by Judith Curry
A few things that caught my eye this past week.
From the Dep’t of Irony: Oxford University Student Union bans free speech magazine because it is ‘offensive’ [link] …
World Economic Forum: What is the global economic impact of climate change? [link]In sum, breaking the 2ºC target is not a disaster. The most serious impacts are symptoms of poverty rather than climate change. Other impacts are unlikely to have a substantial effect on human welfare.
An environmental economist reflects on his “clean” VW diesel car: [link] …
Sources of new nitrogen in the Indian Ocean [link]
EPA claims reducing ozone alleviates asthma. Child asthma rates are up 131% since 1980, despite falling ozone levels [link]
Paper: Pacific Decadal Oscillation linked to 18.6 year lunar tide cycle [link]
New paper finds no significant trends of extreme precipitation in UK between 1931 and 2014. [link] …
New paper by French mathematicians determines battle against global warming is “absurd, costly & pointless crusade” [link] …
Scientists declare an urgent mission – study West Antarctica, and fast [link]
2013 Paper exploring negative impacts of CO2 policies on NOx emisisons [link]
VW emissions scandal: time to rethink our views on regulations? [[link]
Is the precautionary principle of any use? Consider the issue of wind farms and seabirds. [link]
New paper: Sun controls “Indian temperature variability, in part indirectly through ENSO, but on >1 time scale. [link]
New paper finds probability of CAGW “fat tails” is quite unlikely [link]
Marshall Shepherd: The science behind why cities are warmer than rural areas: [link] …
Harvard’s Jerry Mitrovica: Ups and downs of sea level [link]
Sensitivity of Soil Water Availability to Changing Snowmelt Timing in the Western U.S. [link] …
The science behind why nice people finish last—and how to fix that http://ti.me/1O0xp8x
New paper finds correlation between sunspots leading Antarctic temperatures by 30-40 years, & NO correlation of CO2&T [link] …
Interesting EconTalk with owner of Legal Sea Foods, especially 21 mins in [link]
New Nature paper finds bright side to IPCC “cumbersome, sleep-depriving, and tinged w risk of political influence” sessions [link]
New Nature Paper: “Is the IPCC doing the right things? Is the IPCC doing things right?” [link]
Surface of the oceans affects climate more than previously thought [link]
Does Publication Bias Inflate the Apparent Efficacy of Psychological Treatment for Major Depressive Disorder? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of US National Institutes of Health-Funded Trials [link]
after a quick run through the French mathematics paper
I find it outstanding
clearly written and easy to follow
looking forward to digging into it for my rainy hurricane weekend
very much appreciate you Judith, guiding me to stuff like this
They promised there would be math.
============================
Instead, there will be wrath, and wrighteous wranting…
so, finished the mathematicians white paper
agreed with many of the general points
for me, many basics were clearly explained
try to make a point of not shooting messengers
but I am the least sophisticated of souls here
‘absurd’ is the word I like
don’t think average temp is a useful measure
think sea level fear mongering is plain dumb
(and exposes the the real political purpose)
the temp record is near a joke
human attempts to craft the climate will fail
trying to learn
but my current opinion is that global warming has not taken place outside of natural variation and ‘climate change’ is obvious agitprop
and that this is one of the greatest science and political misadventures in history
the opposite of what I thought before I began to read on the subject
had I voted, would have voted for Obama twice, but glad I didn’t ’cause that makes two less regrets in my pack
much respect for all at CE
Really! You must have turned your scepticism detector off. The little bit I read seemed like nonsense, making some absolutist statements that seem to completely ignore all physics.
Keep reading. They are quite sure of themselves, at which I wondered a little.
===========
Try this for believability, from their peroration:
It’s just an ignorant, self-published rant. Stuff like this:
http://www.moyhu.org.s3.amazonaws.com/2015/10/rant.png
Of course, no competent organization does anything like that. And then CO2.
“Concentrations of CO2 vary, as they always have done; the figures that are being released are biased and dishonest. “
Beck is the recommendation. An encyclopedia of skeptic nonsense.
And average temperature is a useful metric? I mean, for understanding climate, not for persuading the naive.
===================
We’ve nearly a year now of new and subtle CO2 measurement. Show it to me, Nick.
=================
I hate to agree with Nick, but then I read this at the very beginning:
“Concentrations of CO2 vary, as they always have done; the figures that are being released are biased and dishonest. Rising sea levels are a normal phenomenon linked to upthrust buoyancy; they are nothing to do with so-called global warming.”
Made me cringe.
P.S. Is the IPCC called the IPPC in France?
I stopped reading it when I got to the sentence, “Human beings cannot, in any event, change the climate.”
Who knew that Senator Inhofe was a French mathematician?
Indeed.
As a physicist and French citizen I have to concede that this “white paper” is sobering about what some “mathematicians” unfortunately have turned out to be in 2015 in France.
Arrogant, ignorant and ridicule.
Is planet Earth floating in a cesspool of scientific deception?
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/281017812
Surprise surprise. back in 2009 I bought a new vehicle. After much casting about and trouble I bought a Ford F150. I got it for three main reasons. 1) Gas mileage for my purposes (including pulling a travel trailer some days) was excellent. 2) Ford did not have Obama as President. 3) That truck did not bother my asthma. Anything diesel, including the VW? Forget it. My green friends tsked tsked me. I had the last laugh on that one.
The Ford F-150 is one of the best selling vehicles of all time. The wisdom of crowds, sometimes. An Idahoan friend of mine claims the farmers out in patatoland buy 2wd versions and leave them out in the weather for decades. His dad was a mechanic. I dunno, but they are good trucks.
I’d take the story about gannets and wind turbines with a grain of salt.
Based on discussions with our avian protection guy, estimates like these may be on par with climate models in their predictive ability. They use estimates and models to come up with numbers for bird fatalities caused by our three wind farms. I believe the number is 10 – 12 a year. As a result we are required to take compensatory actions that theoretically make up for those deaths. In 10 years of operation we have found 4 dead birds.
When people claim millions of bird deaths from buildings I always wonder where the dead bodies are.
How many dead birds were eaten by predators before you found them?
I believe we have to patrol on a daily basis.
Then there is the fact that predators usually leave stuff like feathers, carcass, etc.
The trouble is that a free speech has always been offensive. Tolerance, likewise. Let’s declare a Month of Tolerance. At the end, everybody who does show enough tolerance would be executed.
grrrh .. who does NOT show …
Back in 1965, they were already working on the problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965
The public had a problem with the idea but back then what did they know? Perspective takes time when you are skeptical.
When I read something I find to offensive I either stop reading or start writing.
If they all want her so bad why not just let them have her, we don’t want anybody voting illegally.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/illegal-immigrants-could-elect-hillary-clinton-213216
This is America.
gr… too offensive …
grrrh .. who does NOT show …
CC caused by ACW and I’m against it. (CC=city change. ACW=Anthropogenic City warming).
Sensitivity believed to be: “night is 2.1 degrees C warmer…in the city than in the country” based on no doubling of urban sprawl. This must be addressed immediately and all cities should be herewith disbanded posthaste.
From this: Marshall Shepherd: The science behind why cities are warmer than rural areas: [link] …
I always wonder why they don’t plant more deciduous trees in parking lots. The shady spots are always taken first.
Leaves? Or maybe they’re leaving all that space for solar panels, when the price comes down enough.
Tree’s make for a very dark parking lot at night, so you usually only see them in lots that only get used during the day (public or Government buildings) or in places so hot that the shade is seen as a necessity (like many lots in Florida).
I know I’m a rookie but this bothers me so much.
I understand he’s co-author of the work, but how can the data be presented as so factual when it runs counter to ‘the greatest minds in climate, the IPCC’ and it does so by changing some 90+ years of historic tidal gauge records via a computer algorithm? :”Recent research conducted at Harvard fine-tuned estimates of the average global sea level rise across the 20th century, pegging it at about 1.2 millimeters a year. That was a downward revision from the previously accepted figure of between 1.5 and 1.8 millimeters a year. The revision isn’t good news, however, because it means sea level has been rising faster in more recent years. Satellite measurements of 3.4 millimeters annually in recent years appear to be correct, Mitrovica said.” http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v517/n7535/full/nature14093.html
from: Harvard’s Jerry Mitrovica: Ups and downs of sea level [link]
Danny,
You can’t compare gauge data with satellite data. You pick one or the other. Being conservative, I’d use the latter for planning purposes. In either case the rate of rise is not increasing.
Danny
“Steven has stated blogs are just drama. I see them as a tool to express and learn. At time, I express too much.”
Wrong again.
The Appeal, the thing that draws crowds, is the entertainment value.
To see, for example, poor defenseless rud, complain about a tongue lashing.
See him play victim? THAT’S FUNNY and entertaining.
If you wanted to learn you would go to climateaudit or lucias.
Less drama more education. IF you wanted to learn.
Steven,
Thanks.
“If you wanted to learn you would go to climateaudit or lucias.” (Have read climateaudit, but not lucias. Will check it out)
Less drama more education.” (It’s true the drama does have entertainment value).
And I’ve asked ya this before. Is there a way to subscribe to BEST? When I followed your earlier reference I found the blog, but saw no comments or a way to subscribe. (TonyB asked you about this also, so a response would be of assistance to me, him and others)
Steven,
Re: Lucias. Do you mean this one: http://rankexploits.com/musings/
Steven, you are just experiencing the long term effect of an excellent memory.
“And I’ve asked ya this before. Is there a way to subscribe to BEST? When I followed your earlier reference I found the blog, but saw no comments or a way to subscribe. (TonyB asked you about this also, so a response would be of assistance to me, him and others)
There is a subscription to the newsletter.. on the sidebar.
Comments?. I had them on for a while. too much spam, people commenting on profile pages. I may open them up again.
I’m researching comment systems that are better than wordpress.
Got it
Steven,
Got it! Thanks.
(Was that there before? Must be going (more?) brain dead).
It’s all the result algorithms. The tidal gauges do not produce a number called global mean sea level rise.
JCH,
Huh? All algorithms? You’re gonna have to help me understand why you’d say that as that’s not at all my understanding. I’ve found this which explains a physical relationship (not algorithm).
