cosmic ray/cloudiness relationship in an attempt to show there was a climatic effect after all.

Part of this analysis by Svensmark homed-in on Forbush Decreases, a phenomenon identified back in the mid-1900s and today catalogued at an average rate of over 100 events per year. A relationship bewteen these Forbush Decreases and changes in cloud had been observed back in the 1990s.

Svenmark first published on this phenomenon back in 2009. They used the most energetic Forbush Decreases (just 26 over 21 years) to produce a correlation between peak cloudiness and the Forbush Decrease strength (Fig 2- not entirely convincingly) and plotting the averages of cosmic ray evolution and average cloudiness evolution for the five most energetic Forbush Decrease events (Fig 1) although the reason for showing the averaging of these five alone is not evident to me in this paper.

Svensmark et al (2021) which you ask about is simply Svensmark et al (2009) but using a correlation with the CERES radiation data. The CERES data restricts analysis to post-2000 events and now only the 13 most energetic events are analysed for the correlation (fig 2) with event evolutions averaged from (again) the five strongest events (fig 1), this apparently because there is too much "dominant meteorological noise" if more events are included, although I'm not sure that squares up with the effect being climactically significant.

Of course, with the sun less active since SunSpotCycle 23, and thus presumably the cosmic rays increasing cloudiness which cools the climate, this would suggest that Svensmark's work would be implying amplification of the role of AGW rather than a diminution which denialists hope for. But such understanding may be a bit too involved for denialists to grasp.

Patrick Brown's recycled hallucination of climate science

nigelj at 06:42 AM on 17 September, 2023

Cork@7.

"Nevertheless, I opened the link to the Breakthrough Institute and all I found were articles promoting the reduction of greenhouses gasses emissions by expanding the use of Throrium/Uranium in pre-existing nuclear plants and other plants to be built in the emergent countries where no other option may be available."

When I opened the link I found articles on multiple different power sources, food and agriculture, and more issues. Listed right on the opening pages and menu bar.

The articles promoted nuclear power and mostly cricised wind and solar power judging by the titles. The articles leaned strongly towards free market solutions rather than governmnet lead solutions so there is a clear ideological leaning.

Out of curiosity I googled The Breakthrough Institute:

"Tucked away in the heart of liberal Berkeley is one of the most controversial organizations in the environmental movement: the Breakthrough Institute, known for advocating for nuclear energy and a pugilistic approach to disagreement."

"The think tank’s critics, who include prominent advocates and researchers, decry the group as advancing right-wing ideas and say its policy proposals would delay action on climate change. But if the Breakthrough Institute’s leaders are to be believed, they are reformers with a 21st century strategy for solving the planet’s problems......"

SF Chronical article

"While sometimes functioning as shadow universities, think tanks have been exposed as quasi lobbying organizations, with little funding transparency. Recent research has also pointed out that think tanks suffer from a lack of intellectual rigor. A case in point is the Breakthrough Institute run by Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger, which describes itself as a "progressive think tank."

"The Breakthrough Institute has a clear history as a contrarian outlet for information on climate change and regularly criticizes environmental groups. One writer describes them as a “program for hippie-punching your way to fame and fortune.” So it was not shocking to see their column last Wednesday in the New York Times criticizing a new documentary on climate change that was put together by award-winning journalists. In their article, Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger state that the documentary will raise public skepticism about climate change because it uses scare tactics......"

ethics.harvard.edu/blog/breakthrough-institutes-inconvenient-history-al-gore

"Anyhow when I wrote "All hands on board! Each point of view should be heard. Teaming up will be the only answer." I meant that thorium/uranium are tools in the box and it may not be possible to do without them."

Possibly. I have no objection to the use of nuclear power in principle. I'm somewhat energy agnostic as long as its clean, zero carbon energy (or close to it). Nuclear power is essentially clean zero carbon energy.

That said, nuclear power is not looking like a big part of the climate solution. Its too slow to build, its very expensive to build, its more expensive generation than wind and solar power (refer to an energy analysis like Lazard), and there are problems with waste disposal.

