by Judith Curry
The House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology Hearing on the President’s UN Climate Pledge has now concluded.
Here is the [link] for the hearing, which includes link to all of the testimonies and also the webcast.
My testimony can also be downloaded here [House science testimony apr 15 final]. Here is the content of my verbal testimony:
The central issue in the scientific debate on climate change is the extent to which the recent (and future) warming is caused by human-caused greenhouse gas emissions versus natural climate variability that are caused by variations from the sun, volcanic eruptions, and large-scale ocean circulations.
Recent data and research supports the importance of natural climate variability and calls into question the conclusion that humans are the dominant cause of recent climate change. This includes
- The slow down in global warming since 1998
- Reduced estimates of the sensitivity of climate to carbon dioxide
- Climate models that are predicting much more warming than has been observed so far in the 21st century
While there are substantial uncertainties in our understanding of climate change, it is clear that humans are influencing climate in the direction of warming. However this simple truth is essentially meaningless in itself in terms of alarm, and does not mandate a particular policy response.
We have made some questionable choices in defining the problem of climate change and its solution:
- The definition of ‘dangerous’ climate change is ambiguous, and hypothesized catastrophic tipping points are regarded as very or extremely unlikely in the 21st century
- Efforts to link dangerous impacts of extreme weather events to human-caused warming are misleading and unsupported by evidence.
- Climate change is a ‘wicked problem’ and ill-suited to a ‘command and control’ solution
- It has been estimated that the U.S. national commitments to the UN to reduce emissions by 28% will prevent three hundredths of a degree centigrade in warming by 2100.
The inadequacies of current policies based on emissions reduction are leaving the real societal consequences of climate change and extreme weather events largely unadressed, whether caused by humans or natural variability.
The wickedness of the climate change problem provides much scope for disagreement among reasonable and intelligent people. Effectively responding to the possible threats from a warmer climate is made very difficult by the deep uncertainties surrounding the risks both from the problem and the proposed solutions.
The articulation of a preferred policy option in the early 1990’s by the United Nations has marginalized research on broader issues surrounding climate variability and change and has stifled the development of a broader range of policy options.
We need to push the reset button in our deliberations about how we should respond to climate change.
- We should expand the frameworks for thinking about climate policy and provide a wider choice of options in addressing the risks from climate change.
- As an example of alternative options, pragmatic solutions have been proposed based on efforts to accelerate energy innovation, build resilience to extreme weather, and pursue no regrets pollution reduction Each of these measures has justifications independent of their benefits for climate mitigation and adaptation.
- Robust policy options that can be justified by associated policy reasons whether or not human caused climate change is dangerous avoids the hubris of pretending to know what will happen with the 21st century climate.
This concludes my testimony.
JC comments
I’m at the airport with a slow internet connection so I’m keeping this short.
The testimonies of Harburg and Thorning are both quite good, I encourage to read them.
I thought the Hearing went well. I got asked more questions than usual, but none of the questions were surprising. One of the Democrats, Rep Beyer, seemed to be confused by my testimony.
Overall, I’m pleased, I look forward to comments on the Hearing and my testimony.
Reprinted from the other related thread.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++==
Bravo Dr. Curry!
Outstanding job once again!
I must say I was equally impressed with the 2 others who provided fact based testimony. They had their fact based ducks in a row for certain. The other fellow, well,,,, not so much about facts,,,,, just falsified talking points once again.
I believe we are turning the corner in climate science (probably a “U” turn).
Mark this day in the calendar as the day “science” prevailed in climate science, finally.
Regards
Ed
FYI, the replay was available immediately afterwards, but the link no longer works. Hopefully it will be back up or in an alternate location for viewing.
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/61136995
.
While there are substantial uncertainties in our understanding of climate change, it is clear that humans are influencing climate in the direction of warming.
That statement is not right ,because in the time before human so called intervention the climate has changed much more abruptly then it has over the past some 150 years.
I agree, that statement is not supported by any data.
It is only supported by theory and model output.
As long as the model output does not match real data, it is, for sure, not clear.
We have warmed in these same bounds, many times before without a manmade influence. When exactly the same thing happens, over and over again, that is natural variability.
The earth temperature system is regulated by natural cycles that are proceeding just as they always have before and just as they should.
“I agree, that statement is not supported by any data.
It is only supported by theory and model output.”
I’m not sure. The physics are likely correct. Bear in mind that because the influence is in the direction of warming, this does no necessarily mean actual observable (anthro) warming.
I would suggest land use changes fits this discription.
I would say that waste heat from industrial processes fits this description.
(“While there are substantial uncertainties in our understanding of climate change, it is clear that humans are influencing climate in the direction of warming.”)
“That statement is not right ,because in the time before human so called intervention the climate has changed much more abruptly then it has over the past some 150 years.”
I agree but only in the false “direction of warming”. We observe that very clever earthling toolmakers can damn near screw up anything! Normally the temperature control system of Earth can compensate for earthling AW Shits. It takes the eminence wealth of not so clever governments, to stress this Earth temperature control system.
Governments not Earthlings are the threat! :-)
Maybe you re right and may be you are wrong. If you are right and we reduce CO2 emissions we just gonna get cleaner air but if it turns out that you are wrong the consequences could lead to a irreversible global warming for the whole planet
John
You are mistaken in your conclusion.
If we use very limited US tax revenues for CO2 mitigation activities there will be less funds available for other activities. If the CO2 mitigation actually had a positive impact on making the climate better it would be a worthwhile expenditure. If CO2 mitigation does not positively impact the weather then the funds will have been wasted and lots of other worthwhile projects will have been adversely impacted. When you examine the benefits (potential) of a CO2 mitigation activity it is hard to see how they make sense outside of someone’s fantasy.
If one knows time frame for dealing with the problem, assuming CO2 is a problem, informs the decision of whether windmill subsidies make more sense than allocating that money for fusion reactor benchmark prizes to fund private development.
Salvatore del Prete | April 15, 2015 at 1:17 pm |
That statement is not right
Although there is little to no data to support the claim, considering albido, carbon soot, UHI, and others, “it is intuitively obvious to the casual observer.” Regarding CO2 there is only (incomplete) physics, no data, and it is not “intuitively obvious to the casual observer.” This is a murky area that, without defining terms, makes AGW so difficult to discuss. It is a case of being darned(sp) by the company you keep.
Sorry, but I disagree with your statement.
1) Climate in the past 150 years is neither unique nor is the change value/rate unusual even in the human record
2) Climate in the satellite era is absolutely not changing at unprecedented rates
3) Theories and models on future climate behavior – which do purport to show potentially large changes – have been seriously discredited by their failure to be validated by actual real world behavior in the past 18 years
4) Even if the all or most of climate change in the past 150 years is human derived, and *if* it is due to CO2, the change from additional CO2 is far less than any of the catastrophic alarmist positions. The science is far from settled especially given the pause.
Excellent.
What AGW theory calls for is not taking place yet it will live on until it is flat out rejected which unfortunately does not appear to be taking place despite the data both past and present which show no support for any of the atmospheric processes or climatic outcomes AGW theory keeps calling for. This thus allows more radical counter views such as the one I propose below to be taken more into consideration.
I might add on balance the data is more supportive of this view then the AGW view.
A different way to attack the GHG effect is through water vapor concentration changes in the atmosphere which is the major contributor to the overall GHG effect.
OBSERVATION- Recent observations have indicated contrary to AGW theory( which is almost always the case) that the mixing ratios in the tropics (water vapor) have been falling not rising as called for by AGW theory. No hot spot for example.
My thought is rather then evaluate the future GHG effect based on CO2 concentration changes in the atmosphere maybe a better way to go about it might be through future water vapor concentration changes in the atmosphere.
After all water vapor accounts for some 75% of the atmospheric opacity. Therefore even a very slight change in this greenhouse gas concentration level is going to impact the overall GHG effect regardless of CO2.
I CAN say regardless of CO2 concentrations, because the data has proven conclusively, that the positive feedback between an increase in CO2 concentrations and water vapor does NOT exist. If anything the opposite is happening. That is what the data says to the dismay of AGW enthusiast , but they will ignore it as usual.
That aside a cooling climate (oceans cooling) should diminish the amounts of water vapor in the atmosphere due to the fact less evaporation would be taking place. Under this scenario convection would be less which would cause the corresponding temperature of the surface of the earth to drop less if the GHG effect were in a steady state. However the GHG effect would be less due to the lower amounts of water vapor in the atmosphere due to less evaporation from the cooler oceans. The diminish role of convection although causing less cooling per say in regards to the surface temperature of the earth would not be able to compensate for the overall cooling due to the diminish GHG effect therefore the temperature trend would be negative.
This argument is the opposite of the false argument AGW theory is trying to put upon the public presently which is increasing concentrations of CO2 will create a positive feedback with water vapor(increasing it) which will amplify the temperature rise from CO2 . Although convection would increase under this scenario a cooling mechanism it would only be able to retard the overall temperature increase due to the overall increase in the GHG effect.
I have just proposed the opposite take and the data thus far is more supportive of my scenario rather then the scenario AGW theory has put forth.
Well done. It can’t be easy to so visibly (and accurately) go against the CAGW orthodoxy. Your efforts are greatly appreciated by those of us in the field who cannot do so.
second the sentiment
Scott
Dr. Curry,
Presentations before Congressional committees always seem to bring out the best in you.
This was an excellent and powerful presentation. Several readings are required for me to properly digest all of this banquet. I have bookmarked it for future reference. Congratulations!
Very cool. I will likely use some of these points to articulate why I think CAGW is lacking in future discussions. (No I am not using this as a Jehovah Witness pamplet, I just need help articulating….).
And the line that resonates with me personally:
“Nevertheless, climate change has become a grand narrative in which human-caused climate change has become a dominant cause of societal problems.”
Bravo.
I think you did an excellent job, Dr. Curry. I’m actually still watching the end of it.
Deferring to the other witnesses when appropriate, good.
I thought your point that we lose either way with our current policy approaches was a good one (if AGW is severe, our current approach is inadequate anyway, if AGW is mild, the expense is poorly justified), and that your response to Rep. Beyer was absolutely outstanding.
I think you conveyed an impression of extreme competence in the easy and casual way you sketched an overview of why weather events have been extreme or unusual in recent times in answering Brindenstine, chaos with some orderly regimes, with the warm blocking blob out over the ocean for the past year – I think that played very well.
Overall, the more questions you answered the more you seemed to relax and warm to the discussion. I’m watching the end now and hope I get to see you answer some more.
Policy cart leading science horse. Compare those IPCC
models with observations. Illuminating presentation Dr Curry.
https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/house-science-testimony-apr-15-final.pdf
I’d like to roll my pants up and wade about in the sparkling clear spring of scientific truth.
Oh the heck with it. Let’s all go skinny dipping!
Neither out far nor in deep. )
The land may vary more;
But whatever the truth may be,
The water comes ashore,
And the people look at the sea.
Nicely chosen dear Beth,as always. Hey, where’s fan been? Never thought I’d miss W. Berry. (and I was right :-)
Thx dear pokerguy.
My RSS tells me that Fan had his shares of fast thinking deletions.
Judith –
If you’re deleting Springer’s s*ckp*ppet comments, the 9:50 below was not written by me:
http://judithcurry.com/2015/04/15/hearing-presidents-un-climate-pledge/#comment-694521
The claim that Fan left because of registration is a claim made w/o supporting evidence. Such claims are a telltale sign of Springer. He has also made the claim on another blog.
> So, what Judith observed you say on ATTP proves that you are a self-confessed braggart troll trying to muck up Judith’s blog.
Is Judy’s “observation” your evidence for your proof, Don Don?
What policy response do you recommend, BTW?
Are you implying that Judith made it up, wee willy? Stop stooping, willy. Try to recall how you felt when you were a man who was about something? You can change.
Of course she did, Don Don. I read the comment. I also read a very similar comment a bit before, on this very blog. A blog Judy once said she read every single comment.
Not only did Judy fabricated a story about self-avowal, but she implied that Joshua was somewhat “bragging,” a bit like you said at Shub’s:
https://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2015/03/27/censorship-by-judith-curry/#comment-12449
Both the story and the implication are fabricated, Don Don. See? I can own my schtick. I guess you know that, since you seem to prefer to manhandle other Denizens.
***
Your cheap ad homs don’t stop me. They don’t even distract me. Sure, I could use them to show how a pitiful ClimateBall player you are, but what would I waste my time proving what is obvious for everyone to see?
So, any other policy recommendation? Let’s jigger your slow thinking. Tell me more about solar.
Thou doesteth protesteth way too mucheth, wee willy. Your are a man of many out dated fluffy words. Did I get that about right? And you claim I don’t even distract you. You would be more convincing if you didn’t spend so much time chasing me around and writing long meandering tirades exposing your silliness for all to see.
We don’t really have to bat this back and forth, wee one. Judith gots two names, gots a job, a famous and influential blog that distracts you to the point of apoplexy, and she gots credibility. You and your little anonymous self-confessed braggart troll, joshie, gots none of the above. You are not the Moderator here, willy. Get over it.
“One of the Democrats, Rep Beyer, seemed to be confused by my testimony.”
It is not surprising that Virginia’s 8th District House of Representative Beyer may be confused regarding Judith Curry’s testimony.
“Global climate change is the existential crisis of our time. I am proud to see President Obama’s pledge that the United States will take a leading role on the international stage to protect our environment. Reducing carbon emissions is the best way to fight and reverse the threat human-fueled climate change poses around the world. This announcement demonstrates a real commitment to doing just that, and is a big step toward reaching a successful agreement at the COP21 conference,” said Rep. Beyer.
As a believer that the science is settled, that a changing climate is an existential crisis, and in particular, THE crisis of our time, listening to climate science’s alternatives as well as policies that go along with such non-consensus science, would cause cognitive dissonance; i.e., holding two mutually exclusive ideas at the same time.
As a politician, speaking out of both sides of one’s mouth is standard fare. Listening to opposing information, information at least that conflicts to that one holds near and dear to one’s heart, would cause confusion. Confusion especially as one is confronted, in measured tones by a believable source of an alternative process and policies than one has not listened to before.
Judith Curry is believable, precisely because her information comes in measured tones, clarity, and to the point. It is the rantings by catastrophists that engender disbelief, which, to a previous CAGW believer, being on board the bandwagon of Obama’s agenda as is Beyer, may be observing for the first time, that Obama has feet of clay, standing upon the desiccated plains of shifting sands, propped up by minions of dependent sirens.
As a House of Worship, Congress is not a place to hold onto strong firmly held beliefs for very long.
“It is not surprising that Virginia’s 8th District House of Representative Beyer may be confused regarding Judith Curry’s testimony.”
It’s almost tempting to feel sorry for the guy. I’m guessing he’s completely sincere in his beliefs concerning the “existential crisis” of slightly milder weather.
Reblogged this on The Global 'Climate'.
Am I right in thinking that the argument for the Administration’s position boiled down to ‘if we build it they will come?’ The idea that our (U.S.) efforts would have essentially no direct impact on the climate seemed to go unchallenged, and that the real value of the U.S. taking strong measures would be in serving as a catalyst for change in other countries & followed leadership.
Of course, as noted, no representative from the Obama Administration was present to address this.
Yes, that is the standard counter argument to the argument that the US actions (alone) will be meaningless. Leaders must lead.
Well, that counts our President out. He has yet to demonstrate any leadership ability.
Dr. Curry is at the forefront of movement to push the reset-button on a policy course that was based on 1990’s Hansen style warming trajectory. Megolithic establishments were created. But they can be transformed but by a handful of good honest people. Let’s call that leadership.
Enjoyed the hearing. Calm cool and collected with maybe just a hint of exasperation with the Representative (name forgotten) who referred back to your written testimony. That he didn’t grasp the nuance within was interesting, but maybe he’s not as in tune as many. Not sure you “moved his meter” but the uncertainty of the discussion came thru loud and clear for this observer.
Job well done w/r/t suggestions that a much broader inclusive policy pathway makes sense as the current conversation will achieve only one goal while leaving us hanging should alternative scenarios develop.
Now if we could just have this kind of discussion with folks of similar levels of knowledge and expertise (thinking APS but including economists and energy specialists) in broadcast format for the larger public a human “consensus” might be doable or failing that a “western”. PBS anyone?
I just finished listening to the hearing. Ms Harbert, Dr. Thorning and Prof. Curry were excellent. Ms Harbert, in particular, showed complete mastery of the details and was very clear on the negative consequences of the WH’s commitment to emission reduction targets. I thoroughly enjoyed Judy’s polite but firm slap down of Rep Beyer’s sophomoric attempt to suggest contradictions in her testimony. His performance was pitiful.
Jake Schmidt from the Natural Resources Defense Council was far less impressive. His testimony was largely hand-waving and fuzzy and full of inaccurate generalizations.
Overall, however, I came away depressed at both the process – nobody, for example, pinned Mr Schmidt down – and the shallowness of almost all the Representatives on both sides of the aisle. The ranking member Ms Johnson had no clue and simply repeated standard tropes. Only the engineer, Rep. Westerman, introduced something on point.
Judy was very good – calm, no visible nervousness, on point in responding to some very rambling questions and marvelously deferred to others when the question was out of her area.
Her most powerful statement, however, came when she linked her testimony to her business of predicting wind for energy producers with wind farms. I am pretty confident that her simple statement on the unpredictability of wind and the need for back-up capacity will be remembered and repeated by the representatives.
Excellent job.
I agree in general, except I think Lamar Smith has his sh-t together.
Very well done, Dr. Curry. I was also tremendously impressed by the eloquence of the two other ladies who focused on energy questions and the effect on the poor of misguided energy policies. Also the michigan representative pointing out the precise cost of increasing electricity prices for the solar panel company and the chilling (literally!) effect it would have on competitiveness with China.
As far as Dr. Curry’s testament it was good. It was a balanced approach which probably is the way one has to go in today’s climate environment.
If the testimony was to extreme against AGW theory it might do more harm then good in trying to show why this theory has much uncertainty .
I think she did that without being overly excessive which I guess given her position is the best way to go about this.
Judith, I believe Rep. Beyer’s confusion is a textbook case of cognitive dissonance. Your testimony and comments made perfect sense, and Rep. Beyer is going to continue to experience discomfort from it as he ponders it.
Squirrel.
Politicians don’t ponder and never feel discomfort until they are no longer politicians.
The media touted 2014 as the ‘warmest year’ in the historical record; however, given the uncertainties in the analyses, 2014 was in a statistical tie with 2010 and 2005. …
The warmest year in the record was distinctly different in that is was obvious the temperature was going to continue going up. It was barely getting started.
The 12-month running mean ending on March 31, 2015 is the warmest 12 months in the record, and it is not a statistical tie with 2005 and 2010.
The last 8 months is .76C, and there is still no end in sight to this spike.
So yes, 2014 was .67C. Keep repeating that. It confirms my opinion. April looks like it will cool a bit, but after that the heat is back on.
Imagine that. It getting warmer as summer approaches.
Well, the NH summer… but it does, on average, bias global temperatures upwards.
Since 1880 there have been a whole bunch of 1st quarters in the GISS record.
Only is the warmest 1st quarter in the record. Gee, I wonder which one it is?
Summer? LMAO.
JCH: “So yes, 2014 was .67C”
Here is the latest NASA satellite temp chart trend if anyone is interested here. It seems the pause looks safe.
That does not measure the surface of the earth.
Measurement Errors:
As a data scientist, I am among the first to acknowledge that all climate datasets likely contain some errors. However, I have a hard time believing that both the satellite and the surface temperature datasets have errors large enough to account for the model/observation differences. For example, the global trend uncertainty (2-sigma) for the global TLT trend is around 0.03 K/decade (Mears et al. 2011). Even if 0.03 K/decade were added to the best-estimate trend value of 0.123 K/decade, it would still be at the extreme low end of the model trends. A similar, but stronger case can be made using surface temperature datasets, which I consider to be more reliable than satellite datasets (they certainly agree with each other better than the various satellite datasets do!). So I don’t think the problem can be explained fully by measurement errors. … – Carl Mears, RSS
JC, I respect that you have been studying the climate issue for many years, as I can see JCH comments in long archived posts. But, attacking the satellite data is not something that I’ve seen done elsewhere. Instrumental imprecision is often less a threat to accuracy than bias. At least the satellite observation is less vulnerable to interpretative biases I’d hope you’d agree.
The great advantage of satellites is near global coverage, so the ‘homogenization’ and sampling issue goes away. That said, converting the voltages measured by satellites into atmospheric temperatures is a non trivial endeavor, and on top of that there is the issue of inter satellite calibration. The satellite data set is more ‘objective’ in the sense that there is no cherry picking or human adjustments of individual stations. But the satellite temperature data sets are nevertheless imperfect.
curryja
Well done. Good balanced presentation highlighting the major issues and uncertainties. Especially highlighting the insignificant impact of the proposed drastic cuts. Definitely more practiced and skillful in answering political gotcha questions. Your written testimony excellently lays out the key issues and challenges.
Bureaucratic coercion
By contrast, Paul Driessen describes the abuse of the 1970 National Environmental Policy Act by Obama’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) requiring all actions be reviewed by how they impact climate. What a waste of resources on an insignificant issue.
Plunging oil discoveries
Last year global oil discoveries were only 47% of consumption ie. 43 billion bbl compared to global consumption of 92 billion bbl.
The greatest challenge we have is providing abundant inexpensive replacement fuels to offset the growing gap between depletion and declining global oil discoveries with growing populations wanting economic growth.
With Lewis and Curry’s quantification of very low Transient Climate Sensitivity, global warming pales in significance to ensuring our economies have the fuel to grow rather than decline.
Agree that liquid transportation fuels are a great concern. Wrote about it extensively in Blowing Smoke. GMO algae/cyanobacteria doesn’t scale because of insolation/water/CO2 enrichment issues. The KiOR biomass catalytic process failed to meet yield and uptime. If it ever worked, the world still does not produce enough NPP ober what humans already consume (14%) to displace even half of current petroleum consumption. The only ray of possible innovation sunshine is Silurian’s OCM and ETL catalysts, which look good at pilot scale and would buy several decades of liquid fuels if they prove out at commercial scale (we will know in less than two years, as the first smallish commercial plant will go operational later this year). But buying those transitional liquid fuel decades would require conserving gas by not using it to generate baseload electricity via CCGT.
Rivstan – In the US farm State Senators got bought off with subsidies to farmers. In China pragmatism built coal to methanol plants. One report states that by 2015 China would have enough coal to methanol capacity to provide 50% of China’s fuel. – though most is being converted into other chemicals. The US has the world’s largest coal reserves and could ensure an interim fuel supply if it began to seriously plan/prepare. Long term, solar thermal. thorium, or novel fusion may provide cost effective solutions. Keep us posted on the Silurian OCM/ETL.
DH, I know about the US farm ‘subsidies’ since own and operate one.
As for Silurian, just follow their PR. There is no simple way to invest, as they remain private and continue to take in big ‘smart’ money. Looks good so far. I will keep the blog ( and you) updated even though on the ‘outside’.
Regards
Ristvan
I find: Siluria Technologies announces successful start-up of first demo plant directly converting natural gas to ethylene through OCM
Have you seen any quantitative energetic or financial evaluations of this technology? I am particularly interested in comparisons with gas to methanol to liquid fuels.
If the climate change activists now sitting on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology are truly concerned about America’s greenhouse gas emissions, and about the contribution America’s GHG emissions are making to global warming, then they should be putting strong pressure on President Obama and on Gina McCarthy to use the full regulatory authority of the Executive Branch and the EPA in pursing aggressive reductions in America’s carbon emissions.
The EPA’s 2009 Endangerment Finding has identified carbon dioxide as a dangerous pollutant carrying significant risks to human health and the environment. It is the EPA’s responsibility under the Clean Air Act to be the central coordinating agency of government in managing GHG pollution abatement activities. However, the Obama Administration is not using the EPA to its maximum possible effectiveness in controlling America’s carbon emissions.
Achieving President Obama’s announced goal of a 28% reduction in US carbon emissions by 2025 cannot be done without aggressive government intervention in the energy marketplace to raise the price of all carbon fuels and to constrain their supply, thus encouraging both significant energy conservation measures and an accelerated transition away from fossil fuels and towards reliance on a variety of non-carbon energy resources.
GHG’s are emitted as a consequence of nearly all economic activities. But rather than ask for an equitable distribution of the pain that goes with substantial across-the-board reductions in carbon emissions, what the Obama Administration has done instead is to bundle GHG reductions with reductions in other kinds of pollutants such as mercury and sulfur into a single plan targeted mostly at the coal industry — thus guaranteeing that their plan is highly vulnerable to lawsuits of the kind that Lawrence Tribe is now pursuing against the EPA at the behest of the coal interests.
Any successful EPA-administered plan to enforce serious GHG emission reductions must be its own separate program managed according to its own separate criteria, and with its own uniquely-tailored regulatory enforcement framework. A realistic climate action plan must fairly distribute the economic burdens of the plan across all affected social, economic, and geographic groups. EPA-administered GHG reduction plans cannot be combined with other categories of pollutants without making those reduction plans so highly vulnerable to lawsuits as to make them legally unworkable.
Here in America, the price of carbon can be raised without a legislated carbon tax through an integrated combination of two major anti-carbon measures unilaterally written and administered by the EPA. The first measure would be to directly constrain emissions of carbon pollution through a specified series of local, state, regional, and national emission limits. The second measure would be to impose a corresponding framework of stiff carbon pollution fines which is the functional equivalent of a legislated carbon tax.
If an EPA-administered regulatory framework targeted exclusively at carbon emissions is properly designed and properly rolled out according to existing procedures for regulatory rule making, it can be made bulletproof against lawsuits from fossil fuel interests. Adopting this kind of policy approach carries the obvious political risks for anyone who proposes it. But there is no other public policy pathway which could make a serious dent in America’s carbon emissions within the time frame President Obama proposes.
All roads to serious GHG reductions pass through the EPA. If serious GHG reductions are to be achieved at all in this country, that goal must be accomplished through a centrally-coordinated effort managed by the EPA, one which simultaneously constrains the supply of carbon fuels and which raises their price, thus encouraging energy conservation and an eventual transition away from fossil fuels. If Democrats inside the Obama Administration and inside the Congress are not pushing for a climate action plan which employs the EPA to its maximum legal authority in reducing America’s GHG emissions, then they can be rightly accused of playing politics with the issue of climate change.
RE: The EPA’s 2009 Endangerment Finding has identified carbon dioxide as a dangerous pollutant carrying significant risks to human health and the environment.
Sure it has. Not with any research of its own, but by simplying refering to the IPCC. In fact the process was so transparently false that the EPA’s own internal auditor is on record as stating they violated their own rules in how they reached their determination.
“The EPA’s 2009 Endangerment Finding has identified carbon dioxide as a dangerous pollutant carrying significant risks to human health and the environment.”
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
I’m sure you’re an expert in this field
Even my GARDEN is a better expert than the EPA – “dangerous pollutant” – yea, right.
Time to reel in the EPA. Go Congress!
ppaa wrote:
“The early part of the century was cold (corn likes warm).”
Your yield graph shows corn yields increasing as of about 1940.
But it wasn’t until the 1970s that warmth resumed.
How do you explain this discrepency?
The obvious complication in identifying CO2 as a dangerous pollutant carrying significant risks to human health and the environment is that carbon dioxide is essential for life. The EPA’s 2009 Endangerment Finding for carbon relies on the premise that if too much of a good thing is bad; then way too much of a good thing is very, very bad.
In the United States, responsibility for determing important scientific questions which might have significant impacts on the course of public policy decision making has generally been assigned to various government agencies within the Executive Branch. The 2009 Endangerment Finding uses IPCC 2007 AR4 as its scientific basis. The finding has been upheld by the Supreme Court with the effect that IPCC AR4 is now codified as a precedent-setting scientific foundation for future use in supporting US environmental regulations.
The courts generally stay out of the substance of major science questions, and usually concern themselves only with questions concerning the extent to which the regulatory rule making processes and procedures have been properly followed by the publishing government agency — in other words, to determine if all the boxes have been checked. Lawsuits brought against government agencies based strictly upon the substance of their science usually don’t get very far.
In 2010, the Supreme Court said that all of the endangerment finding’s procedural boxes had been properly checked. The 2010 ruling clears a path for the EPA to go the very last mile in using existing provisions of the Clean Air Act to enforce significant carbon pollution reduction measures.
Has the EPA actually gone the last mile in pursuing significant GHG reduction measures?
The answer here is a very definite ‘no’. The Obama Administration chose not to use the EPA’s full authorities under existing law to pursue a fair and equitable GHG reduction plan, one which fairly distributes the pain of serious emission reductions across all classes of GHG emitters. What the Obama Administration did instead to was to develop a climate action plan which greatly favors one fossil fuel, natural gas, over another fossil fuel, coal; and to create a regulatory framework for GHG emissions which unfairly assigns the great burden of America’s greenhouse gas reduction efforts to just one industry, the coal industry.
The end result here will be that the United State will be covered with fracking wells from one side of the country to the other.
It was pointed out in the House committee hearing that Obama’s climate action plan doesn’t cover nearly enough ground to achieve the President’s 2025 reduction goal, the plan falls roughly 40% short. There is no other practical pathway towards achieving President Obama’s announced goal of a 28% reduction in US carbon emissions by 2025 without aggressive government intervention in the energy marketplace to raise the price of all carbon fuels and to constrain their supply, thus encouraging both significant energy conservation measures and an accelerated transition away from fossil fuels and towards reliance on a variety of non-carbon energy resources.
Jim2 says, ‘Time to reel in the EPA. Go Congress!’
All roads to serious GHG reductions pass through the EPA. If the Executive Branch doesn’t use the full regulatory powers the EPA now has in its hands to pursue aggressive anti-GHG measures, the President’s goals for 2025 will not be met. What if the President did move forward with a truly effective climate action plan? Nothing the Congress could do to short-circuit the EPA could be successful, given that President Obama has veto power over any anti-EPA legislation a Republican Congress might pass.
As things stand today, the climate activists and the Progressive Left have a clear pathway available to them for achieving their ambitious GHG reduction goals, one which passes directly through a government agency they fully control, the US Environmental Protection Agency, It is a pathway which does not require another word of new legislation from the US Congress to be effective; and it is a pathway which cannot be blocked either by anti-EPA legislation or by pro-carbon lawsuits.
But they have chosen not to follow that path; rather, they have gone down a side road which can lead only to a public policy impasse. So the question must be asked: Why are the climate activists and the Progressive Left not pursuing this clear, unambiguous public policy pathway towards achieving the significant GHG emission reductions they claim are necessary?
Because the full path you describe would lead to a veto-proof majority.
The evidence the abundant that CO2 is plant food that has contributed to the roughly 55% increase in plant growth since 1900.
This is a benefit worth trillions of dollars annually to mankind.
What is the EPA plan to measure and rebate this benefit, worth hundreds of billions of dollars annually to the US, to the primary sources of CO2 (large scale emitters)?
It is assumed that accurately rebating to everyone that breaths, drives a car, burns brush and lawn debris, has a barbecue, etc. is impractical,
“This is a benefit worth trillions of dollars annually to mankind.”
Really? Says who? And why?
Food, fiber, and fish is about a 3 trillion dollar industry producer level.
55% (the increase since 1900) is $1 trillion.
If we redraw the supply demand curve (since cutting supplies 36% will move the supply/demand or go retail it is worth more.
Now your next move is to deny, claim it doesn’t matter, or I’m computing it wrong. That’s fine, analysis isn’t your strong suit.
pa: Your claim was that man’s CO2 was ““a benefit worth trillions of dollars annually to mankind.””
Now you are just quoting some industrial numbers, whether they have anything to do with added CO2 or not. Such as fish(?).
You changed your tune. Let’s go back to the first one.
Says math.
The statistic shows global gross domestic product (GDP) from 2004 to 2014. In 2012, global GDP amounted to about 72.6 trillion U.S. dollars. http://www.statista.com/statistics/268750/global-gross-domestic-product-gdp/
Bank puts the food and agriculture sector at 10% of global gross domestic product. http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml
Though the 55% increase attributed to CO2 is doubtful. A more realistic estimate is about 10% of food productivity due to CO2, that would put the value in the hundreds of billions annually, not trillions.
aaron wrote:
“A more realistic estimate is about 10% of food productivity due to CO2….”
Why is that more realistic? What calculation gives this number? What is the effect of higher temperatures and more drought? What is the effect of decreased nutritive value with higher CO2?
aaron | April 17, 2015 at 7:59 am |
Says math.
Well, I’m painting the absolute minimum value of CO2.
Two points:
1. Crop yield didn’t go up until the CO2 level went up.
http://passel.unl.edu/Image/siteImages/CornYieldGraphLG.gif
2. We don’t have 50% more arable land. We don’t have 50% more fish. If agriculture was 36% less productive or there were 36% less fish in the sea it would drastically affect prices.
Look at oil to see what a reduction in supply does to prices when demand is inflexible.
pa wrote:
“Crop yield didn’t go up until the CO2 level went up.”
Bull. CO2 has been going up since around 1850. Why no increase in crop yields between then and 1940?
Many things influence crop yields, such as fertilizers and the Green Revolution. Attributing all yield increases to CO2 is junk science.
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/study-finds-plant-growth-surges-as-co2-levels-rise-16094
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50563/abstract
pppppaaaaa,
I think you’re largely right. We really don’t know what has happened in the ocean and I suspect that productivity increased by more than what is measured on land. And, of course, as you say, price is supressed by the the increased supply, so the value may be higher than calculated.
;a wrote:
“The evidence the abundant that CO2 is plant food that has contributed to the roughly 55% increase in plant growth since 1900.”
Come on, crop production over the last 115 years has obviously been influenced by more than CO2. Ever hear of Norman Borlaug?
aaron | April 17, 2015 at 8:16 am |
The statistic shows global gross domestic product (GDP) from 2004 to 2014. In 2012, global GDP amounted to about 72.6 trillion U.S. dollars. http://www.statista.com/statistics/268750/global-gross-domestic-product-gdp/
Bank puts the food and agriculture sector at 10% of global gross domestic product. http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml
Though the 55% increase attributed to CO2 is doubtful. A more realistic estimate is about 10% of food productivity due to CO2, that would put the value in the hundreds of billions annually, not trillions.
Well, increased plant growth has been estimated at 50% for the 20th century. CSIRO did a satellite foliage study that said plant growth increased 11% from 1982 to 2010 (they were expecting 5%), and that growth in desert areas was increasing significantly (more CO2 cuts water consumption by plants). The study indicated more growth (11%) than just your 10% just between 1982 and 2010. Where did you get 10%?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130708103521.htm
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50563/abstract
http://energy.columbia.edu/files/2014/02/2-Kruger-1404014-CO2-Irrigation-presentation-Columbia.pdf
https://www.hydrofarm.com/resources/articles/co2.jpg
55% more growth since 1900 is, if anything, a low ball estimate since more benefit per PPM of increase would have been realized pre-1982.
In addition, much of the growth in GDP over the years likely also comes from the ample, stable supply of food.
Necessities have a major impact on behavior. http://sitemaker.umich.edu/pedelstein/files/ek040707a.pdf
Retail Energy Prices and Consumer Expenditures
> (2) shifts in precautionary savings
Precautionary savings?
I read that as emergency cash.
I think when the price of something people think of as a necessity increaces sharply, people realize that they had been saving inadequately. They increase their savings.
The bottom line is:
1. In the face of more CO2 and more warming plant growth is increasing, particularly in the tropics, particularly in the dry areas.
http://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2013/07/CO2-fertilization-effect.jpg.662x0_q70_crop-scale.jpg
2. This growth provides a massive and tangible benefit that can be assigned a dollar value.
3. We have a standard to evaluate claims that warmth and CO2 harms vegetation and to this point they are refuted. Given the intensity of the benefit at the equator the claims that warmth will harm vegetation do not appear to have a basis in reality. If more warmth harmed plants we wouldn’t be seeing large growth increases at the equator.
4. The cost of “reduced benefit” due to less plant growth must be bundled with the other costs of CO2 mitigation and requires a massive benefit of more than $ 1 trillion per year just to balance the opportunity cost of avoided future plant growth.
Given that CO2 mitigation has other costs it hard to picture any scenario where the net benefit from CO2 mitigation is positive or even anywhere close to zero.
pppppaaaaa’s numbers are inexorable, as is the good that man’s little aliquot of CO2 is doing.
================
pppppaaaaa,
I happened to look at e-mail from twitter which had an amuzing tweet from Matt Ridley, if you’re into dark humor. He linked a Washington Post article last week which spins the greening earth as a bad thing!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/04/10/planet-earth-is-actually-getting-greener-but-that-might-not-be-a-good-thing/
I think 10% was a ballpark from memory of a Matt Ridley presentation. I think there was another study that estimated 10% on WUWT a while ago, but the internet is overfull and breaking, I probably won’t be able to find it again.
I see below that 55% of calculated CO2 emissions disappear from the atmosphere, so your number could be good. What isn’t acidifying the ocean must end up as part of the food chain.
CO2 seasonal variation is increasing. “Cropland makes up just six percent of the vegetated, or green, area of the Northern Hemisphere and yet, it is a dominant contributor to the 50 percent increase in the CO2 seasonality cycle. This, despite the fact that forests and grasslands have also been more productive as the planet has warmed and growing seasons have lengthened.” http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/20/mad-science-crops-to-blame-for-increased-annual-variation-of-co2/
David Appell | April 17, 2015 at 6:25 pm |
pa wrote:
“Crop yield didn’t go up until the CO2 level went up.”
Bull. CO2 has been going up since around 1850. Why no increase in crop yields between then and 1940?
Many things influence crop yields, such as fertilizers and the Green Revolution. Attributing all yield increases to CO2 is junk science.
I can’t dispute your expertise at junk science, you are much better at it than I am.
As is usually the case when you look at a situation there are a number of narratives.
1. The early part of the century was cold (corn likes warm).
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/Atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_concentrations_and_global_annual_average_temperatures_over_the_years_1880_to_2009.png
2. The early part of the 20th century was dry (corn likes wet).
http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/sites/report/files/images/web-large/CS_extreme-precip-index_13263_V9_0.png
3. Interestingly the dominant source of manmade CO2 emissions pre-1900 was burning down rainforest.
The other thing is total acreage – when they plant on high amounts of acreage the yield goes down because they are using marginal land.
http://www.extension.iastate.edu/NR/rdonlyres/1056F03A-55CA-4C47-A8CE-99FFA3E13AEB/75826/Fig2IowaCornAcres.jpg
Corn didn’t get warmth, water, and CO2 at the same time until after 1940. They didn’t start banking margin land until then either (a conservation measure).
It is one of those situations where all the conditions for high corn yield went green light after 1940.
It should be noted that on calm days the CO2 level in a corn field drops to 200 PPM (starvation level) during the peak of the day. So more CO2 does make a difference.
ppaa wrote:
“It should be noted that on calm days the CO2 level in a corn field drops to 200 PPM (starvation level) during the peak of the day.”
Evidence?
http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/29/6/500.full.pdf+html
Corn field on calm day CO2 fell from 0.6 mg/l to, at 2pm, below 0.5 mg/l.
Paper gives 0.6 mg/l as normal, Reduction was 1/6 or 16%. If normal is 280ppmv then by midafternoon it was 233ppmv.
Productivity increases since 1950 of 150% would make the make the decrease about 40% today or 0.6 * 400 =
ppaa wrote:
“Interestingly the dominant source of manmade CO2 emissions pre-1900 was burning down rainforest.”
Data source? There was lots of land clearing going on — by 1900 it had emitted 32 Gt carbon, vs 12 Gt carbon from burning fossil fuels:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/overview.html
But so what? Both mean more carbon in the atmosphere.
“It is one of those situations where all the conditions for high corn yield went green light after 1940.”
False — global warmth didn’t.
And again you’re completely ignoring the influence of artificial fertilization. Why?
And why is your only data US corn yields??? There are many other countries, and many other crops. We need more universal data.
My family grew corn in the same region of Missouri from 1836 until 2002. Yield records were actually kept. Started out around 26 bushels per acre.
The big steps were, in approximate order: improvement in seeds (they started out planting seeds they has saved from the prior-year harvest); improvements in implements and machinery (Dad purchased a tractor for Gramps right after WW2); soil science; insecticides; herbicides; anhydrous ammonia (huge); warming, CO2.
JCH,
Ah. A.A. Good for ag and meth as a cash crop. Farmers lose that stuff all the time.
There are some things you just don’t forget. Anhydrous ammonia showed up in our region right around my 4th grade – around 1961 or 1962. It’s memorable first because all the old men were talking about the amazing yields. That I would have probably forgotten, but was we talked about for weeks was a story about some poor guy who had an accident and froze his private parts, which supposedly fell off. This was farming legend of which we boys could not get enough, Now I am not so certain it even happened. I think it got started just so people would understand handling anhydrous ammonia was dangerous.