“Historical Tide Gauge Measurements
Traditionally, global sea level change has been estimated from tide gauge measurements collected over the last century. Tide gauges, usually placed on piers, measure the sea level relative to a nearby geodetic benchmark. The figure below is the most commonly used tide gauge measurement system, a float operating in a stilling well. Surveys of the tide gauge site are performed regularly to account for any settling of the site. Tide gauges may also move vertically with the region as a result of post-glacial rebound, tectonic uplift or crustal subsidence. This greatly complicates the problem of determining global sea level change from tide gauge data. Differences in global sea level estimates from tide gauge data usually reflect the investigator’s approach in considering these vertical crustal movements. Tide gauges also monitor meteorological factors that affect sea levels, such as barometric pressure and wind speed, so that these variable factors can be eliminated from long-term assessments of sea level change. Although the global network of tide gauges comprises of a poorly distributed sea level measurement system, it offers the only source of historical, precise, long-term sea level data. Major conclusions from tide gauge data have been that global sea level has risen approximately 10-25 cm during the past century.”
From Here: http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/tide-gauge-sea-level
(Now this still doesn’t address subsidence, but that’s another discussion).
We’ve discussed this Hay thing before and it still runs counter to IPCC. Had it been due to a transition to satellites (instrumentation change) it would make more sense to me, but it’s not. It’s the push of a computer button changing 90+ years of history. And it’s different from Church/White in addition.
This line could get old fast, as often as I’m likely to use it, but see the French mathematicians.
=================
Kim,
In skimming the French Mathematicians report I did find one area I’d not heard of being considered yet:
“5. Abrasion of the land by rivers
Rivers have been flowing for some billions of years, and they carry earth and fragments of rock from the terrestrial areas to the depths of the oceans. Unlike the water cycle, this phenomenon is not reversible. Its effect is that the volume of land under water decreases and matter is deposited on the ocean floors. The quantities involved are considerable, but nowhere have we seen attention paid to this phenomenon.” Page 74.
(I’ve read to consider fresh water inflow from aquifers, but not solids)
Interestingly, the seem to confirm the Hay number of 1.2mm/yr since 1800 of SLR here:
“To be precise, the seal level, which rose 120 m in 18,000 years (source: the French Research Institute for Exploitation of the Sea – IFREMER), or 6.6 mm per year, has risen by only 1.2 mm per year (French Naval Hydrographic and Oceanographic Service – SHOM) since 1800, and the rate has not speeded up recently; see [Christy and Spencer].” Page 66
They’re wrong. It’s reversed by continental subduction.
The rate seems to have slowed to a crawl, as if we’re running out of meltable ice. Please, more sea level rise; I’d worry if it leveled off or dropped.
================
> see the French mathematicians.
You can call them Bernard:
http://www.societe.com/societe/societe-de-calcul-mathematique-sa-399991041.html
Bernard’s revenues might interest honest brokers.
AK
If they are wrong explain how the sediment leaving the farm field and coursing its way to the bottom of the ocean is reversed so that it appears on the farm field again.
Not reversible like the water cycle reverses, but mountains do rise. See Himalyas. I even bet there are other examples if I look around just a little.
============
Kim,
JCH tells me it’s all the result of algorithms. Does that also apply to the Himalayas too?
If a paper concludes from the tide gauge record that sea level rise in the 20th century averaged 1.8 mm per year, explain how they arrived at that number without using algorithms.
JCH,
Point taken. Maybe we can discuss this here w/o acrimony.
Here are my issues.
Tidal records have been used historically. Hay states 622 gauges in her work. Gauges are a physical measurement system. Yes it takes an algorithm to ‘average’.
IPCC states 1.5 to 1.9 mm/year rise (AR5/WG3) 1901-2010.
Church and White indicated 1.8 mm/yr +/-.3 (2004) and Mitrovica was co-author for 1950-2000.
Church and White extended back to 1870 and forward to 2004 (2006) and indicated 1.7 mm/yr +/- .3. and stated SLR was accelerating during this time.
Finally, C & W (2011) indicate 1900-2009 at 1.7mm yr +/- .2 and included a subset of from 1961 to 2009 at 1.9mm yr +/-.4.
Church was lead author of WG3.
From Hay: “The sum of the KS-estimated GMSL changes associated with the mass balance of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, the mass balance of 18 mountain glacier regions, and thermal expansion (Fig. 2, blue line and
shading; see Methods) is characterized by an average GMSL rate of
1.2 6 0.2 mm yr21 (90% CI) for 1901–90. As shown in Fig. 3, this is
significantly lower than the estimates of 1.56 0.2 mm yr21 fromChurch
and White4 (magenta line in Fig. 2) and 1.9 mm yr21 from Jevrejeva
et al.3 (red line in Fig. 2). The KS-estimated acceleration is 0.017 6
0.003 mm yr22 , larger than our estimates based on the Church and White4
(0.009 6 0.002 mm yr22) and Jevrejeva et al.3 (0.011 6 0.006 mm yr22)
time series (see Methods).
Now to be clear, I don’t doubt that Hay is accurate. I am skeptical. I’m skeptical because IPCC (that conservative body with the greatest minds and all), Church & White (at one point including Mitrovica) using far fewer gauges, Jevrejeva (using 1023 gauges-2006), all found different results.
Of note. Jevrejeva states:”The fastest sea level rise during the 20th century was between 1920 – 50 and appears to be a combination of
peaking of the 60– 65 years cycle with a period of low
volcanic activity [Jevrejeva et al., 2006; Church and White,
2006]
Hay indicates 1.2mm/yr +/-.1 apparently using 622 tidal gauges. Church found issues with many of them (subsidence, time, anomalies).
I don’t see a conspiracy (I’m not that guy). But I do have issues with adjustment of historic (physically obtained) observed evidence.
Ironically, Dr. Church states (2011) “When more gauges are used, the records usually have different lengths and starting times. It is then necessary to average the rates of rise over some time step and integrate the results to get the sea-level change.”
To determine their stated rates of SLR, each method used substantially different numbers of data points (tide gauges). Going back in time (this makes sense) there were fewer points available. But the algorithm modification applied (by Hay) did not include the entire data set but a selected range.
Once satellite altimeters were implemented it seems a ‘step change’ occurred.
From sealevel.colorado.edu: “Since 1993, measurements from the TOPEX and Jason series of satellite radar altimeters have allowed estimates of global mean sea level. These measurements are continuously monitored against a network of tide gauges. When seasonal variations are subtracted, they allow estimation of the global mean sea level rate. As new data, models and corrections become available, we continuously revise these estimates (about every two months) to improve their quality.”
The problem is that the sea surface is far from flat; there are waves many meters in height – finding a difference of 1-2 millimeter per year is a pure wizardry. I don’t think that what they are measuring has much to do with a “sea level”.
CG,
Yep. That’s the first issue. Then stating 1.2mm/yr +/-.1mm? Mighty impressive.
Apparently nobody in the SLR community shares your skepticism – possibly because they have studied the papers that led to Hay’s result in that paper.
And possibly because 1.8 and 1.5 (also driven by those suspicious algorithms) did not balance with other lines of evidence, but 1.2 does.
I think one of the SLR papers that gets ballyhooed around here used 9 gauges.
SLR is accelerating. No surprise given physics and observations.
Does a batter actually bat .367? Seriously. A bunch of dumb jocks can calculate to that degree of accuracy? I know, it’s just about .98334478832% amazing.
JCH,
Well if Hay is correct, then ‘skeptics’ have every reason to look askance at: IPCC, C&W, Jevrejeva and anyone else involved in the IPCC WG3 compilation, wouldn’t you agree. Only one can be accurate if all others are inaccurate.
I have no idea which ‘9 gauge’ paper to which you refer, so lacking some sort of reference I’ll just ignore same.
Hay has been cited 30 times. How many have cited IPCC, Church, Jevrejeva?
SLR may indeed be accelerating. That has nothing to do with a modification of historic physical evidence.
So I guess, no, we cannot discuss SLR and the Hay paper w/o acrimony and sarcasm. It’s apparently not in your capability so I’ll just move on.
Not this again?
ATTP,
I’m sorry you don’t approve. I’ve look much more closely as a result of the previous. The number of chosen gauges is of interest as it ranges from over 1000 (Jevrejeva) to +/- 600 (Hay) to a variety (Church & White) with differing results.
Where else am I to go to hash this out with folks who care about climate & SLR and have enough knowledge to provide an education?
The historic record remains exactly as was. 1.7 mm was never the historic record. It was a selection of gauge records that were put through algorithms. Ditto for 1.5 mm.
She did exactly what they did, only based upon what appear to be improvements provided by her/their work in fingerprinting sources.
JCH,
Why only 622 gauges? Why not 1034 (as was done in the earlier work)? Why not back to 1860 (the historic record)?
I appreciate your response, but it doesn’t answer non-skeptical but strictly inquisitive questions. And it doesn’t seem to address the statement: “Jevrejeva states:”The fastest sea level rise during the 20th century was between 1920 – 50 and appears to be a combination of peaking of the 60– 65 years cycle with a period of low volcanic activity [Jevrejeva et al., 2006; Church and White, 2006]”
(There’s that +/- 60 year cycle Chambers discussed again)
Oh, I don’t “not approve”. I think you’re both making a mountain out of a molehill and misunderstanding the process of scientific discovery. There is no “correct”.
ATTP,
Mountain becomes larger when history is modified to lower past SLR leading to statements that SLR rate is increasing. Having said that, it follows that fresh water aquifer contribution, land ice melting, etc. would lead to an increasing SLR, but that rate has the appearance of being worse due to this adjustment.
As a good ‘scientist’ when someone questions that modification should it not be evaluated?
As stated before, this is one that just bothers me to no end and I’m trying to suss it out? Looking more deeply, to my level of capability (and in part due to previous interactions), increases discomfort and not decreases.
And it surprises me that ‘those more climate concerned’ are not concerned that IPCC, Church, White, et al (all with standing) have been deemed to be ‘less than accurate’.
When anyone who’s considered a skeptic suggests that the IPCC has put forth inaccurate information, the beloved IPCC is stated to be ‘the source with the greatest minds’ indicating an inability to fail. But not in this case? Why? Because it shows things may be ‘worse than we thought’? Makes me wonder why some evaluation of IPCC stands and others do not.