Uranium is a finite resource and one of the less common minerals in the earths crust, and it cant be recycled like materials used in wind power turbines. Nuclear power is not liked by the general public in western countries due to the perceived danger (this may be overblown but perceptions are perceptions.)

Its therefore unlikely generating companies or governmnets in western democracies would choose nuclear power right now. And its totally understandable. Its up to the nuclear industry to solve these problems. Nobody else can solve them.

Personally I think we should push ahead with things like wind and solar power and perhaps nuclear power might eventually become part of the mix. Many countries have traditionally had a mixture of electricity generation. I suspect looking for the one perfect generating source is a delusion.

A Frank Discussion About the Propagation of Measurement Uncertainty

Bob Loblaw at 11:46 AM on 12 September, 2023

MAR:

If the only error or uncertainty is a single, fixed offset that applies to all readings, and there is never any variation at all from that fixed offset, then when adding two numbers with different offsets, the result should be as follows:

A_meas = A_true + A_offset

B_meas = B_true + B_offset

C = A_meas + B_meas = A_true +B_true + A_offset + B_offset

In which case you are just simply adding the offsets to get the error. And if you are then dividing the sum by N, the offsets also get divided by N. But you don't go through the gymnastics of squaring and then square-rooting. That is completely redundant. The offsets are not "combined in quadrature", as Pat Frank keep saying.

And if you are dealing with the situation where you are subtracting numbers, say, by calculating anomalies, then a fixed offset means:

D = A_meas - B_meas = A_true - B_true + A_offset - B_offset

..and now you need to compute the difference between the two offsets. And if the offset is so fixed that it is the same for both A and B, then you get the true result for D without having to have any idea at all what that offset is.

Just below equation 6, Pat Frank mentions anomalies, and correctly states that you calculate one by subtracting the monthly mean from the 30-year normal...

...but then he still adds the two offsets together instead of subtracting them. And he does it in the obfuscation of "quadrature".

The form of his equations 5 and 6 is an extreme obfuscation, and only is correct if there is nothing else that affects the errors. And Pat Frank keeps calling it an equation that extends equation 4 (daily uncertainty) into monthly and annual mean temperature uncertainties. He can never give an explanation of what makes equation 4 (as corrected) different from equations 5 and 6.

At PubPeer, he keeps going on about "intrinsic resolution" of liquid-in-glass thermometers, and in the paper he says this about the value coming out of equation 4:

This ±0.382C represents the field-conditions lower limit of visually-read resolution-limited 2σ uncertainty to be assigned to any global daily mean land-surface meteorological LiG air temperature.

So, is it fixed offset, or a 2σ uncertainty? Only he knows, it seems, and it depends entirely on what argument he is trying to make. Screaming "intrinsic resolution" at the top of his lungs is not a justification for assuming that LiG thermometers only ever have a constant offset with no variation. And fixed errors do not start with "±". Calling it a "±0.382C ... 2σ uncertainty" is the exact opposite of a fixed, unchanging offset.

The Pat Frank Uncertainty Principle seems to be a parallel universe to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. You can tell what he is saying, or what he means, but not both. Things are one thing until Pat Frank says they are something else completely different.

I can only conclude that he is so confused about the issue that he has compartmentalized many different aspects of it, and he can't see the conflicts in his positions. To paraphrase the words of a long-time commenter over at RC "Pat Frank and I have one thing in common. Neither of us has any idea what he is talking about".

Pat Frank's statistics are like Pa Kettle doing basic math. Internally self consistent (in his mind), but...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bfq5kju627c

John F. Clauser: the latest climate science-denying physicist

nigelj at 06:46 AM on 9 September, 2023

The IPCC reports are clearly conservative leaning. However the latest IPCC report does project warming at around 4 - 5 degrees by end of this century at BAU (Business as usual emissions) and SLR (sea level rise) worst case up around 1 - 2M end of this century. And it will go on rising after that if we do nothing.