Ouch. Not heard that one.
But Doctor………will I ever play the guitar again?
Maize is predicted to become the world’s most important crop, in terms of human food supply, by 2050 (Pingali, 2001). While the results of our study are limited to one location and one hybrid line, farming practice and crop performance at SoyFACE are typical of the surrounding area and the genotype shares lineage with many other production lines. Champaign County is centrally located in the U.S. Corn Belt and is consistently high yielding (http://www.usda.gov/nass/graphics/county04/crpmap04.htm#corn). So the results of this study should at least relate to the Corn Belt, which generates 40% of global maize production (USDA, 2005). The absence of any photosynthetic, growth, or yield response of maize to elevated [CO2] in 2004 at SoyFACE is inconsistent with some earlier cabinet studies, and suggests that including a direct and consistent CO2 fertilization effect on C4 crop performance is currently a significant source of error in estimating future food security. It appears that elevated [CO2] will only enhance performance by reducing crop water use. Therefore, improvements in A, growth, and yield will only occur if stress is ameliorated in times or places of drought. Unfortunately, the indirect nature of this mechanism, combined with considerable uncertainty regarding future soil water availability (Cubasch et al., 2001), makes predicting future crop performance difficult.
5p5a –
I saw quite a few comments from you after David made this point:
==> “Many things influence crop yields, such as fertilizers and the Green Revolution. Attributing all yield increases to CO2 is junk science.”
I didn’t see you actually address that point. Perhaps this was the closest.
==> “2. [more co2 and more warming growth] provides a massive and tangible benefit that can be assigned a dollar value.”
What % of increased agricultural production are you saying is attributable to more CO2 in contrast to other factors? You say that the tangible benefit can be assigned a dollar value. I’m hoping that you could give us that dollar value?
“One of the Democrats, Rep Beyer, seemed to be confused by my testimony.”
I would imagine so. Consider living in an echo-chamber of yes men to the president where no one dare contradict him, and then walking into a forum where dissenting views are presented. The cognitive dissonance would be shattering.
+1
Emissions were flat for 2014 and given secular trends for developed nations,
a decline in emissions would appear likely:
http://climatewatcher.webs.com/Emissions2014.png
Accumulations will slow even more than emissions slow.
Continued warming would appear likely but at ever slower rates.
Eddie,
Your projection suggests (eyeballing) a reduction in annual emissions by 2025 or so. That’s almost RCP2.6. How plausible is that? I had thought that most regarded RCP2.6 as an extreme low emission pathway.
The green line is what I drew, of course, but China having falling emissions is very consistent with what all the other Annex I countries have experienced and given the last 25 years on the chart, I believe that very plausible.
Clear your browser history to get the latest version in which I added the uptake rate, which is about 50% of emissions now. I believe that rate is dependent on the accumulation of CO2, not the emissions ( the atmosphere doesn’t know which molecules were emitted this year versus a century ago ). The accumulation rate is likely to continue its slow rise in absolute terms. But the uptake rate depicts the cooling line. If Emissions fall below the uptake line, CO2 forcing decreases and cooling ensues. I have put the uptake line with an estimate of current uptake increasing somewhat as a reminder of how close CO2 forcing is to decreasing.
Eddie,
Yes, I realise, but even RCP4.5 has emissions increasing by about 50% by 2050 and then falling. If we can easily keep below RCP4.5 why is everyone arguing? If we could do this and continue to have economic growth, it should all be easy, but almost everyone else seems to think it isn’t.
I think this is wrong. The uptake fraction has stayed almost constant at around 55%. Why do you think that it will increase, when noone else does?
Yes, I realise, but even RCP4.5 has emissions increasing by about 50% by 2050 and then falling. If we can easily keep below RCP4.5 why is everyone arguing? If we could do this and continue to have economic growth, it should all be easy, but almost everyone else seems to think it isn’t.
I’m saying we’ll probably see RCP2.6 by the same way the developed world has decreased emissions for the last 25 years – without doing anything but allowing economies to advance.
I think this is wrong. The uptake fraction has stayed almost constant at around 55%. Why do you think that it will increase, when none else does?
Because the chart above is in absolute terms, and uptake has increased, fairly steadily in absolute terms.
Springer,
I’m guessing that you had to put spaces between the letters in the word moron because it’s in the moderation list?
springer is quite the tricky dude, difficult to keep up with
He did it to me once. After totally misreading one of my comments
Richard
ATTP, my posts do not upload on your site. Did you ban me or am I having technical difficulties?
My answer to your last reply on ATTP is as follows:
The topic of this and the last post is whether if mitigation had started 20 years ago would we see be seeing benefits today. My answer would be the costs would have been double or triple the estimates and we might be in a depression for all we know had we crippled a fragile economy more of gone into a financial collapse. The other side would argue that the benefits were immediate as evidenced by the warming pause occurring just after implementation (had it happened). As a matter of fact ATTP made this exact argument yesterday even if possibly tongue-in-cheek.
The problem is similar to those who feel a trillion dollars was wasted on stimulus that rewarded mostly political donors and thus corrupted rather than strengthened the economy. I am sure Cash for Clunkers will be remembered fondly when we “need stimulus” again. The other side argues we would be in a depression now had we not added the trillion to our current economy by added it our children’s debt, the ones that will be also dealing with global warming (possibly) and many other issues, like financial meltdown.
Those that argued for stimulus would have been pointing to Clinton’s stimulus package that took the Bush recession of 1991 and turned it into the roaring 90s, except Clinton’s stimulus failed to pass.
Climate science, in order not to be just a political football, needs to address Karl Poppers insight that it’s not science if it is not falsifiable. Every hypotheses needs not only to be robust it needs to be accompanied by a prediction set, any one of which if not met would kill it. No moving goal-posts.
Ron Graf wrote:
“Climate science, in order not to be just a political football, needs to address Karl Poppers insight that it’s not science if it is not falsifiable.”
In what way has climate science not been falsifiable?
Here is a very important recent result in climate science. How was it not falsifiable?
“Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339–343 (19 March 2015)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html
Ron,
No, I haven’t banned you. I don’t know why they’re not uploading.
The reason for my response was simply that noone is suggesting that anything we do now (or 20 years ago) would have a big impact on decadal timescales.
Climate science, in order not to be just a political football, needs to address Karl Poppers insight that it’s not science if it is not falsifiable.
I don’t think Popper really said this or, if he did, he then changed it. There is much science that isn’t strictly falsifiable. Many areas of science apply known physics to try and understand how some system might evolve. So, it is based on falsifiable science, but may not be strictly falsifiable in itself.
Arguing that we should discount climate science as a science because it isn’t cast as a hypothesis that can be falsified, is ignoring how science operates. In some sense, it can be falsified – significant multi-decade cooling that isn’t associated with a major asteroid strike, or volcanic eruption. Of course, by the time we realise that this hasn’t happened, we might have simply waited too long.
Okay, what would AGW’s hypothesis be and what would it mean were it to be falsified – CO2 is not radiatively active, Classius-Clapeyron relation, energy not conserved, …?
> Climate science, in order not to be just a political football, needs to address Karl Poppers insight that it’s not science if it is not falsifiable.
Saying so doesn’t make it so.
***
> Every hypotheses needs not only to be robust it needs to be accompanied by a prediction set, any one of which if not met would kill it.
The notion of robustness does not belong to Popper and is undefined.
Falsifiability does not require any prediction set, only the possibility of having potential falsifiers.
More on that death thread:
https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/is-climate-science-falsifiable/
David Appell: “In what way has climate science not been falsifiable?”
Technically ECS becomes clear enough after 100 years of good observation and TCR in about half that time. But the political football game will be long over by then. Forty-two years ago politicians were on the verge coalescing around action to prevent an ice age.
Tree-ring proxies that eliminated the Little Ice Age and MWP would not have been falsifiable had there not been an anonymous leak to provide data to a curious retired geologist who had been patiently requesting the data among rebuffs, lies and belittlement. And, the falsified reconstruction was still successfully defended by a biased mock-trial whitewash. Dr. Richard Muller (not a lukewarmer) explains it eloquently here.
I wholeheartedly agree that climate science can be broken down and be compelled to be investigated and reported in proper scientific fashion and I proposed how to do that.
ATTP: “I don’t think Popper really said this or, if he did, he then changed it. There is much science that isn’t strictly falsifiable. “
Falsifiabilty from Wikipedia:
“The concern with falsifiability gained attention by way of philosopher of science Karl Popper’s scientific epistemology “falsificationism”. Popper stresses the problem of demarcation—distinguishing the scientific from the unscientific—and makes falsifiability the demarcation criterion, such that what is unfalsifiable is classified as unscientific, and the practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true is pseudoscience”
Ron Graf wrote:
“Forty-two years ago politicians were on the verge coalescing around action to prevent an ice age.”
Really? What policies were being proposed at the time?
David,
“Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any political action to compensate for the climate change, or even to allay it’s effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of even stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climate uncertainties into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult they will find it to cope with climate change once the results become grim reality”.
Ron Graf wrote:
“And, the falsified reconstruction was still successfully defended by a biased mock-trial whitewash. Dr. Richard Muller ”
Actually, Mann et al’s “hockey stick” work has been replicated by many different groups, some using independent mathematical techniques:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann2008/mann2008.html
“A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years,” Marcott et al, Science v339 n6124 pp 1198-1201, March 8, 2013
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198.abstract
A huge collaboration of several dozen scientists:
“Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia,” PAGES 2k Consortium, Nature Geosciences, April 21, 2013
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/abs/ngeo1797.html
Coverage of Tingley and Huybers, who used independent mathematical techniques:
“Novel Analysis Confirms Climate “Hockey Stick” Graph,” Scientific American, November 2009, pp 21-22.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=still-hotter-than-ever
Ron Graf wrote:
“Tree-ring proxies that eliminated the Little Ice Age…”
So your complaint is that such evidence exists?
What was the evidence for the LIA before tree rings etc were utilized by Mann et al 1998 & 1999?
The uptake rate should not depend on emissions, but ppms, as said.
I’m suddenly more sceptic than before, thanx to you and Eddie.
Hugh,
They’re related. I think you also mean “dubious” not “skeptical”.
OK, here are the critical parameters as far as I can see:
1) How much (approx) net CO2 is being taken up by fast cycle?
2) What is the (approx) net carbonic acid neutralization as a percent of the net uptake?
3) What is the (approx) net solubility (Henry’s Law) rate of dissolved CO2 solubility fraction of the fast uptake?
4) What is the (approx) net new metabolic enhancement (greening) as a percent of the net uptake?
Number 2 is irreversible and represents the acid ocean hazard if too fast compared to ocean mixing.
Number 3 is going to continue at a direct function of SST and CO2 conc.
Number 4 is a going to transfer to your slow cycle but at the dividend of enhancing all species of life on Earth.
By the way, the U of C calculator gives you any plot you want according to what you want to plug in.
ATTP: “The oceans do play a role, but the amount of CO2 dissolved in the oceans (or the upper regions of the oceans) is set by Henry’s Law. So you can’t simply keep adding CO2 to the oceans, because the amount dissolved is set by the partial pressure in the atmosphere above.”
I believe the ocean CO2 uptake is a two-step pathway, the quick step is set by Henry’s Law and the parameters of CO2 pp, degree of ocean saturation according to Henry’s Law constant for CO2 at the given local SST. The slower step is the neutralizing of dissolved CO2 gas to join the dissolved anionic complex of carbonic acid, bicarbonate and carbonate. The stability of that complex at a given PH determines the reversibility and ultimate point of equilibrium. But there oceans are not near saturated with CO2. And as we are talking about PH 8.2 maybe falling to PH 8.1 locally and temporarily the oceans will mostly trap the atmospheric CO2, all of it, back to 280ppm until the end of the current interglacial, where is will then resume the uptake.
AP’s figures I will have to study because it seems like we will lose the atmospheric CO2 too quickly when the fossil fuel era ends. I am hoping that it would stick around for a couple of hundred years to continue to offer it’s benefits.
This is slightly off topic but I clearly remember when the Aids epidemic was thought an imminent existential threat to the world. I know you remember Peter Jennings with his Aids Quarterly specials to update us on the crisis. It’s true it was and still is a terrible problem but I read this week that specialists in the field finally have a confidence that a cure will be at hand soon. Polar melt caused sea level rise is the biggest potential problem I see with CO2. But if it continues at even triple the current rate we will have plenty of time to engineer a solution such as bio-engineered sea life that can only thrive in ice water and that leave floating reflective husks that decay slowly until they get to warm water. It likely is flawed but I thought of this in a few minutes. Others will have years. People are ingenious. Have no fear.
Eddie,
Ahh, the “don’t worry, everything will be fine” policy option or – as I like to call it – “appealing to magic”.
Yes, but so have our emissions. The uptake fraction has remained constant or – possibly – slightly decreased. Why do you think that the uptake fraction will suddenly start increasing? I think this is implausible and I’m unaware of any evidence suggesting that it would actually do so.
Ahh, the “don’t worry, everything will be fine” policy option or – as I like to call it – “appealing to magic”.
No.
Persistence is not a best forecast.
But it is a STARTING forecast, only to be amended by known factors.
From 2013 to 2014, CO2 emissions were constant.
I’m saying we know two big factors which will further reduce emissions,
namely efficiency and demographics.
China’s economy is hitting the wall, in large part from the real estate bubble bursting ( sound familiar? ). But bubbles bursting often coincides with demographic shifts. Young workers are willing to spend everything they have ( and more ) because they’re young, working hard?, and likely to get raises. But in the mean, average earnings peak around age 55, when mental acuity and energy decline. Then retirement looms. People in retirement are by definition on a fixed income and become more frugal. China is getting older and will have reduced consumption going forward:
http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/wp-content/uploads/chinas-working-age-population.jpg
And this is a global trend:
http://media.economist.com/images/20090509/CIN410.gif
There’s a reason they call economics the dismal science.
You wanna worry? Now instead of population boom or global warming, it’s not too late to start worrying about ‘Secular Stagnation’.
Eddie,
It appears that you’re arguing that everything should be fine because the global economy will probably collapse? It’s possible, I guess, but seems rather pessimistic.
Why do you think that the uptake fraction will suddenly start increasing?
In absolute terms, the uptake rate has increased five-fold since 1960:
http://csas.ei.columbia.edu/files/2014/12/Fig.-2.jpg
Why do you think it will stop increasing?
Yes, but the fraction hasn’t changed. The reason the uptake rate has increased in absolute terms is because our emissions have increased. You’re arguing for an increase in the uptake fraction. Why?
ATTP, your community needs a better approach. I like to watch videos with lectures, debates, read papers, and so on. Being retired outs time on my hands, so I got me a video game player and use it to put the lectures on my large TV. And as I listen to the talks I see a huge gap between the actual market evolution and the climate wonkocracy’s asumptions. You need to move out of that confined space.
To do so, try creating a project to estimate the CO2 and other greenhouse gas concentrations which result from the “professional fossil fuel forecasts. This needs to be done on a routine basis. With that in hand you can compare the results to what you think we need. Get some numbers with the appropriate ranges and apply the full TCR and ECS spreads (including those you don’t agree with).
As long as I don’t see a more intelligent approach I’ll just keep studying and writing Ebenezer Rabbit interviews. This whole field is bogged down up in politics and divisions, and it would really help to have a more sophisticated approach. Dump the IPCC RCPs and step out in the world.
Fernando,
What community?
What’s this got to do with me?
Are you pulling my leg, or are you really this ill-informed?
The fraction has increased. Not much.
=========
Kenny doesn’t get you, Fernando. Probably, it’s got something to do with stargazers in ivory towers never having to actually produce anything, or get something done other than a paper theorizing on planet and star formation. As if there was any profit or meaningful benefit to society in that.
TE: In absolute terms, the uptake rate has increased five-fold since 1960:
ATTP: Yes, but the fraction hasn’t changed. The reason the uptake rate has increased in absolute terms is because our emissions have increased.
Uh, no. The reason the uptake rate has increased is that the CO2 PPMV has increased. Even if emissions level off, the CO2 levels will still be rising until the relative uptake rate rises to 100% of emissions.
No, this is not what will probably happen. If we continue to emit the uptake fraction will probably remain at around 55% of the emissions. There is no evidence that the uptake fraction will increase. If we stopped emitting altogether then the atmospheric concentration would decrease, but very slowly.
This is typical behavior of an equilibrium system being driven farther and farther from equilibrium. Equilibrium appears to be 280ppm. The fraction of aCO2 sunk each year remains constant despite exponential increase in the absolute amount of aCO2 emitted.
The punch line… when the aCO2 stops increasing and/or decreases the system will still seek a return to equilibrium at the same rate it was driven out of equilibrium.
Ken Rice, a.k.a. ATTP is a m o r o n with no comprehension of how the real world works.
aTTP: “If we stopped emitting altogether then the atmospheric concentration would decrease, but very slowly.”
I’m with Perplexed. You state this as a certainty. Currently, pCO2 is around 400 ppmv. Rounding off, let’s say that net natural uptake of carbon is 5 PgC/year, with anthropogenic emissions of 10 PgC/yr. If we were to stop emissions altogether, why would you expect net natural uptake to change from its current value of 5 PgC/year? [And therefore pCO2 would decrease by ~2 ppmv/year.] The more natural assumption to make would be that uptake is a function of CO2 concentration, not emission rate.
ATTP:If we stopped emitting altogether then the atmospheric concentration would decrease, but very slowly. and:This is typical behavior of an equilibrium system being driven farther and farther from equilibrium.
ATTP, I assume these comments from 2 in a row posts are 0ne comment. If correct, your statement would be true for the earth system if we did not have life. There are assumptions with the Bern model that make CO2 returning to equilibrium slowly. Data on greening effect of CO2, and the rate that nitrogen and phosphates are being added to the ecosystems call some of the Bern assumptions into question.
Jon,
I don’t expect it to change. However, when we add CO2 to the atmosphere, it increase both the flux of CO2 into the natural sinks and out of the natural sinks. So, the increased uptake rate is associated with an increased flux of CO2 out of the natural sinks back into the atmosphere. That’s the carbon cycle – CO2 into and out of the atmosphere, biosphere, and ocean. If we add more CO2 (through burning fossil fuels) it increases all of these fluxes. The rate at which the extra CO2 is removed does not depend on these fluxes, it depends on the rate at which you remove CO2 more permanently (deep ocean, rocks/weathering). That’s the slow bit.
aTTP: (April 17 at 3:00 pm) –
I don’t expect it to change. [Referring to net natural uptake of carbon, if emissions were to stop.] So it seems you expect that (in the hypothetical case) net uptake would initially be little affected by emissions. Hence, if emissions were reduced to ~5 GtC/yr, the uptake fraction would increase to ~100%. In other words, uptake fraction is not a fixed, or nearly fixed, quantity. This is hard to square with your earlier insistence in the dialogue with Turbulent Eddie, that uptake fraction was more fundamental than absolute values. That is, you kept insisting that he provide a reason why uptake fraction would increase, when his comments were along the lines that uptake amount would increase, even as emissions were leveling off. Simple math tells you that uptake fraction increases in such a situation.
John F Pittman (April 17, 2015 at 12:43 pm) –
It seems you were misled by a poster who deliberately used a name close to aTTP’s, and expressed (rather rudely) a contrary opinion. By the way, although I don’t approve of his insults, I think aTTRP’s comment about a system returning to equilibrium is sensible, as was yours about the Bern carbon cycle.
HaroldW,
Well, no. Let me try one more time. There are two sides to the flux equations. The biosphere emits about 60Gt/yr. The oceans emits about 90 Gt/yr. We emit about 10Gt/yr. Of our 10Gt/yr, about half goes into the biosphere and oceans (i.e., in total they absorb 155Gt/yr). If we stopped emitting, then the following year the biosphere and oceans would re-emit 155Gt/yr. The 5Gt that was absorbed by the natural sinks does not simply disappear, it comes back out again. Of course, it would then re-absorb that 5Gt, so the system would be in some kind of equilibrium, but it wouldn’t absorb an extra 5Gt as you’re suggesting.
ATTP: “Of course, it would then re-absorb that 5Gt, so the system would be in some kind of equilibrium, but it wouldn’t absorb an extra 5Gt as you’re suggesting.”
Where is your citing that the oceans are in PH equilibrium with atmospheric CO2. This would be a relief to a lot of people talking about acidification since if that would stop according to your fact to be cited.
Ron,
I didn’t say that, did I? Plus, I was referring to what would be the case if we were adding extra emissions every year. In the absence of our emissions, the flux into and out of the natural sinks roughly would balance. About 150Gt out and 150 Gt in every year.
Sorry, that was meant to be “….were we NOT adding…”
ATTP –
Using Salby’s graph the Carbon-14 CO2 that was absorbed did not appear to come back out again.
http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/uploads/RTEmagicC_Residencetime_CO2.gif.gif
Swood,
I didn’t say replaced with exactly the same isotope of Carbon.
ATTP –
It does seem peculiar that none of those particular molecules of CO₂ came out again.
Who said this and why would this even be true? If we inject a certain isotope such as C14 into the atmosphere, then the abundance of that isotope in the atmosphere will exceed that in the natural sinks (biosphere/oceans). When one of these CO2 molecules is absorbed in one of the natural sinks, it will be replaced by a CO2 molecule coming out of the natural sink. However, since the abundance in the natural sinks is lower than in the atmosphere, it will probably be replaced by a non C14 isotope. Therefore, the decay of C14 in the atmosphere is not representative of how long it would take for a general pulse of excess CO2 to decay.
ATTP,
Yes, but the fraction hasn’t changed. The reason the uptake rate has increased in absolute terms is because our emissions have increased. You’re arguing for an increase in the uptake fraction. Why?
The oceans don’t react to how much is emitted in a given year, but do react to the total amount in the air.
Therefore the uptake as a fraction of emissions is not a relevant measure.
The five fold increase in uptake has occurred because the atmospheric concentration has increased – the uptake as a percentage of concentration has increased and that is the relevant measure.
CO2 uptake as a percentage of concentrations increased:
from ( call it 0.5ppm/320ppm = .16% per year ) in 1960
to ( call it 2.5ppm/400ppm = .63% per year ) in 2015
If emissions are flat, they will continue to contribute to total concentration, but uptake will also increase slightly because of the concentration increase.
When one of these CO2 molecules is absorbed in one of the natural sinks, it will be replaced by a CO2 molecule coming out of the natural sink
The evidence is contrary to this.
aTTP: In your post of April 17, 2015 at 3:00 pm, you wrote that even in the absence of emissions, you’d expect the net natural uptake would remain near 5 PgC/yr.
In your post of April 21, 2015 at 9:43 am, you write, “In the absence of our emissions, the flux into and out of the natural sinks roughly would balance. About 150Gt out and 150 Gt in every year.”
The two statements are contradictory. Please clarify.
Harold,
The 5PgC/yr was the amount of our emissions that are taken up each year (at the moment, at least). The 150Gt/yr referred to the total flux into and out of the natural sinks.
The basic point, though, is that in the absence of our emissions, the natural sinks will absorb and emit the same amount of CO2 every year. The system will be in approximate equilibrium (it isn’t quite, but prior to our emissions, the system was in equilibrium with the volcanic output of CO2). When we emit CO2, some remains in the atmosphere, and some (about half) is absorbed by the natural sinks. This both increases the amount of CO2 in the natural sinks but also increases the flux out of the natural sinks. So, for example, we currently emit 10GtC/yr, with about 5GtC/yr going into the natural sinks. If we were to suddenly stop emitting CO2, the natural sinks wouldn’t suddenly absorb an extra 5GtC the following year, because they will also reemit some of the CO2, they absorbed in previous years. The rate at which the atmospheric concentration will drop will be set by the rate at which CO2 is removed out of the natural sinks into rocks and into the deep ocean, which is much slower than the rate at which we’ve been emitting CO2.
ATTP: “Ron: ‘Where is your citing that the oceans are in PH equilibrium with atmospheric CO2.’ “I didn’t say that, did I?…”
I believe you are saying that in the absence of anthro-emissions the CO2 would be in a ” in some kind of equilibrium” AKA a steady-state under natural stasis. This is plain wrong if this is what Harold, Eddie and I hear you saying. There are multiple equilibriums and kinetics dynamically producing the equilibrium potentials. However, it is unquestionable that the higher the CO2 concentration the faster the uptake while the potential remains pinned near the original concentration.
Ron,
Yes, I know you say it’s wrong, but you haven’t explained why. You seem to think that if we were to suddenly stop emitting that the natural sinks would continue to absorb 5GtC/yr while keeping the outgoing flux fixed at some prior level. How does this work? Does the biosphere grow at 5GtC/yr (remember that the total biosphere is only 1000 GtC)? Does the oean pH keep dropping? Does the CO2 simply drop into the deep ocean at this rate? Does it get rapidly absobed by rocks and sink into the mantle?
Unquestionable? Really? You can try and convince me, if you like. You could also try this carbon cycle calculator. Set the Transition Spike to 310GtC and see how long it takes to go from just above 400ppm back to 280ppm. It is considerably longer than the 130 years it’s taken us to get from 280ppm to 400ppm. So, if it’s unquestionable, why do the people who work on this disagree? Are they stupid?
ATTP: “Are they stupid?”
We will certainly investigate. If we are mistaken a lot of people could be mistaken on a significant point.
Paleo-CO2 has rarely peaked above 300ppm. Pre-industrial CO2 was 260. Let’s say the Holocene warmth was still drawing natural CO2 until a 275 equilibrium at our current GMST. At 400+ the natural potential is toward uptake until 275ppm. The higher the concentration above 275 the faster the uptake rate, period. The only offset is un-natural input. Thus kinetics will create a steady-state at some rate point of man-made emissions. Depending on what those kinetics are there could be a natural cap, of say, 600ppm if man-made emissions remain constant for the next century. I emissions cut in half we could be at steady-state now. If emissions cease we will crawl back to 275ppm. What do you disagree with here?
Ron,
Yes, and during that time it was in equilibrium with the volcanic output, which is about 0.1GtC/yr. In other words the oceans/atmosphere/biosphere was losing (into the long-term sinks) CO2 at about 0.1GtC/yr which was being replaced by volcanic outgassing. Look up the slow carbon cycle. We’ve added around 500GtC in the last 130+ years which has increased the total amount of CO2 in the ocean/biosphere/atmosphere, and enhanced the carbon cycle. If we were to stop emitting, the CO2 would be drawn down at a rate that is set by the slow carbon cycle, not at the rate set by the fast carbon cycle, because the fast carbon cycle is a cyle that moves CO2 through the biosphere and oceans and atmosphere; it doesn’t remove it.
Ron,
Disagree. If we were to cut our emissions in half, then about half of this would be taken up by the natural sinks, not all of it. If it could take it all, why didn’t it do so when our emissions were half what they are today?
Agree, but crawl is slower than the rate at which we added the extra CO2. To go from 600ppm back to 280ppm would take thousands of years, not hundreds. Here’s something for you to ponder. The rate at which we’ve added CO2 is simply set by how fast we chose to burn fossil fuels. Agreed? Why would the rate at which it was removed if we were to stop emitting be related to the rate at which we added it? How can the system have this kind of memory?
I agree there is a fast carbon cycle from biosphere, the slow driver alk ocean PH-driven uptake and even slower driver is carbon fixing from sedimentation (where fossil fuel originated). I agree man has shifted the steady-state that was (before 1850) exogenously fed only by volcanic input. I think we both agree that volcanic is relatively non-variable and can be taken out of the equation. I think I hear you arguing that life (the fast cycle) is taking full advantage of the 400ppm, (ravinously) yet has little appetite for more yet neither will it yield (or share) any CO2 back to the oceans. I would be interested in all good sources for data on this.
Ron,
No, I’m simply pointing out that if we were to stop emitting it would take much longer to go back to an atmospheric concentration of 280ppm, than it took to take us from 280ppm to where we are now. That is all.
aTTP – OK, I’ll discount your original statement (4/17 3:00 pm) then.
If it could take it all, why didn’t it do so when our emissions were half what they are today?
At that time, CO2 levels weren’t 400 ppmv. Emissions were half what they are today — let’s round off to 5 GtC/yr — around 1970, when pCO2 was about 325 ppm.
Why would the rate at which it was removed if we were to stop emitting be related to the rate at which we added it?
I don’t think you’re listening. Nobody has said that. TE wrote, “The oceans don’t react to how much is emitted in a given year, but do react to the total amount in the air.”
You keep saying that net uptake is, by and large, controlled by emissions and not concentrations. Perhaps rather than repeating the assertion, you can give evidence for it. And no, a carbon calculator is not evidence.
Let me suggest a thought experiment. We have two identical Earth-like planets. In both, at Jan. 1 the CO2 level is 400 ppmv. On planet E1, 4 ppmv CO2 (8.5 GtC/yr) is injected, and we observe 2 ppmv (4.3 GtC/yr) net natural uptake. By the end of the year, CO2 level has risen to 402 ppmv. On planet E2, there is no CO2 emission. What do you think the year’s net natural uptake will be on E2? TE & I (presumably RG as well) predict that net natural uptake at 400 ppmv is pretty close to that at E1’s average of 401 ppmv, and so net natural uptake will be a tad less than 2 ppmv. You would presumably go with the calculator’s result and suggest that net natural uptake will be ~0.4 ppmv.
My question to you is, what *physical principle* causes oceans and plants to distinguish whether a CO2 molecule is newly emitted or recycled? Because that seems to be the implication.
Harold,
I didn’t say net uptake (or if I did, I didn’t mean it as you think I meant it), I was referring to the fraction of our emissions that are taken up by the natural sinks. About 55% of our emissions are absorbed by the natural sinks and this has remained roughly constant throughout the time we’ve been emitting. When we were emitting 5GtC/yr, the natural sinks were taking up just over 2.5GtC/yr. Now that we’re emitting 10GtC/yr, the natural sinks are taking up just over 5GtC/yr. I’ll try to find the paper that I looked at recently, but it’s eluding me at the moment.
My understanding would be that a planet with no anthropogenic emissions and with a steady atmospheric concentration of 400ppm, would be in equilibrium with the volcanic emissions of around 0.1 GtC/yr (i.e., it would be sequestering CO2 in the slow carbon sinks at the same rate as it was being outgassed by volcanoes). If you then had a single injection of 8.5GtC/yr so that the atmospheric concentration rises to 402ppm, you would slightly increase the rate at which CO2 is being sequestered into the slow sinks (increasing it to just above 0.1GtC/yr) and the atmospheric concentration would drop slowly back to 400ppm.
It’s certainly not what I intended, so am not sure why you think this is the implication.
aTTP: In the thought experiment, the planets do not start in equilibrium. Like the Earth, their atmosphere has been increased from its equilibrium value of ~280 ppmv CO2 to 400 ppmv by means of an increasing series of CO2 emissions. Assume that the planets’ equilibrium value of pCO2 is 280 ppmv. Does that change your answer?
Harold,
No, not really. I still think that the rate at which the excess atmospheric CO2 will decay is set by the rate at which it can be sequestered in the slow sinks, not the fast sinks.
Here’s a thought experiment for you. Imagine three containers, each linked together so that a fluid flows from the first into the second, the second into the third, and then from the third back into the first. Now consider the the third container has a slow leak and that you add fluid to the first at a rate that exactly balances the flow out of the third. The system will clearly settle into a state which is in rough equilibrium.
Now consider pouring a lot more liquid into the first container and then stopping and going back to the rate before. Will the amount in each container go up, and what will determine the rate at which the system will return to its original state?
ATTP, In your thought experiment is not necessarily analogous. There are a lot of kinetic assumptions there.
Thanks to you and U of Chicago for the carbon calculator. It can tell you exactly the GMST, ocean alk, atm CO2 and more at any given rate or time. I will play more with it. If one has ever more accurate ice corp resolution to see exactly how CO2 lags temp there should now be enough known relationships to calculate F 2XCO2. I am momentarily optimistic that pieces of the puzzle are coming together.
Right now I have a hard time seeing one of our three parts of man-made emission being taken up at current atmospheric/ocean/biosphere imbalance, yet if we cut emission cold turkey that that extra one part (or slightly less) would not still be taken up. But the carbon calculator does indicate that would be the case, and CO2 would diminish at only a dribble.
Am I having the wrong assumption that 33% of new emissions are being absorbed? Is it instead 33% are getting exchanged?
By the way, there is no thermodynamic principle in which CO2 could not vanish as fast as we placed it in the atmosphere. Industry CO2 rampped up remember. It certainly would diminish in a natural log rate, faster at first. Slower could be better if CO2 is a fertilizer and ECS is only 1.5-2.0. Ocean PH would be less affected then.
Ron,
In a sense, yes, but I think it is a bit more complicated than that. That’s what I was trying to get at with my analogy. We have a fast carbon cycle in which CO2 is exchanged between the atmosphere, biosphere, and oceans. We also have a slow carbon cycle in which carbon is sequestered into rocks and into the deep ocean and then released again by volcanic outgassing. If we suddenly add CO2 to the atmosphere, this will very quickly increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, biosphere and ocean (about 45% stays in the atmosphere and the rest is spread between the biosphere and oceans). It will also slightly increase the fluxes into and out of the atmosphere, oceans and biosphere. However, if we stop emitting, the fast cycle can’t keep storing more and more CO2 into the oceans and biosphere, because it also cycles it back out into the a atmosphere. So, the rate at which it decays will depend on the rate at which we can remove CO2 into the slow sinks.
I missed the string and commented my reply on the next one up.
Ron Graf | April 21, 2015 at 5:51 pm |
Am I having the wrong assumption that 33% of new emissions are being absorbed? Is it instead 33% are getting exchanged?Well gee let’s compute the uptake fraction.
Time to do the mathy thing.
In 1985 emissions were 20 GT CO2 (5.45 GT carbon)
In 2013&2014 emissions were 36 GT CO2 (9.8 GT carbon)
In 1985 the average yearly increase was 1.7 PPM per year.
Currently the increase is about 2.2 PPM per year.
In 1985 CO2 level was about 346 PPM
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/faq.html
1 ppmv of CO2= 2.13 Gt of carbon.
In 1985, 5.45 emitted, 1.7 * 2.13 = 3.62 added, 1.83 GT absorbed.
In 2014 9.8 emitted, 2.2*2.13= 4.69 added, 5.11 absorbed.
2014 emissions are 180% of 1985 emissions.
2014 absorption is 280% of 1985 absorption.
Assuming the same rate of change:
In 2044 emissions will be 9.8*1.8 = 17.6 GT.
In 2044 absorption will be 5.11*2.8 = 14.3 GT
Annual change in 2044 atmospheric CO2 level will be 1.56 PPM. This is lower than the rate of CO2 increase in 1985.
It should be noted that 17.6 GT is just a little under the 18.7 RCP8.5 2044 emissions level. The absorption is unrelated to the emissions, .absorption is related to the CO2 level in PPM. If we are emitting less than 14.3 GT in 2044, the rate of CO2 increase in the atmosphere in PPM/year will be close to zero (0)..
In the real world the atmospheric CO2 level will never get above 550 PPM no matter what we do and it will be a challenge to get above 500 PPM.
Corrections and math checks are welcome. If you have better numbers use them.
PA, Thanks for you figures for my #1 question, complete with maths.
If you or others can add figures or relationships for the following we might just crack this:
2) What is the (approx) net carbonic acid neutralization as a percent of the net uptake?
3) What is the (approx) net solubility (Henry’s Law) rate of dissolved CO2 solubility fraction of the fast uptake?
4) What is the (approx) net new metabolic enhancement (greening) as a percent of the net uptake?
Ron Graf | April 21, 2015 at 8:39 pm |
PA, Thanks for you figures for my #1 question, complete with maths.
If you or others can add figures or relationships for the following we might just crack this:
2) What is the (approx) net carbonic acid neutralization as a percent of the net uptake?
I just did the math for 50 years at the current rate of absorption (I think I assumed 2.8 GT per year).
Assuming the original PH is 8.1 the ending PH is 8.098 which since all the numbers are 2 or 3 sig figs, is a PH of 8.1. The Henry’s law PH change is really related to the fractional change in total carbon dioxide. There are 38,000 GT of carbon already in the ocean.
http://ion.chem.usu.edu/~sbialkow/Classes/3650/Carbonate/Carbonic%20Acid.html
If you have a total GT added by a given year we can try for an exact answer.
The problem is we have so little fossil fuel the numbers for high emissions levels get stupid very rapidly. For example there are 760 GT of carbon in fossil reserves. If we burn it at the 2044 IPCC RCP 8.5 level of 18.7 GT per year, fossil fuel reserves only last 42 years.
So in 2044 the CO2 rate of increase is already below 1.6 PPM/Y and a decade later we run out of fuel. When we run out of fuel the 15-16 GT/y absorption rate drives the CO2 level back into the ground. 15.5/2.13 = -7.2 PPM/year. Which makes it clear the IPCC 100 CO2 lifetime is either dishonest, deluded, or the result of simple incompetence.
AP, thanks for your time and effort here and it will take me some time to analyze. But your basic gist is clear: the ocean not only has huge heat capacity it also has a tad of PH buffering muscle. And, kinetics increase as a system is forced further out of balance thus the rate of uptake will increase with atmospheric concentration of CO2. And then, when new CO2 is no longer introduced to the system the force of returning to a state of original balance will ensue.
If I can state ATTP’s argument for him it is that the uptake is not dominated by immense oceans but by plant life. And this plant life will cycle the CO2 into the atmosphere (the fast cycle) for some time after man is done with using fossil fuel. And, we will be stuck with it until the marine life sequesters the CO2 by permanent entombment of the carbon in sediments, the “slow cycle.”
I and others were under the impression, because of alarms regarding ocean acidification, that the ocean uptake was the dominate mode of the absorption you outlined quantitatively for us. If that were the case it is straight chemistry and CO2 will continue it’s absorption, acidification likely at the steady state rate that Henry’s Law allows solution of CO2 , (likely cold waters that are less gas saturated).
I suspect the new atmospheric/ocean equilibrium for CO2 will be between 260 and 300ppm due to slightly higher GMST, and it may take several hundred years to return to that range. However, I believe that in several hundred years humankind may not want it to return to those levels for agricultural productively, maintenance of expanded habitats and as a countermeasure against negative Milankovitch trend.
Ron Graf | April 22, 2015 at 12:08 am |
….
If I can state ATTP’s argument for him it is that the uptake is not dominated by immense oceans but by plant life. And this plant life will cycle the CO2 into the atmosphere (the fast cycle) for some time after man is done with using fossil fuel. And, we will be stuck with it until the marine life sequesters the CO2 by permanent entombment of the carbon in sediments, the “slow cycle.”
I’m an advocate of the little critters theory of CO2.
On land or in the ocean, more CO2 means more plant growth. More plant growth means more food for the little critters that eat the plants, which means more little critters. As long as there are more plants and more little critters the carbon stays out of the atmosphere.
In the ocean – if the little critters die and become part of the sediment their carbon dies with them. On land if plants die and become part of the soil (tree roots definitely do) the carbon has to take the long way around and is tied up for a long time.
However that is just my viewpoint. Someone else will have studied this and attached some numbers. I’ll see if I can collect some defensible numbers and compute what dumping all 760 GT of fossil carbon into the ocean would do to the PH (this is the absolute worst case – you can’t put more than all of it into the ocean). .
Oh, and be careful with carbon and carbon dioxide. People claim 36 GT/year of CO2 emissions. This is identically equal to the 9.8 GT/year of carbon emission because 36/3.67 = 9.8 more or less.
Ron,
One last thing. This isn’t quite right
This isn’t quite my argument. The oceans do play a role, but the amount of CO2 dissolved in the oceans (or the upper regions of the oceans) is set by Henry’s Law. So you can’t simply keep adding CO2 to the oceans, because the amount dissolved is set by the partial pressure in the atmosphere above. So, both the oceans and plant life cycle CO2 via the fast cycle. There is, however, a slower cycle in which CO2 sediments to the sea floor, or is absorbed by rocks through weathering, and that is the cycle that pre-dominantly sets the rate at which excess CO2 in the atmosphere will decay, and it is slow. That’s why if use the carbon cycle calculator, you will see that it takes thousands of years to go from something like 600ppm back to 280ppm. You’re right, though, that it is exponential and so is faster initially, than later, but it still takes a long time.
http://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2013/07/CO2-fertilization-effect.jpg.662x0_q70_crop-scale.jpg
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/03/more-coal-plants-are-being-cancelled-than-built/
http://cleantechnica.com/2015/03/31/beijings-four-major-coal-fired-power-plants-will-completely-shut/
China is having to import coal. Importing coal reduces the benefit of coal fired plants to China.
Chinese coal use will taper off if not decline shortly. Global emissions have increased little over the last year and the rapid increase of the last decade appears to be ending.