If ‘there is no correct’ then what the heck is all this climate discussion about?
Since – as far as I’m aware – you’re the only one who is “deeming” this, that might explain why some are not that concerned.
Again, you’re stating this. Few would ever describe it this way.
We can never “know” the “correct” SLR. What we have are measurements that we can analyse to try and infer what it is. We can’t go back in time to take other measurements. We can only work with what we have. However, we can disagree with how to do this analysis and what to include. That doesn’t mean that something more recent is somehow more accurate/correct than something done earlier. It is simply another analysis.
ATTP,
Huh? IPCC report inclusive of C&W, and Jevrejeva have different results. How can they not be ‘deemed less than accurate’ if the Hay result is accepted? And if it’s not rebutted, shouldn’t it be considered accepted? It’s not me deeming, it’s simply an observation.
So you’re saying when a skeptic puts forth a result which is contrary to IPCC that result is accepted to the same extent Hay (seems) to have been?
I am in no way stating Hay is wrong (not qualified). I’m stating I don’t grasp why it’s not treated to the same type of handling. And I have questions (which I’m incapable of answering) regarding the differing methods (and different results) of at least the 3 scientists listed.
As I said, this one bothers me. JCH defends it, you seem to say ‘it doesn’t really matter much’, skeptics say it makes the rate of SLR appear worse. Well if it doesn’t matter much, then does the rate of SLR increasing matter? Or is (in your view) just that it is increasing and the rate matters not? (Seems to me it should, which is what makes the Hay work seem important).
Why nine?
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/wp-images/holgate_tide_gauges.JPG
JCH,
Why nine?
What time frame? Were there others? Was there a problem found which excludes the others if so, and what was it? (I have no idea to which work you refer).
Firstly, it hasn’t been “accepted” in the sense of being regarded as the “correct” result. It’s been published. Also, as I’ve pointed out to you, the ranges overlap, so – statistically – they’re not inconsistent.
Firstly, Hay isn’t “contrary” to the IPCC, despite what you keep claiming. I didn’t say it’s been accepted; you did.
Here’s the point. Science progresses. The IPCC documents are an analysis of the scientific position up to early 2013. If something is published after that, it doesn’t suddenly mean that the IPCC released inaccurate information. Things change. Our understanding progresses. That’s how science works. Unless you think there is an glaring error in a paper, you don’t submit a rebuttal. If a newer paper produce a result that is different to an older paper, you don’t go and change, or retract, the older paper. The history of how we develop understanding is important.
Also, as I’ve (and JCH) pointed out to you before, the Hay et al, result is 1.2 +- 0.2 mm/year for the period 1901 – 1990. The IPCC result was 1.5 +- 0.2 mm/year for the same time period. So, Hay et al. suggest it was possibly slower over that period than the IPCC suggested, but 1.2 +- 0.2mm/year is not statistically inconsistent with the IPCC result since the confidence intervals overlap. We don’t “know” which one is a better representation of reality, but we wouldn’t normally respond to a paper that suggests something may be somewhat different to what we earlier thought. We might do some more analysis, but that’s what doing science is all about.
The Holgate study… he says he used 9 gauges. They’re on that map. I don’t question his study because he used 9 gauge records. Nor did anybody else.
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.php
JCH,
I would have (especially regarding e, below when there are so many more data points available).
“From this article, we learn from the actual data that (a) sea level is generally rising, (b) the rate of rise decelerated during the 20th century, (c) the rate of sea level rise over the past two decades has been both positive and negative, (d) the rate of sea level rise has been quite small over the last few years, and (e) stations can witness an increase or decrease of sea level quite independently of one another.”
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/02/09/shocking-facts-about-sea-level-rise/
> Not this again?
Inquisitive audits never end, AT.
Willard,
No they do not. It was especially disconcerting for me to discover that once ATTP closed the commentary on that thread that one Mr. Willard had the capability and chose to make further additions (mostly derogatory). I lost all trust at that point.
> No they do not.
Ahhh, yes, I’d forgotten that I’d done something to lose some kind of trust. I thought that I was just busy and had simply had enough of dealing with a comment thread on a blog that I generally regard as mine. How could I forget such an unforgiveable infraction?
ATTP,
Sensitive much? I didn’t state that YOU made any changes, now did I. (Unless. A.) You did. B.) You allowed Willard to do so.)
I didn’t challenge your right to close comments on your blog. I stated I lost trust once I went back (for research to answer questions posted here) and found that one person (to my knowledge), Willard, had access and made changes. You’ll just have to forgive that transgression of mine. That is in no way fair in a public blog. If you knew about it and allowed it then you are guilty of an ‘unforgivable infraction’ in my opinion.
Ya know, I’ve heard somewhere that ‘the audit never ends’!
Specific questions. Do you think it’s appropriate that Willard did so? Were this to happen to you, would it cause you to trust or not, the resource?
> I lost all trust at that point.
Yet recently Danny was pretending to have a “conversation.”
After playing the ref, ripping off his shirt, and throwing a squirrel, Danny will try to distance himself yet again from C-l-i-m-a-t-e-B-a-l-l.
Don’t be shy, Danny. Link to that thread. Why not quote a comment? Here, for instance:
Your repetition is not explanation. How were you inaccurate? Details, your words, please.
[You’re the one who claims that Nordhaus’ explanation is inaccurate, Danny. -W]
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/08/14/representative-concentration-pathways/#comment-61626
Which part is derogatory, and haven’t you noticed how you switched the burden of proof?
Willard,
I’m not going down this rabbit hole with you. I didn’t cite Nordhaus, you did. And your statement that I claimed Nordhaus is inaccurate is not supported by that link.
Why did you chose to make changes once comments were closed, Willard? What would be your reasoning for doing so? Why do you have that capability when I do not? Your doing so is, well, sub-optimal.
Oh, no, sorry. I was being sarcastic.
ATTP,
I wasn’t. But that’s okay. It’s your blog.
Perhaps Danny raises concerns about the other comment I made:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/08/14/representative-concentration-pathways/#comment-61623
Was that derogatory? I hope it’s not “YOU chose the word,” since you yourself used that C-l-i-m-a-t-e-B-a-l-l trick earlier in the thread.
***
You better come up with an explanation quick as to why you find these two inline comments derogatory, Danny. Otherwise who knows what could happen with my trust in you &c.
Willard,
My final word on this is that it doesn’t matter. You made changes after comments were closed and I was not allowed to (nor was anyone else) and that is wrong and in no way fair. But as I’ve clearly been told. It’s not MY blog. It belongs to ATTP and it’s up to him to allow or disallow whatever he sees fit.
Trust that, Willard.
> And your statement that I claimed Nordhaus is inaccurate is not supported by that link.
Here, Danny:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/08/14/representative-concentration-pathways/#comment-61583
Since all I did was to quote Nordhaus, you were question beggingly claiming that Nordhaus was inaccurate.
Hope this helps.
> My final word on this is that it doesn’t matter
Wait. Now that I’ve shown that your “derogatory” might very well be suboptimal, “it doesn’t matter” anymore, Danny?
Also, where are your inquisitive questioning of Paul S’ point about XBTs and ARGO floats, your misinterpretation of a misinterpretation of Hansen, and most important the inconsistency AT noted:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/08/14/representative-concentration-pathways/#comment-61405
You’re pulling the same trick right here right a bit before now, BTW. Do you want me to trace it back for you, or can I trust your memory on that? Hint: JCH.
Thank you for your concerns.
Willard,
I don’t know nor care about what you ‘can trust’. I can’t trust the thread since one (you) has made changes after comments were closed. What can’t/don’t you understand about that? The rest just doesn’t matter since changes have been made and/or allowed. Twist (or try) as you might. It is what it is.
The audit never ends, Willard. The audit never ends. And for me, I’ll always have a lack of trust going forward as a result of your sub-optimal choices to make those modifications.
Danny
Re sediment transport.
Look also at the very substantial geological sequestration of atmospheric CO2 from 7000 ppm to 200 ppm as sediments.
Global warming causing higher evaporation, precipitation and net transfer of water from the ocean to land. See
The solar and Southern Oscillation components in the satellite altimetry data Daniel Howard, Nir J. Shaviv, Henrik Svensmark, Space Physics 13 May 2015 DOI: 10.1002/2014JA020732
The thing that should have inspired skepticism is their bank was not balanced. Holgate was discussed on Climate Audit. They liked the results, so not many questions were asked. Ditto for here. It’s fun to repeat that decadal rates of SLR were higher in the 1st half of the 20th century than now. They have been, and they not have have been. Holgate’s team has joined the one-meter by 2100 camp.
Danny, FWIW, Mosher has bullying tendancies at times. Or, equally possible, overzealotry and impatience with mere mortals not in Berkeley. My advice is grow a bit thicker skin, be a little less nice than you obviously are normally, and don’t respond to him as often as that seldom ends well. I know from personal experience, having been called out as an ignoramus, mathematically and statistically illiterate, not ‘getting it’, not ‘doing the homework’, etc. Google BEST station 166900, read footnote 24 to my essay When Data Isn’t, and you will see both the issues and the sensitivities.
I wish you the best on your own personal learning journey. The climate chapter of Gaia’s Limits, the CAGW chapter of The Arts of Truth, and half the essays in Blowing Smoke are a vivid and indelible testimony to my own learning journey the past five plus years. Less wrong each book. Probably not yet close to right.
Rud,
Thank you.
I’m really not that thin skinned although I do get frustrated. Steven has stated blogs are just drama. I see them as a tool to express and learn. At time, I express too much.
I truly do respect most of those who are not adverse to posting views and opinions. Heck, I’m not educated enough (yet?) to know what are good questions to ask (obviously that doesn’t stop me) and completely opposite of Mosher I think questions are appropriate.
I’m not ‘the knower’, I’m the one who’s (trying to) find out and can only do so by asking questions and posing issues.
Guess I should probably shut up. This has become too much about me.
Jch
I carried out a number of private email conversations with simon holgate over several years. Whilst undoubtedly a warmist, his sea level rise predictions were always very modest. He considered 1.5 metre rise by 2100 to be very fanciful and whilst confirming the view amongst his colleagues was of a 1metre rise I had never heard him say this on his own behalf so perhaps you would provide a citation by him to support this level ?