There are lower SLR projections out there and a small number of higher projections by people like Hansen at around 4M end of century, but his is very speculative. So Im not sure that the IPCC are being excessively conservative on the key numbers.

For me SLR projections of 1 - 2M end of this century look very worrying with the potential to cause massive problems. Even although 2M is worst case and low probbaility the impact is potentially huge so such a scenario should be guiding or mitigation response. If people cant see all this and feel motivated to take serious action, then I'm not sure they would change their attitude if the number was 4M anyway.

So obviously the IPCC should robustly communicate the climate problem, but I think we are at risk of scapegoating the IPCC for the lack of strong mitigation response, when the culprit is really peoples complacency, due presumably to numerous factors from vested interests, resistance to change, psychological barriers, ideological views, the denialist campaign etc,etc.

John F. Clauser: the latest climate science-denying physicist

Doug Bostrom at 08:53 AM on 7 September, 2023

"Your logic would also have us stop trying to change flaws in our law courts and legal system, flaws in our election system, ad infinitum, because "what we have works and they are doing their best."

Mark, as you're upset about the direction this discussion has taken let's just note that you've invented a situation wherein we claim the IPCC is perfect and not subject to improvement.

I'm familiar with Spratt & Dunlop's brief. It's critiquing the IPCC process, methods and results against an imaginary purpose for the organization.

Spratt & Dunlop's conclusory remarks are notably lacking in any concrete prescription of actionable, practical advice for remedy. They are unhappy with what exists but apparently are not able to conjure a better substitute.

With critics failing to deliver a plan for how progress might appear, the reader is left with a false impression; no additional communications vehicle is suggested by the authors, so surely the solution lies in altering the subject of the critique so as to address the authors' untethered objections to the IPCC. If so, what happens?

As Schellnhuber points out, what's missing from the IPCC is reports is imagination divorced from a continuum of evidence (possibility vs. probability). There's a role for unsupported extrapolation, but that's an additional communications task that if commingled with strict evidentiary requirements will quite arguably leave the entire process of dealing with climate change even more amenable to misinformation and disinformation than it is today. Notably and despite such critiques as the one we're discussing here, the IPCC is the subject of concentrated, prolonged polemical attacks on its credibility from the side of the fossil fuel industry and other enthusiasts of unaccounted external costs. Arming such rhetoricians with valid grounds for their own purposes of critique wouldn't be a smart move.

It would be nonsensical to claim that no improvement is possible in the IPCC process and methods. Fortunately nobody here is making that claim. But improvement doesn't include introducing science fiction into the foundations of IPCC reports, and it's hard to see how bringing possibility divorced from probability into the IPCC's work would be other than exactly that. We're blessed with imagination and can and should exploit it, but here our imagination needs a solid tether— as a separate feature— because imagination comes with degrees of credibility and here credibility is mandatory.

It's cooling

CORK at 00:22 AM on 7 September, 2023

In the last GIEC report a difference is made between CO2 records in geological times: C02 would raise 1000 years after the spike in temperature (melting of ice and erosion of sediments etc... = delayed release) and CO2 records in recent times, CO2 increasing 50 years before a spike in temperatures. And they insist that both phenomenons occur at the same time of course and may feed each other.

Over the last 150 years, the spike in temperatures occurring after a spike in CO2 would be very bad news indeed.

It's cooling

Eclectic at 23:59 PM on 6 September, 2023

Cork @330 : I would answer slightly differently from Bob Loblaw ~ and I hope I may give my answer here in this thread, for the sake of continuity.

English language has horrible spelling, and an overly-rich vocabulary (which can be useful for nuances of meaning, as well as for the artistic appeal of literary style). Nevertheless the English language, like most other languages (possibly excepting Japanese? ) can also be used in a simple effective manner - like a hammer - to convey ordinary meanings.

Cork, my protest was not against your literary style, but against the ideas that you wrote.