The “excess” CO2 absorption rate is tied to the difference between the CO2 level in PPM and 280 PPM..
The CO2 emissions rate is tied to nothing.
If CO2 emissions taper off or plateau the annual “excess” CO2 absorption will converge with the annual CO2 emissions.
Wrong chart:
http://carnegieendowment.org/images/article_images/CEIP_Outlook_Coal_Fig2-490.jpg
Of course, India has a young population and growing economy. Mexico, Iran, Vietnam and some others may see increasing emissions. But they also benefit from today’s and tomorrow’s technology to grow efficiently.
We’ll see.
There is always uncertainty in projection, of course – things change.
But the trend of efficiency doesn’t appear to be going away.
I reflected on this though with some more hand drawn amendments when considering how much less a problem global warming is toady than what we would have thought in 1979:
http://climatewatcher.webs.com/Forcing1.png
http://climatewatcher.webs.com/Forcing2.png
http://climatewatcher.webs.com/Forcing3.png
Well, you’ve just explained the “pause” at least :-)
“Well, you’ve just explained the “pause” at least :-)”
Is this what you refer to as “climateball?” Well, returning the volley, I would say either one can argue that climate rapidly adjusts to CO2 emissions and concentrations and thus tracking them or there is dangerous effects still unrealized due to decades slow response, but one can’t argue both. Which do you choose? I think Dr. Micheal Mann pinned the pause on Pacific Multidecadal Oscillation downturn in January but in Februrary his favorite argument became the slowing of the AMOC. I suggest one should be compelled to state their hypothesis once, make predictions based on it, and concede failure when these predictions prove false.
Is it just me, or could this be the beginnings of what will become the “oh, it looks like our efforts to reduce CO2 worked after all, and now climate change is slowing because of it!” tag line?
Ron,
It was just meant to be ironic – I was joking.
Seriously, though, one reason for the discrepancy between the models and the observed warming is that the models were run with known forcings up till 2005, and then projected forcings from 2005 (or most models). I think that the actual change in forcing since 2005 was lower than expected and that if you redo the models with the updated forcings, the observations and models are less discrepant.
ATTP: “It was just meant to be ironic – I was joking.”
My point was that your joke was bad because the argument was not quite absurd enough for many to see you making it non-jokingly had the world spent trillions of dollars starting in 1993 for CO2 mitigation. In fact, I have no doubt you, Mann, Trenberth, Marcott, Marotzke and the “consensus” would be attributing the pause to “a good start.”
ATTP: “I think that the actual change in forcing since 2005 was lower than expected and that if you redo the models with the updated forcings, the observations and models are less discrepant.”
If we update the models every five years according to hind analysis I agree they will track the recorded observed temperature trend magnificently. Economists love to do this with their past market forecasts. “Had it been foreseeable that housing was a bubble and going to crash then I would have revised my stock market analysis for 2008 but who could have known, etc…? They also love to say well my idea of the trillion-dollar stimulus was a great idea as evidenced by the fact that we would be in a depression right now as was predicted had we not acted.
The combination of banning incandescent light bulbs in California and Bill Maher driving a Prius did the trick. No more global warming. /sarc
Hi Springer.
You’re so smart, Joshua! No fooling you, huh?
Here’s the USA energy information agency’s forecast for CO2 emissions. This comes from the 2015 report, released about 20 hours ago…
http://21stcenturysocialcritic.blogspot.com.es/p/the-2015-energ.html
I don’t know how to put a figure in here, but you can go see what they think.
Excellent.
‘Reference’ case pretty close to flat.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-D_4z7IlBN2s/VS5L-nLoXHI/AAAAAAAAC-Q/aebOnKmlLZg/s1600/EIA%2BCO2%2Bemissions%2Bforecast.jpg
Fernando,
Thanks for this link! Perspectives are important.
First link (to the House site) is bad… correct one is
http://science.house.gov/hearing/full-committee-hearing-president-s-un-climate-pledge-scientifically-justified-or-new-tax
The section with Rep. Beyers, about 65 minutes in:
ok ok, i say ok too much. Thanks much for the transcript of that exchange
It’s understandable. One needs to break ideas into small pieces and check in frequently with the audience when trying to help non technical Representatives and small children understand complicated things. :>
My pleasure Dr. Curry, thank you.
I wouldn’t worry about it, seeing as the guy you were addressing is clearly incapable of understanding such a basic point – mainly that pouring 80% of one’s effort into dealing solutions that addresses 1% of the problem is idiotic.
Rep. Beyer: We just had a Vice President who was willing to argue for enhanced interrogation and torture on the 1% chance that Al-Kaida might someday get a nuclear weapon. Are we going to do nothing because there’s a greater than 1% chance that climate change-
What you should have said,
Cheney wants to torture terrorists until they tell him what he wants to hear and Gore tortures climate data until it tells him what he wants to hear.
> One needs to break ideas into small pieces and check in frequently with the audience when trying to help non technical Representatives and small children understand complicated things.
I agree completely. It would be ill advised to say something like “in my humble opinion, and even if I’m not here to talk about energy policies, there are some chances that meeting 80% of reductions may not do as much as we’d need.” That would confuse Representatives. And beware mentioning Mr. T in front of small children: he frightens some of them. Children prefer Goldilocks.
Willard,
:)
I bet it’s harder than it looks to be fast on your feet and concise like that facing pretty obviously hostile questions like Beyer’s in a Congressional committee.
Mark –
==> “when trying to help non technical Representatives and small children understand complicated things. :>”
I now it’s a joke. Is it all an ad-hom?
sheece. Know…also…
Please let us know the next time you are called on to testify to Congress, willy. We want to watch. Do you use your real name, or you do your talking from behind a screen?
Joshua,
Yeah, it’s an ad hom. It was mostly supposed to be a joke, but it was a crappy one based on a dumb ad hom. This goes back to what we were talking about before though, and how lucky I thought I was not to have stumbled into a bad faith exchange. I’m not as … civil in general as you might think, or as I probably ought to be. But this is not the thread for me to get back into that.
Thanks for pointing it out though, something for me to think about.
==> “I’m not as … civil in general as you might think, or as I probably ought to be. ”
I’m certainly not in a position to judge other people’s civility – (and just to let you know, my point was not to make a statement on your civility. You’ve proven to be much more civil than the average blog Joe).
It would be nice, however, if these discussions didn’t so often devolve in to cheerleading (on both sides). They’re extremely complicated issues – they deserve due diligence.
Point taken and I agree.
Thanks Joshua.
> Please let us know the next time you are called on to testify to Congress […]
Is there an ad misericordiam under that tu quoque, Don Don?
Some reading material for where we might be heading:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fjudithcurry.com+SPM+uncertainty
Unfortunately for me this Twain quote always comes to mind
“Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.”
– Mark Twain, a Biography
Judith –
The 10:20 comment under my name was not written by me. Please notice the homphobia – also a telltale sign of Springer’s beliefs. Also notice the telltale sign of what Springer thinks is funny,
http://judithcurry.com/2015/04/15/hearing-presidents-un-climate-pledge/#comment-694531
I’m on top of moderating today, figure a sock puppet comment will last 15 minutes at most. When i can’t moderate, i will turn on registration. Thanks for your patience.
Given that you were doing this real time and face to face in a Congressional hearing, you gave really succinct and spot-on answers. It appears to me you explained your points really well and the explanation made perfect sense – as does the recommendation.
markbofill –
Did you transcribe that or is a transcript available someplace?
Yeah I transcribed that. I’m a written word person, don’t retain spoken stuff nearly as well as when I see it written down. ~shrug~ Once I had it I thought I might as well post it.
i’m also a written word person, retain very little that is spoken (and i write much better than I speak)
I don’t see this mentioned:
http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/15/skeptical-climate-scientist-dismantles-dem-lawmakers-alarmism/
There is a link to it on Drudge:
Skeptical Climate Scientist Dismantles Dem Lawmaker’s Alarmism…
This should get your little twit critics all a twittering.
thanks for spotting this. Much more action in the twitosphere than on the blog so far. So far the warm blogospheric/twit ditto heads have not been saying anything about my testimony (that I can spot). Perhaps they are struggling to respond. Or better yet, they will find they have nothing to say
Gotta have some fun with this: (from Don’t link) “In almost total conflict with anything I’ve read over the last 15 years,” Beyer said after listing off reasons he thought Curry’s testimony was wrong. But Curry wasn’t about to let Beyer lambaste her testimony and responded to the Democrat’s confused rebuttal.”
after all, we don’t know what he’s read!
Nice.
Obviously if they’re not just dittoheads, then your testimony was so devastating that they are struggling to respond or just simply can’t.
All other possibilities can certainly be eliminated. I mean even if they weren’t all akin to small children or dumbstruck dittoheads, who could have a well-reasoned response? I mean it’s not like we’ve ever seen arguments like your arguments before and seen well-reasoned responses. Nope.
Life’s so easy when you’re just obviously right about everything, even “wicked” problems.
Well, last time I testified they were quick off the mark with ‘typical denial talking points’
Or maybe they have heard it all before.. Was there something new in there that I missed?
oops Or what Joshua said.. I need to read the whole thread..
The DC/Drudge link
Good tactic to rapidly respond with clarifying the scientific definition that “climate” has been changing for 4 billion years – and warming since the little ice age. – in contrast to the equivocation that “climate change” = majority human warming – as politically redefined by the UNFCCC.
What’s new, joey joey, is that the Republicans are in charge of both houses of congress and they will set the legislative agenda on so-called climate change. The Demos did nothing substantive about the greatest threat facing mankind, when they were in charge. Why you whining now?
Hillary is self-destructing again, so the Republicans have a good shot at taking over the White House and they can use the pen and the phone to undo all of the damage done by the Community Organizer in Chief. No wonder you trolls are so agitated.
“Nice.
Obviously if they’re not just dittoheads, then your testimony was so devastating that they are struggling to respond or just simply can’t.” – joshua
Nice to see people foloing themselves.
Joshua: “Life’s so easy when you’re just obviously right about everything, even “wicked” problems.”
You will be the leading expert on that in these parts Joshua, as your every post demonstrates with stunning clarity.
Not to mention your Olympic standard of ability to patronise your elders and betters, of course.
Heck, label Dr. Curry’s testimony devastating or more of the same. All I know is it’s got Joshua babbling in circles, and most of the climateball kids “struggling to respond” especially to the science, where they “just simply can’t.”
Congrats Dr. Curry!
Judith,
I liked that you pointed out that it has been warming since the 1700s. I also think it is effective to point out the increase from 1900 -1940 was prior to significant human caused CO2 levels. After WWII CO2 goes up while temp decreases.. In other word, a large portion of the 0.8 C of the 20th century warming doesn’t jive with an anthropogenic mechanism.
I does fit with lots of natural variability on top of a CO2 sensitivity at the lowest end of most estimates.
little facts like this help when the audience is around high school science level (C students), such as congress.
yes, hooray for some historic context at last. climate didn’t just begin in 1979 with satellite readings or even 1880 with GISS.
tonyb
Thanks for this transcription. Tried to reply on an older machine, which ultimately failed to do so. Shows how badly messed up some Dems are.
I think Judy got this right. The consensus argument seems to be missed by Representative Beyer. Of all the reading on climate change he has done, he apparently missed the papers explaining the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere. He also missed Trenberth’s explaination about the warming is already in the pipeline because of the amount of CO2 already up there in the air. Put those two together and it is clear that hard mitigation now does little to ameliorate the situation we face over the next 100 years. We have not successfully addressed protecting ourselves from extreme weather in the recent past, which we know has had only a minor if no human attribution component. (I.e. we hear frequently that hurricane so and so was not caused by climate change or tornado X was not caused by climate change but they are a harbingers of things to come.) It only makes sense to me that we prepare for extreme weather events we already are having trouble with today instead of rectifying the problem with the ultimate fix that we won’t benefit from at all in our lifetime and won’t benefit future generations for many many decades to come. Before we can eliminate CO2, we will have to weather the storm, so we should prepare for that. IMO people will more readily understand and go along with improving our resiliency to extreme weather that will serve more immediate benefits to the now, than to pursue CO2 mitigation as the solution when the benefit is far in the future and does little to protect us today.
You forgot to mention the notable scientific contributions of Judy’s new buddy Mark Levin who knows that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by Marxists
Obama DOES have Marxist leanings. Again, Levin (if he said that) is on target.
Yeah Robert, I forgot…. duh, i feel so stoopid. Someone who beleives AGW is a hoax fits in perfectly with my comment. Of course I should also not forget to mention that is the exact belief of Judy as well… duh…. again. She so totally thinks AGW is a hoax, she has said it exactly….. never. Good catch Robert.
It was very instructive to have the opportunity to watch the hearing in its entirety. What I came away with, much more clearly than when reading testimonies is the absolute politicization of the topic. First, the representative from California attempting to discredit Dr. Curry by citing publications she held in her hand. The gentleman who attempted to show how her own opinions were contradictory and therefore unreliable was laughable in the shallowness of his approach. Those on the Republican side all circling the wagons in support. Unfortunately, the problem is compounded by the very nature of the topic in question. The number of people who truly understand atmospheric physics, ocean dynamics, climate, etc is very small. Where regular folks stand in the debate can only be based on belief because the logical basis for an opinion is beyond their understanding.
It was encouraging to hear about the pain these policies have caused and will cause real people, especially the poor. I believe this has been overlooked by many on the skeptical side who can’t get past the shoddy science. The politicians often only respond when their constituents are ready to throw them out. When we have these politicians’ attention, maybe then will they take an unbiased look at the problem.
Thank you Dr. Curry for entering that arena and fighting for honest science. From the comments of the antagonists, I do not think they believe that many others in your field share your views at least to some extent. Perhaps at your next testimony they might invite enough to fill the hearing room!
First, there is no one who truly understands atmospheric physics, ocean dynamics, climate, etc. Second, politicians (elected officials) are trying to do a good job. The debate is real.
This is just as applicable to scientists as to “regular folk”.
There are probably several dozen along with Dr. Curry. Unfortunately, many of the warmists are not in the group.
Judy has discredited herself by her appearance on hate radio, where she agreed with the points raised by nutcase Mark Levin
Not sure who’s the nutcase here. Look in the mirror.
You need to ask your doctor for Valium. That will help.
Last I heard, despite gate-keeping attempts ter keep
counter-views out of the science, er, consensus,
appeals ter free speech and association still rule
in the US of A. Okay Robert Burchard?
PS Try not ter be so nasty.
LOL!
You’re funny!
Is this the Robert Burchard who works for the EPA? If so, you might want to make your comments a lot more civil and professional. It reflects poorly on your organization.
Ah yes, when one struggles to counter the evidence, try to smear the messenger.
At least no one has to discredit you… You’ve taken that task yourself.
You are a courageous woman – thank you. https://youtu.be/I0TxfZZN59k
excellent video, thanks
True, true but, given a proper climate analysis, even as –e.g., cold air snaps may continue to impact certain regions in Earth’s mid-to-high latitudes with outbreaks of cold in the Arctic, the Antarctic, etc., while to the untrained eye it may appear that global warming has paused or does not exist, to the experienced AGW expert, global warming is but hiding, merely waiting to spring forth in a rit of felous jage.
Judith,
Today saw preparation for the upcoming States v EPA contest which could prove decisive in this political/scientific impasse.
i was truly impressed by your reasoned scientific approach, though there were a few unreachable ‘deaf ears’ present to try anyone’s patience.
JUDITH , did an excellent job today cool and straight to the point.
Part of the problem is she is talking to climate imbeciles.
“Is climate change making us stupid? I fear that the answer is yes.” ~Judith Curry
“Did I stupidly guest on hate radio, thereby destroying my credibility”
– former scientist Judy
Politicians have different skill sets. They are as relevant and important for what they have to do as scientists’ skills are for what they do. As Roger Pielke Jr pointed out, politicians often say “if only scientists could develop and understanding of politics“
oh yes, by all means get the scientists to develop an understanding of politics- political science is just the ticket.
we need some catastrophic anthropogenic global politics.
what a brilliant suggestion from a career trougher – so new and improved.
Hate radio? Really? Life is much easier here in Taiwan… Does that have a call sign? Is there a section of the FCC spectrum blocked out for hate radio?
Who was that priest back in the 40s–did he qualify?
Was Paul Harvey part of the Hate Radio conspiracy?
Did MTV invent it and just forget to put an “I” in front of it?
It’s really sad how hateful so many self-described liberals and progressives have become, Tom. I didn’t leave liberalism, it progressed away from me.
=====================
kim @5.15 sun-rise,
Sich a miss-nomer ‘ liberal ‘ from ‘ free,’ – ‘open – society
-ocean-goin,’ ter ‘ thou _shalt _knot! ‘
A serfin’ frend.
Anyone who guest appears on hate radio, like Judy did, is an imbecile
Nice choice of words Robert. sarc off/
Peter –
What was your impression of Salvatore’s choice of words?
How about “destroying all scientific credibility by appearing on hate radio”
Is that better ?
Point taken Joshua but I let that one go to the keeper because ad homs directed at no-one in particular seems less offensive than those directed at an individual.
I know who Mark Levin is, but who the heck it Robert Burchard?
I’m not seeing much not to like about this.
From the article:
…
We have a dug-in, bloated, self-serving Republican establishment. We’re never going to be able to nominate a conservative for President if we don’t defeat the Bush family and specifically Jeb Bush.
…
http://www.marklevinshow.com/common/page.php?pt=April+7%2C+2015&id=14031&is_corp=0
Hmmmm … do you see anything factually incorrect here?
…
We’ve been taken to the cleaners by Iran while President Obama continues to lie through his teeth about this nuclear agreement. Obama is calling the deal the best we could get, although it allows Iran to keep all nuclear facilities operational and allowing them to continue nuclear research.
…
http://www.marklevinshow.com/common/page.php?pt=April+2%2C+2015&id=13971&is_corp=0
Jim2,
Dunno but he’s quite the charmer. Im going to have to give some serious thought to his eloquent and well reasoned arguments.
I dunno. He might have persuaded me.
I don’t mind voting Obama for a third term because, as a Californian, I didn’t have a say in the last to 2 elections and apparently never will…
I certainly suspect that Robert Burchard is convinced that his heart is in the right place, but objectively, he’s been the most hateful voice in the comment thread, today.
=============
If he had the power to block this site, Levin’s or any site he disagreed with, at the push of a button, I suspect he exercise that power. So, I doubt that his heart is in the right place; and, given the ad hom nature of his attacks — e.g., “Anyone who guest appears on hate radio, like Judy did, is an imbecile” — thinking there may be any good will there requires, as Hillary Clinton would say, a willing suspension of disbelief.
jim2: “I know who Mark Levin is, but who the heck it Robert Burchard?”
Clearly not the sharpest tool in the box.
What a singular wit you possess, which is to say you have a very narrow, intolerant mind. Time to progress your thinking, to say nothing of your conversation skills…
Santoron, do you or Judith really need links to some of the hateful things Mark Levins has said?
There’s nothing decent about appearing on such a show.
@Appell
See, I don’t understand that sentiment. Unless you wish to provide some specifics, I’m going to assume the “hateful” moniker is assigned to some nasty partisan rants he’s had. Like Bill Maher, or Barak Obama. Should we blacklist those two from speaking around polite society?
To me the idea that you have to be in ideological lockstep with the host and/or audience of any venue you speak at or to is nonsensical. That kind of thinking can lead to echo chambers of of ditto heads nodding vigorously, but accomplishing little. It can also lead to keeping wide swaths of the public from hearing information that may help them personally reach a more informed opinion on a very important topic.
IMO it’s pretty simple. If any group of people ask to hear Dr. Curry’s opinions and findings w/r/t CC and are presenting a forum where she can speak honestly then I see no reason to try and shame her for giving her time. Her presence on the show does not constitute her approval of his entire personal or professional life, or even affirm they share Any beliefs, including those on CC! And his past transgressions – be they real, imagined, or greatly exaggerated – most certainly do not change the value of her knowledge on the subject of Climate. Most adults understand this without having to be told. So, if someone is caught up in this “guilt by association” fallacy then it’s them with the deficiency, and one that must be corrected immediately in the interest of thinking and acting like a grown up. Mudslinging and playing climateball aren’t the pastimes of many productive members of society, and we could use a lot more of those.
Santorum,
Mark Levin is talk show host who has decided he will stay on the air by saying things more outrageous than anyone else. They exist in all countries, even in their extreme times. Levin is that person.
Judith gets no props for going on the show of an extremist. On the contrary, it brings her judgement into question.
Just a few of the obnoxious things Levin has said:
“Barack Obama, as a result of this and the other things he’s doing, including arming up the Islamo-Nazis in Tehran, is the greatest threat the Jews face, not in this country, but in Israel, since the 1930s. … He’s the greatest threat they face since the 1930s. – See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jack-coleman/2015/03/27/mark-levin-unloads-obama-worst-threat-jews-1930s#sthash.aTBYBo2K.dpuf
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jack-coleman/2015/03/27/mark-levin-unloads-obama-worst-threat-jews-1930s
—
He called Jim Manzi a “global warming zealot.”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/04/29/mark-levins-big-lie.html
—
He asked a female caller:
“I don’t know why your husband doesn’t put a gun to his temple.”
http://theamericanscene.com/2009/05/22/-i-don-t-know-why-your-husband-doesn-t-put-a-gun-to-his-temple-
—
Claimed that “monarchism, feudalism, militarism…” are about equality:
http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2011/04/dumb_mark_levin_quote_of_the_d.html
Judith, if I understand your position correctly, not knowing what the natural portion of climate change has in store for us, would it be fair to say that it could turn around and enter a cooling phase at any time? And if it did, might CO2 warming effect actually be of benefit in holding off another ice age (which in all likelihood will occur at some point)? If this is the case, it seems it might be helpful to explicitly point out that for all we know the climate could just as easily cool into another little ice age as continue to warm, and if it did so one potential outcome is that our grandchildren will thank us for contributing to the CO2 blanket that keeps them from freezing. My point is, it seems about 50/50 odds that CO2 can be helpful or harmful to the human race, and thus it’s potential effect on climate shouldn’t even be part of the discussion on whether or not to burn fossil fuels. I think that it doesn’t even occur to most people (such as Gavin S.) that the climate could possibly enter a cooling phase where a ghg blanket would be welcomed.
I’d like to hear from Judith what she thinks are the balance of probabilities of GHG emissions reducing the risk of future abrupt, severe cooling versus the risk of increasing the risk of an abrupt severe warming this century. By severe, I am referring to the consequences for human well being, not just the amount or rate of temperature change. Only the impacts are relevant
We are all going to die anyway so why care about climate change
you said something sensible…
the other thing to remember is
climate changed before us, and it will continue to change after we are gone. Perhaps the people who fear change should do some sort of course
on dealing with things beyond their control.
Pretty much all of are going to die before the climate changes significantly enough to dramatically impact us, and that goes for every succeeding generation, too.
Climate changes, just not very fast, ordinarily. And when it chooses to change rapidly all the mitigation in the world won’t change that, nor even will adaptation help much. It would be nice to be wealthier, more developed, and more sophisticated.
================
JC,
Your written testimony is fantastic. (I haven’t watched the video because it is 443 MB download).
I hope it is influential. If it is, our children and grand children owe you enormous gratitude.
I expecially liked this bit (from you summary):
I can not get the Webcast to play/open. The file is fc041515 (8).wmv
Mark Levin says that Obama is a communist /dictator /Alinskyite
And you appeared on his show
Are you a buffoon like Levin?
???
Who was that comment directed toward? Did Judith appear on Levin’s show?
She was just on Levin’s show
Levin is the kind of guy who says the federal reserve is wrecking the economy – so buy gold now
I guess idiots flock togethet
No, Judith just knows who her audience is.
Joshua my troll detector is bleeping and its not you!
No, I’m a somewhat different sort of buffoon. You know, the sort whos too dumb to be impressed by crude efforts to intimidate people.
so! Now that that’s squared away. What sort of buffoon are you?
I don’t see anything in the three things to dispute. Technically, Obumbles isn’t a dictator, but he’s pushed his powers further than he should have, IMO. It’s very likely he’s a communist, or damn close. Definitely an Alinskyite.
Oh, look. It appears Levin has good company. From the article:
…
Already under fire for claims that President Obama doesn’t love America, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani doubled down, saying Obama has had “communist” influences since an early age.
“He doesn’t talk about America the way John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan did, about America’s greatness and exceptionalism,” Giuliani said in an interview with The New York Post published Saturday. “He was educated by people who were critics of the U.S. And he has not been able to overcome those influences.”
…
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/233410-giuliani-obama-has-communist-influences
You Republicans have a very short memory, which can be a boon.
Obama is wrong on climate change. He’s been right about just about everything else. I vote we give him a pass for his error and thank him for restoring our economy, getting us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, finally restoring sanity to our relationship with Cuba, helping millions of Americans get healthcare and letting the memory of G. W. Bush fade quickly.
He’s not perfect. He’s made big mistakes. But anybody who can remember 2008 can only see that he’s done a very good job.
Obama’s hampered economic recovery, fled Afghanistan and Iraq, made the Middle East far worse than it was(his most amazing accomplishment), started the US on its way to distrust of its health care system, and sold out freedom loving Cubans. And that’s just responding to your points, Tom; I’ve got lots and lots more.
There are a lot of people, once supporters, who are very disillusioned with the community organizer, and his divisive and autocratic ways.
Tom, Dubya was the good ol’ days. It will be a long time before we or the world are as well off as we were back then.
==============
I voted for Obama in 2008, but consider him to have been a poor president.
The ecomony improved in spite of the poor policies advocated for by the president. This was true partly due to sequestration and partly due to how poorly the EU’s ecomony has been in comparison.
It is hard to see any foriegn policy area where Obama has not done a poor job based on naive assumptions. BTW- I am not a republican.
Don’t fight the feeling, Tom. If socialism is the solution for all those other issues, why not follow your instincts and support the Community Activist In Chief on climate change? What’s got you so confused on that one issue that you have broken solidarity with your comrades? Must make your little head hurt.
You must be looking at Obumbles in the Fun House mirror there, Thomas.
Would and example of flockers be those who are not pro-liberty and those who are not pro-America?
Being in favour of innovation, resilience, pollution reduction etc is like being in favour of funnier comedy or cuter kittens. Who’s against?
Any climate hearing now needs to hear one critical word and hear it without padding or qualification: Dunno.
Less than that or more than that will only sustain the klimatariat and breed future white elephants.
That’s it. Dunno.
Hi, Judy. I think your prepared statement is very good: succinct and informative. Well done. My only (minor) comment regards this statement: “It has been estimated that the U.S. national commitments to the UN to reduce emissions by 28% will prevent three hundredths of a degree centigrade in warming by 2100.” I would be interested to know if this estimate is based on the high sensitivity of the IPCC, or more recent (lower) estimates. And, if the latter, how that would affect the US contribution by 2100. Thanks.
Dr. Curry,
First, pretty much agree with everything you said. And I think you hit all the high points in the issue (with the possible exception of global politics, but thanks for not even attempting going there).
Second, thank you very much for taking the time, energy, and placing yourself as a “target” in attempting to bring some reasonableness to the global climate issue.
Third, I offer the following as some possibly constructive comments for future such appearances. These are just my opinions and may be completely incorrect.
A. I’ll use a rather crude way of putting it, but I think you need to “dumb it down” in order to get the idea across in your written statement for the audience it was given to. The sentences were (possibly) too complex, and contained too much data, for the average person to comprehend while listening. You even had someone above me state that they were going to have to re-read it. Your verbal answers to questions were much better at being at the level of complexity for the given audience.
B. Somewhat related to “A” is that some of your statements were not simple enough to ensure that the point you wanted to make was adequately understood. While I’m not sure if Rep. Beyer was really trying to understand, or just making trouble, I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt (yeah, I’m easy). The points need to be clearly stated, FOR THE AUDIENCE LEVEL, so that if anyone makes such accusations it is immediately apparent that they are just trolling.
C. Your strongest advantage (besides your vast experience) is that you have a very good ability to speak ad hoc. I support (IT) university vet med professors and see this same ability. You cut to the main issue and deliver a great answer in a no nonsense manner. That said, you may wish to watch for some over used verbiage. I will say that I wouldn’t worry about it that much. That is, don’t let worrying about if your presentation is perfect get in the way of providing your answer. MOST people don’t care about it (possibly if you said “uh” every five words, then that would be noticed).
Again, thank you for doing what you did. And doing so well. I don’t kid myself. I would have been speechless in front of that crowd : )
GeoffW
Judy’s getting plenty of practice dumbing it down by guesting on hate radio
Robert
As A Brit I know nothing whatsoever of Mark Levin so had to google him
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Levin
He seems a respectable American conservative. What is your problem with him and please explain your frequent comments about ‘hate radio?’
tonyb
Robert B. is a hater. He’s sure he’s not.
=============
climatereason: “He seems a respectable American conservative.”
Which is precisely Burchard’s problem with him, I think you’ll find.
Best we can deduce from his trolling is he is intolerant of anyone that disagrees with the President. Taking a cue from said Commander in Chief, he’s resorted to insults, smears, and repetition to try and marginalize his perceived foes. Pretty sad how hate-filled our “tolerant liberal” friends have become this century.
There are right-wing talk shows that occasionally delve into climate topics. Alex Jones and Greg Hunter often trade conspiracy theories with Monckton. I am not sure if Mark Levin is that type, or what Judith would make of their rantings. Perhaps by going on, or even just listening to, those shows she might start to wonder if Lewandowsky was right after all. It would be an eye-opener for sure. They particularly don’t like the IPCC, which is just a small part of the broader set of UN conspiracy theories.
Well done Judith, but It seems that the tactic of the WH will be to simply let this hearing and the testimony record slide from public view, because to enter into any prolonged debate will undoubtedly serve to keep the weak points of the AGW science and policy position in the headlights. Just like the proverbial deer.
Judy
No credible researcher would appear on the Mark Levin hate radio show , unless Levin is going to be the co author of your next book
Levin, btw, is the author of a book on how utopians such as president Obama are hijacking America to implement their nefarious plans
Robert –
Do you have a link to the audio?
Aye laddie. Nor would any true Scotsman. I think that proves your case.
Robert have made an INcredible argument which is INeffective against such credible well reasoned arguments as given by Judith Curry. Your post evidences you as the hateful one, not Mark Levine. You but embarrass yourself.
Logical Fallacies defines
No True Scottsman
Begging the Question/Circular Reasoning
Gently lad. Ye didn’t happen to notice me sarc tag laying about? Always misplacing that.
mark – cant decide if its good cop/bad cop; or carrot vs stick?
Robert, you offer nothing about Levin’s radio program that illustrates how it represents hate. Having different opinions than you are not equal to hate. Or as Joshua might put it, it’s good we have folks like you Robert that define for us all what hate radio is. Now we can all rest assured. But seriously, how is Levin’s opinions about Obama or democratic policies any different than the opinion of someone like Bill Maher? Does Bill Maher host a hate TV show? He certainly doesn’t agree much with republicans or with Bush when he was in office. He took every opportunity available to bash Bush and his policies. What about Keith Olberman? More hate TV by him when he was on? Your comment reminds me of another Robert that used to do drive by’s here… do you know him? He runs a hate blog.
Don’t forget former hate radio personality and current US senator Al Franken. Democrats like hate radio personalities so much that they vote them into office.
And for the record, Franken one of my senators. I believe he is a good person, his heart is in the right place, he works very hard for his constituents, and he has absolutely no idea the economy works.
> Robert, you offer nothing about Levin’s radio program that illustrates how it represents hate.
What about this, John:
http://mediamatters.org/video/2014/09/19/mark-levin-theres-more-enslaving-of-women-rapin/200819
?
Perhaps this:
http://mediamatters.org/video/2014/02/18/mark-levin-compares-marriage-equality-to-incest/198091
?
Hey John Carpenter –
Leaving aside comparisons between Levin and Olberman or Maher…
What do you think about Judith appearing on Levin’s show? Do you consider it irrelevant? Do you think it’s consistent with Judith’s criticism of others for activism, advocacy, politicizing science, and tribalism?
On the one hand, I have absolutely no problem with Judith’ appearing on Levin’s show. She certainly has that right.
On the other hand, I find it surprising that she would lend her name to someone whose main focus is engaging in extremist political rhetoric.
And on the other, other hand, I think that Judith appearing on that show is clearly a situation of her engaging as a triabalist, within the politicized and polarized context of the debate.
So to go back to asking questions, what’s your assessment of the impact of appearing on a show like Levin’s? Do you think that it is likely to have a positive impact in some way (meaning point the direction towards better policies w/r/t the issue of climate change)? Do you think it is likely to have a negative impact in some way?
I am unaware that appearing on a talkback program necessarily implies that you agree with everything that has been said on the program. There is a significant audience and Judith should be reaching out to a wide an audience as possible.
Mark Levin may or may not have extreme political views but surely appearance on his show represents an opportunity for a moderate like Judith to put a POV forward that may assist members of the audience to make up their own minds on the substance or otherwise of the POTUS climate change policy agenda.
Peter –
==> “I am unaware that appearing on a talkback program necessarily implies that you agree with everything that has been said on the program.”
If directed towards my comment, that looks to me like a strawman. I didn’t say or suggest that appearing on Levin’s show implies that Judith agrees with him on everything.
==> ” There is a significant audience and Judith should be reaching out to a wide an audience as possible.”
Levin’s show exist within a polarized and politicized context. Reaching out to audiences from various venues has various effects. Indiscriminately saying that she should reach out from any venue in order to disseminate her views more widely has a real-world impact. IMO, reaching out from highly politicized and polarized venues that are associated with extreme political rhetoric is likely to enhance, at least to some degree, the impact of political ideology within a polarized and politicized controversy over climate change. It is certainly Judith’s right to align herself with a particular political and ideological strain (which is towards one of the extreme ends of the spectrum) within that politicized context, but it is what it is.
==> “Mark Levin may or may not have extreme political views but surely appearance on his show represents an opportunity for a moderate like Judith to put a POV forward that may assist members of the audience to make up their own minds on the substance or otherwise of the POTUS climate change policy agenda.”
Surely?
IMO, there can be and likely are any number of possible effects. Indeed, the effect that you describe is one of those possible. But, IMO, what is more likely that the effect you described, in a relative sense, is that Judith’s appearance on that show will, if anything, likely harden the political and ideological cleavages that already exist. Climate change is already a politicized issue (in the U.S. – there Levin’s audience exists). I think it is highly unlikely that on a relative scale, there are very many people listening to that show in order to “make up their own minds” on the substance of POTUS’s policy agenda.
I was really addressing John’s original comment Joshua but with your questions in mind. Talking of straw men doesn’t change the fact that the substance of any paper or radio program headline (that Willard had kindly posted upthread) doesn’t necessarily give an accurate picture of what was said or even implied.
Shades of Kahneman again because the way that people with strongly differing views process the same information and come up with quite different interpretations has been a matter that about which you and I are well aware.
The media is populated with all types of people but lets be realistic and say that the most followed shows and publications tend to play on people’s emotions and fears and this seems to me the tactics that are being employed by many pro AGW scientists and their followers.
My take on moderates is that they tend not to become embroiled in controversy and hence do not get the same coverage as those with more extreme viewpoints. Hence I consider that Judith’s involvement with Levin’s program is showcasing the sort of moderate thinking about climate change which needs to be seen by a wide an audience as possible.
This is really some troll trash here, mediamatters and Judith aligning herself with blah…blah…blah. They do it because stalking the heretic makes them feel important. Pitiful.
“…extremist political rhetoric….”
So Joshua, I take it you are questioning whether she should go on MSNBC as well.
It’s clear that Judy should only speak in approved venues. You gotta problem with that?
==============
Joshua, you’re a troll and your only line is ‘it’s triiiiiiiiiiiiiiibalism.’ Unless it comes from willard. Then it’s clever.
She didn’t ‘lend her name’ to Levin. She was on his show.
When Dick Nixon appeared on Rowan and Martin’s Laugh In, I guess he was endorsing all those hippy bet your sweet bippy pot smoking Hollywood types. When John McCain went on Jonathon Stewart, I’m sure he was lending his name to everything the show stands for.
Triiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiibalism! It’s Triiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiibalism! I tell you right now it starts with a T and that rhymes with P and that stands for Pool!
Well, shoot, here comes registration again. Stellar work, there.
================
cd –
===> “So Joshua, I take it you are questioning whether she should go on MSNBC as well.”
Moving beyond the question of whether the analogy is apt….
I’m saying that it makes sense to evaluate the likely cause-and-effect of how she advocates. Questing the net effect of which venues she uses in her activism would see to me like due skeptical diligence.
Yes, the same question should be asked, and certainly is asked, if “realist” climate scientists align with lefty news venues.
as of late, my major media interviews have been CNBC and Fox. Previously, I have interviewed frequently with CNN and NPR. I will interview with media outlets where I can expect a reasonable interview, and when the timing/opportunity is convenient for my schedule. I am interested in reaching a broad range of audiences.
Note, I have never contacted a news organization and requested that they interview (presumably they would ignore such requests in any event0
Peter Davies –
Apologies for seeing as straw man where it wasn’t being built.
==> ” Hence I consider that Judith’s involvement with Levin’s program is showcasing the sort of moderate thinking about climate change which needs to be seen by a wide an audience as possible.”
I’m not sure how you think Judith’s message as those of a “moderate.”
So I guess that we’ll just have one of those agree to disagree situations w/r/t the likely impact of Judith’s appearance on Levin’s show. IMO, the net effect will be minimal, but to the extent that there is one it will not be to moderate the views of people listening to Levin’s show w/r/t their approach to the Obama administration’s policy agenda. As per Kahneman, if you will, the vast majority of the listeners leverage her appearance on that show to reinforce their preexsiting, ideologically influenced, positions.
(Note, I disagree with his use of the term “rational” – I don’t consider that beliefs influencing reasoning is irrational, as he seems to imply).
Is it apt? Of course, Joshua, it is apt. The problem is the Liberal Manufactured false dichotomy between moderate/reasonable and those awful conservatives. It shows up in hundreds of places. In describing the members of the Supreme Court to newspapers to politcians to think tanks to networks to professors.
The US has moved so far to the Left in the last 50 years that our collective memory has lost sight of what a center truly is. Stripping away the polemics and pejoratives that Liberals use to describe conservatives, the right today would have been the unremarkable center in the 1960s.
cd –
Interesting…so I say moving beyond that question, but that question is the entire focus of your response to me, along with your view of how far left-oriented is the American political landscape
Well anyway, your views about the political landscape are duly noted. It comes as no surprise to me that you see it that way, and indeed, such a view is not uncommon in these threads or throughout the “skept-o-sphere” more generally.
Which is, indeed, largely my point.
Joshua,
“What do you think about Judith appearing on Levin’s show?”
I haven’t formed an opinion on it. Honestly, I have never listened to or read anything from Levin, so I cant form an opinion about his views, other than you finding him as someone who engages in extremist political rhetoric and Robert saying he is equal to hate radio. I need to listen to the interview in order to answer your other questions. I can see elements of what you are getting at. Is it relevant? Probably depends from which side you are looking at it. Was her interview with NPR irrelevant? Was that politicizing science? Advocacy? Promoting tribalism? When you take a middle position, everyone else looks like they are choosing sides. Same ol same ol Joshua.
Joshua asked whether Judith’s remarks were that of a moderate. I believe that she is and is based on her interpretation of the science. Lets look at a spectrum of views that have been put forward on this blog and attempt to classify them.
The extreme CAGW POV is that the world is in imminent danger of widespread natural disasters if nothing is done to reduce the amount of CO2 that human activity is producing.
The other extreme POV is that the world is fine as it is and that nothing needs to be done to reduce CO2 emissions and in fact, they would prefer to see an increase in emissions so as to forestall the onset of another ice age.
Judith seems to acknowledge that emissions need to be reduced, if not to reduce their perceived CO2 pressure being placed on the climate then to at least reduce humanity’s carbon footprint. She certainly doesn’t seem to endorse the extreme POV to simply do nothing.
Joshua makes this point and references Kahnemann:
As per Kahneman, if you will, the vast majority of the listeners leverage her appearance on that show to reinforce their preexsiting, ideologically influenced, positions.
Daniel Kahneman: …. there is a high correlation between beliefs about gay marriage and beliefs about climate change. Now it’s very unlikely that this would arise from a rational process of producing reasons: it arises from the nature of beliefs as something that is really part of us.
Rightly or wrongly people who are not inclined to think deeply will ‘discredit’ a view point because it is associated with a political belief they don’t agree with. I think Joshua is correct on this point and it is a danger of being associated with a political view point, in this case a radio program that was likely (I don’t know but this is a good example) already inclined to view climate change from a certain perspective, and looking for Dr Curry’s views for confirmation.