Thanks
Tonyb
Danny Thomas
Its scientific to be skeptical. Track the pea, not the shells. Examine all ADJUSTMENTS. (2013) New paper finds sea levels rising at less than 4 inches per century, with no acceleration
Links to seven papers making upward adjustments. See RGBatDuke explaining how all temperature adjustments causing warming is unbelievable.
David,
Thank you. I will take a look!
Danny. For more detail/review see Climate Change Reconsidered, CCRII, Ch 6 Hydrosphere, Sect. 6.2 Oceans.
Danny
See Eschenback critiquing sea level trends: An Open Invitation to Ira Flatow
Citing:
J. R. Houston and R. G. Dean (2011) Sea-Level Acceleration Based on U.S. Tide Gauges and Extensions of Previous Global-Gauge Analyses. Journal of Coastal Research: Volume 27, Issue 3: pp. 409 – 417.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1
Thanks David. I saw that one. Ira is great and hope he’ll take up the conversation. More open, honest communication surely cannot hurt and so much is not like that.
James Hansen did not predict that in 40 years the Westside Highway would be under water.
JCH,
Did you get the book? Does it say doubling? I’d truly like to know and will trust your citation. (But would like to point out I’m not the only one who’s quoted Salon)
JCH
See the 2001 interview Rob Reiss and correction. at WUWT Oct. 22, 2009
Hansen said:
What evidence do you have for your assertion to the contrary?
Yes, he definitely says doubled CO2.
But what is unclear is the timeframe for doubling. It is not specified.
Imo, the only thing that makes sense is Hansen took him to mean, what if CO2were doubled long before 2030… what would we be looking at out this window?
Others could argue what was meant was a CO2 doubling as of 2030, but that makes little sense.
JCH,
Thank you. Surprised to hear no time frame is written as looking back to 1990 I see atm CO2 at about 350 and to double (based on a quick search) might take to 2100. Seems neither the author nor Hansen (in later years) were discussing anywhere near that and what would have to be burned to reach 700ppm by 2030 is not something I’ve looked in to but seems substantial.
In hindsight. Much ado………..
David L. Hagan – the ability to read. It is not a prediction; it’s a hypothetical based upon a world with doubled CO2 – 560 ppm. After 42 years, what would the scene out the window look like.
They talk often about perturbing the models with 2XCO2 (pre-industrial: ~280 ppm), so thinking in those terms is what I think Hansen was most likely doing. So wait until ~560 ppm, then wait 42 years, and then check the Westside Highway.
Most of us will be dead.
Which was the point of the hypothetical. Reiss wanted to show the people in 1988 what Hansen thought would be outside his office window 42 years, or so, after a doubling of CO2.
It’s a bad book. It cost me a $1 I’ll never get back.
JCH,
“It’s a bad book.” Coupled with bad memories on the part of the participants, especially the author.
Thanks for the feedback.
Danny
At present I am in austria carrying out a little research into advances and retreats of glaciers over the past few thousand years and into the silver mines at height that also got covered by ice which then melted again so I do not have the reference to hand but am pretty sure the revised reiss meaning was correct regarding the highway disappearing within 40 years.
There was a thread on this subject a couple of months ago at watts up with that complete with photos and info that the highway had since been rebuilt.
It might be worth your while finding it. Whilst a good scientist, Hansen is not an organised person and may not recollect the precise circumstances of the quote as it seemed off the cuff.
Tonyb
Thank you Tony. Enjoy your trip!
JCH We have already seen ~ 26% increase in CO2 in 55 years from 1960 to present (~315 to 400 ppm) – but NO significant increase in the rate of sea level rise. Since CO2 absorbance is logrithmic, I would expect 33% of the warming of doubling CO2. However, New York tidal gauges show NO substantial evidence for the rapid increase in sea level rise rate promised by Hansen. Back to the scientific method to develop models reflecting reality.
“I know I’m a rookie but this bothers me so much.”
that’s the explanation.
Look Danny the temperature series used to bother me.
then I did one.
Don’t expect others to educate you. Read the papers.
Get the data.
Do your own work.
If you can’t do the work, then you will be bothered.
get over it
Steven,
This is unhelpful: “If you can’t do the work, then you will be bothered. Get over it”.
There is no way from what I’ve read that anyone has the capability to be an expert in all of the processes in the climate discussion.
I am ‘doing work’ to the point I’m capable. I detailed the concerns on this topic of the variances between the results of several scientists, their choices to use a varying number of tidal gauges, and how that work is folded in to the entirety.
In your field, you’ve ‘justified’ your (BEST’s) results as being comparable to the others who do the same type of work. ATTP feels the statistical variance is unimportant due to the projected error ranges w/r/t SLR. Yet, if one cites Hay then the SLR rate of increase is substantially greater. If one cites IPCC, it’s more moderate, and if one cites Jevrejeva it’s much less. That seems important.
In the temperature discussion there is great concern over a threshold of 2C vs. 1.5C and how damaging that variance might be.
Climate blog posting is a great way to gain an education and it surprises me that you don’t see it as a viable resource for same especially when I see the effort you go to to provide detailed information for others. The work I’ve done I’ve posted in part here to gain further commentary as this leads to additional resources for one who’s interested in the topic yet lacks the background.
Mosher is a reformed skeptic, Danny. More annoying than a reformed alcoholic.
Danny
“Steven,
This is unhelpful: “If you can’t do the work, then you will be bothered. Get over it”.
##########################
no it is VERY HELPFUL. if you can’t do the work you cant even begin to ask good questions. it BOTHERS YOU? Boo hoo. stop being bothered by it.
“There is no way from what I’ve read that anyone has the capability to be an expert in all of the processes in the climate discussion.”
1. FOCUS.
2. FOCUS
3. FOCUS
##########################
I am ‘doing work’ to the point I’m capable. I detailed the concerns on this topic of the variances between the results of several scientists, their choices to use a varying number of tidal gauges, and how that work is folded in to the entirety.
1. you are not doing ANY WORK
2. you dont even understand what has been explained to you
many times.
#######################
In your field, you’ve ‘justified’ your (BEST’s) results as being comparable to the others who do the same type of work. ATTP feels the statistical variance is unimportant due to the projected error ranges w/r/t SLR. Yet, if one cites Hay then the SLR rate of increase is substantially greater. If one cites IPCC, it’s more moderate, and if one cites Jevrejeva it’s much less. That seems important
1. No its not important.
2. The IPCC is a SUMMARY OF THE SCIENCE AT A GIVEN TIME.
#############################################
In the temperature discussion there is great concern over a threshold of 2C vs. 1.5C and how damaging that variance might be.
1. so what?
##################################
Climate blog posting is a great way to gain an education and it surprises me that you don’t see it as a viable resource for same especially when I see the effort you go to to provide detailed information for others. The work I’ve done I’ve posted in part here to gain further commentary as this leads to additional resources for one who’s interested in the topic yet lacks the background.
I’ve yet to learn a single thing from any one of your questions.
they really are not designed to gain information
I try to anser honest questions. yours typically are not
Steven,
What is ‘dishonest’ about questions I’ve asked?
Steven Mosher re “The IPCC is a SUMMARY OF THE SCIENCE AT A GIVEN TIME.”
It is a BIASED collection, especially the political summary. For papers excluded/ignored by the IPCC, see Climate Change Reconsidered, the NONgovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).
“Steven,
What is ‘dishonest’ about questions I’ve asked?”
when you are given answers you ignore them and just ask more questions, as an example.
See the question you asked here?
It’s dishonest.
Ive spent maybe 8 years answering questions on blogs.
the hallmark of an honest question is that people who ask ask honest questions A) dont already have an idea to defend. B) say thank you
and say “oh I didnt know that”
People who ask dishonest questions… A) ignore the answer
B) fight the answer even THOUGH they claim to be asking from ignorance. C) never say thank you.
pretty effin simple
Steven,
I’m not sure to what you’re referring so please forgive. When you say I was ‘given answers’ are you referring to the SLR conversation? I’ve done more research as a result of some answers and find further issues. I do not understand how that’s a crime. And the fact that I’ve done more research leading to more questions is a form of acknowledgement in lieu of a thanks. Even here today, with JCH, I’ve said thanks. I’m not sure what your issue is.
Example: “I appreciate……” http://judithcurry.com/2015/10/02/week-in-review-science-edition-23/#comment-734642
I didn’t intend to indicate I’m totally ignorant. I am somewhat ignorant but I am doing work by reading papers, going back, following links and previous work as evidenced in this SLR thread. Doing so tends to generate further questions.
I do appreciate your chastisement. It got my attention and I respect you. But I’m not sure your expectation that I not ask questions is a reasonable one. This is WORK for me. It’s outside my background.
Apologies to the blog!
Sorry david Hagen.. I wasnt talking to you.
your bald assertions carry zero weight.
Don Monfort | October 3, 2015 at 5:59 pm |
“Mosher is a reformed skeptic, Danny. More annoying than a reformed alcoholic.”
Personally, I think that Steven Mosher more often than earlier is writing full sentences and occasionally full arguments. I look forward to the day when every reply is written in full sentences articulated to a proper argument.
I think I see less of his “in traffic” replies and more of his “while the software is compiling” replies.
Then read harder Danny.
Stop playing stupid.
Stop playing interrogator.
As ATTP noted, one minute you feign ignorance and plead to be educated and the next minute you make bold knowledge claims.
its a stupid game. stop playing it.
Steven,
If I’m ‘feigning ignorance’ then making statements it’s because of something you shared with me in that GIYF. I pose questions, receive responses which generates questions, research and post results. And the cycle continues. It’s not intended to be anything more than that.
You state it’s stupid but it’s how I went from leaning about Hay to researching WG3, discovered C & W which lead me to others. Please keep in mind that I don’t have the years and years that others have and am learning as I go along. Before I first got in to this conversation last fall I’d never even heard of Climategate as an example. For you, it’s second nature. Gain some perspective that I’m perceiving you’ve forgotten. ATTP and JCH suffer from the same. Mostly Jim D has shown patience with me.
Stephen Mosher re Temperature series
How do you explain
1) The divergence between ground and satellite measurements?