For example, your sentence: "The anomaly of the temperatures of the last 150 years may just be an anomaly." There are technical scientific meanings of "anomaly". Here it is not clear what you mean by an "anomaly" ~ but you seem to be using the word anomaly in its ordinary Oxford Dictionary sense of: "irregularity, deviation from the common or natural order, exceptional condition or circumstance".

If you meant that sort of anomaly . . . then yes, the sudden steep temperature rise in the last 150 years, is certainly an anomaly.

Permit me to answer your question this way ~ by this example :- You, Cork, are walking on a sandy beach; you are alone and no-one is in sight. The sand is pure and white. And then you see a gold coin lying on the beach. The gold coin is an anomaly. You know that there is an explanation for this anomaly ~ someone has dropped the coin there (it did not get there without a mechanism causing a coin to be present).

Likewise, we know the mechanism of rapid rise of CO2 producing the anomalous modern spike in temperature.

Our proxy records of temperature a million or ten million years past, are "smoothed together" over thousands of years, and will not show a sudden short spike (as rapid as our modern spike). Perhaps there were some (few) sudden spikes in ancient geological times ~ but, like the gold coin on the beach, there would need to be a mechanism which produced a spike. And our knowledge of geology and physics tells us that such spike-mechanisms must have happened very rarely.

The important point is that we now have a modern anomaly ~ a rapidly rising temperature, and we know it will continue to rise (since we know the mechanism). And we must tackle this problem. [My apology for this long answer : but I can be more verbose, if you wish ! ]

It's cooling

CORK at 21:38 PM on 6 September, 2023

Eclectic @329

My apologogies for sounding confused. English is not my native language.

"You seem to be saying that global warming (or cooling) cannot be assessed by measuring temperatures":

The anomaly of the temperatures of the last 150 years may just be an anomaly.

How can we be certain that anomalies of temperature did not occur a million year ago or before, when the only sparse data that we have for these times are estimated by proxi?

We compare averaged estimated data (of the geological times) to the measures of today. That does not make sense to me.

John F. Clauser: the latest climate science-denying physicist

Markp at 18:14 PM on 6 September, 2023

I'll admit that the IPCC is the largest organization producing climate analysis, and as such provides the overall best information we have. However, much of that information is deeply flawed, according to scientists both inside and outside the organization. Is it wrong to want that corrected? Because that's all anyone is saying.

Your logic would also have us stop trying to change flaws in our law courts and legal system, flaws in our election system, ad infinitum, because "what we have works and they are doing their best."

Have you read either of the papers I've provided links to? If you haven't, it's unlikely you know anything about the problems you are trying to close everyone's eyes to.

Once again, you do not do yourself favors by refusing to be realistic about the good efforts that have been made to fight climate change, and to pretend there is nothing wrong, or to hold that to say so is some kind of blasphemy, or is unfair or unkind, and to suggest that rather than try to shed light on things that need improving if we are to have a fighting chance here, that we should just keep our mouths shut, close our eyes and offer thanks and praise.

It's cooling

Rob Honeycutt at 06:54 AM on 5 September, 2023

CORK... "But this is not incompatible with a cooling at geological time scales."

What's important to understand is that warming or cooling, on whatever scale, is due to physical processes, most of which are at least fairly well understood by researchers.

The Escalator graphic is demonstrating there are inherent variations in the surface temperature trend. This makes sense when you understand that short term changes surface temperature is a function of energy going into and coming out of the earth's oceans.

The Escalator graphic is presented to explain how "skeptics" will use very short trends in global temperature to claim the "globe" has stopped warming, when nothing could be further from the truth.

The earth, on the whole, is rapidly warming primarily due to increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. That fact is true regadless the short term rate of warming at the surface.

It's cooling

CORK at 04:27 AM on 5 September, 2023

Climate's changed beforeWhat bothers me in the "Escalator" is the time scale. From 1970 to 2022 the temperatures rise, yes.

But this is not incompatible with a cooling at geological time scales. We may be in a rising part of the curve which will go down and over several 1000s of years the average will show a cooling trend.