What Joshua should probably point out is that Daniel Kahnemann’s main point about how we think is that we have 2 modes: Fast thinking and Slow thinking. A view on climate change can exist as a “belief” either skeptical or alarmist. If, as Kahnemann points out, it is formed because the individual has only listened to one point of view and only heard the memes surrounding it propagated by their tribe, then this is an example of “Fast” thinking – simply absorbing superficially without serious analysis of the issues.
Where I strongly disagree with Joshua is his characterisation of Judith as engaging in tribalist behaviour or the kind of advocacy that we have seen where a particular view point is advanced to the exclusion of others and uncertainties and complications, whereby the audience is expected to ONLY engage in Fast thinking. “Trust me, I’m a scientist” – that sort of thing.
Dr Curry is constantly trying to get people to reframe the problem in its much more difficult manifestation – “The Wicked Problem”. This requires “Slow” thinking and understanding the issues more deeply. Once that happens, a much more nuanced view emerges, with dramatic consequences for how we handle the problem.
Speaking personally, I belong to the “Liberal Progressive” tribe. There is some truth to Dr Kahnemann’s view on say gay marriage and climate change. For a long time my “Fast” thinking on the issue meant I accepted that we had a real and serious problem, and probably for the reasons Kahnemann outlines. But when challenged to think about it more carefully, I found my the foundations for my “beliefs” didn’t hold up against the evidence. And because on the first instance, climate change is a scientific question, and gay marriage is a moral question, it does not necessarily follow that tribal members should hold similar positions on both those questions.
thanks for this, i like framing this as fast vs slow. We definitely need slow thinking on this
+1 to agnostic2015 for a good overview of the Kahnemanian approach.
Just when you alarmist goons were about to stop treating Judith like a pariah for straying from the 97% Kloned Klowns Konsensus reservation, she goes and appears on Mark Levin. She was this close to being welcomed back in the club and she blew it. OMG! What was she thinking? Is that about right, Reechard?
link the audio Robert, I had no idea Judith was on Levin, but now that you mention it, I can’t wait to listen. You’re doing a great job of advertising for the Levin show. I probably haven’t heard more than 5 minutes of Levin in my life, but if he’s got you this torqued up he must be doing something right.
+1! Never listened (knowingly) to the man before, but the troll has my interest piqued. Thanks for the heads up Burchard!
It’s a brilliant move. Informing Levin’s conservative listeners of the fact that extra co2 causes some warming but prolly not a lot etc., allows conservative politicians to more clearly define their positions. No more ‘I’m not a scientist’ answers.
Yes, the argument is not that AGW is not happening, but that it is a benefit.
This is ultimately the most devastating argument against the madness of CAGW, but it isn’t immediately obvious.
Well, it was immediately obvious that anthro warming would be a good thing to the early researchers such as Callendar. We’ve since had the mediation of a sinister narrative to divert us from the simple plain fact, shown everywhere in paleontology, that warming is good, and cooling is bad.
===============
AGW may well be a benefit for delta T < t but of course before that very-difficult-to-estimate threshold and when it may be reached (given uncertainties about sensitivity) there's the certain fact that increased CO2 in the atmosphere is a benefit by causing a greener planet. A greener earth. Sometimes the ironies are too great to express without your poetic gift.
https://twitter.com/rdrake98/status/588300171995435008
+1
It’s a pity they didn’t listen to those of us who were telling everyone exactly this 25 years ago when the whole charade got off the ground.
Excellent statement, Dr. Curry which summarizes in a balanced mode where climate science stands today. Well done.
I have posted a link to your testimony on the Climate science discussion group of the Geological Society of America. Also downloaded the file and forwarded it to the immediate past president of a small Pacific Island nation who I recently met and asked me some hard questions about climate change.
Curry vs, Beyer…………Curry +1,000,000, Beyer 0.
Very well done.
Well done Dr. Curry. You are one of the few rational and balanced voices out there. Take the personal attacks as a compliment as the alarmists and redistributionists realize you are a threat to their narrative. When cornered all they know to do is resort to Alinsky’s Rules, particularly Rule 5. Keep up the good work knowing there are a lot of sensible people out here who support your efforts.
Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:
Dr. Curry is one a few few real scientists that are left in the country, too many have been corrupted my the money.
Testimony News
Fox News summarizes: Does Obama’s UN carbon pledge threaten much more US economic pain?:
RTCC Obama climate plan comes under fire in Capitol Hill hearing
EPA’s Plan Degrades Grid Reliability
The greatest danger of Obama/EPA’s plans is cut coal fired power by 33% – drastically reducing power generation capacity with no recourse/planning. That will likely cause grid failures right in the midst of the extreme “polar vortex” of frigid Arctic weather when we need it the most. Some studies/articles:
Will Shuttering Coal Plants Really Threaten the Grid?
Sorry EPA, There’s No Evidence You Care About Grid Reliability
NERC: Potential Reliability Impacts of EPA’s Proposed Clean Power Plan
It would certainly be interesting to see the general source IP info for the rotating trolls that have surfaced on several skeptic sites and twitter recently. You do have access to that information. I make note of the trend to alert anyone else who is reading this, and could be applicable, for their own benefit.
There is much at stake. Those who have long awaited the benefit from such stakes, know it.
December is not far off.
These trolls are revealing more about themselves than anything else. I can see Dr. Curry has hit a nerve. Good for my tribe.
Yeah
She hit my nerve
Her past association with UW Madison has soiled my degree from that fine university
Like I said. Try some Valium. And maybe bed rest.
My point is there is a concentrated source for such trolling, which is not hard to identify in today’s world.
I hate to admit it, but the usual trolls don’t seem so trashy in comparison with this nut.
Ah, a sacred grove of academe, this one likely founded by the sons and daughters of toil and soil. They might willingly take back your sheepskin, soiled and all. Go ahead, offer.
=============
I wonder if this is the same Robert Burchard who works for the EPA and has a UW Madison degree. I find his comments really unprofessional and childish.
Bravo to the 3 ladies who testified!
Jake Schmidt from NRDC was a total dud! Is he Gavin’s little brother?
Is mark Levin a reasonable and intelligent person? I don’t think so
You permanently damaged your credibility by appearing on the hater’s show
Oops!
I hope your own research is done with more diligence than that used to check out Levin’s show
This might make you feel better.
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/hurricane_frequency-march2015.png
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/15/experts-hurricane-activity-at-45-year-low-usa-major-hurricane-drought-almost-a-decade/
Robert: I am curious which is worse: being a “hater” or a “denier”?
A lukewarmer is better.
Robert
That paragon W* of reliable information summarizes:
Mark Levin “only” has 950,121 “likes” on facebook.
That’s a remarkable audience so much “hate”. Having dealt with the populus argument, what was your scientific argument regarding Levin’s climate comments?
Is a “hater’s show” for… deniers?
Judith Curry
“…I found the testimony just full of internally conflicting facts and opinions and in almost total conflict with everything I’ve read in the last 15 years in every journal I could get my hands on.”
It seems that Representative Beyer does not have an adequate source of material to read other than one narrow view, the CAGW perspective. Giving him the benefit of doubt that his aides have a single perspective on climate change and feeding him the climate consensus meme, I recommend that a number of articles should be provided by you to expand his reading repertoire. If he were an honorable person, then, he may give effort in reading the articles and, as a test of his having read the articles, making yourself available to answer questions. If he is not an honorable person who is but parroting that what he already has been conditioned to hear but does no know, then, there would either be silence from him, or, he providing retorts that have no relationship to the articles.
“Then Representative Beyer, you have spent 15 years reading about climate change without a skeptical view; hence, without a scientific view; hence, without the ability to learn about the complexity of the issue.” you might say.
Why pursue ineffective policies?
German backlash grows against coal power clampdown
Many thanks for an excellent presentation today!
> While there are substantial uncertainties in our understanding of climate change, it is clear that humans are influencing climate in the direction of warming. However this simple truth is essentially meaningless in itself in terms of alarm, and does not mandate a particular policy response.
Simple truths seldom mandate policy responses, and are essentially meaningless in themselves in terms of alarm almost by definition. These fumbles indicate an egregious misuse of expertise.
That we ought to stop dumping CO2 in the atmosphere like there’s not tomorrow simply follows from the simple truth that “humans are influencing climate in the direction of warming,” however indirect this simple truth may be conceded.
No amount of weasel words can escape that when there’s too much CO2 in, some CO2 must go out. This constrains the “particular policy response” to be expected.
What policy response do you recommend, willy?
Do you agree that truths don’t mandate and therefore to require that they do would is simply egregious, Don Don?
amusing Steve Mosher
http://judithcurry.com/2015/01/26/climate-change-as-a-political-process/#comment-669513
willard, I think you should answer Don Monfort’s question.
In what way should we consider “efforts to accelerate energy innovation, build resilience to extreme weather, and pursue no regrets pollution reduction” examples of particular policy responses?
‘We’ should, Willard. How?
We being humanity collectively, and the testimony being given to the U.S. House science committee.
I’m not being a smart @$$. Probably being a dumb @$$, but nothing new there. The world should stop dumping CO2 into the atmosphere like there’s no tomorrow, I’ll agree with that. What U.S. policy achieves that?
> The world should stop dumping CO2 into the atmosphere like there’s no tomorrow, I’ll agree with that.
Is this something you heard from Judy’s testimony, Mark?
Dumping? Our emissions are dwarfed by natural emissions and CO2 is the global food supply.
> Our emissions are dwarfed by natural emissions […]
Isn’t that just a way to minimize that humans are influencing climate in the direction of warming?
***
> CO2 is the global food supply.
Isn’t that the “CO2’s plant food” meme?
Willard,
No. I did not read that from Dr. Curry’s testimony. My answer wasn’t responsive to what you really said, actually.
I don’t think this is true, Willard, but maybe I merely fail to understand what you’re saying. I’ll claim that the U.S. does not have it within it’s power to get enough CO2 ‘out’ to reduce the risks of global warming in any meaningful way by following the current reduction plans of the Administration. In my view, this policy approach is based on a lot of wishful thinking and an idealistic notion that the world will follow our leadership. Color me cynical, but I doubt it’ll work out that way.
Them’s not weasel words, in my view.
So. What do we do? Dr. Curry says, Climate Pragmatism. Center on efforts to accelerate energy innovation, build resilience to extreme weather, and pursue no regrets pollution reduction measures.
Help me understand. Break the idea into small chunks and check in with me frequently to make sure I haven’t shoved a carrot up my nose, the way kids do when their minds wander :). Why is it preferable to slash our emissions in the hopes that the world will follow instead of adopting strategies that reduce the impacts of extreme weather and climate change, whatever the attribution? This approach at least seems to me to be within our power and seems to offer some hope of actually accomplishing something in the real world.
Regards Willard.
Willard flails. This goes against everything he’s read in the last 15 years, from all the journals he could get his hands on.
============
> My answer wasn’t responsive to what you really said, actually.
There was an emoticon, which reveals enough.
***
> I don’t think this is true, Willard, but maybe I merely fail to understand what you’re saying.
What I’m saying is that Judy’s argument’s invalid. All you need to see that is to follow her own steps. Expecting science to tell us which “particular” policies to implement is a fool’s errand.
The bottom like is this. Science tells us we dump too much CO2 in the atmosphere. Our dumping goes too fast. Any policy should abide by this scientific constraint.
Science doesn’t tell you that we ought to dump less CO2 at a slower rate. Science doesn’t care one bit about the future of mankind. To require that science ought to carry our values for us is egregious.
***
> [T]he U.S. does not have it within it’s power to get enough CO2 ‘out’ to reduce the risks of global warming in any meaningful way by following the current reduction plans of the Administration.
This argument applies trivilally. Until we all become United States, there may not be any reduction plans that will “reduce the risks.” Even if we’d clarify the concept of “reducing risks” and “meaningful way,” the argument would still be without any force whatsoever.
There’s no force to that argument because it rests on this self-sealing argument:
(B1) Only an international agreement would work.
(B2) International agreements don’t work.
This argument neglects the “threat of a good example”:
http://www.chomsky.info/books/unclesam01.htm
That the United States is now becoming a threat to of a good example indicates why Don Don is hanging by its skin teeth at Judy’s.
***
> What do we do? Dr. Curry says, Climate Pragmatism.
“Pragmatism” is just a word. She borrowed it from Junior’s playbook without attribution. Its usage would deserve due diligence.
It’s “code words” all the way down, with nothing much more “particular” than “let’s pick up low hanging fruits.”
***
> Help me understand.
I’m not your guru, Mark. Go play dumb with Joshua. Give me your “them’s no weasel words” instead.
Willard,
Enough for what?
Ok.
Once again Willard, who is ‘us’. We don’t make policy for the world, and reducing U.S. dumping doesn’t buy us squat.
Says who, only an international agreement would work? Not me. I’m saying an international agreement won’t work in this case, not that an international agreement is the only option. Want to talk about using economic or military pressures to accomplish the objective? We could talk about that.
If you want me to go there, you’re going to have to make your point more plain. Are you saying that by providing a good example the rest of the world will follow, or are you saying something else.
Could be. That’s a question of fact we could talk about. I agree it deserves due diligence.
Don’t care for self deprecating humor, sokay. Different strokes. I hope playing dumb isn’t indicative of bad faith from your perspective. I use it as a device to help clear muddy waters and make sure positions are plain and easy to understand.
Thanks Willard.
> who is ‘us’.
Anyone who can RTFR. Consumers of scientific news. Stakeholders of the epistemological sphere. For sexier buzzwords, let’s defer towhat the ClimateBall quarterbacks promote.
***
> Says who, only an international agreement would work? Not me.
Yes, you, Mark. Here:
The two sentences follow one another in your comment.
The US may not “make policy” for the world, whatever you can weasel in “make policy,” but it sure sets up the tune:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_policy_of_the_United_States
***
We could say that between international agreements and national policies, there are transnational treaties. Even then, that means there never was any real international agreements. The UN does not comprise all the countries, for instance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_observers#Non-member_states
Easy to parry semantic quibbles, with some experience.
***
> If you want me to go there, you’re going to have to make your point more plain.
Again, I’m not your guru, Mark, and you’re not my client. Start with the Wiki entry aforementioned.
If you won’t explain what you mean, you won’t. Moving on then.
Thanks for the discussion Willard.
What policy response do you recommend, willy?
I am not going to watch some canned propaganda, willy. I asked you about your policy recommendations.
The gist of your tirade seems to be this:
“Expecting science to tell us which “particular” policies to implement is a fool’s errand.
So we should be constrained by science, but not advised by science. E.g., they tell us that ebola is a deadly pandemic and it’s up to the gubmint public health authorities to implement policies to attack the problem . If the govt apparatchiks decide that suggesting people boil their water will stop the pandemic, the scientists who know this will do virtually nothing to help just keep their mouths shut. Another one, the gubmint decides to take a number of steps that will make energy more scarce and expensive to solve the climate change problem. But some scientists know these policies will cause a lot of pain but reduce the CO2 emissions by squat. She should keep her mouth shut.
You are not making sense, willy. You don’t know squat about climate science so you can’t attack Judith’s testimony from that angle. You had to pull something out of your a$$. Pathetic.
What policy response do you recommend, Don Don?
Another thing you won’t look into:
Willard,
See the flaw in your argument?
We don’t need to watch a bunch of videos featuring partisan hacks, willy. You and your little friend joshie are highly agitated over Judith testifying before Congress. Frantic, in fact. And neither one of you jokers knows squat about the since so you are pulling issues that only amount to nitpicking and semantic quibbling out of your a$$es.
My recommended solution for the CO2 problem is to nuke it. Now you try to think of something that won’t necessitate energy poverty for the folks, wee one. Ask you little self-confessed braggart troll pal to help you.
Willard: “The bottom like is this. Science tells us we dump too much CO2 in the atmosphere. “
No, “science” does nothing of the kind.
“Climate science” belongs to the category “Post-Normal Science”, very different to “real” science, even Mike Hulme admits that.
This is the wrong question to ask of science. Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking, although science will gain some insights into the question if it recognises the socially contingent dimensions of a post-normal science. But to proffer such insights, scientists – and politicians – must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2007/mar/14/scienceofclimatechange.climatechange
> See the flaw in your argument?
When I say that “science tells us,” I’m using a figure of speech called a paradox. The idea that “science” tells anything is at best animistic, and is usually promoted by those who believe that science is about facts and everything else is about values, i.e. it rests on the fact/value dichotomy:
http://reasonpapers.com/pdf/28/rp_28_9.pdf
Honest brokers usually disapprove of the fact/value dichotomy. (They reach the wrong conclusions with that choice, but they still disapprove.)
Science does not tell us facts. Nor does it tell us values. That science doesn’t tell us anything does not prevent from stating facts, and one of them is that humans dump CO2 in the atmosphere at a rate that warms the globe. An immediate inference we can make from that fact is: unless we want to warm the globe, we’re dumping too much CO2 in the atmosphere. That’s an incontrovertible inference.
No more videos, willy? Here’s one you can relate to;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHlLmYVCzKY
The Prof. is also an alumnus of the U.S. Navelgazing Academy.
Willard,
There are lots of simple truth related to the climate change problem. for example,
Billions of people have access to cheap reliable energy based on fossil fuels, and they don’t want to give it up. Billions more don’t have it and desperately want it.
Wishing for a viable replacement for fossil fuels won’t make it so. Passing a law that requires someone else invent a solution to a problem won’t necessarily make it so.
> Passing a law that requires someone else invent a solution to a problem won’t necessarily make it so.
We can even generalize this to passing a law that does X won’t necessarily make Y so. This criteria is so strong as to prevent the establishment of any law whatsoever. Yet that does not preclude from regulations to induce solutions, e.g.:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2015/04/10/398811199/episode-616-how-solar-got-cheap
Regulations that make people venture into a business that has now become a good deal. All this while reducing CO2 emissions, a mere afterthought. Fancy that.
Solution 1: Eliminate 5000 international airline seats per year by re-making climate conferences via webcast and blogging.
Replacing dung with coal would be an improvement.
> Replacing dung with coal […]
This does not sound like
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/04/13/two-years/#comment-53258
I thought you read Moshpit’s “we won, you lost, get over it” comment at AT’s, KenW.
wow, Mosher in top form. He must be working out somewhere.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
but, he says: ” .. what matters is what you can get done.” (bold mine)
I suppose windmills and solar panels would also be better.than.dung.
PM2.5 is going to be another wonderful debate. Generic PM2.5 is roughly 50% natural and 50% man made in China for example. “Globally” the largest source of PM2.5 is salt stray from the oceans. Any policy that targets PM2.5 without specifically targeting a source is going to be ineffective and overly expensive. Just mandating ultra low sulfur diesel adds about a dollar a gallon to road fuel while mandating wet scrubbers in cola fired power plants adds a cent or two per kw. Most of China’s new coal fire power plants have wet scrubbers which are not being used because of the extra cent or two. Eventually China will have to start using the scrubbers, but without some vehicle emissions standard it isn’t going to be much good.
In the US thanks to previous clean air act policy we are reaching the point of diminishing returns. Most of the power plant related pm2.5 is due to a small percentage of older power plants that are due to be replaced anyway. Switching to biomass, coal to dung basically, could result in increased power generation related PM2.5, especially when biomass, wood, is used for more lightly regulated home heating. This morning for example North Pole Alaska has the poorest air quality in the US, followed by Mt. Greylock Maine and Imperial Valley California. Later today areas of Detroit and Baton Rouge will likely have the worst air quality. I don’t think North Pole Alaska and Adams on Mt Greylock, Maine are your typical dirty air poster children.
> I suppose windmills and solar panels would also be better.than.dung.
How much dung does the US burn, KenW?
The bottom line is this:
http://www.climatenewsnetwork.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/TheFossilFuelBailout-Infographic-A.jpg
we dont burn dung, but a couple of billion other people do.
http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-live/photos/000/525/overrides/rio-20-united-nations-conference-energy_52574_600x450.jpg
—–
http://flare.pk/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/APP06-07Lahore.jpg
to much ill effect, BTW.
Willard, do you have a pragmatic solution ?
> we dont burn dung,
This is a Congressional Hearing of the United States, KenW. Clean your own mess first before using the “but the poor”. The poor don’t even have the power to create power lines, so the “let’s burn coal instead” is not very pragmatic.
Let ’em eat pattycake.
=========
Willard, for the price of an offshore windpark we could provide millions of people with relatively clean coal burning stoves, which would improve the global environment more than the windpark.
I’m not sayin that this would be the BEST use of the money, but it would be an improvement.
> for the price of an offshore windpark we could provide millions of people with relatively clean coal burning stoves, which would improve the global environment more than the windpark.
You’re just using memes, KenW. That’s very pragmatic of you.
See how much stove you could buy by using change from the F series contracts, e.g.:
http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1975139,00.html
If you want change, you might find lots of quarters over there.
***
Mr T might wonder why Denizens are not auditing the reasons why the price-per-plan oscillate between $69 to $135 million. Another wicked problem, perhaps. Pragmatism, no doubt.
Willard, providing stoves could debatably do more for our security in the long run than the F35 program.
Are you for the stoves then?
Ken W., Thanks for the India photos, lots of memories.
Did you also do a turd world study?
> Are you for the stoves then?
Pragmatists are not for or against solutions void of context, KenW.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2854788/
You know that a coal stove program would work through subsidies, that coal is a source of black carbon, and that the target population may not be able to buy coal, right? The lowest of the low hanging fruits seem to be cleaner dung stoves.
Speaking of low hanging fruits, how come this has not been solved yet? Must be CAGW.
willard –
Thanks for that link. It helps to underscore how politicizing climate science is counterproductive.
BTW – I find this paragraph interesting also:
I’m sure that the vast #’s of free-market fetishists, who are so concerned about the ill-health resulting from burning dung, will get right on that.
‘Prolly just an oversight that they haven’t addressed that problem already. Lord knows they’d never wait around for governments to solve problems for them.
“… the lowest of the low hanging fruits seem to be cleaner dung stoves.
Speaking of low hanging fruits, how come this has not been solved yet? Must be CAGW.”
Exactly Willard! We’re too busy decarbonizing the first world!
> We’re too busy decarbonizing the first world!
Sure, KenW. Here’s the proof of concept:
https://danieljmitchell.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/military.jpg
Decarbonizing the world, what would Primo Levi say?
http://www.transitionnetwork.org/files/CarbonStoryByPrimoLevi.pdf
Nice story Beth, thanks!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Willard, there’s lots of things we could do better.
Now, about them stoves – why don’t you get hold of Tom Steyer and his Hollywood buddies – I’ll see who has a line to the Koch brothers – And maybe they could all get together and tackle it? They could do that instead of paying for all those TV ads next year! Now wouldn’t that be a blessing? I hear the Guardian fund is looking for new investment opportunities too.
What do you think?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Anybody here got a Koch’s cell number?
> What do you think?
I think you should contact Matt King Coal:
https://anewnatureblog.wordpress.com/2014/12/22/viscount-matt-ridley-the-new-king-coal/
Considering that the optimist one prefers gas, he might listen to a pragmatist like you. Find a way to alleviate his soul from some of this coal, and he might even give it to you freely. God knows how important the poor dying kids are important to our Lord.
> What do you think?
I think you should contact Matt King Coal:
https://anewnatureblog.wordpress.com/2014/12/22/viscount-matt-ridley-the-new-king-coal/
God knows how important the poor dying kids are important to our Lord. Alleviate his soul from some of this coal, let him give it to you freely. Considering that the optimist one prefers gas, he might listen to a pragmatist like you.
RE stoves. Willard, it appears progress has been made in China, so the low hanging fruit is being harvested. Just because the Indians mucked it up the first time, does not make the program a bad idea.
From your link:
In the early 1980s, India and China both began ambitious countrywide clean-stove programs. Today, China has about 150 million improved stoves in use from that time, and India has none, says Smith, who has studied both programs in depth. China used an innovative approach of encouraging local development of sophisticated stove designs and a central production and distribution system for key parts of the stove, says Smith. The Indian program failed for many reasons, including the fact that the distributed stoves made by local artisans produced too much smoke and were not durable. In addition, stove designs did not always consider the availability of reliable fuel.
You can’t help but prattle on about Judith’s commentary, but you repeatedly dodge requests to answer Don’s simple, straightforward question. You’re not winning anyone over hiding, Willard.
Fess up.
Did you see willy’s Freudian slip up:
===========>”Speaking of low hanging fruits…”
I will leave the rest to the imagination.
Judith makes Drudge: “Skeptical Climate Scientist Dismantles Dem Lawmaker’s Alarmism… ” http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/15/skeptical-climate-scientist-dismantles-dem-lawmakers-alarmism/
Congratulations!
Seconded. I find it interesting the Daily Caller calls JC ‘a noted global warming skeptic’. Am I wrong that she has never applied such a label to herself? But that’s how this weird debate goes. At least the Daily Caller avoided the D-word and that I’m sure is because the author respects Dr Curry and wished to show it. And that reminds me of a little anecdote from Sunday evening.
I had to get back to Bristol from London late and decided to try web service BlaBlaCar for the first time. Nazir duly picked me up from West London, together with three others, two Muslims and an organiser of the Green Party. Three quite high-powered engineers and a rather older software one was another way to look at four of us (didn’t catch one of the Muslim men’s vocation).
We talked the whole 100+ minutes, initially about some very controversial stuff to do with Islam – a result of my being asked why I’d come up to London but seriously O/T here! Then I admitted that I was a dissenter on climate stuff as well. This was because by then the Green Party guy was asking for my Twitter handle, because he seemed to be interested in what I’d said so far. I said I’d give it to him at the end and later explained why.
“Don’t worry, I have a couple of climate change deniers in my own family,” he said cheerfully. But I noticed that the next time he called us anything it was sceptics and so it was throughout the rest of the conversation. We were getting on well, before and after, and he realised this was not how to referred to someone you at least partially respected.
Small but suggestive, as is the respect shown to Judy here, despite a moniker that probably doesn’t remotely do her nuanced set of positions justice!
After the hearing, a reporter from EEWire interviewed me about ‘skeptic’ and ‘denier’ I told her that I was a scientist, who thinks independently and does not accept the manufactured consensensus from the IPCC in place of my own thinking on the subject. I said that skepticism is one of the norms of science, and if scientists aren’t skeptical, then they aren’t doing their job. But ‘skeptic’ in the climate debate has tribal and political connotations, and I don’t like the label. ‘Dissenter’ from the scientific consensus isn’t a bad label.
Yep.
Judith,
“I told her that I was a scientist, who thinks independently and does not accept the manufactured consensensus from the IPCC in place of my own thinking on the subject. I said that skepticism is one of the norms of science, and if scientists aren’t skeptical, then they aren’t doing their job. But ‘skeptic’ in the climate debate has tribal and political connotations, and I don’t like the label. ‘Dissenter’ from the scientific consensus isn’t a bad label.”
That is one of the best, most concise, responses to the “denier” question I have ever read. That should be on a bronze plaque somewhere, as a guide to future scientists.
Re the rest of that sentence from the Daily Caller:
I’m sure somebody has already alerted Climate Etc to the piece by Thomas Sowell on the subject on Tuesday:
Southern segregationists vs civil rights organizations. Just the kind of operators Grijalva and co would want to be identified with I’m sure.
Wow!
What % of comments in the “skept-o-sphere” employ an argument that we in fact can tell about the objectivity of climate scientists’ work by reverse engineering from their funding source?
In fact, Judith has employed that argument.
How much of what we see here and in the larger “skept-o-sphere” is nonsense?
Joshua, I think you may be confusing Dr Sowell’s point about individual funding and the overall incentive structure to take a certain line of the global warming issue. Sowell himself has written at length at perverse incentive structures for intellectuals such as Paul Ehrlich who seem to pay no penalty at all for grossly wrong predictions. I personally think that the incentive structure for young scientists whose work touches on climate is similarly perverse and inimical to proper academic freedom. But that’s a much bigger point than who exactly is paying for someone’s food and rent for the next year. On that I’m sure Sowell is right – no bias can be assumed.
Richard –
No. I don’t think so. I think that I’m outlining an example of where ideology influences reasoning, causing outcomes that reflect bias rather than an even application of criteria.
Self-benefit is an “overall incentive structure.” Selective assumptions of bias resulting from self-benefit, and just one form of self-benefit at that, is fallacious.
But you failed to give an example. Sowell gave the examples of Grijalva and Markey and noted the similarity of the techniques used by Southern segregationist politicians to try and silence civil rights organizations like the NAACP. You seem to be agreeing with him and me that this is wrong. Examples of other such wrong uses of power welcome.
“Thermometers 5000 years ago” !
Bravo curryja.
And, thank you.
“We really need better technologies” Hear! Hear!
Prof. Curry, I’m very glad you nailed Rep. Beyer on that “re we going to do nothing” meme. That insidious straw man needs to be burned every time it raises its head.
We are going to do nothing futile.
You are going to do nothing useful.
Hi Professor Curry. I’m normally a lurker here and don’t write in, but I want to thank you for what you’ve done. It was an excellent speech and an excellent response to Rep. Beyer.
I think we’re reaching the stage now where it cannot be ignored that there are other factors at play and that CO2 is not the demon-gas it’s been made out to be. I hope a complete turn around of these hopeless, foolish policies is not far off. I do feel you’ve whipped some blinkers off and maybe got some people thinking. I hope so anyway.
I also want to thank all the commenters in today. I have really enjoyed reading this thread and will pop back in for the latest as it grows. You guys and gals have made my day. Thank you. :)
Ms. Lofgren, while not asking Judith any direct questions certainly took a few side swipes at things she said. Her opening remark was to the effect of “welcome to the last place on Earth [this Committee] where the human influence on climate is questioned”. Hers was the only representation of what the scientific consensus view was, and another Democrat noted that the government was not invited to defend their policy.
Jim D: Are you saying then, that there is no where else on earth where human influence on climate is questioned? Don’t you think that sounds a bit silly? I beg to differ, how large of a factor that human influence is on the climate is questioned in many many places on earth, quite frequently I would add. Do you disagree?
I reported what she said. No one disagreed with her there. If you look at other governments, they have mostly accepted that it is the human influence somewhat going along with all the national scientific organizations. Maybe you can think of one that doesn’t, but I can’t.
APS no longer thinks it’s “irrefutable”. Would that do?
The APS realizes well enough the importance of the human influence, if you look at their suggested path forwards.
Jim D,
Assume you’re referring to this:”Although the magnitudes of future effects are uncertain, human influences on the climate are growing”
and:”The APS reiterates its 2007 call to support actions that will reduce the emissions, and ultimately the concentration, of greenhouse gases, as well as increase the resilience of society to a changing climate. Because physics and its techniques are fundamental elements of climate science, the APS further urges physicists to collaborate with colleagues across disciplines in climate research and to contribute to the public dialogue.”
And: “prudent steps should be taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions now while continuing to improve the observational data and the model predictions.
And:”an enhanced effort is needed to understand both anthropogenic processes and the natural cycles that affect the Earth’s climate.”
Finally: “In addition, more extensive and more accurate scientific measurements are needed to test the validity of climate models to increase confidence in their projections.”
Summary: reduce emissions (does not refer to strictly or specifically fossil fuels), adapt, study and observe, test validity of modeling as confidence in projections is not as great as it should be, and don’t exclude nature.
I support them all.
And a self correction, I should have said remove “incontrovertible” (I’d stated irrefutable) which therefore should allow for denial and dispute as it was previously undeniable and indisputable with this word included.
What they said in 2007 was incontrovertible is that global warming is happening. However, the placement of the sentence must have led some to think it also applied to the paragraph before about human influence, and that outraged some. I think it was a proper use of the word, as even now we had 100% vote in Congress that warming is happening, so that it would seem incontrovertible after all.
Jim D,
As Paul Harvey would say………and now, for the rest of the story (note: MSNBC): http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/senate-votes-climate-change-isnt-hoax
Climate changes, the question is man’s influence. Nice rewording on your part though.
So, you don’t interpret this as agreeing that it is at least warming? Did they just agree that the Ice Ages existed, or was it more than that? Our Senate in action. So proud.
Jim D,
I don’t speak for the Senate. Just showing what MSNBC stated that the Senate said in the Senate’s declaration for itself. A left leaning media source’s discussion (to satisfy you) of the Senate speaking for itself. What does the article say? (More than you did.)
Yes, reading the actual statement, some of them probably were just voting that the Ice Ages existed. It was a large loophole. Even then it was only 98-1. MSNBC probably saw the irony of having to take a vote on this. What’s next? The earth is round?
Just goes to demonstrate how insular Ms. Lofgren’s worldliness is … little outside Washington !
Jim D, are you saying the Dr. Curry does not? You might try reading what she posts instead of rushing to the comment section… Just a thought.
Thomas Fuller, you can check for yourself what Ms. Lofgren said, and who she might have been aiming it at. It was probably as much at the Republicans in the room. There was another remark where she quoted the IPCC on something counter to what Judith had just said minutes earlier regarding the visibility of climate impacts already.
JimD, I’m familiar with Representative Lofgren, having lived near her district. I would vote for her if I lived there now. She’s wrong on this and Judith Curry is correct.
> Hers was the only representation of what the scientific consensus view was, and another Democrat noted that the government was not invited to defend their policy.
Way better to invite an expert on atmospheric sciences to attack an energy policy instead, with an argument according to which nothing she will ever say in her area of expertise, is relevant to any “particular” policy, because climate change is wicked problem anyway. Unless we invest more in the study of natural variability, because that ought to keep Mr. T quiet and the problem would stop being wicked.
You just can’t make this up.
***
We can predict an expansion in the angelology of expertise soon enough.
Willard, “Unless we invest more in the study of natural variability, because that ought to keep Mr. T quiet and the problem would stop being wicked.”
Typical misdirection. “Climate Change” is a wicked problem because it is too generic. There is naturally variable climate and there “may be” anthropogenic influences on climate. So far it is too early in the game to definitely “prove” anthropogenic influence on “climate”. Basic radiant physics indicates there should be some CO2 equivalent gas “warming”, but warming by itself is not “climate”.
> Typical misdirection.
I agree. See for yourself:
> there “may be” anthropogenic influences on climate.
That’s a tad softer than what we can read from the testimony:
Clarity may be dependent upong the pragmatic choices of code words.
Typical Willard, To solve a wicked problem you need to break it down into manageable parts. That is what Curry is trying to do. To use a wicked problem for political gain, you never really want to solve it because the problem is driving force of the politics.
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-1maBZuELNS8/VS_DjfepCjI/AAAAAAAANYo/kVnoQHtS-T8/w659-h581-no/sierra%2Bcoal%2Bmap.png
That is the Sierra Clubs coal hit list. The red skulls are problems and most are scheduled for retirement with replacement mainly being natural gas until that runs out/ gets expensive. The white skulls are thrown in for effect.
If the sierra Club wanted to solve the problem they would focus on the red skulls. If the “Climate Alarmists” wanted to focus on solving the problem they would they would break it down to “coal power” global warming, Coal power harmful particulates, vehicle emissions harmful particulates, vehicle emissions global warming etc. If you don’t really want to solve the problem you make it more generic, CLIMATE CHANGE.
I think Curry could have improved her testimony by saying the problem is wicked by intent, that political agenda thing, but that would be pushing the envelope.
> To solve a wicked problem you need to break it down into manageable parts.
Balderdash:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem
Look. I knew about Churchman’s work a decade before Judy’s existed. What about you, Cap’n?
Willard,
“[B]ecause of complex interdependencies, the effort to solve one aspect of a wicked problem may reveal or create other problems”
You appear to intentionally dense today. Curry espouses taking the less tricky parts that have other benefits, aka no/limited regretes as primary focus. That would be stage one of breaking down the wicked problem. She understands what you are using for your agenda, or perhaps you are not particularly bright in the real world problem solving sense.
Cap’n –
==> “You appear to intentionally dense today.”
You appear to be intentionally committed to ad homs today. Must be ’cause ad homs solve wicked problems, eh?
> You appear to intentionally dense today.
I’ve quoted a direct contradiction of your claim, Cap’n.
You claimed that a wicked problem can be decomposed. The second sentence for the Wiki entry for Wicked problem shows otherwise. Go argue with system theorists.
You know that it’s system theory, right?
Willard, I also said you app-ear to be dense today.
“You claimed that a wicked problem can be decomposed. The second sentence for the Wiki entry for Wicked problem shows otherwise. Go argue with system theorists.”
Part of my former day job was reducing problems related to complex system interactions. To do that you break the problem down to part that will have a positive impact with the least potential negative knock on effect. You may not be able to “solve” all of the problem but you can improve parts of the problem.
In this particular case I specifically said the “wicked problem” was wicked by intent. If the proponents for change wanted to solve parts of the problem they would focus on the more solvable parts, the red skulls. I never said the whole problem was solvable, only that it can be simplified to some point. Once you get to the point it cannot be simplified, then you have a “real” wicked problem and have reach the point of limited returns. Since science tends to advance, what was a “wicked” problem years ago may not be so wicked now, the white skulls. Try to keep up.
Cap’n –
==> “In this particular case I specifically said the “wicked problem” was wicked by intent.”
So when Judith describes the problem as “wicked,” that is because she intends it to be so?
Interesting.
Joshua, “So when Judith describes the problem as “wicked,” that is because she intends it to be so?
Interesting.”
Judith appears to be describing the problem as she sees it. I am describing it as I see it. You are just being as dense as Willard.
> Part of my former day job was reducing problems related to complex system interactions. To do that you break the problem down to part that will have a positive impact with the least potential negative knock on effect.
That’s known since at least Descartes, Cap’n. It’s one of the step in his method. The formal property is called compositionality, I believe. Wicked problems emerge from the system as a whole, and therefore can’t be decomposed. That is, wicked problems have no low hanging fruits. That’s why they’re wicked, Cap’n.
You’re basically arguing that appealing to the complexity of a problem does not preclude from trying to pick the low hanging fruits. This means that appealing to complexity is moot at best. This also means that there’s a tension between the wicked problem construct and pragmatist considerations.
I have no idea why you’d wish to counter Judy’s main trump, but thank you for doing so.
Willard, “I have no idea why you’d wish to counter Judy’s main trump, but thank you for doing so.”
I am not trying to counter Judith’s argument. I am trying to counter your obfuscation. Judith poses “Climate change” as a wicked problem then recommends legitimate approaches to simplifying parts of that wicked problem. I also added that a “solvable” problem doesn’t have a lasting political advantage, the problem is wicked by intent.
When the warmists start getting serious about solving what can be solved, then things will get done, right now it is just political theater and you have your role.
> Judith poses “Climate change” as a wicked problem then recommends legitimate approaches to simplifying parts of that wicked problem.
One does not simply decompose a wicked problem into parts, Cap’n. The low hanging fruits must lie elsewhere, like the proverbial drunkard who looks for his car keys under the lamp post. This means the appeal to the wickedness of the problem is merely verbal. Another bit:
http://www.uctc.net/mwebber/Rittel+Webber+Dilemmas+General_Theory_of_Planning.pdf
I’m not sure if I’d keep that obfuscation card on the table if I were you. Poverty is the usual poster child of wicked problems. To claim, like the Lomborg Collective, that tackling proverty instead of climate change misconstrues both problems.
willard, “One does not simply decompose a wicked problem into parts, Cap’n.”
That is wrong. The only way to deal with a wicked problem is to break it down into manageable parts. Life if full of wicked problems, you do the best you can. If you are serious about dealing with wicked problems, you don’t limit your options. That does not mean you will solve any of the problems or never make one worse, but you have a rational approach to making the problems less wicked.
The great thing about wicked problems is you never really know if they really are wicked. Just saying it is wicked doesn’t make it wicked and sometimes that low hanging fruit can show it to be less wicked. It is nice though that there are people like you because you increase the value of people that actually solve problems.
> The great thing about wicked problems is you never really know if they really are wicked. Just saying it is wicked doesn’t make it wicked and sometimes that low hanging fruit can show it to be less wicked.
I could not have said it better, Cap’n. Mr. T’s all over wicked problems, including wickedness itself. Which means that saying “but it’s a wicked problem” doesn’t change a thing. The bottom line is that humans are influencing climate in the direction of warming. This ought to constrain our policy options.
***
When you’re a pragmatist, you simply do what you can, and you let otters preach about wicked problems. That is, you do what you can do to tackle the problems you’re facing, and don’t play squirrels with them and handwave to low hanging fruits. Being wicked problems, you never know in advance whether what you do solves them or not.
Pragmatists abide by good old trial and error:
[ted id=1190]
http://www.ted.com/talks/tim_harford
capn,
You don’t solve ‘wicked problems’, you mitigate them.
Something Judith is at pains to ignore.
Michael, “You don’t solve ‘wicked problems’, you mitigate them.”