2) Why ALL the adjustments to temperature records cause warming trends?
Both indicate systemic bias.
Stephen Mosher – See rgbatduke Is there evidence of frantic researchers adjusting unsuitable data
david
“Stephen Mosher re Temperature series
How do you explain
1) The divergence between ground and satellite measurements?
A) The MEASURE DIFFERENT THINGS
B) The satellite record is untrusted by its own creators
( meers says trust the surface measurements)
C) Then measure at different times of the day and we know
that tmin trend differs from tmax trend
D) I see no reason why they should match.
2) Why ALL the adjustments to temperature records cause warming trends?
A) FALSE. SST adjustments COOL THE RECORD
B) in BE adjustments run 50/50..
C) NET ADJUSTMENTS COOL THE RECORD.. must be bias
“Rivers have been flowing for some billions of years,”
Well, many many millions, anyway. Sea level is currently rising at 3mm/yr. That is 3 m/millenium, or 3 km/million years. If solid deposition is significant part of that, and is irreversible, the earth would be in trouble after a billion years.
Heh, not up to your usual standard of critique.
===============
First of all, I’m dubious about the claimed 3mm/year. Second, the rate of sea level rise or fall is constantly changing. Third, much of the Holocene averaged a faster sea level rise. Fourth, and most important, the contribution of this erosion factor is poorly studied and not well quantified. Has there been more erosion in the last century than in previous ones? I dunno, but suspect so.
==================
Rivers have been flowing for billions of years. there were two glacial periods between 2 and 3 billion years ago. Clear evidence water was falling on land.
On these timescales solid deposition is not important because the oldest ocean floor existing today is about 250m years old.
What is important for GMSL is ocean ridge spreading rates and high stands. They obviously affect sea level, but really have no clue what causes the ridges to swell, nor for that matter, whether our current ridges are generally swelling or shrinking.
Yes, at that rate the sea would be 3000 km deep after a billion years
The Gulf of Mexico started forming during the late Triassic period and (over millions of years) subsided as much as 7 km. It presently has over 9000 meters of erosional sediment in many places (the weight of which further depresses the earth’s crust) and the entire coastal plain, extending hundreds of km inland, was once open water. On geologic timescales, millimeters add up.
In any event, sea level estimates are only relevant since the end of the last glacial epoch. This is because we are still experiencing the effects of continental ice melt and post-glacial rebound — the latter of which can lower some areas as it raises others. Correctly estimating these effects at any measurement location is quite difficult. Indeed, one of the aspects of Mitrovica’s paper on sea level (cited above) was to attempt to correct for gravitational changes due to polar ice melting.
Satellite sea level technology is not sufficently accurate to measure annual sea level changes to within 3 mm (without a large margin of error) and are not used for near-shore measurements (due to interference from land masses). To establish an initial baseline at tidal gauges requires a land survey. Land survey techniques were, at best, only accurate to within a cm or so in the “old days” and benchmarks ultimately tied back to sea level. Surveyors now typically rely on GPS measurements and may not tie to established benchmarks. Regardless, GPS elevation estimates are insufficiently accurate to improve upon the older benchmark method.
And all survey methods rely upon mathematical correction estimates (geoid, barometric, tidal force, etc.). It really is algorithms all the way down.
Given the political importance of global average sea level, however, adjustments to original assumptions that produce consistently higher trends are viewed with heightened skepticism by many. It’s hard to blame them, IMO.
Some 13,000 years ago the sea level was 130 m lower than today; Great Britain and Ireland were peninsulas. That’s 10 m per millenium.
Since most of the melt took place in the first few thousand years, it probably peaked above 60 meters per millennium.
We will need certified seed, for the future that was planned for us yesterday.
https://stream.org/academic-calls-return-eugenics-battle-global-warming/
Hoot MON, it looks like they are still one book too short.
“An environmental economist reflects on his “clean” VW diesel car: [link] …”
The really pitiful part of this article is not understanding that VW’s lie also blackened what actually is “clean diesel” technology. VW never claimed to use SCR technology — which is what ‘clean diesel’ is all about — and, to write an article and not understand that is not just a failure to understand what VW actually did; it’s like blaming the stock market for investing your savings with Bernie Madoff. The ignorance of the author about SCR technology and all of the other honest ‘clean diesel’ automobiles on the market does not make the Prius or a Prius-buyer any smarter. Nor does it say anything about all of the commercial work vehicles and 18-wheelers that employ ‘clean diesel’ SCR technology and it’s these vehicles that pretty much keep the country rolling…
EPA enabled regulations to reduce ozone in non-attainment regions, like Manistee Michigan, on the Eastern Shore of Lake Michigan, 100 miles or so East of Chicago. Manistee is a non-attainment area: it has sun, water, sand beeches, pine trees, a State Park and nearby wildlife refuge. You see, Manistee is an ozone non-attainment area because of Chicago sending via West to East air currents across Lake Michigan carrying hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides that get converted to ozone. Manistee is non-attainment because of transport, not production. You can beat this dead horse all you want, but, Manistee will always be a non-attainment area, unless of course you stop all car drivers, trucks, power plants, and industry in Chicago, the third largest city in USA.
The second issue is ozone and childhood asthma. Now you would have thought that EPA would have had a shred of data showing that children who live in areas were there is ozone at 75 ppb had more asthma than children living in areas with less ozone. Well, you would be wrong. In fact, the data that is available, obtained in environmental chambers with elite athletes exercising at maximum, huffing and puffing in 130 ppb ozone, were not affected. In all fairness to children, given a 30% margin of safety, then maybe the lower ozone level of say 90 ppb would be a standard. When EPA is doing the White House’s agenda bidding and wants to shut down all fossil fuel transportation, when 75 ppb doesn’t stifle driving and power plants and industry, ratcheting the number down further to 70 ppb may do the trick. An equally ridiculous number without data, only minimalistic speculation.
The rise in identified asthma has many issues attached to that observation. We should first look to women’s liberation, cigarette smoking and in particular second hand smoking (SHS) for children and its impact upon respiratory development and health for prenatal, natal, and post-natal exposure on lung development, symptoms, hospitalizations, cost of care, etc etc etc. References upon request; Too Numerous To Count (TNTC).
Our President is guilty of exposing his daughters and his wife while she was pregnant with their children to SHS. A little displaced guilt? Maybe?
When I linked to the Legal Seafood Food article I thought I was going to go down a memory lane when Legal’s had one restaurant, was located in Cambridge Mass., had bench seating, and gave out “Legal Stamps”. No such luck. Sitting crowded together, I did speak to famous academic people I guess. I didn’t know famous from infamous. I was just chatty.
RiH, your comment just took me down memory lane. Inman Square, one Red line stop from both Harvard and MIT for 25 cents. I first started going when Legal Seafood used paper plates and plastic utensils to cut down on dishwashing overhead. Was always jammed. You were chatty; I was just hungry and poor. Regards.
I checked this link: “New paper finds probability of CAGW “fat tails” is quite unlikely [link]”
It’s by a bunch of economists including mainly Nordhaus. They tested 6 models (the NOrdhaus one, one by Tol) against about 3 parameters (population growth, equilibrium climate sensitivity, and something else I forget.) However, for the equilibrium climate sensitivity, they appeared to use a single study by Olson with what looked like an EQS of about 3. So despite all the variability in the thousands of simulations they ran, the estimate of temperature increase in 2100 fit in the ridiculously narrow band of 3.75-4.25 C!
There was a strange statement in which they said they would use 5 EQS estimates: -3, -1.5, 0, 1.5 and 3. However, their graphs included no cases with negative EQS.
Calling Nic Lewis…
Nic not having turned up yet, I did a search for “Nic Lewis Olson” and found a post in 2012 in which he discusses Olson briefly.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2012/12/19/why-doesnt-the-ar5-sods-climate-sensitivity-range-reflect-it.html
He appears not to think too highly of Olson 2012:
“one is from Olson et al. (2012); the Olson PDF, like Knutti 02’s, is extremely wide and contains almost no information.”
My search also found a post from Dana Nucc of the SKS kiddies defending a later Olson paper in 2013. Interesting that Dana was called out for misrepresenting Nic Lewis by his own readership (Tom Curtis, mainly).
Needless to say, the Nordhaus paper does not mention any of the recent papers (Otto, Lewis, etc.) finding about half the climate sensitivity of Olson.
So strange that they deal explicitly with uncertainty and then hang their hat on a single study that happens to agree perfectly with the estimates in IPCC reports through AR4, but even the IPCC finally couldn’t maintain their faith in a value of 3 in AR5.
My reading is that table 3 shows a range .1% to 99.9% for temp at 2100 of 1.75C to 7.33C.
For the purposes of this exercise I don’t think having a more tightly constrained ECS matters. That would just reinforce the findings.
Re “…EPA claims reducing ozone alleviates asthma. Child asthma rates are up 131% since 1980, despite falling ozone levels.” From linked website, the organization in the link is The Institute for Energy Research (IER), a 501(c)(3) non profit think tank that says its organizing principles include:
.
(1) a “scholarly approach to energy analysis and free-market energy and environmental policy based on Free Markets, private property rights, market exchange, and rule of law have resulted in affordable energy, improved living standards and a cleaner environment.”
(2) Objective science .. not emotion or improbable scenarios that invite wealth-reducing government activism, which often impairs society’s resilience to change.
(3) Public policy tradeoffs, policies that attempt to correct “market failure” in energy markets must be tempered with the reality of “government failure.”
It is inappropriate to compare idealized government actions with real-world market outcomes. Government policies are implemented by politicians and bureaucracies, not by unbiased and informed academics.
(4) Efficient outcomes: The welfare of energy consumers, energy producers, and taxpayers can and should be considered together.
(5) Impartial and unbiased: Government policies should be predictable, simple, and technology neutral. This approach will spur capital formation in the energy industry and promote technological innovation.
.
I very much agree with IER’s organizing “principles.” But the green movement and the current EPA appear to different principles. The EPA would expand regulation and control without strict and true assessment of risk and benefits.
.