The scale of time can be used and the curves can defend both arguments. Therefore the "escalator" is of no use.

The only pure fact in all the climate change saga is that humans are producing greenhouse gasses.

From that fact a whole theory of climate has been built. It is very difficult to say things like that without being insulted today.

Climate Confusion

Eclectic at 23:21 PM on 1 September, 2023

Markp @23 , to respond is simple. Name the person you are addressing, and preferably add in the # post number, for greater precision. Occasionally that # goes "wrong" if the Moderator has altered some post numbers ~ but usually posts go onto the thread in the chronological order they were received.

Again, I am not sure why you are bothered by "models and scenarios". As you say, the social/political/technological response to CO2-derived global warming is rather tardier than ideal, in slowing and eventually halting the current rapid warming. Yes, decades.

Simply apply common sense, and remember the first step needed is the reducing of human-caused CO2 emissions. Eventually, the CO2 level stops rising (and if you are curious, you can observe how much more warming occurs after that . . . so no actual need for "models"). Then you can observe the speed of subsequent CO2 level fall . . . and take further high-tech action if that seems warranted, in order to accelerate the CO2 decline. If not going the high-tech route immediately to begin with!

Probably best to ensure the CO2 does not drop below about 350ppm (since eventually the natural Milankovitch-cycle cooling will start to show). That "natural cooling" has been estimated to become problematic in roughly 15,000 years . . . so not an urgent problem! Plus humans will then have the option of warming the planet by burning small amounts of coal (assuming we have been wise enough to keep a goodly amount of coal available for such future need . . . although by that stage presumably we will have the option of heating limestone per fusion-powered electricity).

Markp, your idea of mirrors (ground-based, not space-based) seems reasonable in theory . . . but what about the practicalities? Please go ahead and "show your workings" for areas needed / desirable locations / dollar cost per sq. meter / CO2-cost of building & installing mirrors / and so on.

Remember the old axiom : Politics is the art of the possible.

Stop worrying yourself about models ~ leave the models to the scientists. Your personal responsibility (to yourself and others) means taking practical action with what you can do now .

Eastern Canada wildfires: Climate change doubled likelihood of ‘extreme fire weather’

Bob Loblaw at 22:18 PM on 29 August, 2023

Davz @ 4:

That specific paper was discussed recently on the "How human-caused global warming worsens wildfire", thread, starting with this comment.

Short version: the paper has serious weaknesses when using it to make the claim you are making. Reducing fires in savanna and grassland in Africa does not help people living in areas where increases in forest areas burned are affecting livelihoods.

In spite of "fewer fires" in Canada this year, the area burning - and the damage and cost to the Canadian economy and people's lives - has far exceeded historical records.

Which would you rather have? Five grease fires in a year while cooking dinner that were easily put out, or one house fire that burns your entire house down? After all, five is worse than one, isn't it? (According to your logic).

You only see this as "propaganda" because you don't like the message.

ClimateAdam: The Vlog Brothers on geoengineering

Rob Honeycutt at 00:00 AM on 25 August, 2023

Markp... "Adam and Miriam accept the logic that the only necessary thing to do in order to reverse GW is to reverse GHGs, in other words, get rid of them. That's a little bit like having your doctor tell you that in order to cure your tobacco-caused cancer, you just need to stop smoking."

This is a grossly innaccurate comparison. GW isn't a cancer, being that cancer is a growth. Tobacco smoking damages cells which then become cancerous. You can't reverse that effect.

Global warming, on the contrary, is not a growth. It is an effect due to the radiative properties of GHG's in the atmopshere. If you stop emitting CO2 you stop the warming, and it's now understood, that cessation of warming would be near immediate when we stop the increase of atmospheric concentrations.

ClimateAdam: The Vlog Brothers on geoengineering

Markp at 22:49 PM on 24 August, 2023

This is a reasonably well-done video by Adam, but there are some points that need to be made.