Actually you more often adapt. If you had followed the conversation better a “wicked problem” may never be solved but then it may not really be a wicked problem for some. You try to simplify a wicked problem by breaking it down into manageable parts and the try to solve those parts. Willard calls that low hanging fruit, but it is really just a rational step in a progression.
When you “mitigate” you are often just passing the buck. I can build on environmentally sensitive land by mitigating the impact. i.e. I donate or build somewhere less desirable an equal sensitive land space. There is no net improvement. How to mitigate while making overall improvements to the situation can be a wicked problem in itself. I counter your wicked problem with my wicked problem.
Now if you want to actually improve the situation you drop the semantics aka jargon and deal with manageable parts. Drop “CLIMATE CHANGE” and deal with some aspect of unwanted changes in climate that you may be able to have some control over.
> Willard calls that low hanging fruit […]
I am referring to the overselling of this:
http://judithcurry.com/2015/04/15/hearing-presidents-un-climate-pledge
I use that expression to allude to the hunter gatherer that we once were, with the 300 products of services and products in total, compared to the billions upon billions we have now. See
I am also referring to this to counter the armwaving to other problems than the one we’d like to solve, which may be explained by the fact that once upon a time, when we were hunters and gatherers, reality was simple and life was easy. Just like pretending we know everything lead to a God complex, pretending we know nothing can become an egregious use of expertise.
The bottom line is that humans are influencing climate in the direction of warming. This ought to constrain our policy options.
“Pragmatists abide by good old trial and error”
we tried global treaties on limiting emissions for 20 years.
pragmatists move on to TRY new things. But the fanatics are so invested in their solution that they refuse to give any energy and passion to alternatives. Their intransigence endangers the world.
some pragmatic thoughts
1. Following the advice of Bill Green Gates, a pragmatist would put the more R&D dollars into energy research.
A) the amount we invest is tiny
B) eventually fossil fuels will run out
C) It’s a big potential payoff for a relatively small bet.
2. End subsidies for fossil fuels.
3. Move quickly away from the worst offenders. Coal is bad on two fronts:
It is immediately bad because of pm25 ( see judiths reference to no regrets pollution abatement) and its c02 emissions are long term bad.
However a pragmatist doesnt go to war on coal. A negotiated surrender is in order. For example
http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/us-coal-industry-buyout
the state of California will spend 60Billion on a stupid bullet train. this amount of money could be used to buy out coal, think like a pragmatist.
4. Get with Nuclear. heck listen to Peter Lang.
5. You want a war, go to war on black carbon. It’s a twofer ! you tackle
pollution and warming
6. expand hyrdo
7. plant trees
8. you want trial and error… BC has a great trial on a revenue neutral carbon tax. expand that test.. step up EU.. step up california, trial and error.
9. Energy efficiency. tons of opportunities here.
10. Adaptation. the science tells us that there is more heat in the pipeline.
our current adaptations to normal weather are inadequate. If we stopped c02 tommorrow we would still see extreme weather. so,
A. Stop subsidizing people who build in drought and flood and storm prone areas. This means reform insurance.
B. Cool cities. We can expect more heat waves regardless of what we do. Cool city technology exists, use it.
C. water management. california, people before fish.
11. Bridge with Natural gas.
in short for 20 years we have tried the global treaty approach. And failed.
Judith’s point is simple.
The climate problem has been oversimplifed. The simple formula has been: C02 warms, therefore stop emitting. when it comes to implementing this proponents have failed. It doesnt matter why. they failed. failed failed failed. trial and error, be gone with them. If they are right, then we dont have time to waste. we dont have time to let them deny alternative approaches. If they are right we dont have time to waste on their failed approach.
Willard, “The bottom line is that humans are influencing climate in the direction of warming. This ought to constrain our policy options.”
Then the solution is to eliminate humans, or deal with the situation. Stopping all fossil fuel use would do a bit of both.
Your “low hanging” fruit arm waving allegation needs some work. There are quite a few “adaption” projects that will provide some positive impact on a number of problems. Reforestation, not just tree farms to fuel Europe, improves local climate, water shedding, sequesters carbon, reduces erosion. As a single line item it would have bipartisan support. When the Montreal accord was put together for some reason reforestation in the US was excluded. The US though is one of the few industrial nations that are a net carbon sink. Prior to the US ethanol mandate quite a bit more US agricultural land was called “conservation” land. Prior to the “global” ethanol band wagon, large areas of Indonesia were not oil palm plantations. Any “environmentalist” or “conservationist” should be taken aback by the unintended consequences.
Finland or Denmark one has coal powered power plants that are 90% plus efficient and will be converted to biofuel, wood pellets and straw. They could be converted to bio waste fuels, mainly coal with a good percentage of garbage which the US has in aboundance. You need some reliable fuel in order to efficiently burn bio-waste. Reducing mount trashmores should have bi-partisan support.
Those arm-waving suggestions are steps in the right direction that have several net positive impacts. If you really wanted to solve problems you would not be such an ass.
> See […]
Tim Harford’s talk for the idea of the complexity of the modern world.
***
> It doesnt matter why. they failed. failed failed failed.
Yet the Moshpit walks today.
From that TED talk:
Forty-five generations for a stupid nozzle.
The very idea of wicked problem is that there’s no low hanging fruits. All policies have opportunity costs. To abide by trial and error while discounting the cost of trial indicates a trait of the God complex. The very idea of appealing to no regret policy looks from some kind of God-eye view on problems that oftentimes are way more complex than the climate problem. As if pollution was easy. As if poverty was easy.
Even eliminating fossil fuel subsidies does not seem to be that easy.
***
The only time when trial and error problem is unneeded is in case of contradiction. For instance, the gambit “it’s a wicked problem, let’s go no regret” falters on conceptual ground. One can certainly wish to sell it, and it might work. The law of contradiction has no privilege in a pragmatist setting, after all.
So let’s be pragmatists and think of four impossible memes in the morning.
Mosher, +1, well put!
> If you really wanted to solve problems you would not be such an ass.
If I wanted to solve other problems than conceptual ones, Cap’n, I would not be here simpliciter.
On the other hand, your criteria does not bode well for Denizens such as yourself.
Mosher
1. Agreed
2. Agreed, but one man’s subsidies are another man’s standard deduction.
3. Coal is good on three fronts: It is cheap, plentiful, and currently provides the majority of our electricity. It will be hard to find and implement an adequate replacement. Anyone who describes coal as low hanging fruit is denying reality. But see 4.
4. Agreed
5. Meh
6. Agreed, but those downstream usually want to have a say in what happens upstream
7. Go ahead, no one is stopping you
8. I don’t want California to step up to anything, their trials don’t seem to end and they are heavy on errors. Note: this comment contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harms.
9. Agreed
10. Adaptation, agreed. More heat in the pipeline, I thought the pipeline was hidden in the deep ocean.
A. Drought prone areas like the American southwest, storm prone like the Midwest, all coasts, flood prone like near rivers
B. I’m patiently waiting for more pleasant summers, When I want to cool off, I jump in my pool
C. Sure
11. Agreed
That’s enough agreement for us to get started, so when can expect to see the new Nukes
Steven Mosher
item 1 research is always good.
item 2 “2. End subsidies for fossil fuels.” Define subsidies. Depreciation is not a subsidy. Costs of doing business are not a subside. I am all for limiting subsidies where they are not beneficial, provided they are in fact subsidies not available to businesses in general.
item 3. You are clueless. China has a serious pm2.5 issue because they do not use the scrubbers already installed on their new power plants. It isn’t the fuel it is the user. Burning bio mass improperly is as bad or worse. In the US 90% of the coal related PM pollution is due to 10% of the oldest least efficient power plants. You have a talking point that makes you feel warm and fuzzy. Now what percentage of PM2.5 pollution is natural?
item 5. Nuclear definitely is part of any good energy mix.
item 6 Hydro is a good part of any power mix but can be environmentally negative.
item 7. plant trees and don’t ship them to the uk, demark and germany as mitigating fuels.
item 8. Agreed, watch them.
item 9. 90% efficiency with dirty old demon coal mixed with waste bound for mount trashmore is pretty frigging impressive. Oh wait! you geniuses want to kill coal right?
item 10 Adaption is a given. Try not adapting.
Capt’nDallas
“To use a wicked problem for political gain, you never really want to solve it because the problem is [the] driving force of the politics.”
Nice!
This helps me understand the energy behind the push-back by warmists and their unwillingness to not address the wicked problem piecemeal.
Mosher:
I think you need to put your thoughts about coal plant PM2.5 risk into perspective. It’s really not that large a contributor. Road dust and construction are much bigger contributors.
(source: Environment Canada 2011)
In Alberta, we use coal for pretty much all of our electricity generation.
Coal fired power plants: 1,800 tonnes
Residential fireplaces: 3,400 tonnes
Agriculture:15,300 tonnes
Construction:129,900 tonnes
Road Dust:223,100 tonnes
You may want to re-evaluate what you know.
Captain and Mosher: Great conversation!
Willard: Respectfully, successful executives, IMO, are better suited to solve wicked problems than philosophers.
“Actually you more often adapt. If you had followed the conversation better a “wicked problem” may never be solved but then it may not really be a wicked problem for some. You try to simplify a wicked problem by breaking it down into manageable parts and the try to solve those parts. Willard calls that low hanging fruit, but it is really just a rational step in a progression. ” – capn
‘Siimplify’, ‘manageable’, and ‘solve’ – might argue against wickedness.
But, fwiw, I tend to agree that wickedness is in the eye of the beholder. In this context, delayers find a rhetorical utility.
Scott Basinger, “(source: Environment Canada 2011)
In Alberta, we use coal for pretty much all of our electricity generation.
Coal fired power plants: 1,800 tonnes
Residential fireplaces: 3,400 tonnes
Agriculture:15,300 tonnes
Construction:129,900 tonnes
Road Dust:223,100 tonnes”
PM2.5 is going to be very interesting.
@Mosher
Excellent post. Thanks
> Respectfully, successful executives, IMO, are better suited to solve wicked problems than philosophers.
Then I hope you’re not a successful executive, richardswarthout, since wicked problems are not problems we solve the same way we solve analytical problems.
In return, I hope you respectfully accept that philosophers are not bad at pointing out that sentences such as this one:
may very well be a self-sealing claim.
Let’s hope successful executives don’t need self-sealing claims to solve unsolvable problems.
I also was confused by two statements that Dr. Curry made (which are very similar to Dr. Koonin’s WSJ statements that also confused me):
“It has been estimated that the U.S. national commitments to the UN to reduce emissions by 28% will prevent three hundredths of a degree centigrade in warming by 2100.”
“I’m saying that what is being proposed is ineffective, it’s not going to do anything even if the U.S. is successful at meeting 80% reductions by 2050, this is going to reduce warming by about a tenth of a degree centigrade. It’s not going to do anything.”
In reading Dr. Curry’s statements, one concludes that while funding efforts for adaptation and research is worthwhile, AGW mitigation efforts are not going to do anything.
From a “Climate Science” perspective only (not a policy perspective of “how” it would be achieved) — a worldwide mitigation effort of “Fast Mitigation (smog, methane, HFCs, black carbon) would not do anything on AGW?
This is not what Dr. Ramanathan says.
Confused.
The US is not legislating for the world, it’s legislating for the US only. Perhaps that may explain why you are confused.
You may also be confused if you are still harbouring the beliefs, shared by many true believers leading up to the UN Copenhagen fiasco, that the USA can legislate and then dictate how the 195 countries should behave. Australian delegation to the Copenhagen fiasco was confident it could set an example for the world and the world would follow. The fact is that unless polices are net beneficial for all sovereign states in all time periods, they will not succeed. Furthermore, unless top down dictated policies include around 80% of all global GHG emissions, those policies will not survive. A replot of Nordhaus DICE-2013R model using it’s default input values is shown in the chart below. The assumptions about participation rate are optimistic (as Nordhause states) so I have added the ‘1/2 the Copenhagen participation rate’ (the red line on the chart). Even this scenario is highly optimistic, IMO, and the other important inputs are very much on the CAGW alarmist side of the central estimates (ECS, RCP, damage function).
http://catallaxyfiles.com/files/2014/10/Lang-3.jpg
These two links explain waht I’ve stated above.
http://catallaxyfiles.com/2014/10/26/cross-post-peter-lang-why-carbon-pricing-will-not-succeed-part-i/
http://catallaxyfiles.com/2014/10/27/cross-post-peter-lang-why-the-world-will-not-agree-to-pricing-carbon-ii/
Fast mitigation on black carbon might do something. Planting more trees might do something. Converting to cement made with a tenth the CO2 might do something.
But every time someone talks about doing it the consensus calmly explains, “Shut up, denier” and another opportunity to do something vanishes in the mist.
To have a constructive dialogue, there needs to be two threads on Dr. Curry’s testimony on Mitigation: (1) the Climate Science; (2) AGW Policy.
On numerous occasions on the CE Blog, Dr. Curry has been supportive of Dr. Ramanathan’s (and others) concept proposal of “Fast Mitigation. His argument (as a Climate Scientist) is that reducing levels of short-lived carbon pollutants world-wide could buy us 10 to 20 years for our scientists and engineers to hopefully figure out this “Wicked Problem” (reducing the trajectory growth of green-house gas emissions).
Specifically in addressing the “science” (not policy) of AGW, is Dr. Ramanathan correct or would this not do anything meaningful?
I agree a thread on the topic of how much warming mitigation these reductions would actually cause is in order. I will try to put one together sometime in next week.
Poverty too – I look at how much Oz spends on poverty reduction and compare that the number of poor …… poverty is reduced by something like 0.000000002 %.
Is it meaningful? What’s the point??
Stephen,
Do you have any good links on fast mitigation. While searching for Ramanathan, I found this interesting publication on SLCPs:
http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/files/pr198.pdf
“poverty is reduced by something like 0.000000002 %.” The comparison isn’t right. Any reduction in poverty means that there is a poor person who is better off. A very small reduction in global temperature is likely to help no one at all.
Michael
Giving funds to the poor can provide a large impact to those recieving the funds. (unless the administrative costs are excessive) The issue with CO2 mitigation is whether it is an effective use of limited funds
justinwonder — Dr. Ramanathan (and others) have written extensively about Fast Mitigation. The article you cite gives the “Big Picture”.
The key point that Dr. Ramanathan is talking about is technology, something that the U.S. and EU are very good at.
Governor Huntsman tried to pick up on this, to create a win/win paradigm to AGW through international trade.
The biggest lost opportunity since Kyoto has been for the U.S. not creating some “Enterprise Zones” on selected products to test this paradigm.
Huntsman wasn’t talking about trade wars. He was talking about incentives in places like Vietnam, India, Philippines, etc. to compete with China where they: (1) installed U.S. produced energy efficient equipment (yes, which would include high efficiency coal power plants) and services; and (2) by doing so, were given special perks into U.S. Markets.
Jon Huntsman. A man I could vote for!
Rob,
Steady on there.
We don’t give funds to the poor.
Gosh no, not when we know that poverty is a moral failing.
Michael,
“Gosh no, not when we know that poverty is a moral failing.”
It’s really not as simple at that. Hmmm. It might be described as a “wicked problem” which can be addressed in parts if it’s broken down as such. Waddya think?
JC,
Could I suggest you begin your thread by defining the requirements and the criteria for measuring the success of the policy.
Here are the most important requirements for energy supply:
1. Energy security (refers to the long term; it is especially relevant for extended periods of economic and trade disputes or military disruptions that could threaten energy supply, e.g. 1970’s oil crises [1], world wars, Russia cuts’ off gas supplies to Europe).
2. Reliability of supply (over periods of minutes, hours, days, weeks – e.g. NE USA and Canada 1965 and 2003[2])
3. Low cost energy – energy is a fundamental input to everything humans have; if we increase the cost of energy we retard the rate of improvement of human well-being.
Policies must deliver the above three essential requirements. Second order requirements are:
4. Health and safety
5. Environmentally benign
Why are health and safety and environmental impacts lower priority requirements than energy security, reliability and cost?
This ranking of the criteria is what consumers demonstrate in their choices. They’d prefer to have dirty energy than no energy. It’s that simple. Furthermore, electricity is orders of magnitude safer and healthier than burning dung for cooking and heating inside a hut. The choice is clear. The order of the criteria is clearly demonstrated all over the world and over thousands of years – any energy is better than no energy.
The best way to relieve poverty is to pursue economically rational policies.
BTW, Australia is one of the most generous nations with providing aid and one of the most pragmatic in putting it to the most valuable use – which is what is called ‘infrastructure strengthening’. Best value is obtained by applying aid dollars to just about the opposite of what the Left advocate it should be used for.
Peter Lang wrote:
“…any energy is better than no energy.”
Do you honestly think someone is proposing we use no energy???
Many folks here at CE want to answer a “science question” on Fast Mitigation with a “policy response” of what they perceive the U.S. (or EU) can and can not do in the Global picture.
There are Conservatives concerned with AGW that don’t like either Liberals’ or the “Hard Right-Wings'” paradigm/straw-man arguments.
Obviously we don’t like things such as “command/control” paradigms such as carbon taxes (a regressive tax no matter how you configure it with questionable international trade impact — e.g., outsourcing GHG emissions to Developing Countries); Cap & Trade (another Wall St. play-toy financial derivative); (3) A Federal Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (that places decision making in the hands of Congress rather than our Engineers).
But, we don’t like the “Hard Rights'” paradigm either — that the U.S. (and EU) can not have any impact on Developing Countries. Sure we can — there is another paradigm of international trade agreements. Jon Huntsman (a Republican Conservative Presidential Candidate) tried to talk about a Win/Win paradigm in 2008.
If Climate Change is to be truly treated as serious on a global stage, pragmatic lessons must be drawn from international trade — where reciprocity reigns supreme. No country eliminates its trade barriers without reciprocal and meaningful concessions from trading partners.
http://greenenergy.blogspot.com/2013/11/using-international-trade-to-lower.html
I made a typo error. Presidential candidate Jon Huntsman (who made his chops in international trade) was talking about Win/Win paradigms in 2011 & 2012.
Also, for those (especially here at CE) who want to make this into an anti-Obama and Liberal issue — you’ve got a problem.
Many Conservatives are now saying that AGW is something we need to take seriously and have a “constructive dialogue” on. The list is long and growing (the magazine American Conservative, Jonathan Alder, Ronald Bailey (Reason), Senator Lindsey Graham, etc.).
The Washington Post has an article on this today: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/04/14/what-does-it-take-to-convince-libertarians-and-conservatives-that-climate-change-is-a-problem/?postshare=4191429057265686
Stephen –
FWIW, I think that voices such as yours are an important part of this discussion.
Stephen Segrest –
The Washington Post article you referenced contains the following:
It is important to remember that Hayek used the terms “liberal” and “conservative” in their original European sense, where “liberal” corresponds to a desire for less government intrusion and “conservative” corresponds to “a fear of change, a timid distrust of the new.” Eventually, as Hayek put it, “American radicals and socialists began calling themselves “liberals.”” In American society today the term “conservative” is applied to the same group that was originally called “liberal” and it is the original meanings of these terms that Hayek has in mind when he tells why he is not a Conservative. For the article to quote him without explaining this is a perfect example of “out of context.”
I think that Conservatives were open to this from the beginning. It was when the sudden realization was made of the alternative political agendas and of the softness of the scientific case for CAGW that the backlash started. Unfortunately, there is an ambiguity that impedes constructive dialog: when a person talks about AGW is he talking about something that will likely be catastrophic or about something that, so far as we know, will have little impact? A resistance to CAGW (for lack of convincing proof) should not necessarily be taken as a resistance to AGW, or even to AGW that may bring about some unfavorable (though not catastrophic) consequences.
Stephen,
“…international trade…reciprocity…”
Yes, you are correct, we can do something. Right now we import cheap goods and export jobs and pollution. That model has local social – structural unemployment and growing inequity – and global environmental costs. We should examine those trade agreements.
Stephen –
Not that I know whether or not you care…but I was thinking about your comments a bit more.
It strikes me that your comments should serve as a way for people to realize that the polarization w/r/t climate change policy is not really a clash of (conservative vs. liberal) values. There is no inherent reason why differing political ideologies should necessarily land people on some divided landscape, but yet we can easily see that (in the U.S. at least) such a pattern predominates.
My sense is that you’re someone who can take a step back and focus on finding synergy and shared interests as opposed to digging in to protect positions with which they are identified.
I’d appreciate you thoughts if you feel like taking the time (and provided that yuo find anything there worth responding to).
.
Imo you are completed misguided in your position.
1. You reference climate change in general vs. human caused climate change due to CO2 emissions. You need to be specific about what you view as the problem if you want support for your proposed solution(s). If additional human released CO2 is not having a significant negative impact on the climate, why use limited financial resources to reduce the CO2 emissions?
2. The threat of the climate changing (positively or negatively from the human perspective) will ALWAYS occur in varying places around the globe. From the human perspective, changes to the human population are most likely a greater impact to a particular area or region than actual changes to the climate, but there are undoubtedly changes in the climate that also occur. Properly planned for, and construction and maintenance of; robust infrastructure is the most efficient solution to the issue.
swood1000 — If you are a Conservative, I would encourage you to read the magazine “American Conservative” (they post many articles free on Facebook). I’d also suggest you keep an eye on folks like Senator Lindsey Graham (Republican from South Carolina of all places) and his interaction with the NRDC.
Much of the RINO Conservative discussion on this topic gets to the “Soul” of the Republican Party, where many RINOs believe:
Conservatism has been hijacked and transformed from a philosophy of cautious stewardship into an ideology that often encourages individuals to pursue self interest, whatever the consequences to others — aka, worshiping at the Tea Party Temple of Ayn Rand.
Us RINOs believe the GOP better figure this out and find some “common ground” — or we’re gonna end up with 4 years of Hillary.
Stephen Segrest: The Washington Post has an article on this today: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/04/14/what-does-it-take-to-convince-libertarians-and-conservatives-that-climate-change-is-a-problem/?postshare=4191429057265686
That was an interesting article, and I especially liked the Hayek quote. Ironically, I used to think that CO2 was an important problem, but the more I have learned the science of CO2 and climate, the less important I have thought CO2 to be. With reference to the Hayek quote again, I wonder how many people of all political stripes formed their opinions 12+ years ago and are resistant to the newer (smaller) estimates of climate sensitivity and the consequences of the “hiatus” and its many explanations. As to “climate change” itself, there isn’t much evidence that warming per se has produced any harmful effects since 1880; what does it take to convince somebody like that author that the evidence that climate change is bad is weak?
Stephen Segrest –
I’m not sure where you’re disagreeing with me. Are you saying that modern day American conservatives do not hold a political and economic view similar to that of classical liberalism? If Conservatism has been hijacked and transformed, at what point in our history would you consider the conservatives to have been pre-hijack? Did they at that time support massive activity by the government?
matthewmarler — Matthew, the concern is that U.S. Public Opinion can change dramatically and pretty quickly. In our lifetime, just look at the opinion on gay marriage.
Down the road, “something” is gonna happen — a super strong El Nino, a Cat 5 hurricane hitting Miami or even N.Y.C. — “something”.
When this happens, public opinion (even if its unjustified in climate science) will demand action. If Conservatives have just been viewed as Obstructionists when this happens, then we are pretty assured that Liberal solutions (e.g., Carbon Taxes, Cap & Trade, Federal REPS) would likely be enacted.
Lindsey Graham of South Carolina (one of the most conservative people on the face of this planet who is working with the NRDC in constructive dialogue) recently stated: “Conservatives need to state what they are for; not just what they are against and going around angry all the time”. They need to have established “trust” when this “something” happens.
https://thelukewarmersway.wordpress.com/2015/04/16/fast-mitigation-no-regrets-geoengineering-bottom-up-approach-to-mitigation/
thomaswfuller2 Thomas, yes there are very extremist views from Liberals (and also Conservatives).
While I didn’t go to Harvard and am not the brightest bulb in the room in engineering and agriculture — I have given testimony to Congressional sub-committees on Energy & the Environment (primarily my work with DOE, ORNL, EEI, UF on energy crops and soil carbon sequestration).
My story is really always the same in whatever venue — Try and find some common ground.
I think you dealt with this ‘wicked’ problem fairly. In the end, modelling will make it more tractable, bit not untl the importance of model validation is recognised and acted on. The mdellrrs have to demonstrate not only to the IPCC but to anyone interested that they can accurately predict future climate, in particuular, that they can accurately predict trends.
This will be no easy task and will involve much more understanding sand debate on model details and principles. One of the things that trouble me is the assumption that all CO2 is the same in its capacity to absorb heat and the role of heavy neutrons in the process.
Allow me to add my congrats. Nice testimony, Dr. Curry. Anthropogenic warming is a “trivial” fact, it is just probably not as big a deal as the alarmists would have us believe.
It ain’t easy being lukewarm. You get attacked by the true believers on both sides, as well as being criticized as “inconsistent” by confused congressmen. But it is nice to have your intuitions vindicated by the facts. The “hiatus” pretty much shows that it was probably incorrect of the IPCC to attribute the majority of the warming of 1950-2000 to CO2. On the other hand, every year the hiatus continues, the larger the fraction of the warming from 1950-present that IS attributable to fossil fuels. (The less the measured warming per year, the more likely that at least half of it is anthropogenic.) Ironic, isn’t it.
But, assume we lukewarmers are right, and that AGW is a trivial fact, but that climate sensitivity is around 1.5-2.0C at the bottom of the IPCC confidence range. The hiatus has to end eventually. Maybe it ends this year with ENSO. Maybe in 2030 with the stadium wave. Or maybe even in 2060 with the grand solar minimum. It still has to end.
And assume we anti-alarmists are right and the first 2-3C of warming are actually good for us. It is probably still true that 6C of warming are pretty bad.
So, we still have to wean ourselves of fossil fuels sooner or later.
Very good presentation Dr Curry. I also watched it all. I think you might have converted the democrat to a skeptic!
Hey Jude
Short enough to be interesting and long enough to cover the subject. Just like a mini skirt (or kilt so as not to be accused of sexism :-)
Excellent and well done
S
I just watched it. Great information and an excellent performance. I often speak too fast in formal situations where I may be a little nervous and / or bursting to get the information across. You came across cool and collected.
Dr Curry, you are a Goddess ! But, human impact from land use changes, I can understand warming a teensy bit; man-made CO2 from burning fossil fuels about 0.000006 of the atmosphere causing warming, not so much!
For those that missed it, the hearing is available for download here: http://science.edgeboss.net/sst2015/hearing%20videos/fc041515.wmv
Its 443 MB !
Dr. Curry. Wow! Home run. I can’t imagine a better presentation and you did it all with a smile which goes a long way to conveying both your comfort and conviction. You’re a Rock Star! On behalf of my kids, thank you!
Dear Dr. Curry,
You bring Common Sense and Pragmatism to the climate debate –
Please, Please, Please, Keep it up!
(even if the thread does have a bad case of the trolls today)
Yeah, you throw a sabot in your mouth and your foot to follow. I wouldn’t say this to the real Joshua; I have more respect than that.
==============
I don’t believe that either Judy’s testimony or her being on Levins show (first time I’ve heard of him) will amount to a hill of beans as far as the national theater goes. The blip on Drudge will be as far as it goes. The Obama administration has their Climate staging well scripted and they will just ignore the skeptic flys that buzz around while they eat their sandwiches. It’s just like Hillarys campaign stop in Iowa they even bussed in the audience.
The administration now has the skeptical Congress to deal with. They pay for everything the admin does. This hearing was a kickoff of sorts.
Perhaps you haven’t heard the Obama administration is just ignoring congress, much like this hearing, and just plan on using the EPA to carry out their Climate agenda. Notice how few dems even showed up for the hearing. Also there was no audience and no press.
==> “I don’t believe that either Judy’s testimony or her being on Levins show (first time I’ve heard of him) will amount to a hill of beans as far as the national theater goes. ”
Agreed. In balance, it’s sameolsameol.
ordvic –
Here’s where the hill of beans is hiding:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/17/us/legal-battle-begins-over-obama-bid-to-curb-greenhouse-gases.html?&hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
Tribe now wishes he’d been a little more rigourous with his rogue pupil.
=============
Kim — I always chuckle and shake my head over SCOTUS and other Court rulings — the hypocrisy of both Liberals and Conservatives. If something goes their way, they say “Thank God we live in a Country where there is the Rule of Law”. If something doesn’t go their way, they say “Those dog-gone Activist Judges!”.
ordvic –
Within the larger frame of sameolsamo,however, it is interesting to note the arc of Judith’s trajectory, which has taken her from eschewing writing editorials to appearing on (extreme) political talk radio
Don’t times change?
Actually I have given a little thought on that. I’ve wondered why a democrat whom I’m sure still has leanings in that direction would be caught dead on conservative smack talk. I hate to admit it but I think you’re right that audience is her new audience like it or not.
If Dr. Curry is sticking to the science and policy as best she understands them what does it matter the venue she speaks at? Do you think only certain audiences should be privy to her expertise? Or are you just trying to marginalize her influence by intimating there is something “evil” about Mr. Levin, his audience, or Dr. Curry’s motivations?
Do you think Mr. Levin has somehow caused Dr. Curry to lie or distort her opinions to appease him or his audience? Do you believe Dr. Curry has fabricated her take on CC as to get invited on to Mr. Levin’s show? If not, you’re wasting your efforts over nothing of consequence to the subject at large, and come off all the more petty and partisan to boot. Not smart.
For a guy who talks a lot (of late) about getting politics out of the debate, you seem to spend an awful lot of time playing games about others influences and very little discussing the science. Weird. Creepy.
Imo you are missing the fact that members of the US Congress are not often briefed by actual scientists who have studied AGW and who have altered their positions based on reviewing reliable data. Judith’s testimony supports the positions of members of Congress who think that there is a high potential to waste the limited funds of the US on misguided attempts to keep the climate as it was (or was thought to be) in the past.
Rob, actually I am cognizant of that in the workings of congress and agree with you that tbat is the only redeeming feature of that hearing. With my glass half full I hope it pays off.
An outstanding appearance and briefing paper.
Rep. Beyer’s comments about Judith’s testimony being in conflict with all that he has read for the last 15 years is emblematic of the general perception by the public. Indeed, her views are a rarity in the discussion and it should be no surprise that he had this reaction. For decades now anyone who does not toe the line exactly is marginalized with attacks, not about the scientific views of the individual, but rather about any kind of extraneous matters that fit the bill. Statements like “He is a senile old fool.” or “He is a creationist.” or “He is a crank.” or “He wears red pumps at home.” , are used instead of addressing the science by the individual.
The garbage thrown at the dissenting scientists all fit the same pattern. They distract from their scientific views and focus on the individual. This is intellectual light. It avoids the more rigorous work of comparing theory against theory and comparing both to the observational data.
Rep Beyer has brought the spotlight where it belongs. Valid alternative scientific views exist and need to be addressed. There is a new sheriff in town.
I disagree about the public. Evidence suggests that roughly half are skeptical. A lot of people despise EPA.
Pingback: Judith Curry On President Obama’s UN Climate Pledge | The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
Robert Butt shards referring to Mark Levin over and over is deceiving.
http://www.marklevinshow.com/common/page.php?feed=32&pt=Skeptical+Climate+Scientist+Dismantles+Dem+Lawmaker%27s+Alarmism&id=14121&is_corp=0
Levin put a link on his website to a daily caller article on Curry:
http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/15/skeptical-climate-scientist-dismantles-dem-lawmakers-alarmism/
This is the extent of the connection between Curry (a democrat judging by money donated by her the Obama campaign) and Levin. Levin linked to a Daily Caller article about Curry almost certainly without Curry’s permission because he didn’t need anyone’s permission for that.
-ds
Springer –
I haven’t checked it out but you might want to:
drcrinum | April 16, 2015 at 8:51 am | Reply
I found it easy to locate at the Website: starts at 57:40 on the podcast for April 15 and lasts for about 10 minutes.
http://www.marklevinshow.com/common/page.php?pt=podcasts&id=191&is_corp=0#
Disagreement with the “manufactured consensus” is enough to bring out the commie ad hom attack dogs… especially if you refer to existence of natural variability.
Judith –
If you do delete Springer’s s*ckp*ppet comments, this one at 9:05:
Thank you, David, for your due diligence! You’re awesome. I love you man. was not written by me..
http://judithcurry.com/2015/04/15/hearing-presidents-un-climate-pledge/#comment-694078
Why you keep accusing Springer of doing those trollish things, joshie? Got evidence? Such as a him bragging on another blog that he is trolling CE?
If it looks like a troll, and it acts like a troll…
Just as a reminder to those who think things have changed since 1995, this is where truth is spoken, unlike other sites like one that pings here where this is all you can expect:
https://evilincandescentbulb.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/comment.jpg?w=600
Die Grün Kapelle
Scott,
It was Dave’s comment about spit that I found most objectionable. While I’m sure he wasn’t denigrating my inestimable contributions to this forum, I thought it was unseemly to use spit as a pejorative about other people’s comments. Without mucus, life itself would be impossible. And swapping spit with a willing, beautiful young woman was the foundation that my now multi-generational family line was built upon. And of course the symbolism of a seemingly helpless prisoner spitting in the eye of his powerful captor is a time-honored and heroic movie trope. And anyone in the ROTC learned early the value of a spitshine. And if you’ve ever had xerostomia, even if it was just from a nervousness about delivering a speech in front of an audience, you would be singing the praise of spit, not using it as an insult. My count: Spit 5 Dave 0
I’ve never been quite sure why the spit that had been rolling about in my mouth becomes so disgusting when after spitting it out, it’s blown back through the open window of my car onto my shirt, but life must have its mysteries.
Lastly, (from Wikipedia we can learn) “Impala dung-spitting (Bokdrol Spoeg in Afrikaans) is a sport practiced by the Afrikaner community in South Africa. In the competition small, hard pellets of dung from the [Impala] (a type of Antelope) are spat, with the farthest distance reached being the winner.
Impala dung-spitting is popular enough to have an annual world championship competition, with the formal sport beginning in 1994. Unlike many similar sports, the distance is measured from the marker to the place the dung pellet comes to rest, rather than where it initially hit the ground.
The world record in the sport is a distance of 15.56 metres, set in as of 2006 by Shaun van Rensburg.”
I’ll accept your apology under any name you care to post under Dave.
Too much information :)
It’s my evil twin, Don. He plays ClimateBall. The first rule of climate ball is there are no rules in ClimateBall.
I listened to major part of the hearing and I found it sort of hilarious. All of the representatives kept repeating their mantra and sending questions to whoever will confirm the asker’s position, unaffected by clear contradiction between claims of the two sides. Not a single attempt to figure out why is the contradiction there, to resolve the contradiction or to find some common grounds, everybody just assumed the other side is lying.
I doubt there’s much point in such hearings.
If global warming was really about science it wouldn’t be a Left vs. right issue.
Agree there’s not much point in the hearing unless it gets good press. In this case I think Curry on Mark Levin is feather in Curry’s cap as it reaches a lot of influential listeners in a market Curry has not penetrated well in the past.
Judith –
Not for the first time, Springer is asking you to delete a comment of mine that shows that Springer is confident in opinions that can objectively be proven flat out wrong.
This comment:
http://judithcurry.com/2015/04/15/hearing-presidents-un-climate-pledge/#comment-694076
was written by me
I’m trying to keep on top of this. By turning on registration, we lose a number of commenters (some of whom are worthwhile).
Do they give a reason? At first glance registration makes it seem as if one has to give WordPress access to one’s information elsewhere and also allow a personal blog to be created but then it becomes clear that one can create a WordPress account not linked to any other service and decline the personal blog. Maybe it would ameliorate this problem if you made available a set of quickie instructions.
Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future. ~John F. Kennedy
—–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—–
Hash: SHA1
I don’t think I get impersonated much. I’m just not that …popular… not that.. important! sob
People here generally computer savvy enough for GPG public key signatues?
I’m thinking of putting my public key, which would look like this:
– —–BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK—–
Version: GnuPG v1
mI0EVS/fIgEEALXktWSA16UKvxthPOG/V78lt/B83qsLtUA2D5KeqF8mdzpo182V
ARr2CpdDLicmpZg9OypmQ6McutEY3owP6B/eaNw77Qjoo1dHINPt/AfcrX7Dd5ZR
NvpJNKCGgH4mV26OQbyY6mIgEyDf2lZPlzTIquCbJ6JzeLFfpCMpl591ABEBAAG0
bU1hcmtCb2ZpbGwgKElmIHlvdSBjYW4gcmVhZCB0aGlzLCB0cnVzdCB0aGF0IHRo
aXMgdmFsaWRhdGVzIHRoaXMgdXNlciBhcyBNYXJrQm9maWxsLikgPHVubGlzdGVk
QHVubGlzdGVkLmNvbT6IuAQTAQIAIgUCVS/fIgIbAwYLCQgHAwIGFQgCCQoLBBYC
AwECHgECF4AACgkQRkfRDVKgxCsW0QP/fYXtAP61LNYhvzCY78cGk5ZTuFiPZhsv
m/pqfqIfw+c4aF5pi9PxkHfTzYavlraF3nUyjiVtJDYu9Minbpiu5L8763dFwvRB
I3WPl97GGmjOrCjLSSm7Cjl3kFTlWbOfoQ1fZ+/PX0ru5qBGJkvCeTrv8QZRiJAf
jdqeIDKEY/W4jQRVL98iAQQAuLr1A6Y3PMuLjfICdHp9VWu86wNN+U2+rHnzQ+ot
8TnCVem/PvaqNMwPLwOJi/PeifARxxdDqKq1sq3mn/UAyRlAfKWtH9TRYMehknGE
QApmRSbUzR5rxPNZH3YIW6xXb2baHrWTOXE+GPn57ZH4PsM/UyuPgX4W9HWcWk4K
kukAEQEAAYifBBgBAgAJBQJVL98iAhsMAAoJEEZH0Q1SoMQrbhMD/Ap3V+EtLVtC
FZ4kiytygIP5HCeZw1BsLlhqW7sbrE9D7kvQEDPq0KuwkaH++FkCtEhXzWS+FQKn
vPoGn92TX6HHTnKvVd7/l8WH0afdIlwB3CKEiiFq5hcJzcXXbZRVifZu4ottXe1o
mHBuI9i4zkSKEdwM12BV4ZfuNXtyaRbUmI0EVS/lXwEEALFiOjdXkgniyr81Wq+B
BSto0tf0Zc65qEn5K04gAs5+Z4//xb2maohL8BQ6PMHCsyZguap0MqBYqxQ/gbhS
LcQJiBj+V5IH7+dwZ4wHNYlRkATBRexTh2GPqZXTw8r64MnsoSfSqsppGc4dDBD7
dH9I+E9Ukw7cGa5zPlfMKM/vABEBAAG0Rk1hcmtCb2ZpbGwgKFRoaXMgdmFsaWRh
dGVzIE1hcmtCb2ZpbGwgc2lnbmF0dXJlcykgPG5vYm9keUBub3doZXJlLmNvbT6I
uAQTAQIAIgUCVS/lXwIbAwYLCQgHAwIGFQgCCQoLBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQQSSW
wxQ2/3H/DAQArM7ZSNyW5w/nRthvc3Uj6mLosObqqfApWPHwDAdSqT8A4tfi5VbB
uX3HBdI/ZkNii5j1QZdsGivnWSQzCIPn0mrvexdTkS0gdNkQatwkzgT7ZJcbti7q
FX3pHLnN5h2UUdWc9E2YKY49EwnLpErb9uypd/xsLeqd0CwxhcI3LpA=
=PWfA
– —–END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK—–
into my Denizens blog entry. Anybody who wanted my public key could easily cut and paste it into a text file and run:
gpg –import (whatever filename for the file you put my key into)
this’d only have to be done once, then you’ve got my public key on your keyring.
then anyone who wanted to validate me as the author of a message could cut and paste my message into a textfile and run:
gpg filename
to verify that the message was from me.
I’ll go ahead and sign this message and post it. Cumbersome, I know! Still, it’s a thought.
One can read up on this at:
https://www.digitalocean.com/community/tutorials/how-to-use-gpg-to-encrypt-and-sign-messages-on-an-ubuntu-10-24-vps
https://kb.ui.edu/d/awiu
—–BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE—–
Version: GnuPG v1
iJwEAQECAAYFAlUv6I4ACgkQRkfRDVKgxCtrGwP9FG3rDSk+y6j4q7hkEd7gnmBn
YMnD4dwrrIeopLECQTbKUkAIvflwGzFqEeGjgzPLzbrt33/QRaPIr4ZkivpJFSxm
QA5XjAXyBwITyBl7apCcCoVWEvuTq1w3ewj7yLDrZFsFD1jEOHKdUOjSBH398vqC
AUPX0MiE+A6JUTeiH20=
=HrKs
—–END PGP SIGNATURE—–
Heh. WordPress mangles the metadata. There are supposed to be 4 dashes, not just two.
Well, it was a fun idea anyways.