In the case of the stricter ozone regulation addressing the major benefit is improving the increasing risk of asthma in children. It is true that child asthma rates are up 131% since 1980, despite falling ozone levels… the percentage of the U.S. population with the disease increased from 3.1 percent in 1980 to 8.4 percent in 2010, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Meanwhile average ozone concentrations nationwide dropped by 33 percent from 1980 to 2014. Regions in California are the worst out of compliance areas under the (old) 2008 limit of 75 ppb. So one might say a logical conclusion would be to divest the state of California … more seriously, we should focus on fixing problems where there is a genuine problem and not restructure the entire national energy industry on a whim and dream.
.
In this re: noteworthy is a new paper published yesterday in Science Translational Medicine, “Early infancy microbial and metabolic alterations affect risk of childhood asthma” (paywalled) which was reviewed in various new media already (including WSJ) It is already known but not well understood that many modern illnesses (including asthma) derive from change in lifestyles and excessive use of antibiotics. The authors of the new study found that loss of (good) microbes – especially early in life – has a demonstrated link to development of asthma in children … “good germs, the ones we get from mom, are just disappearing.” “Using DNA sequencing, four bacterial species were found (there could be more) whose low or undetectable levels predicted with “100-percent accuracy” whether the babies would suffer early signs of asthma, such as wheezing and skin allergies, by 1 year old. None of the infants with high levels of these bacteria in their stool at 3 months old developed such symptoms. The study emphasizes that in that first 100 days the structure of the gut microbiome seems to be very important in influencing the immune responses that cause or protect us from asthma.”
.
The EPA should take acknowledge and take note of all good, relevant and reliable scientific studies.
Energy Guardian reports: ‘Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy, under fire from both industry and environmentalists over the agency’s move to tighten its ground-level ozone standard to 70 parts per billion, on Thursday defended what she described a ‘judgment call’ based on the best available science and the legal requirements of the Clean Air Act. The agency’s final rule, unveiled Thursday, was decried as ‘burdensome, costly and misguided’ by industry groups and Republicans, who vowed to roll it back through legislation, while environmentalists and health advocates called it ‘insufficient,’ saying didn’t go far enough to protect public health. McCarthy, however, said that the law requires her to develop a ‘requisite’ standard that would provide ‘an adequate margin of safety.’ Based on the agency’s analysis of nearly 2,300 studies, she concluded that 70 ppb was the optimal level.”
So the EPA makes ‘judgment calls’ to satisfy environmentalists and not based on best scientific evidence.
My understanding is that proposed U.S. Regs on low level ozone at 70 ppb is significantly higher than: (1) 60 ppb for the EU; (2) 62 ppb for Canada.
Under your argument, the leading economies of the World (Europe, N. America) are not following sound science in establishing smog regs.
Segrest: “Under your argument, the leading economies of the World (Europe, N. America) are not following sound science in establishing smog regs.”
and your point is?
Concentration may have fallen, but are people living more where they are higher?
I think something that may be neglected is epigenitic changes that result in increased asthma may also prevent these bacteria colonies from being successful, not just the antiseptic-environment limiting exposure.
“New paper by French mathematicians determines battle against global warming is “absurd, costly & pointless crusade”
Crichton’s address “Aliens Cause Global Warming” discusses the future in a different way:
“Look: If I was selling stock in a company that I told you would be profitable in 2100, would you buy it? Or would you think the idea was so crazy that it must be a scam?
Let’s think back to people in 1900 in, say, New York. If they worried about people in 2000, what would they worry about? Probably: Where would people get enough horses? And what would they do about all the horseshit? Horse pollution was bad in 1900, think how much worse it would be a century later, with so many more people riding horses? ”
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Crichton2003.pdf
The World Economic Forum say that 2 C is not a big deal because only the poor get poorer. This is somewhat counter to development goals of the more humane organizations that want to reduce poverty and raise their standards of living.
We learn more every day how you raise your standard of living
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/10/01/ricogate/
if you aren’t going to get caught just do it!
The World Economic Forum say that 2 C is not a big deal because only the poor get poorer.
A hypothetical 2C would not be a big deal because it doesn’t change much.
Average NH temperature varies by something like 14C from winter to summer.
I happen to like both winter and summer.
Now, most of the climate change from winter to summer is from motions to resolve the greater energy imbalance in winter and the lesser energy imbalances of summer. Those imbalances are not necessarily imposed by ‘global warming’. (RF at the tropopause actually acts to increase pole to equator imbalance, but thermal response and latent heat exchange of theorized water vapour would tend to smooth things out ).
And yet a change of 4 – 5C can move us from a glacial to an inter-glacial. Why is 2C from pre-industry “not much” while 4 – 5C is somehow capable of quite substantial changes? Is it the extra 2 – 3C that makes all the difference?
TE, according to WEF it may not change much net, but it does increase the divide between wealthy and poor countries as poverty worsens. This kind of scenario is not acceptable for the UN and their sustainable development programs, even if it is for you.
And yet a change of 4 – 5C can move us from a glacial to an inter-glacial. Why is 2C from pre-industry “not much” while 4 – 5C is somehow capable of quite substantial changes? Is it the extra 2 – 3C that makes all the difference
4-5 C is not 2C.
And we’re already in an interglacial.
And further, global annual average temperature doesn’t cause glacial cycles.
Arctic summertime max temperatures are what determine whether ice accumulates or not.
TE, according to WEF it may not change much net, but it does increase the divide between wealthy and poor countries as poverty worsens. This kind of scenario is not acceptable for the UN and their sustainable development programs, even if it is for you.
Sounds like unsubstantiated speculation.
You can have faith in that if you want, but that doesn’t separate you from superstition.
It’s an article to read, which clearly you haven’t.
You don’t say. But 2C is almost halfway to 4-5C.
Are you missing my point on purpose, or not?
I didn’t say they did, but a change of 4-5C can move us from a glacial to an inter-glacial.
No, really? Amazing. Who’d a thunk it.
Please tell me that you’re missing my point on purpose.
It’s an article to read, which clearly you haven’t.
Nope.
I can smell the assumptions and WAGs from the title.
Please tell me that you’re missing my point on purpose.
Sorry, all I’m getting is that you don’t have a point.
ATTP:
Or perhaps an interglacial can move us 4–5 C.
That would be interglacial to nonglacial.
I’ll assume that you’re being serious, but I might be being generous.
You said
My point – which I really thought was obvious – was that a glacial to inter-glacial is associated with a global temperature change of 4-5C. So, why are you so sure that 2C is no big deal? Are you defining “no big deal” in some kind of non-standard way? Do you think that somehow 2C warming when we’re somehow already in an inter-glacial will be no big deal, but might be if we were in a glacial period? Do you think it is so non-linear that the first 2C is no big deal, even if the next 2-3C would be a big deal? Also, why so certain? Is it only actual scientists who have to qualify what they say and illustrate uncertainty?
Or perhaps an interglacial can move us 4–5 C.
Magic?
Are you avoiding answering my questions on purpose?
ATTP writes– “So, why are you so sure that 2C is no big deal?”
The point is there is no reliable evidence to show that a 2 degree rise would be a “big deal”. We have nothing reliable that would lead one to conclude that the “climate” would be worse overall for humanity or the USA
> The point is there is no reliable evidence to show that a 2 degree rise would be a “big deal”.
Mr. T would frown upon fixating upon a single number like that, Rob, and there’s no reliable evidence that when we get to 2C we’ll remain there forever and ever. There is also reliable evidence that we’re onto more than 2, which you might well know since you must have researched it, right?
Willard–another of your pointless comments.
The truth is:
1. you and others fear/believe that a slightly warmer world will have a significantly worse climate for humans.
2. you believe that reducing human CO2 emissions today (at considerable cost) will result in a better climate for humans in the future.
You have reliable data to support either point but do not allow the lack of good data to stop your long silly comments
The truth is:
1. you and others fear/believe that a slightly warmer world will have a significantly worse climate for humans.
2. you believe that reducing human CO2 emissions today (at considerable cost) will result in a better climate for humans in the future.
You have reliable data to support either point but do not allow the lack of good data to stop your long silly comments
> you and others fear/believe
Thank you for probing my mind, Rob.
However, I don’t think it replaces citations you have audited before asserting what you did about a 2C world.
Unless you reached your conclusion that “there’s no reasonable evidence” by looking nowhere?
And that somehow means that it won’t be a big deal?
An invasion by space aliens would be an even bigger deal. What should we be doing now to prepare? (Spend billions? Trillions?)
Right now I’d settle for people not saying stupid things, but maybe that’s just me.
ATTP writes– “The point is there is no reliable evidence to show that a 2 degree rise would be a “big deal”.
And that somehow means that it won’t be a big deal?”
My response- No. It simply means that there is not currently sufficient reliable evidence to justify incurring significant additional costs.
I’ve been waiting for you alarmists to stop saying stupid things for a very long time now. But, no, now we have a 1-in-a-1,000 year flood. Of course we do you lying curs.
Jim D: The World Economic Forum say that 2 C is not a big deal because only the poor get poorer. This is somewhat counter to development goals of the more humane organizations that want to reduce poverty and raise their standards of living.
Sounds like a bind for believers in the consensus: reducing fossil fuel use and letting the global mean temp rise 2C will both make the poor poorer. Imagine the impact on the poor nations that would result from a substantial decrease in international transport.
Ice melting in West Antarctica “Because the tropics and subtropics have been warming faster than the Antarctic”.
Despite the global plateau of the last 18 years.
Punkasta,
You haven’t heard? Tom Karl made the pause disappear.
It’s magic with numbers.
Or maybe just mathematical masturbation.
Read previous post Tipping Points. Also unmodified in the ebook. This is just more warmed over poor scientific warmunist alarmism.
The World Economic Forum waxing sciency for lack of science: “Figure 2. Climate change in welfare-equivalent income change for a 2.5°C global warming…”
It seems one can claim to calculate anything these days, and there is now a jittery generation of literal-minded mechanists who really think that the world and reality will respond like in a computer game. They just need the right “settings” and the right kiddies pressing buttons.
Contradiction and complexity are just ignored. Too much sea ice around Antarctica in recent years? Just concentrate on the melty Western bit and pretend there isn’t an ash sheet the size of Britain near PIG. Block your ears and go nyah-nyah if you have to. Then factor in your collapsing ice to your sea level rise, nudge up the number you first thought of because you might have missed something, multiply by two because nobody ever checks, add a bit for social something-or-other…and publish!