As many people have learned, the IPCC has done a pretty lousy job of informing the public, and the scientific views it presents have been warped both by the scientists themselves (the dreaded "scientific reticence" effect) as well as the politicians from 195 member countries that have veto power on much of the content released to the public which can be generally characterized as very, very conservative. In other words, it's way worse than they tell us, and their "solutions" not nearly as effective as they tell us. Adam and his friend Miriam are both, from what I can tell, very much cheerleaders for the IPCC. Not surprising: they are fresh out of university and so in that sense have not spent much (any?) time in the real world of working scientists, so their current YouTube careers aside, they may not want to annoy the IPCC-dominated narrative on all things climate.

Two big issues: 1) we need geoengineering more than they tell us, and 2) there is more to geoengineering than SAI.

1) Like so many climate scientists under the spell of the IPCC, (for many reasons which take too long to unpack here) Adam and Miriam accept the logic that the only necessary thing to do in order to reverse GW is to reverse GHGs, in other words, get rid of them. That's a little bit like having your doctor tell you that in order to cure your tobacco-caused cancer, you just need to stop smoking. Fighting the cause isn't always guaranteed to bring about a result in a timely manner. Reducing GHGs, yes, but who is doing that? Miriam said something like international agreements like Paris have "already reduced warming by 1C" and I say huh? All the talk of international agreements sounds good but isn't our reality, as anyone looking at our world's biggest problems today knows in an instant. Our "efforts" to reduce emissions are nowhere. It's not happening. Targets and discussions aren't enough. The point that people behind geoengineering make is: emissions reduction is not and WILL NOT happen fast enough to stop our ecosystem from collapsing. Additionally, carbon removal methods, whether nature-based or mechanical, have huge scaling problems. Yes, nature has dealt with CO2 in the past, but not like what we have now. They are very slow, are not always even feasible (tree-planting a perfect example, look at the studies) and have other issues such as water constraints making them impossible at scale. And mechanical CO2 removal is even worse. When it works, it's fast, but unscalable, with DAC being the most obvious case. So after the IPCC cheerleading stops, we have to face the music. We don't have time to rely only on the method of "turn off the tap and clean up the mess."

2) Geoengineering (you heard Adam slip in "SRM" as well, Solar Radiation Management, a type of geoengineering) is almost always equated with just ONE currently discussed method, which is Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, or SAI. That's because it's got a lot of billionaire-potential!

SAI is NOT more than a theory at this point, however. But you won't find that mentioned by many of its proponents. It is not the only way to go, is not loved by many (unbiased) climate scientists, has oodles of scientific problems to overcome if it would even work, and so is NOT the end of the geoengineering or SRM story. So Nigelj's characterization above, which makes it seem that SAI is ready-for-take-off, is wrong.

I will admit that, like the VAST majority of actual movement on climate we have seen, geoengineering efforts have a lot in common with disaster capitalism, and so should be checked out very thoroughly. Making money off of GW is the most effective thing we humans have done to date, which is a crime against humanity. Period. Governments now throwing large sums of money out for grants only on very narrowly-defined work chokes real progress. What we forget is that scientists have to get paid. Who pays them? Why? Most scientific research is arguably being funded by those who are expecting a product to patent and sell if things go well. Scientists are NOT always out there trying to find the fastest most practical fix here. The more tech that goes into it, the better. The more career-building we can get out of it, the better. That's why we see people talking about, of all things, space mirrors, as if simply putting them on the ground here to do what clouds and snow do is out of the question. There are people promoting that very idea and it has vastly more promise than any other geoengineering solution but is largely ignored (but that's changing) because it doesn't create billionaires and cannot be weaponized.

Like many things, this discussion has so much more to it than meets the eye. We need to think, REALLY think, and be realistic, and stop listening so much to government institutions (or their cheerleaders) that have almost never served anyone other than the powerful very well.

More than 100 comments found. Only the most recent 100 have been displayed.

Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Settings

Term Lookup

Settings

Latest Posts

Comment Search Results