5 dashes. Whatever.
Yeah, this actually can be made to work, using the ‘pre’ escapes. Anybody interested, feel free to respond, otherwise I’ll assume it’s of no interest.
Something to be discussed at the next Hearing might be what we can do about, as Tony Thomas described them, “careerists in the $1 billion-a-day global-warming industry,” that are destroying the economy:
“So we have a policy which is exporting jobs, exporting investment, exporting manufacturing, and increasing CO2 emissions at the same time. Mr Commissioner, if that is not madness, what is?” ~Roger Helmer (speaking before the European Parliament, January 26, 2015)
I gots some blogposts up on how to download, install, and use gpg4win / kleopatra for WordPress public key signing and validation if anybody’s curious. Just click my name if curious. :)
Mark –
==> “I gots some blogposts up on how to download, install, and use gpg4win / kleopatra for WordPress public key signing and validation if anybody’s curious.”
That’s exciting.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
:-)
Shut up you little pencil neck putz self-confessed braggart troll a$$hole. Mark is Angela Bofill’s cousin.
Don’t report me to Judith.
ds
:)
Yeah, not much interest. To be expected I think, nobody wants an umbrella when it’s not raining. I’m going to start signing my posts anyways, maybe it will catch on if the shenanigans flare up again. My public key is available on my blog, anybody who wants to register one there or play with the stuff is certainly welcome to do so at my site.
I’m not a dufus buddy, I’m The Dufus.
See that you don’t forget it.
Can I handle a crisis? Hell, yes, I create them.
================
Concerning ‘the blob’ in the Twitter link, might we may perhaps be seeing some of the effects of the huge underwater 8.9-magnitude earthquake off Japan, March 2011? The power of nature was on full display that day –e.g.,
the quake caused a tsunami with waves that reached California within twelve hours; the island of Japan was moved by about eight feet; and, the Earth shifted on its axis by about four inches.
This thread is becoming totally trashed. It’s really disappointing because it started of as a wonderful congratulations and thank you for all you are doing to bring sanity to climate policy.
The most obvious and prolific trolls are Joshua and Appell.
markbofill seems like a new troll
And, the threading is broken again.
Peter Lang: Complaining about “trolls” is just an attempt to suppress speech you don’t like. It rarely, if ever, works.
The Loony Left sites have been very successful at suppressing speech from those with opposing views.
And yours and Joshua’s comments are not constructive – they are simple vandalism, like that of an unemployed, disadvantaged, adolescent .
Complaining about “deniers” is just an attempt to suppress speech you don’t like. It hasn’t worked for y’all.
The pause is killing the cause, with a lot of help from inept,nasty alarmists.
The cause of the pause is dead, and the pause barely has a heartbeat. How much did the 30-year trend drop between the end of 2014, and the end of the record setting 1st quarter of 2015? Because that is the only heartbeat the very nearly dead General Franco pause has left. So weak it can barely fog a mirror: -.0005988C.
I don’t think the six and a half billion people who don’t give a ff about climate are going to notice. Are you going to the failed Paris junket? It ain’t started and already it’s a dud. Can’t you think up some kind of freaking name to use? Willard would suit you.
I expect a small increase for the rest of the century so I’m not too surprised.
However, the victory laps about the death of the pause are a little premature.
When the temperature catches up to the models, let me know…
I would say the victory lap around the pause, and the rock-solid belief the cool phase PDO and AMO/stadium wave are riding to the “natural variation ” rescue is the victory lap that was/is entirely premature, and somebody just tried to sign the American congress up for the celebration.
The current 30-year warming trend is .17C, which is higher than the 30-year warming trend through 1998.
How about “warming since the Little Ice Age”?
OOps! Forgot the threading was broken.
How about “warming since the Little Ice Age”?
Congrats! You just discovered the definition of a Pause.
Careful who you tell, don’t want to get any nasty slurs hurled your way…
Nah. To think trolling the forums is some made up excuse to stifle opinions is either naive or… Trolling.
To be clear, I think the single greatest asset this blog has is its ability to draw interest from a variety of people across the scientific and political spectrum. I’ve learned much from reading lively debates from intelligent members discussing the science of CC and the policy debates that spring from different positions. It is absolutely fantastic for someone wanting to expose themselves to the entire spectrum of the topic. However…
We also have a number of people drawn to the blog who just want a place to fight, are looking to smear/bicker with/otherwise waste the time of Dr. Curry, seek to promote their own wacky “science”, peddle books/blogs, and all sorts of stupid crap that amounts to nothing more than adults playing very childish games. Most of that falls under trolling and none of it contributes to anyone’s understanding of Climate Science, AGW, or the policies related to such that this blog is here to promote discussion on.
That’s just motivated reasoning talking Peter. You are upset because some here aren’t from your tribe. Obviously, you engage in selective reasoning. Or it’s the rhetoric of your argument that’s wrong.
It can’t have anything to do with the motivated climate science and selective proxies.
I’m a new troll?
How does that work Peter? How am I a troll and not, say, you?
You make a statement like that, you ought to be ready to support it.
Just consider: how are your pile on irrelevant comments making any useful contribution to the discussion about the testimony by Judith and others to the President’s UN Climate Pledge.
Peter
I transcribed her discussion with Rep. Beyer. What have you contributed to Climate Etc?
My comment was a reply to markbofill @ April 17, 2015 at 9:05 am
markbofill,
I apologise. I withdraw my comment. I hadn’t followed the whole thread, and just saw the thread begin filled with irrelevant comments and heaps of irrelevant code.
Peter,
Since remark withdrawn, nothing to forgive. We’re square. :)
Peter,
Good news for the world.
China working on plan to build 500 nuclear power plants. Should help clean up the smog and reduce the aerosols and black carbon drifting west and north over the arctic and west coast N America. India will pass them as coal user but also plans to develop Thorium reactors. The tigers are passing the old USA on energy and technology as we dither about stopping the sea from rising and fighting imaginary dragons.
Scott
@scotts4sf,
India won’t be passing China as a coal user. India is already ‘import dependent. Importing steam coal isn’t cheap and it isn’t particularly healthy for the national treasury.
France and Japan both had significant nuclear power builds because they were both ‘coal importers’.
China was a coal exporter until 2002.
The problem in the US is that we don’t have a short term need for even 100 GW worth of power plants.
Creating a new generation of nuclear plants based on a new fuel cycle requires sufficient demand to support a full scale fuel fabrication facility.
This is what ultimately killed the Fort St Vrain nuclear plant…it was going to end up being a ‘one of’ plant supporting it’s own fuel fabrication cycle.
The Chinese and Indians both are going to requires thousands of GW of new power generation. They can support multiple fuel supply chains.
harrywr2,
Thank you. As always your contributions are amongst the most relevant and informative (for me) of all commenters on CE.
I am surprised that you say India is unlikely to pass China in coal use. Did you see this (Judith posted it some weeks ago:
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/01/briefing-india-energy-and-climate-change-challenge/
It includes this figure:
http://www.carbonbrief.org/media/371702/india2_600x301.jpg
Ah, yes. Big Brother is watching. Make him work for it.
That was about registration.
I think you did an effective job on the statement, emphasizing the uncertainty, the waste and possibly worse of the spending money without effect, and the reasons why alarmism has been losing credibility. A few observations:
You might add that the “therefore” is not that the hiatus will not extend this long but that doing so invalidates the climate models. Also, you might consider using Salby’s take: there is no hiatus. There were two periods during the 20th century in which there was warming – the 80s and 90s and the 30s and 40s. Over the 20th century as a whole, except for those two periods, temperature exhibits no systematic change. Therefore, the ‘hiatus’ is simply a return to normalcy, not a break in a trend.
Do you concede the need to decarbonize the economy?
The word “activists” is a good choice and can cover a lot of ground. I understand the wish to avoid unnecessary accusations, but is reducing fossil fuel emissions the only significant political agenda? (Have you had a blog post on incentives for alarmism?) Of course it is desirable to avoid becoming a target for people who find any discussion of these incentives to be evidence of conspiracy ideation.
“using the IPCC’s own figures.”
It might be good to point out that there is no evidence that these events were caused by climate change.
I think you are saying that climate surprises and extreme weather events will happen even if the alarmists are off track and our resources would be well spent devising strategies for dealing with them. However, this sentence could be interpreted (if read quickly) as saying “The efforts made so far will be ineffective against climate change, and we will consequently remain vulnerable to climate surprises and extreme weather events.”
If I understand correctly, in the UK is correct to say that when it comes to global warming, academia are nuts, whereas in the US, when it comes to global warming, academiais nuts.
curryja | April 16, 2015 at 9:32 am | Reply
I’m trying to keep on top of this. By turning on registration, we lose a number of commenters (some of whom are worthwhile).
——————————————————————————————–
It’ll be taken more seriously going forward. Unmoderated anonymous blogs in controversial subjects are more than most serious minded people want to endure especially if they’re on the receiving side of rude comments from the unwashed masses. You have too many comments and most of them aren’t worth spit. You must know that. The signal to noise ratio sucks. Reduce it down to 100 comments average per article, topical, from well informed individuals mostly using real names.
Registration isn’t much to ask when it’s a click of a button to twitter or facebook accounts. I’d remove the wordpress credential or possibly replace it with a google credential. Anonymity is SO 20th century.
“…unwashed masses…”
Your use of that term reeks of elitism. Do you not value democracy and egalitarianism? Are you unable to learn from the wisdom and life experience of those among the “unwashed masses”? Are you unable to separate the signal from the noise when it is delivered in unsophisticated or emotional language?
Just terrible…
Orvic – correct – I call it “zero support policy”. Problem customers get a cheerful refund and the phone number of the competition.
Science doesn’t come from cab drivers. Sorry. Way too much uninformed BS in the comments here.
It’s the old 20/80 rule you spend 80% of your time on 20% of the customers. Good business people just elimate the 20% and still enjoy growth.
Unless I missed it, no one at the hearing mentioned the benefits from increased levels of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. Dr. Curry discussed benefits from a “warmer climate” and “climate mitigation and adaption” but not specifically about increased plant growth from higher levels of carbon dioxide. IMHO that benefit should be discussed more both publically and in congressional testimony.
True, true, CO2 isn’t scary, it’s plant food:
Yes.
But it is difficult to educate the photosynthesis deniers.
Perhaps if they hear about it on “love radio” and not “hate radio” the word will get out…
As usual, I am a day late and dollar short, so I will copy my comment from the post made before the hearing. Sorry if this is repetitive for regular readers.
Another class act, Dr. Curry.
I contrast your well-tempered use of fact and logical extension of fact with this quote from Thomas Friedman in the NYT just one year ago:
Let me put this in personal terms. Your son or daughter has a disease. And you go to 100 doctors. 97 out of a hundred say, “This is a cause and this is a cure,” and three percent say, “This is a cause and this is a cure.” It’s like 97% of experts say this. 3% say that. And, conservatives say, “I’m going to go with the 3%.” That’s not conservative. That’s Trotskyite-radical…
A Pulitzer Prize winning author reduced to political shilling by the use of false data, emotion-tugging (what, no puppies?), logical fallacy and hyperbolic slander in one brief quote. But this is what honest scientists like you are up against today.
Thank you for braving the storm. I hope that every sincere scientist and engineer will one day gather the intestinal fortitude to step forward and demand that the debate shall occur in the realm of knowledge and reason, not Alinsky’s playing field of ridicule and disinformation.
Let me put this in personal terms. Your son or daughter has a disease. And you go to 100 doctors. 97 out of a hundred say, “This is a cause and this is a cure,” and three percent say, “This is a cause and this is a cure.” It’s like 97% of experts say this. 3% say that. And, conservatives say, “I’m going to go with the 3%.” That’s not conservative. That’s Trotskyite-radical…
If you go to 100 doctors and 97 % say the same thing and they are all in the same consensus clique, run, or you are doomed if they are wrong, they will never figure that out.
The 97 % is a percent of an extremely small climate alarmist clique.
The conservatives see that there are many more scientists outside the clique who do disagree. The 97% of doctors who have held consensus, in history, have most all been determined to have been wrong. consensus never results in progress, only different opinions get proved right later and results in progress.
Judy, This was the first time I’ve watched you for and extended period. I don’t think you should short change yourself on your ability to speak and communicate well. I thought you came off as the most credible of the four as you seemed the most genuine and least robotic. That you are able to think on the fly and express your thoughts in a coherent way is something the average person can’t do. I thought you successfully refuted that one guy and that’s why it ended up on Drudge. You also did it without cutting him down. Even though Lofgren (? Name) got you on the IPPC extreme weather business where she deveously didn’t ask for your input, you were able to set the record straight in your answer to him. Good show, you never know it may pay off later on.
I agree totally. Either witnesses have it or they don’t, and you have it. But, that is an extension of all the other elements about your persona that come out here without seeing you in person. It is the credibility factor.
Test.
Excellent testimony Dr. Curry! “Climate change means a change im climate”, exactly!
Pingback: Judith Curry’s testimony | …and Then There's Physics
ATTP writes- “We may not know, but we’re fairly certain that anthropogenic influences have dominated since 1950 and that it will continue to dominate if we continue to increase our emissions.”
My response- No you are not fairly certain, but you have come to believe that is true. It is also possible that CO2 had a much smaller impact than you have concluded and that the system is less stable naturally than you concluded based on a very small sample of information.
ATTP writes- “we have plenty of evidence to suggest that our climate has been broadly stable for the last few thousand years.”
My response- I strongly disagree on several levels.
1st, we do not know that the planet’s climate system does not respond to other changes that we have yet to discover. A simple example would be changes in ocean currents potentially caused by a variety of different causes.
2nd, the data we have on the worldwide climate over the long term is hardly “highly reliable”. There were not people in most of the world a thousand years ago taking precise measurements that can be reliably compared to information from today. You know that the climate is constantly changing. What makes you believe it should be stable when you know even continents move?
ATTP writes- “with regards to policy, science doesn’t much matter. Yes, in some sense I agree with this; let’s stop arguing about science and just get on with deciding on the optimal policies.”
My response- The science does matter and so do the economics of people’s proposed reaction to their conclusions about the science.
In this case, if you do not conclude that there is reliable evidence that more CO2 is leading to a disastrous changes to the climate, a reasonable person would seem to want to know what impact will there be if we spend resources on the solution you propose and what other expenditures will we be unable to make if we spend on what you propose.
A simple question—Do you think that the projected US budget deficit in the next 20 years is a potentially very serious problem?
Rob,
I don’t think anything you’ve said contradicts what I said. The available evidence suggests that human influences have dominated since 1950. The available evidence suggests that our climate has been broadly stable for thousands of years (bear in mind, I said broadly stable and the thousands really just mean thousands, not tens of, hundreds of, or more). That what the evidence suggests may not be correct (and I’m not suggesting that it isn’t) is not sufficient to say that we don’t know. And, if you’d read the end of my post, you’d have noticed that I didn’t fully agree that science doesn’t matter.
I’ve no idea, what’s this got to do with this?
Assuming you’re advocating for actions that require money, it’s something you might want to educate yourself about…
Santoron wrote:
“Assuming you’re advocating for actions that require money, it’s something you might want to educate yourself about…”
What is the cost of not acting? That’s something you might want to educate yourself about….
As far as I’m aware, everything costs money. Anyone who thinks they’re advocating for something that doesn’t cost money is probably fooling themselves.
ATTP writes- “The available evidence suggests that human influences have dominated since 1950.”
My response- Only in your biased view does the available evidence suggest that human influences have dominated changes in the climate. You can not even get a consensus that human infuences have dominated any warming that has occured since 1950, and then leaping to the conclusion that any associated warming is the cause for other changes to the climate is unsupported.
If you wanted to try to argue the humans are the largest cause of change to the overall environment I would probably agree. What I find frustrating is the failure of those concerned about the impact of AGW not being willing to adjust their views based on the reality of the available information.
There is not reliable evidence to suggest that AGW is a pending disaster for the USA or the world over the next 100 years. If there was evidence in a vast increase in the rate of sea level rise I would change my view–but there isn’t.
There is reliable evidence to suggest that if the USA does not significantly adjust it’s budget (either by increasing taxes or reducing spending) then there is a pending disaster financially for the US. I suggest that government spending on the issue of AGW needs to be a lower priority than other more important issues or that those advocating for AGW spending need to honestly advocate tax increases to pay for their proposals.
Okay, I don’t think you understand what consensus means.
I wrote a paper on the subject of consensus
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/28/climate-change-no-consensus-on-consensus/
and why it doesn’t make much sense in context of climate change
Judith,
Yes, I read that. IIRC, you were arguing against the goal of developing a consensus position. However, you failed to show that this was actually the goal, and nothing in your paper disputed that a consensus does exist. Science many not work via consensus, but that doesn’t mean that a consensus is never reached.
My point is that the IPCC is a manufactured consensus, for policy purposes, not a naturally emerging scientific consensus (people don’t talk about a consensus when something is trivially true or everyone agrees). As such, it carries no epistemic weight. I regard it the climate change consensus to be about as reliable as the recently collapsed consensus on cholesterol and heart disease.
Judith,
I realise that this is your point, but I don’t see any evidence for this position. I’ve seen no evidence to suggest that in the absense of climate science being policy relevant that there would not be some kind of consensus position.
There is 99% consensus on yes it is warming, yes humans are emitting CO2, yes the greenhouse effect exists. But the key issue is whether humans are dominating over natural causes in terms of recent warming. Recent surveys that use some form of this question found: 52% (AMS), 81% (bray and von starch), 85% (Verheggan). A majority, yes. What is the point of ‘consensus’ given these stats and the uncertainties?
Judith –
And yet you use consensus as a benchmark quite frequently. For example, when you say that you don’t think that anyone in the room doubts the GHE. This is similar to how you think that appealing to authority (or expertise) has no value except when you do it.
And before I could even post my comment, you referenced the “consensus” yet again:
And so we see that is not the act of referencing “consensus” that you have a problem with.
> But the key issue is whether humans are dominating over natural causes in terms of recent warming.
Why is this a key issue?
Why is this the key issue?
And please note,
you put forth your faith in “consensus” w/o a scientific effort to measure it. Your belief in consensus flies in the face of many comments we can read on this very blog – where each of the criteria you claim 99% consensus on are refuted.
I’ll remind you of this from that previous thread that you linked:
When will willard wonder well, when will willard turn the key?
============
willard:
Indeed – some interesting reading from Pekka in that previous thread:
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/28/climate-change-no-consensus-on-consensus/#comment-261407
If you don’t first do the detection – identify something beyond natural variability – then attribution to GHG is meaningless. We have failed to adequately do the detection.
I don’t ask about Joshua.
========
Judith –
It’s interesting how when you testify before Congress, attribution is not the key issue; instead, we should focus on adaptation to whatever might come our way because attribution is unknowable.
But here in this thread it surfaces as the key issue.
Attribution is the key issue, and i’ve dealt with it at length in my previous testimonies. Its not unknowable, but I regard it as highly uncertain. The recent clarification of aerosol forcing by bjorn stevens is very helpful in this regard. It makes the 150+% attribution to GHG seem rather ridiculous.
Joshua looks for Willard’s lost key, neither under the lamp post, nor where Willard lost it.
===============
if we turn on registration, we lose kim!
It all depends upon how you lock down the meaning of ‘key’, and willard and Joshua are coding the combination, cryptically.
================
I wonder if either understand how ridiculous they look keying on the meaning of ‘key’ as any kind of device to unlock the door to understanding. Heh, having once found their key, they’d be reduced to finding a vehicle it will allow them to run.
================
Judy! That’s a worthwhile sacrifice.
I really oughta jettison my illusions of anonymity. Gradually there is less and use for it, but I have even less use for recognition.
==============
Kim –
Why are you unable to register?
Some people really do not want any identity information tracked on the internet, and protect their personal identities. I have gotten emails from a number of commenters with this concern. I try to honor this to the extent i can
If you wanted to allow certain of such people you might be able to add them yourself
Users -> Add New SubPanel
and adjust their role:
Settings -> General SubPanel
and send the password to the user. But that’s kind of a hassle and maybe some would object to this, although you could make up a fake email to use when registering the person.
The little haters hate it when Judith testifies “for the Republicans”. The trolling gets really deep around here.
Is that the key issue because if human activity was responsible for the recent (pre-hiatus) warming then we can expect similar warming to continue and estimates of catastrophic consequences in the near future are credible?
Simply won’t, swomill. It’s ignorant, stupid, bull-headed; hey, I’m a denier.
It also gives me the patina of self-discipline. I can pretend I’m not addicted to internet commenting.
=====================
”
My point is that the IPCC is a manufactured consensus, for policy purposes, not a naturally emerging scientific consensus (people don’t talk about a consensus when something is trivially true or everyone agrees)…
”
All consensus on policy is manufactured, Dr Curry.
In fact, House Hearings are part of the production line.
The implication that a climate policy consensus could ’emerge naturally’ is, quite frankly, very silly.
But – speaking of political manufacturing:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/17/abbott-government-gives-4m-to-help-climate-sceptic-set-up-australian-centre
The “Consensus Center”! Too funny.
Bjørn Lomborg has said: ‘Natural science has undeniably shown us that global warming is manmade and real. But just as undeniable is the economic science which makes it clear that a narrow focus on reducing carbon emissions could leave future generations with major costs, without major cuts to temperatures.’”
Where have I heard that false equivalence before?
It must be because there is a… consensus.
Remember everyone:
“Consensus…
…doesn’t make much sense in context of climate change.”
and
“As such, it carries no epistemic weight.”
Dr Curry has become the go-to expert in epistemic wait.
ATTP writes- “Okay, I don’t think you understand what consensus means.”
You making a claim does not make something true.
Do you claim that there is not a significant number of scientists who have studied AGW who are uncertain or skeptical that humans are the “dominate” cause of any warming since 1950? Under your definition of “consensus” what percentage of scientist must agree with your claim before it is valid? If there are even 25% of scientists who have studies the issue who “strongly disagree” with your conclusion–is there a consensus?
But according to Richard Lindzen, the 0.8°C warming of the last century is consistent with a sensitivity to CO₂ that would not be alarming.
> If you don’t first do the detection – identify something beyond natural variability – then attribution to GHG is meaningless.
That only says that establishing natural variablity is at the core of the detection/attribution problem, Judy. Since the detection/attribution to GHG is basically another way to say that we need to distinguish natural variability from antropogenic forcing, this does not say much.
At the very least, this rewording does not explain in what ways the detection/attribution problem is key. In fact, this does not even tell why we should care about it. The whole production line of memes may need to be connected together, from sensitive matters to the poor kids in Africa.
Is the detection/attribution problem wicked, BTW?
If that is a concern, why wouldn’t they just create a special email account for the purpose of commenting?
If they are concerned about some kind of electronic trace, then why wouldn’t the same apply to them commenting under a pseudonym?
Speaking of consensus, I wonder what percentage of the ‘scientists’ considered to be on one side or the other of the consensus know enough of climate science to be able to form an informed independent judgment on the question of climate change, and what percentage have simply made a decision to trust one side or the other.
Now there’s an intercalated sock at 12:05.
Heh, I said before, you can steal my masque, now try playing the part.
=================
Does the credibility of the projections of climate alarmists depend on the credibility of the models being used to create these projections, such that a person not familiar with how a model works is unable to give an informed and independent opinion as to whether such projections are reliable?
Kim –
I express no opinion on the credibility of this model’s projections.
Nice ter see the trolls
having a nice time
taking up lots of open space
in Judith’s city square…
Would they extend this
courtesy of open debate
ter contrary views within
their own consensus sphere?
Judith: In your Congressional testimony, you said:
“Climate models predict much more warming than has been observed in the early 21st century.”
Why restrict oneself to the period of the early 21st century, instead of the entire dataset? When I look at a big GISS model, I found that it’s actually underpredicting the amount of warming seen since 1880. Graph here:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/04/a-giss-model-vs-giss-observed.html
After all, it’s total warming that we’re really interested in….
Why restrict oneself to a comparison with one cherrypicked model, davey?
Danny –
==> “There is only a certain level to which I personally can evaluate science and have stated I see warming. But I so no evidence of climate understanding or settled science.
I don’t get how that is related to the previous discussion about the relevance of what some scientists thought about the evidence of climatic trends in the 70s to what scientists think about the current state of evidence related to climatic trends.
(And FYI and FWIW- I find your practice of inserting comments out of linear/chronological sequence to make it harder, not easier to maintain a coherent exchange. It means that I have to search the entire string to see if you have responded on point to a comment of mine (if others’ comments have appeared in the meantime) rather than just look at the end. IMO, it would just be easier if you include a quote at the top of a comment to make it clear what you are responding to.)
Joshua,
I hit reply on the e-mails so I can respond directly to your comment since there is not always a reply availability within the post.
The concept I’m attempting to get you to understand is that based on historic evidence “science” (I didn’t know or care who) thru mass media (I didn’t read papers and speculate most others don’t either) told us an ice age was coming. So “science’s” history with me is suspect especially when I do focus (as best I’m capable) and find contrary (some 180 degrees) evidence within the climate discussion. Models project nearly a century ahead and we’re supposed to accept those projections when the near term portion of the curve is inaccurate. So for me, policy should be as least injurious and conservative while addressing more than just CO2 including infrastructure and inclusive of adaptation and relocation. (I’m talking to much so feel I should shut it down for now).
Danny Thomas wrote:
“The concept I’m attempting to get you to understand is that based on historic evidence “science” (I didn’t know or care who) thru mass media (I didn’t read papers and speculate most others don’t either) told us an ice age was coming. ”
How many times do you need to be shown this is wrong?
And if you don’t or can’t read scientific papers, you deserve whatever crap the MSM tells you.
David,
But, but, but, but, but…….peer reviewed. And, with NOAA…………http://judithcurry.com/2015/04/15/hearing-presidents-un-climate-pledge/#comment-694408
Danny –
==> “The concept I’m attempting to get you to understand is that based on historic evidence “science” (I didn’t know or care who) thru mass media (I didn’t read papers and speculate most others don’t either) told us an ice age was coming. ”
OK. Yes, that is a different issue. There’s no doubt that trying to evaluate science based on media reports is like walking through a minefield blindfolded.
==> .”So for me, policy should be as least injurious and conservative while addressing more than just CO2 including infrastructure and inclusive of adaptation and relocation. (I’m talking to much so feel I should shut it down for now).”
There is nothing in that statement that I disagree with – although I suspect that the translation of that agreement into a discussion of problem-solving in the face of uncertainty would uncover areas of divergence.
Although, again, I don’t see how that follows from the discussion of how “skeptics” try to capitalize on an argument about a “cooling consensus” in the ’70s.
David Appell: we know that 20th century can’t be explained by natural factors.
In fact we cannot explain any century. E.g., we don’t know why past ice ages began and why they ended. Climate science simply hasn’t reached that point.
However, I don’t think our lack of scientific expertise justifies a conclusion that late 20th century warming must be due to man’s activity. One could equally well reach the absurd conclusion that man’s activity caused the various ice ages to begin and to end.
David Skurnick wrote:
“In fact we cannot explain any century. E.g., we don’t know why past ice ages began and why they ended.”
Wrong. Read Pierrehumbert’s textbook, Ch 7. See: Milankovitch cycles. See: summer insolation at 65 deg N.
Yo davey, when they started running that model back in 1880, why did it predict that horrendous plunge in temperature. Must have scared the crap out people back then. Was that what caused the BIG ICE AGE SCARE of 1881?
Hi Don,
I remember reading about the ice age fear in my fourth grade Weekly Reader in 1970. I notice that it was not until 1973 that the consensus built enough to put the issue on the cover of Time and Newsweek for three issues. You and I both know that if cooling continued it would have been AGC now.
Ron: Don’t confuse the covers of Time and Newsweek for the scientific consensus. Please read:
“The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus” W. Peterson et al, Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 89, 1325–1337, 2008
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
David,
From your offering:”Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s.”
And: ” A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists’ thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth’s climate on human time scales.” But how many folks read “the literature” vs. “the literature” http://austrianeconomists.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/the_cooling_world_newsweek_2.jpg
And even Werst has a reference: “For a few years in the early 1970s, new evidence and arguments led many scientists to suspect that the greatest climate risk was not warming, but cooling. A new ice age seemed to be approaching as part of the natural glacial cycle, perhaps hastened by human pollution that blocked sunlight. Technological optimists suggested ways to counter this threat too. We might spread soot from cargo aircraft to darken the Arctic snows, or even shatter the Arctic ice pack with “clean” thermonuclear explosions.” http://www.aip.org/history/climate/RainMake.htm
And it was in peer review: (from the wiki)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7d/PeerReviewedPapersComparingGlobalWarmingAndCoolingIn1970s.jpg/220px-PeerReviewedPapersComparingGlobalWarmingAndCoolingIn1970s.jpg
David,
Oh, and I forgot the C.I.A. also had evidence to support “global cooling” :http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf
David
It must not have been fun then for the consensus since by the 1970s the 1910-40s warming trend had long since passed. I wonder how many of the consensus were crossing their fingers hoping for a little warming to confirm their view of CO2. But, as it turned out, natural variability rode in and saved the day. A big sigh of relief!
cerescokid: In truth, by the 1970s plenty of scientists were already concerned about warming from CO2. There had already been several reports on it, and in 1975 Manabe and Wetherald first calculated the warming expected from 2xCO2. Here’s a list of the many papers on this subject over the 20th century:
http://www.davidappell.com/EarlyClimateScience.html
cerescokid wrote:
“But, as it turned out, natural variability rode in and saved the day. A big sigh of relief!”
It’s well known that natural factors alone do not explain 20th century warming. Unless you have evidence no one has seen yet…..(?)
Danny: I’m not saying there were no articles on the topic — the literature survery I cited found some — but that it wasn’t the consensus, and certainly not a consensus as we know it today.
The 1970s were a time before satellite data was broad and deep. There simply wasn’t the monitoring there is today, nor the global data we’re now used to finding so easily on the Web. Scientists simply weren’t sure what was going on — and the 1940s to 1970s flat temperature trends, now thought due to aerosol emissions before clean air acts — was also difficult to understand.
But it’s clear that many people were already concerned about CO2 emissions by then.
David,
I can agree with that. It’s just I see often the “coming ice age” of the 70’s being pooh-poohed when in fact there were peer reviewed scientists, mass media (much like today needing to sell publications/clicks), and even our government (the C.I.A.) propagating the theme. For those of us old (ancient?) enough to remember this then it follows that there is some natural skepticism of the science no matter which way it points.
I, myself, have asked the question if Hansen’s early work was misguided at least in part due to a response to aerosols/particulates skewing his “projections”. I’ve not found evidence (nor his publicized re-evaluation) to support my simple minded assumptions but they make sense. Just another indicator of reasonable skepticism and unsettled science due to uncertainty.
Danny –
Let’s say that the majority of experts in the physics of climate thought, in the 70s, that we were headed for a prolonged cooling state (even though the evidence is lacking to show that they did)….
Would that be directly relevant to the discussion about what the science shows today about climate change.
Sorry to see you embrace such a fallacious talking point.
Joshua,
See this: http://judithcurry.com/2015/04/15/hearing-presidents-un-climate-pledge/#comment-694290
The CIA’s report, together with the 1975 National Academy of Science report (which I’d believe before any CIA report) is just more evidence people weren’t sure at all what was going on.
https://ia801806.us.archive.org/7/items/understandingcli00unit/understandingcli00unit.pdf
David,
“is just more evidence people weren’t sure at all what was going on”. Like we’re sure now? Uncertainties that I’m aware of at my novice level: attribution, sensitivities to CO2, albedo, water vapor/clouds, oceans (in many ways), geography, current state of modelling, issues with projections, and certainly policy. What we know: it’s warming, has been since +/- 1700 and even here we’re not sure if anthro is on top of natural or it’s actually “cooled” but masking warming that “would have occurred” all being discussed during a “hiatus”? I’m sure I missed something.
Steve Schneider. Mainstream. A coolist.
David –
==> “people weren’t sure at all what was going on.”
You don’t seem to understand.
Some scientists were wrong about something in the past when they had less vastly less evidence and technical analytical skill, ergo, the “consensus” on climate change should be disregarded.
You know, sometimes I read “skeptics” making arguments about the science that, for someone with very limited technical skills, seem substantive and important to address.
I think of this comment from the abstract of a recent paper:
Danny Thomas wrote:
“I can agree with that. It’s just I see often the “coming ice age” of the 70’s being pooh-poohed when in fact there were peer reviewed scientists, mass media (much like today needing to sell publications/clicks), and even our government (the C.I.A.) propagating the theme.”
First, I don’t trust anyone’s memories of that time, even my own. They’re not proof (or disproof) of anything.
Second, the CIA’s wasn’t the *only* report from that time. There had already been several reports expressing concern about CO2 and warming:
The Conservation Foundation, Implications of Rising Carbon Dioxide Content of the Atmosphere (New York: The Conservation Foundation, 1963).
A 1965 report to the Johnson Administration had a chapter on CO2’s potential to cause warming:
“Restoring the Quality of Our Environment,” Report of the Environmental Pollution Panel, President’s Science Advisory Committee (1965), pp. 111-133.
“Is Carbon Dioxide from Fossil Fuel Changing Man’s Environment?” Charles D. Keeling, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, vol 114 no 1 (1970).
SCEP (Study of Critical Environmental Problems), Man’s Impact on the Global Environment. Assessment and Recommendations for Action (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1970), p. 12.
J.S. Sawyer, “Man-made Carbon Dioxide and the “Greenhouse” Effect,” Nature 239, 23-26 (1 Sept 1972).
“Understanding Climatic Change: A Program for Action,” National Academy of Sciences (1975).
“Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?” Wallace S. Broecker, Science Vol. 189 no. 4201 pp. 460-463, August 8, 1975.
For those of us old (ancient?) enough to remember this then it follows that there is some natural skepticism of the science no matter which way it points.
Links at: http://www.davidappell.com/EarlyClimateScience.html
The CIA report you cited simply was one of many, and it does not represent the views of anyone but the CIA.
You aren’t looking at the bigger picture.
Danny –
==> ” For those of us old (ancient?) enough to remember this then it follows that there is some natural skepticism of the science no matter which way it points.”
Sorry – I don’t think that it “follows.” They are unconnected in a scientific sense. The field was completely different. The evidence was completely different. There is no end to such reasoning. The current scientific evidence on climate change should be valuated on its own merits. Plain and simple. If you want to make the argument that some particular current day scientists are overly-confident in their interpretations of the science, have at it. That seems perfectly reasonable to me. Arguing that what some scientists thought about climate change in the 70s should inform your evaluation of current day evidence is, sad to say, a terrible argument.
Joshua,
The argument being made relates to the “certainty”. Here is my earlier response to David and it applies to your comment equally: http://judithcurry.com/2015/04/15/hearing-presidents-un-climate-pledge/#comment-694295
Joshua wrote:
“The current scientific evidence on climate change should be valuated on its own merits. Plain and simple.”
Yes, that’s a very good point, thanks. The 1970s don’t mean anything here except history, just as they don’t represent modern genetics or modern cosmology or modern computer science. Climate science has moved fast since then.
Joshua: I agree that the views in the 1970s don’t mean much except in a historical context. Nothing like today’s. All I’m saying is that there was by no means a consensus at the time on an imminent ice age – many people already understood the issue of CO2 warming.
David & Joshua,
“All I’m saying is that there was by no means a consensus at the time on an imminent ice age – many people already understood the issue of CO2 warming.”
And not that much has changed since then. Can we quantify total dollars spent on the research and how much our understanding of “climate” has improved since the 1970’s? Do we understand in a sufficiently improved level to state that if we adjust albedo in the SH this will happen to ocean currents in the Indian Ocean? If a butterfly flaps it’s wings………………..
In the 1970’s “we” were told via MSM that “scientists” (the climate science community was in it’s infancy but “leading edge” at the time) claimed (projected?) a coming ice age. At least with enough of a voice for CIA, MSM, me and others like me to take notice. I’m not arguing their accuracy (or not) but that it follows from the adage of “fool me once shame on you…….” that the current state of skepticism is a natural expectation at least in part due to this having happened. I’d go so far as to postulate that those under say 30 years of age today are experiencing their “coming ice age” scenario. And should the current “projections” be off base then science will be harmed and rightfully distrusted. So right now, after projecting a temperature range that has proven inaccurate (the pause) and scrambling to understand why as opposed to understanding why and then making projections would be a true “conservative” approach as opposed to the supposedly “conservative nature” of the IPCC still leading to an inaccurate projection. Considering what may (or may not) be a stake errors of this kind are unacceptable under any risk scenario. IMO.
(David, could not get this link to function: https://ia801806.us.archive.org/7/items/understandingcli00unit/understandingcli00unit.pdf)
Danny: I don’t see much left in your comment to respond to, but these:
“In the 1970’s “we” were told via MSM that “scientists” (the climate science community was in it’s infancy but “leading edge” at the time) claimed (projected?) a coming ice age.”
Newsweek and Time are popular magazines, not arbiteurs of the science. How many cover stories have they since had on Jesus? They print what gets them readers.
“So right now, after projecting a temperature range that has proven inaccurate (the pause)”
This is yet another misunderstanding climate models, and it’s getting tiring. Climate models cannot guess the future. They don’t know what ENSOs are coming, what AMO/PDO/IPO shifts are coming, what volcanoes are going to erupt, what the Sun will do.
So how can they possibly calculate temperatures over a few decades, where such factors can be important for short-term trends?
Climate models calculate long-term warming, after natural variablity has averaged out to zero. They do a pretty good job:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/04/a-giss-model-vs-giss-observed.html
Danny –
==> “The argument being made relates to the “certainty”.
Some people in the past, who had less information, were certain about something that later proved to be wrong. What does that tell you about the price of tea in China?
There were people in the past who thought the Earth was flat. There are people today who are certain that the Earth is 6,000 years old. Does that tell me anything about the science of climate change?
Evaluate the science on it’s own merits. Don’t use the science as a vehicle for confirming biases.
Joshua,
There are differences between beliefs and science. I, with my own eyes, one month apart saw a paper about the high sea levels and then one about lows. I see Nic Lewis discussing sensitivities here. I see papers that say sediments from glacial run off may contain iron in sufficient quantity to aid in long term sequestration of CO2 at ocean bottoms. And so on. I see MSM talk of settled science (just like some professed of the 1970’s ice age) and it just ain’t so. There is only a certain level to which I personally can evaluate science and have stated I see warming. But I so no evidence of climate understanding or settled science.
Danny Thomas wrote:
“I see MSM talk of settled science (just like some professed of the 1970’s ice age)”
Who professed settled science in the 1970s?
Who, specifically. By name?
And so what if they did? They (if anybody did) were wrong. So what?
David,
Apparently I wrote poorly. When I said “I see” that’s current tense not past. The “settled science” was recent and one was our President, Our Secretary of State, in other words, our current administration.
There was no “consensus” of climate science of which I’m aware UNTIL IPCC. Prior to that, it was just “scientists”. “Consensus” is only needed as an appeal. And some “consensuses” have in fact been inaccurate, correct?
Danny Thomas: I”m done. Good luck.
Danny: We’re sure that *CO2* is a significant warming factor, and other anthropogenic emissions of GHGs. Of course, there are uncertainties about other aspects of climate.
But we do know it’s not cooling, and we know CO2’s forcing, and we know modern warming can’t be explained by natural factors alone.
And given these, we know the unknowns aren’t a reason for inaction, because unknowns cut both ways.
David,
“But we do know it’s not cooling, and we know CO2’s forcing, and we know modern warming can’t be explained by natural factors alone.
And given these, we know the unknowns aren’t a reason for inaction, because unknowns cut both ways.”
We don’t know it’s not “naturally” cooling as it’s been put forth that natural variability is “masking” warming which is why there is a hiatus in surface temperature. Or it might be something else.
I’m all for action, and align with Dr. Curry’s thinking (or my understanding of same) that a broad based approach not solely against FF but inclusive of land use, improved infrastructure, and more research is the more correct approach as we can injure our economy while not impacting warming if others don’t do the same. So the unknowns do cut both ways and action needs to take that in to account.
Danny, we know that 20th century can’t be explained by natural factors. And we know now that natural variability has been a negative forcing over the last 1-2 decades, but that it’s variable and not going to stay negative. In fact, it looks to already be turning positive. Almost no one thinks warming is finished.
David,
I don’t “believe” warming is “finished” either. It’s only been about 300 years since 1700. How long do interglacials usually last?
It’s all about the policy, and I’m comfortable that Dr. C has a reasonable approach (and it happens to align with mine from what I understand as it covers much more than just FF).
David –
==> “All I’m saying is that there was by no means a consensus at the time on an imminent ice age – many people already understood the issue of CO2 warming.”
Of course not. But there is still yet a more fundamental level of fallaciousness in this argument being presented by “skeptics.”