Adults, please! I know I keep saying that…but where have the adults gone?
Where have all the adults gone, tra, la,
long time passing? Cli sci has tricked them
every one, don’t think they’ll evah learn …
don’t think they’ll evahhhh learn.
Distrust and even derision of statistics used to be a mark of education, especially for us toffs. Now the educated are all percent-this and percent-that…and one gets more sense out of one’s serfs.
Data gerrymandering has become the bane of science. There’s too much looking through rose colored microscopes at favorite catastrophic scenario evidence while excluding peripheral vision.
Predictions are wonderful. You can change the outcome simply by adjusting the assumptions, adjusting the input data / boundary conditions and adjusting the model parameters.
“New paper: Sun controls “Indian temperature variability, in part indirectly through ENSO, but on >1 time scale. [link]”
Solar flares? that’s barking up the wrong tree. El Nino very regularly occur at the known slow solar wind periods through the sunspot cycle. The slowest being around 1 year past sunspot minimum, e.g. 2009/10, 1997/89, and some but not every solar cycle has slow SW at sunspot maximum, and where that occurs, so will an El Nino episode/conditions.
1997/98
Re: New paper finds probability of CAGW “fat tails” is quite unlikely. Briefly the analysis involves using six existing integrated assessment models (IAMs) to create an output array over a defined set of inputs and performing Monte Carlo analyses on the entire set to create a massive uncertainty distribution over each of the model outputs. This analysis is a technocrat’s dream, and while unsaid, the intention seems to be to respond to the questions / issues that have / are being raised on the uncertainties (including JC’s “Uncertainty Monster”) related of the projections of climate sensitivities and projected temperature trajectories. Looking primarily at (1) parametric uncertainty (within the confines of the chosen model structures), such as uncertainty about climate sensitivity or output growth and (2) model or specification uncertainty, such as the specification of the aggregate production function. The study is useful to the extent it develops new integrat4ed approach / framework to look at uncertainty distributions across multiple inputs… the three selected included population growth, total factor productivity growth, and equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS). Previous work has looked only at climate sensitivity analysis on ECS.
See my comments a short distance above in this page on “predictions” – predictions are dependent on / come from models that have selected inputs and boundary conditions, model specifications, and outputs, as good as the assumptions. You can hire legions of statisticians to run uncertainty analyses and it still depends on the chosen model specifications.
I have not studied this in excruciating detail. But I sense that the models all have “baseline” climate sensitivities e.g., reflecting the model structures used in IPCC’s fifth assessment report (AR5) or something like. This would greatly impact the probability distributions for temperature prediction. One concern I have is, as I can, tell the median prediction for all models for CO2 levels in 2100 is around 880 ppm. (CO2 is an “output” in the IAMs).
Mauna Loa CO2 year to date has been around 400 ppm.
Jan 399.96
Feb 400.26
Mar 401.52
Apr 403.26
May 403.94
Jun 402.8
Jul 401.3
Aug 398.82
So this suggests doubling CO2 by end of the century (?). I don’t see how that will happen. Using historical data from the 1970 and extrapolating the trend fit to 2100 gives a value around 480 ppm.
This post could have been put on JC’s weekend policy edition … since this was commissioned by the Obama administration. One of the lead authors are William Nordhaus well known and respected in the field for his work related to modeling (DICE) – his name on the paper provides a lot of gravitas. The other lead author, Kenneth Billingham, is Senior Economist in the president’s Council of Economic Advisors. The study was funded by the administration (Department of Energy and National Science Foundation).
I also assume this study was commissioned, completed and released in preparation for the Paris climate meeting next month for use by the administration, standing up making its pitch to the world.
But it torpedoes Taleb’s Black Swans, and so the Precautionary principle. ??? Things seem to be going increasingly off message for the ‘team’.
All is not well in the run up to COP21. We have an El Nino, yet the RSS/UAH pause continues. with early snow in many NH places. India won’t play. Won’t even install renewables unless the GCF pays. GCF is not funded. China won’t play. UK is going broke ‘setting an example’ and Amber Rudd is slashing the renewables subsidies as a result. Obama says CAGW is our greatest security threat, so Russia promptly annexes Crimea, North Korea restarts its nuclear weapons program, and ISIS takes half of Iraq and Syria… And Paris is struggling not to be overrun by ‘refugees’–but not climate refugees, rather Muslim war refugees from Africa and the Middle East.
“Is the precautionary principle of any use? Consider the issue of wind farms and seabirds.”
I think the precautionary principle in general would have benefited the nations waste on the United Nations climate theory.
“I´m not sure what to do, we´d better do nothing.”
“The precautionary principle or precautionary approach to risk management states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is not harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an action.” (Wikipedia)
” if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment”
Suspected by whom?
jim2
I think the essence lies in the point is that:
“the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an action”
I also think that that the precautionary principle is often misconceived by those having a profession which obliges them to focus solely on environment. They tend to forget that they actions might cause harm to the public by other mechanisms.
“Cost-push inflation is an alleged type of inflation caused by substantial increases in the cost of important goods or services where no suitable alternative is available. A situation that has been often cited of this was the oil crisis of the 1970s, which some economists see as a major cause of the inflation experienced in the Western world in that decade. It is argued that this inflation resulted from increases in the cost of petroleum imposed by the member states of OPEC. Since petroleum is so important to industrialized economies, a large increase in its price can lead to the increase in the price of most products, raising the inflation rate. This can raise the normal or built-in inflation rate, reflecting adaptive expectations and the price/wage spiral, so that a supply shock can have persistent effects.” (Wikipedia)
In this case the “action” is emissions, just like in a previous case it was smoking. It took a while to figure out emissions had “health” impacts, just as with tobacco, so the precautionary principle says to at least slow down until we know more.
I think the essence lies in the point is that:
“the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an action”
*****
Sorry, I don’t buy into that. It leads to too much opportunity cost.
“In this case the “action” is emissions”
Another way to see it is that “action” is the “accumulated efforts of mitigation” , the accumulated costs, of research, bureaucracy, political activity, additional costs for existing energy producers, subsidies of alternative energy production. The accumulated costs of mitigating a perceived problem, a problem which might not be real. The accumulated costs, resources, which could have been used to mitigate real suffering – by real causes – the kind of mitigation United Nations where put up to mitigate in the first place: “To maintain international peace and security”
Regarding opportunity cost, I think actions has to be a cost benefit analysis. In this case the uncertainties on both the cost side (climate impact) and the benefit (mitigation costs) side is way to large to act.
“actions has to be a cost benefit analysis”
Should have been;
“actions has to be based on a cost benefit analysis”
The UN are focused on poverty and helping developing countries in the world, and this is why climate change is such an issue for them, because those same people are the most vulnerable. I can see that there are a dwindling few people who don’t link climate change to CO2 emissions at all, but I don’t think you need to worry about them because the conversation has shifted to how much can we really do rather than whether to do anything.
Further, I have no idea how climate ended up being a major focus for United Nations (Ref. the main principles):
http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml
1. “To maintain international peace and security” ….
2 “To develop friendly relations among nations” ….
3 “To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character” …
4″To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.”
Whether climate is the main focus or not I don´t know, but is seems to take a lot of focus. Other issues within areas United Nations is supposed to care about seems to have little focus. There are a few other things I would like to see a Paris conference on.
Check out the new UNDP 15-year goals to see what they are most concerned with.
http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/mdgoverview/post-2015-development-agenda.html
Helen Clark has departed from the charter of United Nations then.
Jim D | October 3, 2015 at 9:08 pm |
“I can see that there are a dwindling few people who don’t link climate change to CO2 emissions at all”
Which climate changes are you thinking about, and which correlation do these changes have to the increasing amount CO2 in the atmosphere. Which harms have they caused. How do you know that it wasn´t just weather. Do you think every possible weather record has already been set at every location all over the world – that all new records must be sure to climate change caused by increasing level of CO2 in the atmosphere?
These changes.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:120/mean:240/plot/gistemp/from:1985/trend:60
That is a curve showing how temperature has developed over time.
Which harms has positively been caused by increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and not by weather?
It shows, as you asked for, that the climate is changing at a steady rate into unknown territory. You agree that the climate is changing from this evidence, don’t you, even if you deny that it is even possibly related to CO2 increasing by 40% the way science would predict?
”
I think the essence lies in the point is that:
“the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an action”
”
You don’t see an issue with:
1) proving a negative;
2) balance of benefit and harm;
3) definition of what constitutes proof;
4) definition is what constitutes harm.
Everything we do presents a risk – even eating and breathing. This does not mean we stop completely. We weigh the risk vs the benefit of both action AND inaction – on an ongoing basis. What is OK in moderation may be harmful in extremis – both the initial action and actions to repair damage.
Should be: do your best to minimise damage and maximise benefit.
It’s not a question of climate change being linked to CO2 emissions, rather a question of what is the climate sensitivity and what are the effects of other variables that are not now adequately accounted for including solar, aerosols/clouds, soot, and others, for a complete understanding. This has been evolving but there more progress is needed. Not debasing into flat earthers vs. righteous.
The fact that we have warmed (a lot) despite all these negative factors should tell you something about how dominant the GHG changes are.
Yes, an ice age which was coming in 1970s is no longer a fashion.
a lot is subjective. We are warming a lot less than what has been projected.
Projections jest ain’t what they’re supposed ter be.
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/cmip5-90-models-global-tsfc-vs-obs1.jpg
Beth. Tsk, tsk. Those aren’t projections, they are estimations! (Well, maybe they are predictions – not too clear on that.)
http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/fig-nearterm_all_UPDATE_2015b.png
The rate has averaged 0.15 C per decade for the last 30 years, and is consistent with over 2 C per doubling for the last 60 years during which we have had 75% of our emissions. I would say that is about on track.
Jim D, you did look at Beth’s graph, right? If this is what you call on track, that says a lot. Instead of picking the 30 year period, what happens if you pick the 70 year period? (While we are picking cherries.)
That’s a well known fiddled graph where the HADCRUT curve starts at what is really an El Nino peak in 1983 and should be displaced upwards by about 0.05 C to show its proper location in 1983.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/mean:60/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/trend/offset:0.05
The real HADCRUT4 rise between 1983 and 2013 in terms of a trend line is 0.5 C which is well within the model trends, and represents a rate you would predict from 2 C per doubling of CO2 as I mentioned.
Healthy debate is supposed to be offensive, but those taking offence and behave accordingly in public, are losers automatically. That’s what free speech is about.
http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-07-02/quietly-congress-extends-ban-cdc-research-gun-violence
And good on them!
Péter, in the time of a rise of Political Correctness, those taking offence and behave accordingly in public are winners. It is much easier to take offence than to be tolerant. We are trying to make life much easier for everybody who is skilled at taking offence. With the help of a legal system, taking offence may be extremely lucrative.
I know how it goes in this age of fluster, but it’s not what I am talking about. It is much more interesting how it is supposed to work. That’s something we can measure reality against.
Back in 2006, when the Danish cartoon scandal broke out I spent some time on English speaking Muslim fora, just to better understand their point.
In this process I came to realize, it is not a self-evident truth, that free speech is an unalienable Right, with which we are endowed by our Creator, quite the opposite. It is a fragile &. complex societal construct developed throughout the ages, specific to European culture.
As such, it is even more valuable, because
1. It turned out a free society is possible, after all.
2. Free societies are way more creative &. productive than non-free ones.
3. Freedom is utterly dysfunctional without the institution of free speech.
4. Much blood was shed and an unspeakable amount of suffering invested throughout European (and American) history to attain and keep this gem.
As I said, free speech is a complex issue, a highly ritualized form of expression, nevertheless it is indispensable for maintenance of freedom.
We live inside this paradigm, so we seldom realize how arbitrary, fragile and valuable it is.
Life in Hungary under communist rule for example did lack freedom, including the right of free speech, still, we had a pretty good idea how it was supposed to work, an almost instinctive sense of a proper order, so we were well aware of the rights we were deprived of, and the fact this state of affairs could be maintained only by excessive force. It made all the difference in the long run and no amount of brainwashing could overcome it ever.
So, I was quite surprised to find in 2006 that huge masses of people all over the world marched against this principle on their own free will, and quite forcefully. It was even more disturbing, that in European mainstream media it was featured as a “controversy”, not as an abominable attack on freedom, which, in fact, it was. That’s why I was forced to analyse its roots.
What I found is quite amazing. First of all, the concept has deep roots in European history, but all other cultures missed it completely until they met (or were forced to meet) European values. The first appearance of it was in medieval university debate (a.k.a. disputation), a quite formal institution. It was developed using knightly tournaments as a template.
The main features of these disputations were that they were always public events, held before a large audience (other professors and students of the same university, mostly) and participants were allowed to defend heretic points of view without fear of retorsion, even those which in any other context were punishable by immediate excommunication or even death.
The point of the debate was not to convince the other side you were right, nor to seek a middle ground by developing some consensus, but to win the debate by bringing over the audience to your side. It was an inherently public performance.
The rules were strict. Use of rhetoric devices and logic was allowed, as reference to authoritative sources, but behaving like being offended, not to mention turning the debate into a fist fight was forbidden. Any such act implied the participant doing that lost the debate unconditionally.
Even now, free speech only makes sense in a public context. In the private sphere, for example in a debate between spouses, reference to the “right to free speech” is not only meaningless, but it is ridiculous. Therefore the most important precondition to free speech is a quite arbitrary, but clear and sharp distinction between public and private spheres. Ongoing maintenance of this boundary is central to the issue.
And exactly this point where Muslims tend to fail miserably. I had a long online discussion with a Lebanese doctor on it, who was an exceptionally well educated person, spoke fluent French and English beside Arabic, read most of the really important European literature, still, could not grasp the idea that in a public context we have rules for expression completely different from a private one. He definitely felt offended by the cartoons in his very person, without a shade of shame, as if one of his family members were attacked. He was unable to comprehend, that this very fact made him a loser. In his cultural context there is no sharp boundary between public and private, which, of course, prevents development of an extensive public sphere altogether. Therefore there is simply no room for “free speech” as such.
Political correctness attacks the concept of free speech along the same lines. Not directly, but by redefining the boundary between public and private, acknowledging the right to be offended as a device to suffocate the debate even before it could be started. It is a clever &. lethal weapon indeed.
If a disrespect of free speech were the only problem with Muslims, we would be lightyears ahead of the problem.
@Jim2
Another issue I was quite surprised to find out is the extreme rigidity of Muslim law (sharia) with respect to sovereignty. According to it any piece of land which was under Muslim rule ever, even if for the briefest time, legally belongs to them forever, without exception, no matter what historic events followed.
For example, In Egypt, which is not even a proper Muslim country (there is a tyrannic, but secular government there), the loss of Granada in 1492 (the same year Columbus discovered America) is taught in middle school as if it happened yesterday, a live wound, in minute details. It is also taught that most of present day Spain legally, if not actually, still belongs to them.
I happen to live in a city (Budapest) which has the same status. It was occupied by the Ottoman empire for 145 years, between 1541 and 1686, so its current legal status is clear(?).
I was also told choice of 9/11 as the date of attack on America was not an accident and has nothing to do with the emergency phone number (911) there. It was to rectify the substantial Muslim defeat in the Battle of Vienna in 1683, which put an abrupt end to the second, two months long siege of the city, only days away from complete defeat, brought about by the arrival of the Polish army in the evening of September 11.
If it is true, a completely alien view of history should be lurking behind.
Vienna was the farthest point in Middle Europe reached by Muslim forces ever.
Péter, thank you for a detailed answer. My main point is that I don’t really blame intolerant people; they come from all over the world and have different multi-cultural backgrounds. I blame our own legal system which fails to protect us or our culture.
I’ll have to check but I believe they got north of the Pyrennees briefly.
I’ve long been amused that Cervantes, crippled at Lepanto, started ‘Don Quixote’ while jailed for suspicion of graft in provisioning the Spanish Armada.
===============
Eh, surface area of the global ocean is some 3,000 times larger than Pennsyslvania. I do not know what is the average elevation of ice surface above sea level on the Thwaites Glacier, but it is probably less than 1 km, and only this part can give a contribution to sea level rise if melted. That means we are talking about less than 1 foot in several centuries, hardly frightful enough.
At the same time 100 billion tons/annum is about an inch in a century, but there is also precipitation, so net ice loss is less than that.
It may still be urgent though. But only as a scientific problem, not as a real life one.
Would this involve speed dating ice cores?
From the article:
The plan by climate alarmists to have other scientists imprisoned for their ‘global warming’ skepticism is backfiring horribly, and the chief alarmist is now facing a House investigation into what has been called “the largest science scandal in US history.”
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/02/climate-alarmist-caught-largest-science-scandal-u-s-history/
Some authentic data, please. The letter I saw was to Shukla at IGES (http://climateaudit.org/2015/09/28/shuklas-gold/#comment-763947) had only the top and looked like a hoax.
Not a hoax. Shuklagate.
https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/10-1-15%20CLS%20to%20Shukla.pdf
Could this be the first thread to unravel from the largest scientific hoax in history? (CAGW, that is.)
“Is the precautionary principle of any use?”
Of course, it helped convince many who struggle with logic to convert their religion.
The projections of cost/benefit of climate mitigation to reduce warming on a millennial scale, e.g., to 2100 that I have seen indicate that for the first 50+ years net warming is beneficial to mankind as a result of improvements in agriculture etc.; and estimate of actual damage comes late in the cycle. Given the uncertainties in the projections, it would be wise to take a precautionary principle approach to avoid damage (from loss of the net improvements in the earlier phase and meanwhile incorporate improved knowledge in a Bayesian approach to forecasting under uncertainty. This makes more sense than applying precautionary principle now, which is what’s being done – what that is really saying is that the precaution now for damages coming very late in the cycle are more certain than the positive benefits from warming in the earlier years, which is completely counter intuitive and illogical.
Let’s say, as some have, that 1 C is beneficial and it only gets worse from there. This is the equilibrium warming for somewhere around 350 ppm (hence 350.org by the way). Well, anything from there on is downhill, so this argues for stopping the downhill slide as soon as possible out of precaution.
My crystal ball says 500 ppm is optimum; what brand do you use?
What if at 350ppm food production, particularly without sythentic fertilizers, drops off considerably and less moisture is moved from oceans to land areas, particularly ones where society is dependent on fossil water?
What if at just a decrease concentration growth non-industrial food production drops off and land areas become more arid?
We have heard a lot of “skeptics” agree with cost models that show 1 C is optimal, and this also agrees with Hansen and 350.org, and they have published reasons for their views. People saying larger CO2 amounts are even better needs to justify their thinking too, but so far no one has said that to my knowledge. Considering what likely happens to Greenland, I am not surprised, but make a case, and try not to look like you are clutching at straws.
My crystal ball says 2000, but we’ll be lucky if we can get to 700. And we’ll be lucky if that warms the globe more than a third of degree celcius.
Maintaining an adequate emissions rate should be a more of a concern than the effect on weather.
This may be of some interest:
The rate of change in tidal stresses caused by lunar tides in the Earth’s atmosphere and the QBO
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2015/09/the-rate-of-change-in-tidal-stresses.html
Web Hub’s been busy.
================
Yes Kim, the work I have posted at my blog site was partly inspired by the excellent new research that WHT is doing on the connection between the lunar tides and the QBO, ENSO and Chandler wobble. It also extends the earlier research by Nikolay Sidorenkov and associates over the past 20 years. What WHT has been doing in regard to this subject is wonderful as it confirms many of the ideas proposed over the last seven or eight years by Rog Tallbloke, Chefio, myself, amongst others.
I’m glad he’s doing well;
Here was rung his bell.
==================
Ian
I don’t think that WHT would like to think of himself as being in the same company as Rog, Chiefio, yourself and others
tonyb
That may be true climatereason but science doesn’t care whether your an alarmist or a skeptic. The observations and evidence either supports your arguments or it does not. [Note: I am not saying that the arguments that I [or any of the others] have put forward are correct at this stage.]
Yes, Michael was very clear about the world of deniers. Authentic.
Ian
Yes, we need to know either way. I was one of those here urging WHT to get his work finished and peer reviewed.
tonyb