Even if there were a consensus at the time, it would be irrelevant to evaluating the current day evidence. This is an example of motivated reasoning. Pure and simple.
Joshua wrote:
“Even if there were a consensus at the time, it would be irrelevant to evaluating the current day evidence.”
Another good point, Joshua.
David Appell | April 16, 2015 at 8:00 pm |
But we do know it’s not cooling, and we know CO2’s forcing, and we know modern warming can’t be explained by natural factors alone.
And given these, we know the unknowns aren’t a reason for inaction, because unknowns cut both ways.
Well,
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo_anngr.png
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/indicators/global-temp-and-co2-1880-2009.gif
It is hard to make the argument that emissions are driving the CO2 increase. The rate of atmospheric CO2 increase looks like a couple year delayed version of the temperature.
Danny – sorry, this belongs here:
http://judithcurry.com/2015/04/15/hearing-presidents-un-climate-pledge/#comment-694321
Davey is congratulating little admittedly ignorant joshie on all the good points he is making. Hey davey, how bout you get joshie to help you answer the question?
Why restrict oneself to a comparison with one cherrypicked model, davey?
That model meets up with reality once in a freaking hunnert years, davey. Is that the best you could find out of all those multi-million dollar misrepresentations of climate, davey? How many models are there now? Getting close to a hunnert? So what are the odds that davey can find a model to use as an example of halfa$$ed usefulness? Hunnert to one!
Danny –
==> “And not that much has changed since then. ”
So this is where the difference in views stems from.
The body of evidence and the scientific techniques are completely different.
The logic that you’re applying has no end. You could argue that there’s no difference between soothsayers of ancient times and current day climate scientists because for both, their projections of further events are not foolproof. You could say that the medical scientific thought that supported blood-letting was no different than current treatments that fail to cure cancer.
Anyway, as I said I think that the your comment that I quoted is a rather irreconcilable difference of view.
Joshua,
Other than the Greenhouse Gas theory (how long has that theory existed?), which of these do you have evidence that science is “settled”?: Oceans, Clouds, other water vapor, Albedo, CO2 sensitivities, Arctic ice, Antarctic Ice, Sea Levels, Carbon Cycle, geography, Old Sol, Volcanism, ah……….that’s sufficient. (I’m done for today but will look for your answer and hope to get one).
You are hyperventilating, joshie. Danny wouldn’t say any of that nonsense, because he isn’t silly. Only a silly person would suggest that Danny could say such things, or that the sensible observation that Danny made leads to such silliness. Are you catching my drift, joshie?
Danny –
==> “which of these do you have evidence that science is “settled”?”
None of it. And I think we’d be hard pressed to find any scientists who would say so (keeping in mind that the very expression of “settled science” is vague and ambiguous within any given context).
But for what might be the fourth time, I’m not following how that relates to where this discussion started.
The belief that the state of the science is extremely different in the 70s, and the belief that the science is not “settled” are certainly not mutually exclusive or logically contradictory.
Have a good evening.
Joshua,
(and with apologies to the blog for being so talkative)
“The belief that the state of the science is extremely different in the 70s, and the belief that the science is not “settled” are certainly not mutually exclusive or logically contradictory.”
The point is these were no more settled in the 1970’s when a “voice” (before IPCC) of “science” were indicating a coming ice age. Today, they’re still not settled. The fact that it’s not a contradiction is the emphasis. We just don’t know any more (effectively) about global climate today than we did and the projections were wrong then. Is in not even possible that they are wrong now? (Attribution is still in debate). The only actual observable evidence in play is that it’s warmer. And that warming has been occurring since +/-1700. The GHG theory (Arrhenius/Fourier) has been around a long time. The interactions of a chaotic non-linear system is not understood (butterfly wings and all). Broader knowledge of some of the pieces, yes, interactions not as much.
Danny Thomas wrote:
“The point is these were no more settled in the 1970’s when a “voice” (before IPCC) of “science” were indicating a coming ice age.”
Just as false as all the other times you’ve claimed this. See
http://www.davidappell.com/EarlyClimateScience.html
Well, davey doesn’t want to talk about why he cherrypicked alleged climate model GISS E2 R and the RCP2.6 scenario. This new paper shows why:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014MS000403/pdf
It also shows why davey didn’t continue his little chart out to 2100. See figures 3 and 4. It says that GISS E2 H generally runs hotter than E2 R.
Nice try, davey.
Danny, thanks for defending my ancedotal childhood memory of Ice-age scare. Actually, I was the “Little Professor” then and was more intrigued than scared. I kind of knew it would not happen suddenly. And I was accustomed to walking 2 miles to school in winters with 20 below wind chills the norm. Ironically, I was still in high school during the first showing of the sea-level-alarm-due-to-global-warming flick. Again, I was intrigued but now wiser.
David, Joshua, I understand there is more and better science now. I do not deny CO2 warms and I my views are similar to those stated by Dr. Curry. The bottom line is that the last four IPCC attribution statements were over-aggressive, even being from scientist people. And, it’s time to hit the reset button because we have time to get more sure before we take drastic actions.
My first order of business would be to establish climate science protocols that would allow all peer reviewed work to be trusted by all scientists. Right now that trust is not there so we have earmuffs and blinders to views, just like those that want to watch only liberal news or only Fox. At the end of Dr. Richard Muller’s lecture on Mann’s Hockey Stick he concludes “Because of this there are peer reviewed papers on climate science I will not read now.” Muller is full on board with liberal Berkeley’s establishment. He is no lukewarmer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk
Ron Graf wrote:
“Danny, thanks for defending my ancedotal childhood memory of Ice-age scare.”
The plural of anecdote is not data. Your one memory of a Leonard Nimoy special is not data. This is data:
“The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus,” W. Peterson et al, Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 89, 1325–1337, 2008.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
David,
Stop making out as if it wasn’t a real concern. “Effects on the global temperature of large increases in carbon dioxide and aerosol densities in the atmosphere of Earth have been computed. It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. For aerosols, however, the net effect of increase in density is to reduce the surface temperature of Earth. Because of the exponential dependence of the backscattering, the rate of temperature decrease is augmented with increasing aerosol content. An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 ° K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.”
Note this excerpt: “the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.”
Peer reviewed: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/173/3992/138.short
Danny Thomas: Do you really need a list of what else science didn’t understand in 1971?
Dark energy
Dark matter
accelerating universe
field theory of baryon constituents (quarks, gluons)
mass of neutrinos
number of genes in the human genome
number of neutrinos
number of quarks
existence of explanets
water on Mars
evidence for gravitational waves
proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem
quantum hall effect
ozone hole
existence of Higgs boson
Do I really need to go on?
David,
Thank you for making my point! What doesn’t science understand in 2015?
Cholesterol
Albedo
Clouds/Water vapor
Volcanoes
Oceans
Arctic Ice
Antarctic Ice
Ocean vs. Land warming
Geology w/r/t climate
Is it cooling to mask warming?
Is it warming to mask cooling?
CO2 sensitivities
Aerosols
Add this list to those that science didn’t understand in 1970’s, please.
Do I need to go on?
Danny Thomas wrote:
“What doesn’t science understand in 2015?”
I disagree with your list. But even if true, so what?
You’re assuming uncertainties mean no action is necessary. In reality, uncertainties can go either way, which implies action is even more urgent. Because what if uncertain terms come out on the high side?
This is about minimizing risk. Do you not buy fire insurance just because you don’t know the date your house will burn down?
David,
Please learn how to read: “I’m all for action, and align with Dr. Curry’s thinking (or my understanding of same) that a broad based approach not solely against FF but inclusive of land use, improved infrastructure, and more research is the more correct approach as we can injure our economy while not impacting warming if others don’t do the same. So the unknowns do cut both ways and action needs to take that in to account.”
http://judithcurry.com/2015/04/15/hearing-presidents-un-climate-pledge/#comment-694314
Danny Thomas: sure, after you’ve been pointing to science that’s 45 years old, trying to obfuscate the issue. No thanks.
“Cholesterol”
To wit, do you not watch your cholesterol levels just because medical science isn’t certain of its effects on health and mortality?
I doubt it. Do you?
David,
I eat eggs, but I don’t eat them 18 times a day: “The nation’s top nutrition advisory panel has decided to drop its caution about eating cholesterol-laden food, a move that could undo almost 40 years of government warnings about its consumption.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/02/10/feds-poised-to-withdraw-longstanding-warnings-about-dietary-cholesterol/
Science, in all it’s glory and being on pedestals and all sometimes gets it wrong. So moderation, in all things, seems prudent.
(Damn you’re one hard headed dude). (I’m threatened to shut up before as I’m about 10% of these ridiculous back and forths, but this time I’m really done).
You can accept all the alarm you chose, I chose otherwise based on the contrary evidence I find in the climate discussion. Prudent action, I’m in! Draconion, I’m not.
Danny Thomas: So you do watch your cholesterol level, which depends on much more than eggs.
That’s my point, thanks.
Danny Thomas wrote:
“Science, in all it’s glory and being on pedestals and all sometimes gets it wrong. So moderation, in all things, seems prudent.”
Where is your list of what science does understand?
Do you expect anything on that list to be overthrown tomorrow?
If not, why not?
Do you go out to your car every day and wonder if it might not start because the laws of thermodynamics have suddenly stopped working?
Do you know why scientists think CO2 is a major forcing of climate? What is that based on? Do you think they just made that up, or do you think there are reasons why they think that?
David,
I think my car has nothing to do with the climate discussion. Nice try though.
I think CO2 is but one cog in a very large gear known as climate. And I think it’s important. But I wonder if you consider any of the (you tell me how many) other cogs there are in the global climate. If one wishes to use a car analogy, does the gas matter? Fuel pump? Ignition? Pistons? Lubricants? Even the driver?
Very weak argument.
I think I stated reasonably clearly that the GHG theory is reasonably understood. It’s all the other pieces of the climate “car” that we don’t yet understand the inner workings.
Danny Thomas: You avoided the question, which was, do you expect the laws of thermodynamics to be overthrown tomorrow?
Why, or why not?
Danny Thomas wrote:
“I think CO2 is but one cog in a very large gear known as climate. And I think it’s important. But I wonder if you consider any of the (you tell me how many) other cogs there are in the global climate.”
Again, why do you think uncertainty is a reason for inaction? You appear to be betting all the uncertainties will come out on the low side. Why would they?
And if you think scientists only consider CO2 and no other parts of the climate system, you are seriously mistaken.
David,
For the final time I never stated inaction (just as Dr. C corrected Mr. Beyer in the hearing) http://judithcurry.com/2015/04/15/hearing-presidents-un-climate-pledge/#comment-694439
Scientists do consider the other parts of the climate system. I’m just stating that that science is “unsettled” and not well understood (and often addressed inaccurately in modeling). Especially the interactions. How can I possibly be any more clear? (Or how can I get you to actually read what I wrote?).
David,
I will remind you (and then I’m done) that the study you offer is dated 2008. The media reports and study (ies) I cited as well as the Nimoy video (can you say ……….Matt Damon?) were in the 1970’s. Deja Vu!
Danny Thomas wrote:
“I will remind you (and then I’m done) that the study you offer is dated 2008.”
Please read the study itself to see the years it covered. Thanks.
David,
Hindsight is a wonderful thing! In the moment, however……………
Danny Thomas wrote:
“Hindsight is a wonderful thing!”
That makes no sense at all. Do you buy bread based on its price in 1971? Do you watch no TV shows made after 1971? Do you drive a car made before 1971?
Then why judge science by what it said in 1971? That’s almost a half century ago.
You are trying too hard. Give it up.
Davey, does this explain why you cherrypicked GISS E2R?
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014MS000403/pdf
You are hiding, davey.
Don: I’m not hiding. You long ago showed you were too personally disrespectful to deal with. I’ve seen it on other blogs too, the way you respond to people.
That’s a good excuse, davey.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014MS000403/pdf
Your guts are far more apparent than real. Bon appetittte!
David Appell | April 17, 2015 at 9:38 pm |
ppaa wrote:
‘Well, we are coming out of the LIA so the part to 2010 is expected.”
Prove that.
Just prove something. You make a lot of grand claims, and have proof for none of them.
When I get time to replot your graph with all the years data that aren’t linear, we will see what it looks like. The lack of 1998 makes it obvious the graph is cherry picked. I’ll put in a reasonable estimate of 2030.
We’ll revisit this then.
I read somewhere, can’t remember where, that a prolonged hiatus in warming falsifies a theory of a significant warming trend.
So, the theory of the recovery from the Little Ice Age is falsified by a some 37-year flattening of the recovery from the LIA. So that baby is falsified, and its proponents are hoaxers and fraudsters and were obviously in it for the money!
David Appell: “This is about minimizing risk. Do you not buy fire insurance just because you don’t know the date your house will burn down?”
This is a restatement of the precautionary principle. Insurance is a more complex topic than the common person believes. This provides advantage to the insurance companies who figure reals costs in unbiased fashion on the basis of statistics but inflate the perceived value of the insurance by appealing to common biases. This is most particularly true in coverage of targeted hazard insurance. This is even a separate point that all insurance is a bad investment, even if the rate is market competitive, if one would have the means otherwise to deal with the causality in it’s event. It would not surprise me if Al Gore did not have one of his mansions insured since he neither depends on it for domicile nor would be financially impacted with it’s replacement.
I believe one of the arguments Dr. Curry is making is that we don’t need to buy flood insurance for the 22nd century when it would likely be a better investment to apply the money to other advances, perhaps figuring out water drainage plans, or building houses on pilings near the shore, or just paying for a new and better houses should the old one be lost.
Insurance can be a bad deal.
It is way too early for anybody to conclude climate models have under predicted the 21st century warming when the warming rate over the last 51 months is .054C per year, and it’s most likely not even close to done.
Who in the world would ever judge a climate model — which is about climate — over the last 4.25 years??
That is baldly unscientific
I’m not judging climate models. Critics of the models think the 21st century is in; it’s not.
I don’t have a great interest in what is happening to temperature at the moment.
In 2020 if the warmers are right it will be warmer.
If the coolers are right it will be cooler.
If 2020 is about the same in raw temperatures as today, CO2 has some influence but it isn’t dominant. The worst that will happen is a replay of the 20th century.
When will it end?
Trying to calculate trends over just a few years is foolish and utterly unscientific. (You don’t, for example, calculate the error bars. They are huge. These trends aren’t statistically significant in the least.)
I believe you are panicking prematurely.
“17+ years isn’t enough to confirm a hiatus but 1 year is enough to confirm renewed warming” is a meme that looks dubious on close inspection.
Perhaps you should postpone the victory lap a couple years until we see the long term effect on climate.
pppppaaaaa wrote:
“Perhaps you should postpone the victory lap a couple years until we see the long term effect on climate.”
We already know the long-term effect on climate. So the beginnings of another jump in temperature, if that’s what is occurring, is no real surprise. After it’s over you can go back to hawking the beginning of a next “hiatus.” Or, like in the 2000s, claiming the surface stations are all wrong (which miraculously became good enough when they showed a slowdown).
For once I agree with you David Appell. I would, however, go further than “over just a few years” and suggest that anything less than multi-decadal trends would not be statistically significant either. The climate time series extends over millions of years and its PDF function would be indeterminate, hence the error bars would still be huge.
Peter Land wrote:
“The climate time series extends over millions of years and its PDF function would be indeterminate, hence the error bars would still be huge.”
No. Many of the factors that influence climate change operate on scales << 1 M yrs. Like CO2 today. Even the Milankovitch cycles have periods ~ 10^5 years or less.
In other words, when a powerful forcing agent like CO2 changes ~ 1%/yr, you don’t need a million years of data to figure out its influence.
I was once congratulated by one of the warmist persuasion for commenting that conclusions from a period of some fifteen years were futile for a long game like climate.
However, when I opined that thirty years were also laughably insufficient I copped a reprimand.
Curiously, I don’t think the same bloke would have wanted an extension of the NSIDC Arctic ice record back to the IPCC start point in 1972. Post 1979 is ideal from a narrative point of view, and excludes disturbing images.
The 30-year trends through the warmest years in the 21st century are all higher than the 30-year trend through 1998.
Higher. All of them.
The hiatus was dragging those trends down in big bites; now it’s barley moving them.
There is going to be a La Nina after the El Nino.
Temperatures are going to drop like a stone for a while. The skeptics are going to be going “look global cooling” just like DA and JCH etc. are going “it’s warming, it’s warming”, now.
My response will be, meh.
The warming isn’t going to save the models. 2X to much aerosol forcing and 3X too much CO2 forcing, bad cloud simulation, bad ocean simulation, etc. make them a joke. Funds for long term simulation runs should be eliminated until they fix the models. There is no reason to do long runs that tell you nothing.
The supercomputer time should given to NOAA so a least we get some good weather predictions, which ARE useful, until the modelers get their act together.
The rest of the century at worst looks to be a rerun of the last century.
The warmers have 6 challenges:
1. They should be forced to prove warming is bad.
2. They should be forced to prove that the harm from more CO2 outweighs the obvious benefit which is worth trillions annually.
3. They should be forced to prove empirically that the CO2 level will rise much above 500 PPM, given it isn’t likely we will ever have much higher emissions than today, the amount of fossil fuel is insufficient for their CO2 projections, and the rate of CO2 increase is weakly if at all correlated with emissions.
4. They should be forced to empirically measure the change in “back radiation” in response to the measured change in GHG and temperature, so the ECS and TSR can be derived. No more guessing at GHG forcing.
5. They should be forced to measure the CO2 lifetime in the atmosphere empirically and produce an honest number.
6. The projections should be required by law to use realistic ECS values derived from observations in response to realistic atmospheric CO2 increases.
We have plenty of time. There is no task tension or rush. The warmers can do it right – they have until at least 2030.
Get back to me when you have done your homework and maybe you will have a story worth listening to.
ppaa: This model is pretty good:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/04/a-giss-model-vs-giss-observed.html
This model is also pretty good:
total warming = 1.5 degC/trillion tons of emitted carbon
Davey, show us what you favorite model projects out to 2100. I will help you:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014MS000403/pdf
And we should worry?
Of course there will be subsequent La Nina events. And they will likely be among the warmest La Nina events in the record.
What is unlikely is there will be a ratio of around four La Nina events to one El Nino event, as was seen between the La Nina at the end of 2007 and the extended ENSO neutral that ended eight or so months into 2014.
You should bet the farm on that happening again because that is your only hope.
If only La Nina in Oz would follow the script as it has done in recent times. Back in the 1930s you didn’t need El Nino, with dry La Ninas like 1928-30:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/lnlist/192830/192808-193003.gif
…or the swelterer of 1938-9, still Australia’s deadliest natural disaster.
Just quietly, I don’t think the climate has read any of the literature, not even the peer-reviewed stuff. Such an oaf.
JCH:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1998/trend/plot/uah/from:2000/trend/plot/uah/from:2003/trend/plot/uah/from:2004/trend/plot/uah/from:2005/trend/plot/uah/from:2006/trend/plot/uah/from:2007/trend/plot/uah/from:2008/trend/plot/uah/from:2009/trend/plot/uah/from:2010/trend/plot/uah/from:2011/trend/plot/uah/from:2012/trend/plot/uah/from:2013/trend
I like the kind of plots above. Short term there’s more up than down. Some may see variation and uncertainty or even instability. When we add some time to the above:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/trend/plot/uah/from:1983/trend/plot/uah/from:1988/trend/plot/uah/from:1993/trend/plot/uah/from:1995/trend/plot/uah/from:1998/trend/plot/uah/from:2000/trend/plot/uah/from:2003/trend/plot/uah/from:2004/trend/plot/uah/from:2005/trend/plot/uah/from:2006/trend/plot/uah/from:2007/trend/plot/uah/from:2008/trend/plot/uah/from:2009/trend/plot/uah/from:2010/trend/plot/uah/from:2011/trend/plot/uah/from:2012/trend/plot/uah/from:2013/trend
We may see that something happened around 2000.
The GISS series is the only valid series to use on wood for trees. UAH is not being updated. A leading scientist for RSS says he trusts GISS more than the satellites when it comes to surface temperatures. ignore him if you want to, it will just lead you further on down the wrong road.
It’s over Ragnaar. The PDO is solidly positive (remember?). SSTs took a turn upward in March. The AMO is going down and, of course, the SAT is going up – because it don’t give a crap what direction the AMO goes.
Perhaps you prefer this one:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1983/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1988/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1993/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1995/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1998/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2000/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2003/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2004/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2005/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2006/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2007/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2008/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2009/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2010/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2011/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2012/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2013/trend
Perhaps the warmth is roaring back recently. Time will tell if it lasts.
Another thought. Long time frames form the shaft of a hockey stick. Short time frames form the blade. Perhaps the math has a tendency to form hockey sticks.
‘Climate models predict much more warming than has
been observed in the early 21st century.’
Could call them cat-ass-trophy-sayer models of the
Paul Ehrlich persuasion. Costly $$$x$ policy decision
making on such ???x?, er, evidence?
https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/figure-1-4-models-vs-observations-annotated.png
beththeserf wrote:
‘Climate models predict much more warming than has
been observed in the early 21st century.’
Your graph is deceptive, because it starts in 1990, and natural variability is a factor of 20-30 years — and it’s unknowable.
Climate models give results for the long-term — and there they are pretty accurate:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/04/a-giss-model-vs-giss-observed.html
The simpliest climate model of all is
total warming = 1.5 degC per trillion tons of emitted carbon (2sigma about 33%)
and this is quite accurate:
https://andthentheresphysics.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/cumulativeemissions.jpg
Not MY graph, love child of the IPCC.
Context.
http://climateaudit.org/2013/09/30/ipcc-disappears-the-discrepancy/
My recollection of 1878’s mid-global drought (when I had to increase my serfs’ water ration) is rather vague, but I can remember the heat of 2078 as vividly as if it were tomorrow.
mosomoso wrote:
“My recollection of 1878’s mid-global drought (when I had to increase my serfs’ water ration) is rather vague, but I can remember the heat of 2078 as vividly as if it were tomorrow.”
Clever. Appreciated.
Well, we are coming out of the LIA so the part to 2010 is expected. The chart leaves off 1998 and other inconvenient years.
However the rest of the chart isn’t a prediction. The 1990s warming ended. 2030 isn’t going to be where you plotted it..
Until the warming starts again (and most people think that will be post 2030) you are going to be shooting with wet powder.
ppaa wrote:
‘Well, we are coming out of the LIA so the part to 2010 is expected.”
Prove that.
Just prove something. You make a lot of grand claims, and have proof for none of them.
ppaa wrote:
“The 1990s warming ended.”
Absolutely false, in all ways.
Start proving your claims, or I’ll start ignoring them.
Even the billabongs was empty!
Davey, show us what you favorite model projects out to 2100. I will help you:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014MS000403/pdf
You can run, but you can’t hide.
Judith: Also your testimony includes this:
“It has been estimated that the U.S. INDC of 28% emissions reduction will prevent 0.03 C in warming by 2100.”
Where does this number come from? Some kind of carbon-climate response function like from Matthews et al Nature 2009?
change in temperature = 1.5 degC/trillion tons of emitted carbon
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7248/abs/nature08047.html
That you cannot calculate yourself speaks wonders. Paint by numbers:
First for 2100 use an extended TCR, not ECS. Lewis and Curry 2014 observational estimates using IPCC AR5 is recommended. ~1.3 out to 2085. Add a little vigorish for 2100.
Second, use RCP 6 or 8.5. Cause that is what will happen, since Paris will fail. It is already merely voluntary since Lima failed.
Third, use Obama’s US reduction commitment against that emissions background. China has AGREED to grow emissions unlimited until at least 2030. India has said they will ignore emissions, period. So that background scenario is reasonable. A 28% US reduction, against nothing else much happening, using the best observational estimate of TCR based on AR5 , gets anybody who can calculate into Judith’s estimated range of impact.
And there is nothing for you to criticize except the simple arithmetic.
ristvan: I don’t know what you’re trying to say, but not many scientists think ECS < 2 K. Lewis & Curry noticeably did not use the most recent ocean heat content data (and it's warming fast), or Cowtan & Way for surface temperatures.
Pay attention Appell. Istvan wrote TCR not ECS.
Are you really this dense Appell?
Are you and Joshua related?
In a way.
Mark, I think ristvan took care of it. We want to respect all voices.
Don, don’t encourage.
They are spamming, Ron. They want to ruin Judith’s day. We don’t owe them any respect, or courtesy. If we were all in the same room, they would behave differently. Very differently.
David Springer wrote:
“Possibly the same species ignoramus bloviatus”
If, like others here, you cannot refrain from personal insults, then the hell with you. It is an admission you cannot compete on scientific grounds.
Great. It worked. I would prefer to correct you just one time instead of needing to correct each your lame rejoinders too. Run your fat stoopid mouth off at someone else.
.
You don’t correct people here, you insult them. That doesn’t win any arguments, just shows who you are. I don’t understand why the blog owner allows it.
You don’t correct people here, you insult them. That doesn’t win any arguments, just shows who you are. I don’t understand why the blog owner allows it.
Their assumptions appear to be that the US stops at 28% and doesn’t carry out the other part of the plan, and that the rest of the world does nothing to stop their rise. Instead, if the whole world carried out a plan like the US, it would make the difference between a 700 ppm and rising value at 2100 and something below 500 ppm and stabilized. This is a big climate difference, and gives a better perspective of the policy goal regarding the INDCs.
“It has been estimated that the U.S. national commitments to the UN to reduce emissions by 28% will prevent three hundredths of a degree centigrade in warming by 2100.”
Needless to say, each number above could be radically changed by a re-estimation which proceeds from a different angle of ignorance. But assuming the estimation to be well founded in some degree, how does one factor in the “carbon” of war and economic desperation proceeding from waste and folly? (By “waste and folly” I’m referring to stuff like woodchips-to-Drax, Brandenburg solar at 50+ degrees N, Spanish wind, anti-coal politics intensifying gas/oil/pipeline politics…that sort of thing.)
Paint them as green as you like, but global waste and folly will lead to some global charring not in the equations.
Do-it-yourself climate science:
Fundamental math using existing temperature and CO2 data can prove that CO2 has no significant effect on climate.
The CO2 level (or some math function thereof) has been suspected of being a forcing. The fundamental math is that temperature changes with the time-integral of a forcing (not the forcing itself).
Existing data includes temperature and CO2 determined from Vostok, Antarctica (or any other) ice cores for several glacial and inter-glacial periods. The temperature should change as a transient following CO2 level change instead of the two going up and down in ‘lock step’ as reported.
Existing temperature and CO2 (Berner, 2001) assessments for the entire Phanerozoic eon (about 542 million years) are graphed at http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
Additional proof showing that CO2 has no significant effect on climate and identification of the two main factors that do (95% correlation since before 1900) are disclosed at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com
JC said:
I would like a link to an online calculator that allows user to input key variables and the calculator produces projections at say 2050 and 2100 of (some or all of the following:
CO2-e emissions
CO2 concentration
global average surface temperature
Economic net benefit-cost (per decade and cumulative since 2015)
Social cost of carbon
Optimum carbon tax
I am aware of the Cato A Handy-Dandy Carbon Tax Temperature-Savings Calculator http://www.cato.org/blog/current-wisdom-we-calculate-you-decide-handy-dandy-carbon-tax-temperature-savings-calculator , but it doesn’t allow for many inputs to be varied and only provides temperature change.
I’d really like something like Nordhaus DICE2103R (or even better the regional model RICE) on line so I can vary key inputs and do my own sensitivity analyses: http://www.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/homepage/
David Appell | April 16, 2015 at 8:38 pm |
Danny, we know that 20th century can’t be explained by natural factors. And we know now that natural variability has been a negative forcing over the last 1-2 decades, but that it’s variable and not going to stay negative. In fact, it looks to already be turning positive. Almost no one thinks warming is finished.
MY REPLY -David that is a bunch of BS. The 20th century warming can be explained by the increases in solar activity along with the AMO/PDO.
Salvatore del Prete wrote:
“David that is a bunch of BS. The 20th century warming can be explained by the increases in solar activity along with the AMO/PDO.”
The sun’s irradiance has been decreasing since 1950:
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/
and the AMO and PDO have gone through at least one cycle since then.
Well…
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/
It is like this. The only good information we have is 0.2 W for 22 PPM CO2.
If we plug this into the magic log formula that the IPCC uses we find that:
F = 3.49*ln(C/C0). Further this is all surface IR increases so if anything we are guessing high.
Cool. We will assume this is TCR just because we can
Ftcr = 3.49*ln(C/C0)
and multiply it by 1.5 to get the ECS just because everyone else does, and wooley (or is that voila?)
Fecs = 5.24 ln (C/C0)
We know from another recent study that aerosol cooling is half what is commonly claimed.
Cool, we can correct two of the modelers massive mistakes. Force, by law, the modelers to reparameterize their models to match the new parameter values and rerun the simulations from 1900 to the current time with a requirement the training period include the hiatus. The difference between the models and actual temperatures is natural variation or external natural forcing, not accounted for in the models.
ppaa: Shady math, sloppy science.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/01/climate-modeling-ocean-oscillations.html
Here you go David ,data that shows natural variability can explain the temperature rise not your agenda driven AGW theory.
Salvatore del Prete wrote:
“http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/01/climate-modeling-ocean-oscillations.html”
That looks desperate as hell. What is a “sunspot integral?” Are you claiming it’s the cumulative number of sunspots that determine Earth’s temperature? Even sunspots that occurred a hundred years ago?
Sure.
Why don’t you take a break, davey. Maybe you will called to testify before Congress some day. Not likely to be about science. Chronic unemployment, far more likely.
DA:
This isn’t rocket science. 0.2 W from 22 PPM.
The forcing multiplier is equal to the Forcing/ln (C/C0)
M = 0.2 / ln (395/373)
M = 3.49
Ftcr = 3.49 ln (C/C0).
That is a hell of a lot better than guessing at it like the IPCC does.
ppaa: First of all, it’s W/m2, not Watts.
Second of all, it’s noticeable that you didn’t include error bars. What is the result then?
ppaa wrote:
“That is a hell of a lot better than guessing at it like the IPCC does.”
1) The IPCC doens’t do science, they assess it.
2) Scientists don’t “guess” at CO2’s radiative forcing, they calculate it. Such as:
“Radiative forcing at high concentrations of well-mixed greenhouse gases,”
Brendan Byrne and C. Goldblatt, Geophysical Research Letters, Jan 13 2014.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013GL058456/abstract
Have you seen this, davey?
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014MS000403/pdf
Did you get enough to eat today, davey?
Part One
A different way to attack the GHG effect is through water vapor concentration changes in the atmosphere which is the major contributor to the overall GHG effect.
OBSERVATION- Recent observations have indicated contrary to AGW theory( which is almost always the case) that the mixing ratios in the tropics (water vapor) have been falling not rising as called for by AGW theory. No hot spot for example.
My thought is rather then evaluate the future GHG effect based on CO2 concentration changes in the atmosphere maybe a better way to go about it might be through future water vapor concentration changes in the atmosphere.
After all water vapor accounts for some 75% of the atmospheric opacity. Therefore even a very slight change in this greenhouse gas concentration level is going to impact the overall GHG effect regardless of CO2.
I CAN say regardless of CO2 concentrations, because the data has proven conclusively, that the positive feedback between an increase in CO2 concentrations and water vapor does NOT exist. If anything the opposite is happening. That is what the data says to the dismay of AGW enthusiast , but they will ignore it as usual.
That aside a cooling climate (oceans cooling) should diminish the amounts of water vapor in the atmosphere due to the fact less evaporation would be taking place. Under this scenario convection would be less which would cause the corresponding temperature of the surface of the earth to drop less if the GHG effect were in a steady state. However the GHG effect would be less due to the lower amounts of water vapor in the atmosphere due to less evaporation from the cooler oceans. The diminish role of convection although causing less cooling per say in regards to the surface temperature of the earth would not be able to compensate for the overall cooling due to the diminish GHG effect therefore the temperature trend would be negative.
This argument is the opposite of the false argument AGW theory is trying to put upon the public presently which is increasing concentrations of CO2 will create a positive feedback with water vapor(increasing it) which will amplify the temperature rise from CO2 . Although convection would increase under this scenario a cooling mechanism it would only be able to retard the overall temperature increase due to the overall increase in the GHG effect.
I have just proposed the opposite take and the data thus far is more supportive of my scenario rather then the scenario AGW theory has put forth.
“…here is my prediction for climate going forward, this decade will be the decade of cooling.”
– Salvatore del Prete, 11/23/2010
http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2010/10/20/andrew-dessler-debating-richard-lindzen/#comment-8875
“Temperatures in response to this will decline in the near future, in contrast to the steady state of temperature we presently have,or have been having for the past 15 years or so.”
– Salvatore Del Prete, 11/6/2012
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/11/uah-v5-5-global-temp-update-for-october-2012-0-33-deg-c/#comment-64939
Salvatore del Prete I believe you are overly optimistic.
The last time I did the math it takes 128 year-watts per meter squared- Kelvin to warm the top 2000 meters of ocean.. If the land has warmed and the ocean is warming, the ocean will be warming for quite a while.before it catches up.
Lets say the natural warming stopped in 1998 (just because it appears be true and it is fun to say). The ocean will slowly warm a little bit for most of this century. The current ocean warming (in the range of 0.2-0.3 W/m2) just isn’t going to move the temperature of the ocean very fast.
So I say “sure it is getting warmer and it will for a while, but it is mostly natural and there isn’t a thing we can do about it”.
ppaa wrote:
“The last time I did the math it takes 128 year-watts per meter squared- Kelvin to warm the top 2000 meters of ocean.”
That sentence makes no sense whatsoever, especially unit-wise. Wanna try again? Warm by how much?
You are really work hard today, phatboy. Is that hateful, davey?
Interesting to me point, how much can the oceans evaporate causing more of the most potent GHG? It seems we should be concerned more about the water vapor than the CO2. I think most agree the oceans will lag a temperature increase because of their massive volume and weight. The most efficient way to heat up an ocean would seem to be with sunlight. Raising the temperature above that ocean by 2 C with CO2, that wouldn’t seem to be much of an effect. And it would be a mixing effect. Warming the ocean by trading cold from the ocean to get warmer would subtract heat from the atmosphere. You can’t warm the oceans with heat from the atmosphere without cooling the atmosphere. Over more than 80000 year time frames we’ve gone through warmings where the increased evaporation from warmer oceans has not caused a runaway disastrous feedback loop. Maybe in a warmer world, increased evaporation just falls as precipitation above a threshold.
Ragnar wrote:
“You can’t warm the oceans with heat from the atmosphere without cooling the atmosphere.”
That’s not true if the atmosphere itself is warming.
Also the atmosphere can radiate more heat without even warming. Want to know how? Add GHGs to it.
Jimmy got it right and davey got it wrong. Explain it to davey, jimmy.
Now that I have thought about it for a second, you are both wrong.
The oceans are warmed by SW from the sun.
Then it tries to leave. If it leaves quickly, we probably all die. If it gets slowed down, we live. If it gets slowed down too much, there will be consequences, and some could be major: and I will never take Judith Curry’s word on it.
DA
This isn’t rocket science. The total heat capacity of a 1 m x 1 m x 2000 m piece of ocean divided by the number of seconds in a year is a useful guide.
Specific Heat is W*s/kg*K
If you multiply by the mass of the 2000 m3 piece of real estate you get W*S/K, when you divide by the number of seconds in a year you get W*Years/K. I just did the computation and it is around 260.W*Y /K assuming 3990 specific heat and 1030 average density.
if you apply 260 W to the top of the ocean for 1 year it will raise the temperature of the top 2000 meters 1 Kelvin.
Now the bottom of the 2000 meters is near 2°C so it really doesn’t change much in temperature. If you assume a ramp change profile (zero change at the bottom) the figure of merit is 130 W-Y/K.
pa: Most people call a W*s a Joule.
pa wrote:
“if you apply 260 W to the top of the ocean for 1 year it will raise the temperature of the top 2000 meters 1 Kelvin.”
Yes. So what?
pa wrote:
“The current ocean warming (in the range of 0.2-0.3 W/m2) just isn’t going to move the temperature of the ocean very fast.”
You need to learn the difference between heat and temperature.
What if that heat had instead gone into the troposphere? What would be the temperature change then?
Davey challenges Ragnar’s logic:”Ragnar wrote:
“You can’t warm the oceans with heat from the atmosphere without cooling the atmosphere.”
That’s not true if the atmosphere itself is warming.”
I will help you, davey. Suppose you were putting $500/mo you earned from your little freelance writing gigs in your bank account. Your average living expenses (cabin near Mt. Hood) that you pay from your account are $450/mo. That should result in accumulation of $50 month savings for your retirement, which we hope comes soon. At some point, you realize that your account is increasing, but by only an average of $40/mo. You check your statements and sure enough you are putting $500/mo and spending $450, on stuff. But your balance is short. Somebody stealing your money. Your bank account is getting warmer and cooler, at the same time.
Pingback: 1p – Hearing: President’s UN climate pledge | Profit Goals
Pingback: 1p – Hearing: President’s UN climate pledge | blog.offeryour.com
On this post from 2013 Josh pontificates on Dr. Curry, he pontificates on himself, and he pontificates on climate science.
The wise man of all ages says this:
“As a key component for stakeholder dialog, what I look for is careful and comprehensive full-cost accounting of the costs and benefits of various policy options.”
So, apparently Josh didn’t get the memo on uncertainty. He expects “full-cost” accounting. As if anyone could come anywhere close to doing that. We don’t have the climate data to do it, and without that we can never know what the implications of climate are for costs and benefits.
Demand away, Josh. Bask in your own glory.
Here’s the main thread:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/22/sundays-climate-logic/
Dr. Curry, Congratulations from all of us. (I think Josh and Dave are just on the verge of softening to patience and pragmatism.)
I am sure it is unanimous though that you’ve provided forum here that censors no views, even about saliva uses. ;)
You’re dreaming now, and you’ll be sweating by July.
Just like I do every July. Better than freezing to death. Golf was not designed to be played in overcoats.
Pingback: Judith Curry: How Much Warming Are We Really Causing? And What’s The Point Of Cutting Emissions? | PA Pundits - International
I’m wondering what would happen if suddenly somehow convincing evidence were discovered that showed CO2 is nothing to worry about in terms of temperature change. Scientifically solid.
How long would it take Scientists to align? Could anyone imagine Michael Mann saying “I was wrong!!!!”
How much longer to convince the true believers on the street (after all, scientists took it to the streets with various tricks).
How much longer would it take the political process to align? Would it ever align?
I suspect scientists have opened Pandora’s box. Because of this, there are no good outcomes.
edbarbar wrote:
“I’m wondering what would happen if suddenly somehow convincing evidence were discovered that showed CO2 is nothing to worry about in terms of temperature change. Scientifically solid.”
What if “scientifically solid” evidence was discovered that disproved Newton’s law of gravitation?
Would you suddenly freak out? No, because Newton’s law is proven by the evidence, so clearly the new discover is somehow wrong
Well, so.is the radiative forcing of CO2.
Evidence, once found, doesn’t suddenly disappear the next day or the next century. F = Gm1m2/r^2. CO2 will never again be the innocent gas you wish it to be.
This is a flawed argument. The global warmers didn’t discover anything they guessed and guessed badly. The IPCC is off by a factor of 3.
The apparent CO2 effect is 3.49 ln (C/Co). CO2 in 2000 was about 370 PPM, in 1900 it was about 295 PPM.
3.49 * ln (370/295) = 0.79W or about 0.21°C. Depending on how close the climate came to equilibrium, 0.21 to about 0.3°C was due to all GHG combined..
The 21st century effect will be about equal.
The 20th century had a 50% increase in plant growth due to more warmth and 75 PPM more CO2. This bountiful effect was a blessing to mankind.
If we push the atmospheric CO2 to about 550 PPM we can get a 50% increase in plant growth in the 21st century as well (2.25 times the 1900 growth rate)…
pama wrote:
“The apparent CO2 effect is 3.49 ln (C/Co). CO2 in 2000 was about 370 PPM, in 1900 it was about 295 PPM.”
Where are the error bars in your conclusion?
Also, ppaa, radiative forcing is “…the rate of energy change per unit area of the globe as measured at the top of the atmosphere.” ( doi:10.1038/461472a)
So how did you convert the surface measurements into a TOA RF?
ppas: As well, “In this report [IPCC 4AR] radiative forcing values are for changes relative to preindustrial conditions defined at 1750 ”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing#IPCC_usage
But your calculation does not start way back then. So how did you account for that?
ppaa: In short, your calculation looks to be nonsense.
ppaa wrote:
“If we push the atmospheric CO2 to about 550 PPM we can get a 50% increase in plant growth in the 21st century as well ”
Why is that good? Plant nutrition is tied to nitrogen, not carbon. The nutritional value of crops decrease with elevated CO2:
“Higher CO2 tends to inhibit the ability of plants to make protein… And this explains why food quality seems to have been declining and will continue to decline as CO2 rises — because of this inhibition of nitrate conversion into protein.”
– University of California at Davis Professor Arnold J. Bloom, on Yale Climate Connections 10/7/14
http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2014/10/crop-nutrition//2014
“BLOOM: “It’s going to be fairly universal that we’ll be struggling with trying to sustain food quality and it’s not just protein… it’s also micronutrients such as zinc and iron that suffer as well as protein.”
“For wheat, maize and barley, there is a clearly negative response of global yields to increased temperatures. Based on these sensitivities and observed climate trends, we estimate that warming since 1981 has resulted in annual combined losses of these three crops representing roughly 40 Mt or $5 billion per year, as of 2002.”
— “Global scale climate–crop yield relationships and the impacts of recent warming,” Environmental Research Letters Volume 2 Number 1
David B Lobell and Christopher B Field 2007 Environ. Res. Lett. 2 014002 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/2/1/014002
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/2/1/014002
I come from a farming background.
You clearly don’t.
The correct way to measure the effect on plants such as maize is to sample the yearly harvest and the actual cultivar planted – record the result – and plot the trends.
Global warmers approach these things in such an incompetent way I can’t figure out how they don’t get fired.
ppaa: My grandfather had a farm. I spent plenty of time in his fields and pens.
I also can read scientific papers. Plant nutrition depends on nitrogen, not carbon. The science shows that even after carbon fertilization, the nutritional value of several major crops drops.
Do you have science that says otherwise?
What a f00lish argument. “Newton’s law of gravitation” was disproved decades ago.
The key question is whether a superseded theory can still be used. Given the number of unknown unknowns involved in climate, that can’t be predicted at this stage.
AK wrote:
“What a f00lish argument. “Newton’s law of gravitation” was disproved decades ago.”
Yet NASA used Newton’s laws to get to the moon and back, 50 years after Einstein wrote down his gravitational field equations. Explain.
David Appell | April 17, 2015 at 2:24 am |
ppaa: My grandfather had a farm. I spent plenty of time in his fields and pens.
I also can read scientific papers. Plant nutrition depends on nitrogen, not carbon. The science shows that even after carbon fertilization, the nutritional value of several major crops drops.
Do you have science that says otherwise?
Gee. Global warmers like to do static analysis for some reason that escapes me… oh, yeah, honest analysis would disprove their point.
To honestly evaluate the situation, the “basket” of produced crops would have to be captured annually and analyzed.
The cultivars, crops, and methods will never be the same.
If there are issues they can be addressed. But if you are eating white bleached flour or white rice it is kind of pointless to complain about nutrition because you have tossed that 10% away and are basically eating carbohydrate.
pa wrote:
“If there are issues they can be addressed.”
That’s easy to say. So how? You have certainly retreated from your claim that enhanced CO2 is good for crops, because the science says it’s not good for nutritive value.
So, David. You believe Einstein was wrong?
Plant nutrition is tied to nitrogen, not carbon.
Right.
Because photosynthesis converts nitrogen into carbohydrates.
Fun to watch people on all sides of an emotional issue in denial.
jim2 wrote:
“So, David. You believe Einstein was wrong?”
Of course not. But his theory reduces to Newton’s laws for all but the most extreme conditions of high energy. NASA used Newton’s law of gravitation to get to the moon.
David Appell | April 17, 2015 at 6:18 pm |
jim2 wrote:
“So, David. You believe Einstein was wrong?”
Of course not. But his theory reduces to Newton’s laws for all but the most extreme conditions of high energy. NASA used Newton’s law of gravitation to get to the moon.
Well…
Using primitive computers and imprecise propulsion systems it doesn’t matter much. The other errors in the system are greater.
GPS has to defer to Einstein.
pa wrote:
“GPS has to defer to Einstein.”
That’s because GPS needs extreme accuracy. NASA didn’t need that to get to the moon, and it was a matter of the quality of their computers. Satellites today, around Earth and around Mars, and ships traveling the solar system, get by with Newtonian gravity just fine.
PPPPPPPPAAAAAAAAAAA gotcha there Appell. You said extreme energy conditions. No extreme energy in GPS environment. Newtonian physics is breaking down in your pocket as we speak at extremely low energy. Non-volatile flash memory in your cell phone operates via quantum tunneling.
It’s also breaking down in the clouds above your head in a manner not modeled by GCMs possibly adding a significant source of error.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-science-of-the-glory/
One of the most beautiful phenomena in meteorology has a surprisingly subtle explanation. Its study also helps to predict the role that clouds will play in climate change
David Springer wrote;
“No extreme energy in GPS environment.”
Yes there is, when you need accuracy of order 10^-10, as does GPS.
“Newtonian physics is breaking down in your pocket as we speak at extremely low energy. Non-volatile flash memory in your cell phone operates via quantum tunneling.”
Quantum tunnelling has NOTHING to do with gravity. Learn some science.
Where exactly do you believe the “extreme energy” conditions prevail in the GPS operating environment?
David Springer wrote:
“Where exactly do you believe the “extreme energy” conditions prevail in the GPS operating environment?”
Because Einstein’s corrections to the Newtonian gravitaional potential where GPS satellites orbit are of the order of the accuracy the GPS wants.
Einstein’s corrections to the Newtonian gravitataional potential are of order r_S/r, where r_S is the Schwarzschild radius. For Earth, r_S = 9 mm. So for a satellite in orbit at r = 300 km, r_s/r ~ 3e-8.
So if GPS asks for accuracy of this order, you need general relativity — and that is what they ask for:
http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html
I already knew why correction for relativistic effects was needed in GPS. To my point, it isn’t because of any “extreme energy” environment. Your using the term “extreme energy” was boneheaded. Small relative velocity and gravitational field differences between orbiting satellites causes very tiny time-dilation effects on the order of a few parts per billion between high precision clocks on different satellites. However, because electromagnetic signals travel about 14 inches in a billionth of a second it amounts to errors in distance intolerable for some applications. A 100 nanosecond difference in exact time on two different satellite clocks is a 30 meter triangulation error for the ground receiver. That’s not bad for a backpacking trip to find your way around but not so good for surveying, anchor alarms, or landing an airplane.
You’re a poor excuse for a science journalist.
David Springer wrote:
“Small relative velocity and gravitational field differences between orbiting satellites causes very tiny time-dilation effects on the order of a few parts per billion between high precision clocks on different satellites.”
False. The corrections are both special relativistic and general relativistic. The latter, of course, includes the former, since Einstein’s equations are, most of all, Lorentz invariant.
Clocks run slower in a stronger gravitational field. (See “gravitational redshift.”)
I wrote “relativistic effects” which includes both general relativity and special relativity. I also mentioned “time dilation” from both small relative velocity differences and small changes gravitational field strength.
I wasn’t wrong in any detail. You were. I reiterate you’re a very poor excuse for a science journalist. No wonder you do it for free on blogs now. At that price it’s still too much for your readers to pay.
David Springer wrote:
“I wrote “relativistic effects” which includes both general relativity and special relativity. ”
Time dilations mean special relativity. The corrections from general relativity are *spacetime* dilations. There is a big difference.
Less writing and more reading, Appell. Your mistakes are so basic a free encyclopedia article on physics surpasses your knowledge. Yet it exactly confirms the instruction I tried to give you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Time_dilation:_special_vs._general_theories_of_relativity
Time dilation: special vs. general theories of relativity
In Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity, time dilation in these two circumstances can be summarized:
In special relativity (or, hypothetically far from all gravitational mass), clocks that are moving with respect to an inertial system of observation are measured to be running more slowly. This effect is described precisely by the Lorentz transformation.
In general relativity, clocks at a position with lower gravitational potential – such as in closer proximity to a planet – are found to be running more slowly. The articles on gravitational time dilation and gravitational redshift give a more detailed discussion.
Special and general relativistic effects can combine (as seen with ISS astronauts).
David Springer wrote:
“In special relativity (or, hypothetically far from all gravitational mass), clocks that are moving with respect to an inertial system of observation are measured to be running more slowly. This effect is described precisely by the Lorentz transformation.”
GPS satellites aren’t “far from all gravitatitonal masses,” are they?
Less insults, more understanding.
The ISS isn’t outside a gravity well either but experiences combined time dilation effects from both relative velocity and gravity. Maybe if you say exactly which part of the encyclopedia article on combined time dilation effects from both general and special relativity you didn’t understand we can cure your ignorance in this small isolated case.
I think it’s simply some kind of insane inability to admit an error in not knowing that “relativistic effect” and “time dilation” applies to both general and special relativity. I knew, you didn’t, and you hate that I knew and corrected you like a teacher would a student. What a putz. Maybe if you stop rejecting the attempts of your intellectual superiors to teach you something you won’t make so many boneheaded mistakes.
David Springer wrote:
“This effect is described precisely by the Lorentz transformation.”
Satellites are in a gravitational field. The strenght of this field is enough to require general relativistic corrections, given the accuracy desired. This requires not just special relativity, but general relativity. (GR includes SR.)
David Springer wrote:
“It’s also breaking down in the clouds above your head in a manner not modeled by GCMs possibly adding a significant source of error.”
This also has not a thing to do Einstein’s equations or general relativity. Nothing. Zip. Nada.
“nothing to do with Einstein’s [sic] equations”
Obviously. But you had mentioned cases where Newton’s (classical) laws of physics break down. Quantum tunneling is not classical physics. The take home point, which remains valid, is that Newtonian physics are incorrect for many modern applications from the mundane and well known such as non-volatile flash memory to the little known effects on how much light is reflected by clouds which may be a significant source of error in climate models.
David Springer wrote:
“But you had mentioned cases where Newton’s (classical) laws of physics break down.”
I was writing about where Newton’s Law of *GRAVITATION* breaks down.
David Springer wrote:
“The take home point, which remains valid, is that Newtonian physics are incorrect for many modern applications”
The take home point, which is what I was writing about, is that NASA went to the moon with classical Newtonian physics, and did not need Einstein’s corrections or quantum mechanics.
No work again today, davey? We appreciate this pro bono stuff. For what it’s worth.
So, Don Don.
Education camps and nukes. Any other policy recommendation?
David Appell, CO2 and nutrition
That is an interesting subject and your comments really haven’t done it justice. Higher CO2 in general means plants require less water, since the source of the micro-nutrients is in the water the plants up take, less water less nutrients. To offset that loss, you typically fortify the end product or the soil.
The study you referenced indicated an average 5% reduction in zinc and iron, so that should be related to about a 5% increase in growth rate. Huge areas of the world’s soils are already low in zinc and since staple grains aren’t really your go to high zinc food source, about a third of the world already has zinc deficiencies. Because of that there has been a major effort to provide zinc and iron fortified rice and rice flours for places like Sri Lanka which pretty much have rice for most of their calories.
So a 5% reduction in next to nothing for a 5% increase in yield don’t sound that bad to me.
dallas: the primary study is about nitrates, not zinc:
“Nitrate assimilation is inhibited by elevated CO2 in field-grown wheat,” Arnold J. Bloom et al, Nature Climate Change, April 6 2014.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2183.html
David, Same deal with nitrates, but I believe there is a bigger difference between cultivars. Degradation of crop land and limits on ground water for irrigation are a much bigger problems imo. So there is a more interesting trade off.
Dallas: Yes, I don’t doubt more details matter, and there are other issues like water. I just don’t see that enhanced CO2 is the blessing some others make it out to be.
For example, a recent study finds the Amazon is past carbon staturation:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14283.html
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/03/amazon-rainforest-is-taking-up-a-third-less-carbon-than-a-decade-ago/
I recommend that you stop the silly trolling, willy. You are a Blog Moderator, fer chrissakes. What would your comrades at attp think, if they knew what you are up to here? Hey, who is watching those clowns?
This isn’t to say “No temperature change,” but a change that is below the point at which the consequences are significantly negative.
If you understood that, I would say you prove my point, which is essentially no amount of evidence is going to change the political and other processes. I would think that would be an alarming outcome from the behavior of some scientists.
David Appell | April 17, 2015 at 8:29 pm |
Dallas: Yes, I don’t doubt more details matter, and there are other issues like water. I just don’t see that enhanced CO2 is the blessing some others make it out to be.
For example, a recent study finds the Amazon is past carbon staturation:…
1. The study found this was an effect for some C3 plants only. C4 and some C3 plant absorb nitrogen just dandy.
2. They studied the shoots for some reason.
3. I said it was a blessing, I didn’t say it was perfection.
The visible part of the article seems to be well written. However in my assessment what they are doing isn’t all that useful.
The USDA just needs to take spot samples of wheat and record the analysis each year. If there is a downward trend in the analysis this nitrogen issue might be worth looking at. If the analysis trends up it is a don’t care..
It should be noted that we don’t eat wheat shoots. Some of us eat whole wheat, most people eat bleached flour. Unless bleached wheat flour is banned discussing wheat nutrition is an absurd conversation.
As far as the rainforest being saturated this is completely absurd. You can’t claim 80% of the rainforest has been burned down (a power reset of carbon storage) and claim it is saturated. Burning down the rainforest makes it polyunsaturated from a carbon standpoint.
The alignment would be near instantaneous.
If you think anybody has come even remotely close to presenting such evidence, you’re completely…
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/81Re87CkM%2BL._SL1500_.jpg
The climate is a hyper-complex non-linear system. AFAIK most of the people who study such systems are pretty contemptuous of trying to use simplistic models like GCM’s to predict the behavior of the real climate.
Ak wrote:
“The climate is a hyper-complex non-linear system.”
Yet the last 800,000 years of climate seems very periodic and predictable, except for the Younger Dryas. So where is all the nonlinearity? And why is that not a reason for even more concern?
Actually, any metric you look at varies in a pseudo-random fashion, with strong signs of “meta-stable” regimes. It certainly looks to me as though it acts like a typical complex non-linear system.
It’s certainly not a reason for total complacency. However, while the (comparatively) simplistic GCM’s used to “model” it are also complex non-linear systems, AFAIK there’s no reason to assume they’re the same type of complex non-linear system. Systems made up of toy cells many kilometers across, with multiple “fudged” parametrizations, cannot be reasonably assumed to model the climate, where interactions are on a sub-millimeter scale.
As for the risk from adding fossil CO2 to the atmosphere, AFAIK there’s no real way to know what it is. But why wouldn’t there be a similar risk to suddenly stopping the addition? Why shouldn’t we assume a roughly equal risk from any action we take now?
And, given the behavior of such complex systems, why should we assume that fossil CO2 is the major driver? Why not land use changes, or whaling/fishing, or a host of other changes that humanity has made with who knows what effect? There are certainly ways in which the early herding of goats in the southern Sahara could have been responsible for some of the contemporary climate changes of the time.
AK wrote:
“It certainly looks to me as though it acts like a typical complex non-linear system.”
And what I already asked you is, why? The temperature of last 800,000 years, up to the anthropogence, is quite periodic. Where is all the nonlinearity?
AK wrote:
“And, given the behavior of such complex systems, why should we assume that fossil CO2 is the major driver?”
It’s not an assumption, it’s a calculation, based on CO2’s large cross section for the absorption on infrared radiation, which the Earth just happens to emit.
“Why not land use changes, or whaling/fishing, or a host of other changes that humanity has made with who knows what effect? There are certainly ways in which the early herding of goats in the southern Sahara could have been responsible for some of the contemporary climate changes of the time.”
What is the evidence, or the theory, that goats are responsible for modern warming?
Doubtful. IIRC there was a long controversy over General Relativity before it was fully accepted (and David Appell clearly still doesn’t). And I personally remember the extended controversy over “plate tectonics”.
AK wrote:
“IIRC there was a long controversy over General Relativity before it was fully accepted.”
No, your don’t RC. Einsteins’s field equations came in 1915, and he quickly showed his theory accounted for the anomalous perihelion shift of Mercury. In 1919, Eddington and Dyson confirmed Einstein’s prediction for the bending of starlight around the Sun, reconfirmed in 1922. It’s been all roses since then.
However, Einstein was almost immediately beset by a host of deniers who refused to accept his theory despite it confirmations, and called him lots of names, not of least of which was related to his Judiasm.
I’d call that long relative to JCH’s “near instantaneous.”
AK wrote:
“I’d call that long relative to JCH’s “near instantaneous.””
Then you’d be wrong. What was the time period for the discovery of the Higgs boson, after its prediction? The top quark? Neptune?
Doesn’t matter. What matters is that “near instantaneous” would mean that if the “Stadium Wave” hypothesis is the equivalent of the discoveries of perturbations in Mercury’s orbit, the “Science” would already have aligned with it. Using General Relativity as a model for time-scale, the question remains open.
AK: It does matter — your claim that the confirmation of GR was typical was false.
There is not much agreement that that stadium wave hypothesis is correct. It simply cannot account for a globally warming ocean, which the data shows.
No it doesn’t. At best, it suggests it, depending on your preconceptions.
More importantly, anthropogenic CO2 can’t account for the rise in “Global Average Temperature”, at least not before 1940.
http://www.wyattonearth.net/images/464_GlobalT_GISS.png
From here. At best, it explains the difference in slope between 1905-1945 and 1965-2005. A much smaller matter.
Better clock.
http://faculty.cua.edu/johnsong/crime/pictures/lola/rlr04a.jpg
http://faculty.cua.edu/johnsong/crime/pictures/lola/rlr04b.jpg
Recommended viewing, Lola Rennt (Run Lola, Run).
Eddie wrote:
“Because photosynthesis converts nitrogen into carbohydrates.”
Plants get Nitrogen from soil, not photosynthesis.
In a cacophonous sea of climate hysteria and misinformation, your testimony was a breath of reasonable, responsible and scientifically supportable fresh air.
Congratulations to Dr. Curry.
Presentation was good. Opening remarks were concise. General consensus is you won the day and we all know how important consensus is.
Why use “sea ice” versus the total ice inventories from GRACE and Cryosat-2?
My understanding is these missions have (are) mapping the land-based ice inventories of Greenland and Antarctica. Furthermore, the reported land-based, ice mass is substantially larger than the floating sea ice. Finally, land-based ice losses would directly contribute to sea level rise whereas sea ice has already displaced its mass.
Thanks,
Bob Wilson
Bob Wilson: scientists usually quote sea ice extent because area is complicated by melt ponds.
David
Yes, melt ponds complicate the picture but measuring sea ice extent brings its own problems as Julienne Stroeve noted in her email to me;
‘The book described how later in the season some high spots became dry and these were little hillocks in a sea of icy water sitting on solid ice. This caused me to ask the following question of NSIDC;
“
“ …..how did pre satellite researchers estimating sea ice extent tell the difference between water, water floating on ice, and solid ice, and how can satellites differentiate between the three states? I was struck by Russian reports from the 1950’s at The Scott Polar institute in Cambridge when staff at the floating research stations commented about using Wellington boots in order to walk around the station, and how little dry ice islands eventually formed by the end of the summer surrounded by water on top of ice.”
I received the following reply from Julienne Stroeve ;(reproduced with permission)
“
“ … using passive microwave data it is very easy to tell the difference between ice and water as the dielectric constant differs quite a bit and this is reflected in large differences in the microwave emission. The main advantage of using passive microwave is that it can see the ice even if it’s cloudy or dark. There is a problem however in summer when melt ponds form on the ice since the sea ice algorithms then underestimate how much ice there really is (they think it’s open water). That’s one reason why we focus on extent rather than true ice area for the NSIDC sea ice news and analysis web site.
Visible and thermal imagery provides higher spatial resolution but is often hampered by clouds. Trying to do this work using earlier visible and thermal imagery requires the scientists to go through each image and manually filter out the clouds and determine where the ice is.”
tonyb
cr, I never said extent was perfect. I said melt ponds are a reason why scientists prefer extent over area.
How will you do all this ice accounting when you are in charge?
Read better.
My guess is that there is more uncertainty in the ice inventory calculations than in the sea ice extent.
“My guess is that there is more uncertainty in the ice inventory calculations than in the sea ice extent.”
Ice inventory??
Mass.
Three very substantive presentations.
I’m waiting for a mention of the hearing in the HuffPo, WaPo the NYT – or any MSM for that matter… .
won’t.hold.breath
Representative Beyer almost appeared (or was it just my imagination?) to be undergoing a moment of enlightenment much as Paul the the tax collector on the road to Damascus.
It was as though he was saying “everything I have read and tried to understand for the past 15 years is wrong? oh!”
At least I hope that was what was happening .
Did Ms Curry get any other feed back after the event from those present?
Congrats on some great, level headed testimony!
Pingback: Why Did "Global Warming" Become "Climate Change"? - Page 18 - Christian Forums
Yesterday evening I watched the hearing video. Without having read most of the comments above, and not knowing if someone else has already said this, my suggestion to Dr. Curry is that in any follow up submissions, you spend some time responding to the lady who disputed your IPCC views on extreme weather. She read, I believe, from the SPM rather than from SREX, and quoted a British statement.
It seems to me that there is a possibility for a dialogue, explaining the conflicting views.
He did do a beautiful job of transcribing the exchange. Thanks Mark.
I’m going to quit with the signing thing, I suspect that’s what’s hosing up the threading. Apologies.
Mark,
It is unlikely that your signing messed up the threading, as that always happens when comments get deleted. It appears (reading between the lines of comments that have been left) that certain “contributors” have been active and so a number of comments have been wiped.
However, the signing as you are implementing it is much like restricting energy is to our resilience to climate change. It is much worse than the problem. It clutters the forum with annoying stuff, and does not seem to contribute anything worthwhile as people are not likely to do what they need to check the signatures anyway. Glad to see you stop using them. Just my two cents worth.
Thanks ATAndB. I agree, something better is needed.
I have been deleting Mark’s signing when I spot it
Still CE Identify Theft controversy. Public key signing too difficult and cumbersome, screws up threading if done improperly. hmm. better solution needed. Something voluntary / optional to protect people. Maybe a server side plugin or script… mmmm..
My current way to manage this is to turn on registration when I can’t moderate attentively, leave it off when I am able to moderate fairly regularly.
Yes. Poor use of your valuable time though, acting as a playground supervisor.
Climate Etc. isn’t self hosted WordPress is it?
no, wordpress.com
Makes sense, otherwise you’d likely have already used a plugin to take care of it. I’ll quit distracting you and go play with the problem.
Thanks Dr. Curry.
I think the ultimate GHG effect will hinge on the relative strength of the positive feedback between water vapor and CO2.
In addition water vapor concentrations through out various levels of the atmosphere will also have to be evaluated in addition to the overall concentration changes of water vapor. This is important because water vapor and ozone (limited but powerful GHG gas) are anti correlated.
This in effect could explain why water vapor expected correlations in the upper atmosphere do not hold up with upper atmospheric temperature trends.
Data from radiosonde observations suggest for example that upper atmospheric water vapor declines are associated with warming.
thanks peter adn Markbofill for the civilized resolution.
Scott
The pause has incited the Warmistas to take a victory lapse.
On the topic of policy oriented towards technology: http://www.newseveryday.com/articles/13981/20150417/berkeleys-artificial-leaf-photosynthesize-global-warming-good.htm
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.nanolett.5b01254?journalCode=nalefd
Steven Segrest,
Re: Jon Huntsman. Thought you might enjoy: http://www.businessinsider.com/all-eyes-and-ears-trailer-jon-huntsman-china-2015-4
Do-it-yourself climate science:
Prove Al Gore and the consensus are wrong.
Prove AGW is a mistake.
Prove the ‘war on coal’ is misguided.
Prove CO2 has no significant effect on climate.
Prove climate sensitivity (the increase in AGT due to doubling of CO2) is not significantly different from zero
Right here. Right now.
Only existing temperature and CO2 data are used. Fundamental understanding of math and its relation to the physical world are assumed.
The CO2 level (or some math function thereof) has been suspected of being a forcing. The fundamental math is that temperature changes with the time-integral of a forcing (not the forcing itself). For example, a bloc of metal over a burner heats up slowly, responding to the time-integral of the net forcing (heat from the burner minus the heat loss from convection and radiation). Add a blanket over the block (a ‘step change’ to the loss) and the block temperature increases to a new steady state temperature but the temperature increases slowly (in response to the time-integral).
Existing data includes temperature and CO2 determined from Vostok, Antarctica (or any other) ice cores for at least a full glacial or inter-glacial period. If CO2 is a forcing, the temperature should change as a transient following CO2 level change instead of temperature and CO2 level going up and down in ‘lock step’ as has been determined from measurements and is widely reported.
Existing temperature and CO2 (Berner, 2001) assessments for the entire Phanerozoic eon (about 542 million years) are graphed at http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
Pick any two points separated in time that have the same average global temperature (AGT) anomaly. The cumulative forcing is the time-integral of the forcing (or a function thereof) times a scale factor. Because the AGT at the beginning and end of the time period are the same and the time-integral of the forcing is not zero, the scale factor must be zero. As a consequence, the effect of the forcing is zero.
Granted that if the math function consists of an anomaly with respect to a ‘break-even’ CO2 level, a ‘break-even level could be determined to make the beginning and ending temperatures equal, but pick another time period with equal beginning and ending temperatures but different from the first pick and a different ‘break-even’ level might be calculated. Since the possibility of many different ‘break-even’ levels is ludicrous, the conclusion that CO2 has no significant effect on AGT prevails and something else is causing the temperature change.
A somewhat different approach to the proof showing that CO2 has no significant effect on climate and also identification of the two main factors that do (95% correlation since before 1900) are disclosed at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com
All you have to do is prove how much warming is natural and how much due to CO2. Then, if you can show it’s mostly CO2, then you have to show it will be catastrophic.
Judith, Despite the manifest failure of mitigation over the last 20 years, some people are still insisting on it as the solution and believe people like you are the problem. In the political arena, you need to advocate what can work and be implemented, not what will make you feel virtuous. Advocating mitigation makes some feel virtuous, but given the manifest benefits of fossil fuels, advocating mitigation alone is like arguing for virginity. It may make you feel virtuous, but has zero chance of succeeding.
D Young wrote:
“Despite the manifest failure of mitigation over the last 20 years”
Failure?? Where has mitigation been tried over the last 20 years?
David Appell has 105 of 805 comments in this thread.
Hello? Is there a moderator here?
This post really brought the trolls out of the woodwork. They really get agitated when Judith testifies “for the Republicans.” Eat your hearts out little critters the Republicans are in charge of the committees now. At least they didn’t bring in big movie set fans and turn up the AC full blast.
The Hardest Working Troll award for this thread obviously, hands down, by around 97% acclamation goes to…davey the catch-as-catch-can freelance alleged “science” writer.
He would take the trophy by sheer volume alone, but this is the clincher. He has repeatedly defended the usefulness of the climate models by cherrypicking an extreme outlier and pretending that because the chart of some run of GISS E 2 R intersects with observed temps once in a freaking hunnert and 30 years, that proves that climate models are useful. E.g., here he admonishes one of our distinguished and learned denizens:
davey says: “This is yet another misunderstanding climate models, and it’s getting tiring. Climate models cannot guess the future. They don’t know what ENSOs are coming, what AMO/PDO/IPO shifts are coming, what volcanoes are going to erupt, what the Sun will do.
So how can they possibly calculate temperatures over a few decades, where such factors can be important for short-term trends?
Climate models calculate long-term warming, after natural variablity has averaged out to zero. They do a pretty good job:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/04/a-giss-model-vs-giss-observed.html”
Go have a look at the chart of that exemplary model and you will see that right at the starting point, in 1880, it plunged into an instant little ice age and then turned around and soared If the modelers had actually been making these projections public back in 1880, they would have been given the tar and feather treatment, post haste. It takes more than a hunnert years for the model to get close to reality, then it diverges, under-projecting warming. What davey doesn’t show you is that running the exemplary model out to at least 2100, blows his disingenuous story out of the water. Recent peer reviewed paper with authors from NASA and other warmest organizations:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014MS000403/pdf
Read the text and pay attention to figures 3 and 4 and table 1 and you will see why davey cherrypicked the very cool-running outlier GISS E2R and scenario RCP2.6 as his champion to compare with 20th temp observations, but ended his chart before things went south. Would an honest science writer pull this kind of crap?
davey, davey
“Climate models calculate long-term warming, after natural variablity has averaged out to zero. They do a pretty good job:”
This is what natural variation looks like:
http://internetlooks.com/globaltemperaturelast550millionyearsdegf.jpg
Reblogged this on I Didn't Ask To Be a Blog.
Dr. Curry: Speaking respectfully, I was disappointed with the emphasis in your testimony on natural variability (“The other perspective emphasizes natural variability”) and the limited discussion of the disagreement over climate sensitivity between AOGCMs and energy balance models (EBMs).
As best I can tell, if climate sensitivity is high (say 3 degC or greater), no precedented form of DECADAL natural variability is likely change the amount of “catastrophe” that will be associated with AGW unless we drastically cut emissions of GHGs. The amplitude of the AMO is too small and the period too short. Another Pinatubo or even Krakatoa would cool decadally-averaged GMST a few tenths of a degC or less for a decade. The Dalton minimum lasted three solar cycles and apparently had a forcing well below 1 W/m2. Decadal natural variability IS extremely important to many aspects of climate change research and public understanding of the historical record, but policy must be driven by climate sensitivity.
The only examples of natural variability that could impact future warming appears to another LIA or another ice age. With a cooling of 0.5-1.0? degC initiated by a CENTURY long Maunder minimum in solar activity, another even like the LIA would only moderate AGW. Can a responsible scientist tell Congress anything useful about the possibility of a future LIA?
(You could have warned Congress that – if the authors of AR5 were correct in projecting that natural variability will limit warming over the next two decades to 0.3-0.7 degC – warming of about 0.5 degC over the FIRST THIRD (!) of the 21st century could produce a future electorates and governments of developing countries highly skeptical of alarmist scenarios.)
All of the IPCC projections – climate change, environmental impacts and economic costs – arise from climate models and their climate sensitivity. I would have preferred to more clarity about the growing gap between EBMs and AOGCMs and reasons why AOGCMs can be wrong: parameterization. The difference between EBMs and AOGCM arises mostly from the cloud feedback controlled by parameters and not confirmed by observations.
This paper below from Manabe shows how poorly all climate models predict the change in outgoing LWR and SWR from clear and cloudy skies observed from space by CERES and ERBE during the seasonal rise of 3.5 degC in GMST. Compared with the changes associated with AGW (which involve a forcing change of about 1 W/m2 and warming of a few tenths of a degC spread over decades, the seasonal cycle has an amplitude ten-fold bigger – with replicate experiments taking place every year to minimize the effects of natural variability! Notice that the models disagree with each other in addition to disagreeing with observations. Seasonal warming (warming in the NH minus cooling in the SH) is not global warming, but useful climate models should do better than this.
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/19/7568.full.pdf
There has been much discussion about crop yields. E.g., ” Crop yield didn’t go up until the CO2 level went up” and “CO2 has been going up since around 1850. Why no increase in crop yields between then and 1940?”
There is a partial answer to that: Invention. Let me introduce you-all to Mr. Harry Ferguson and his marvelous Ferguson tractor.
The invention? the three-point hydraulic linkage to the tractor’s implements. It had many advantages: relatively cheap, simple, and easily repairable. Changing implements was a one-person job. Capable of handling 40 acres. Improved safety (the linkage prevented the tractor from flipping backwards upon the driver).
But the productivity feature was that one could put at least half the weight of the tractor onto the plowshare. The depth of the plow was controlled by the hydraulics.
Overturning the land meant that the nutrients were re-distributed, the soil was aerated, and prepared for seeding by other attachments.
Coincident with increased crop yields – 1939
http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe40s/machines_0204.html
That seems to answer the mystery. But it leaves with a quandary: Which if any of the major changes influenced the harvest? Or did they all influence the harvest? Or was it really mostly the three point hitch?
Post 1940:
1. Different Hardware (plows and harvesting)
2. Different methods (soil banking etc.)
3. Different varieties.
4. More rain
5. More warmth
6. More CO2.
And another one:
7. More fertilizer
http://people.oregonstate.edu/~muirp/BI300016.gif
You would have expected grain to practically leap out of the ground…
And grain did practically leap out of the ground…
PA. Per your list at 7:14 pm, I think 1 through 7 does the trick. Of course, the farmer tailors the combination to his/her land in order to make a living. Too bad we can’t approach “Climate Change” analysis with more variables. It is a shame that the latter is stuck on #6.
The three point hitch doesn’t use a double acting cylinder in any equipment I am familiar with.
A double acting cylinder would be required to lift the rear wheels.
Pooh, Dixie | April 19, 2015 at 12:13 am |
PA. Per your list at 7:14 pm, I think 1 through 7 does the trick. Of course, the farmer tailors the combination to his/her land in order to make a living. Too bad we can’t approach “Climate Change” analysis with more variables. It is a shame that the latter is stuck on #6.
Well, it is a consequence of establishing policy then funding science to factually support it.
It is wise decision making run bass ackwards.
You don’t decide on a policy, pick a justification, then fund science to provide supporting data. That guarantees the myopic tunnel vision that climate science is becoming famous for.
PA at 12:15 am. See diagram at
http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe40s/machines_0204.html
Pooh, Dixie | April 19, 2015 at 12:28 am |
PA at 12:15 am. See diagram at
http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe40s/machines_0204.html
I’ve actually taken the rear of either a Ford 800 or 2600 apart and am trying to visualize how it worked.
You are bolder than Dad or me. Congratulations! Harry Ferguson was a genius.
That’s the tractor Dad bought. Combat pay. I believe it was a Ford 8N.
I think your Dad was/hopefully still is wise.
My grandfather hated the thing. He would use it until it broke down, and then he just left it there and went and hitch up his mules and went back to work. Dad would find out weeks later and blow up, call the tractor dealer, and get it fixed. Then Gramps would use it again. He still had his mules in the 1960s.
So sorry to hear that.
Pooh, Dicie
Should that be But the productivity feature was that one could put at least half the weight of the plough onto the rear wheels of the tractor.?
That gave the tractor much more traction for its weight, meaning small light-weight tractors could do much more work. They could also get themselves unbogged, just by lifting the plough – an enormous productivity enhancement.
True about more traction. But actually, given flat, firm enough ground, you could actually lift the rear wheels off the ground. Great for changing the rear tires, if need be.
Yea, but that’s irrelevant. Bogging tractos was frequent when I was young, and extremely time consuming – walk home and get father or uncle to bring another tractor to pull you out. Waste half a day of two people, two tractors and the productivity of both.
One would be wise to use chocks to keep the tractor up and level.
Thanks, Peter. Bogging like that was not one of our experiences, but for yours, getting pulled out was necessary. Thanks for sharing. BTW, satellite shows our house is not there anymore. Miss it.
Our house was built in 1870 and is still going strong.
Peter at 12:12. I guess they don’t build them like they used to. 8-(
Spelling correction: “Pooh, Dixie”
Somewhere I listed the reason why harvests have gone up since my ancestors started raising corn in NW Missouri around 1836:
start around 26 bushels an acre
improved seed (originally they planted seeds saved from the prior years harvest – not good)
improved implements, including improved draft animals
insecticides and herbicides
crop rotation
This took them through WW2. After WW2 my Dad bought them a Ford tractor, and I believe it had a 3-point hitch.
Anhydrous ammonia, which was major. It was an earthquake on corn farms.
improved tillage
Warming and CO2
The seed improvement goes on to this day, as do improvements in machinery. Really all phases.
http://crops.missouri.edu/audit/images/CornYields_MO.jpg
Judith: I wished you had addressed the goal of limiting AGW to 2.0 degC or even 1.5 degC. As best I can tell, the IPCC tells policymakers HOW to limit AGW to 2 degC above pre-industrial, but not WHY. The IPCC provides no scientific or economic RATIONAL for this target. I suspect most policymakers understand little about the 1.5-2.0 degC goal – except that environmental activists have adopted it. Here are some reasons it “must” be discussed.
1) The target is 1.5-2.0 degC above PRE-INDUSTRIAL (1750) – the LIA. No one in their right mind would use the LIA as the starting point for selecting an optimum amount of warming – unless they (religiously) believe that any environmental change caused by man is intolerable – whether it is good or bad for the majority of the people on the planet. Any sensible target should be discussed relative to present climate – climate that people understand and climate closer to optimum. I’d bet that half of the Representatives at your hearing don’t understand the implications of the word “pre-industrial”.
2) The 2 degC goal was chosen without cost-benefit analysis. (History of the 2 C climate target: S Randalls – Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 2010.) Despite all of the hype over climate change and extreme weather, economists (all?) believe that the 0.8 degC warming observed in the 20th century was net beneficial for humanity. Therefore roughly half of the maximum ACCEPTABLE amount of AGW represents a change for the better, not the worse. Economists are debating how much warmer it can get before benefits plateau and when net harm to man begins. Why does anyone believe that anything more than 1.5 degC of AGW must be unacceptable when the first 0.8 degC has been beneficial?
3) We don’t know how to meet a 1.5 or 2.0 degC goal. If ECS could be as low as 1.5 degC or as high as 4.5 degC, we can meet this target by total emissions that are as little as 50% or as much as 200% of the IPCC’s central estimate for total emission. Given past emissions, the uncertainty in tolerable future emissions must be even greater, perhaps 30% to 300%. Even that range doesn’t include uncertainty about sinks for carbon dioxide. (The IPCC cheats by using an ensemble of climate models with a much narrower range of ECS and by replacing emission scenarios by RCPs).
4) What is the scientific rational for a 1.5-2.0 degC goal? Some climate scientists believe they have pinpointed the falling CO2 concentrations that initiated the glaciation of Antarctica 30-40 million years ago, the glaciation of Greenland about 10 million years ago and the beginning of ice ages about 2.5 million years ago. From this they deduce that our climate is extremely sensitive to CO2 and that only a narrow range of CO2 concentrations are safe. The problem is that this work assumes that climate change is driven only by changes in CO2 and ignores large uncertainties and much evidence to the contrary. None of this speculative work is currently QUANTITATIVELY endorsed by the IPCC. The SPM for AR5 WG1 merely says:
“Sustained mass loss by ice sheets would cause larger sea level rise, and some part of the mass loss might be irreversible. There is high confidence that sustained warming greater than some threshold would lead to the near-complete loss of the Greenland ice sheet OVER A MILLENNIUM OR MORE, causing a global mean sea level rise of up to 7 m. Current estimates indicate that the threshold is greater than about 1°C (low confidence) but less than about 4°C (medium confidence) global mean warming with respect to pre-industrial. Abrupt and irreversible ice loss from a potential instability of marine-based sectors of the Antarctic ice sheet in response to climate forcing is possible, but current evidence and understanding is insufficient to make a quantitative assessment.”
The SPM doesn’t tell us that half of the Greenland ice sheet melted during the previous interglacial without the assistance of anthropogenic GHGs. Nor does it tell us that Arctic temperatures far exceeding today’s persisted for two millennia during the Holocene Climate Optimum. Forests grew on the shores of the Arctic Ocean. Polar bears and the GIS survived. AR5 Chapter 5 doesn’t even contain the term “Holocene Climate Optimum”, much less discuss its implications.
Replies don’t list under the the post referenced.
Pooh, Dixie | April 19, 2015 at 12:20 am | Reply
Replies don’t list under the the post referenced.
Reference a different post…
Now if you are replying to a post near the end of the thread – some posts may have been deleted – which has messed up threading in the past, and the reply will end up as a post at the bottom.
That is what happened. Thanks. Apparently WordPress doesn’t use GUIDs (Global Unique ID).
Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #177 | Watts Up With That?
Pingback: Nobody expects the Climate Inquisition | Watts Up With That?
Pingback: The Whitehouse-White House inquisition | Somewhat Reasonable
Pingback: Nobody expects the Climate Inquisition | I World New
Pingback: The Whitehouse-White House inquisition
Pingback: The Whitehouse-White House Inquisition of Climate Change Questioning Scientists
Pingback: The Whitehouse-White House Inquisition of Climate Change Questioning Scientists - News
Pingback: The Whitehouse White House Inquisition | PA Pundits - International
Pingback: Bjorn Stevens in the cross-fire | Climate Etc.
Pingback: The Whitehouse-White House InquisitionNatural Gas Now
Pingback: The Whitehouse-White House inquisition | Black Quill and Ink
Pingback: Stalking the uncertainty monster | Climate Etc.
Pingback: Stalking the uncertainty monster | Enjeux énergies et environnement
Pingback: Exposed: The Whitehouse-White House Inquisition Against Global Warming ‘Deniers’
Pingback: Judith Curry: Stalking The Uncertainty Monster | The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
Pingback: Follow-up questions re my recent House testimony | Climate Etc.
Pingback: Follow-up questions re my recent House testimony | Enjeux énergies et environnement
Pingback: Groeiende twijfel over invloed van de mens op het klimaat – De Dagelijkse Standaard