by Judith Curry
A few things that caught my eye this past week.
Climate Research: Could ‘The Day After Tomorrow’ happen? [link]
Interesting article in @NatureBiotech about attacks on scientists [link]
The lack of functioning weather service creates major hole in planning, esp for poor, climate-vulnerable countries http://j.mp/1Ohh9Aj
USGS puts the kibosh on ‘1000 year flood’ and ’caused by climate change’ claims over South Carolina flooding [link]
“CO2 emissions are making the Earth greener and more fertile, a United Nations (UN) climate scientist has said.” [link] …
New #IPCC chief calls for fresh focus on climate solutions, not problems [link]
How studying other planet’s climates can help us understand our own. Great article: [link] featuring carbonate thermostat
Carbon dioxide: the good news [link]
NASA’s @ClimateofGavin: Models attempting to put $ figure on climate change are “hopeless”: [link]
The anti free speech movement at UCLA [link]
“Global warming may help alleviate China’s drought & flooding problems as monsoons move north, scientists say” [link]
New study claims atmosphere drives AMO [link] …
“The Fed’s $50 Billion Ethanol Mandate Is Actually HARMING the Environment”, increasing pollution [link] …
“France’s top TV meteorologist writes skeptic book, gets told not to come to work” [link] …
Pseudo-Historians Erase Scientists’ Early Caution on Global Warming @RupertDarwall [link] …
Scientists: No Need For “Economic Kamikaze Program In Paris” …2°C Warming Won’t Be Reached Even With IPCC Numb… http://bit.ly/1PdNzM4
Comparing sociology conf papers and final studies, and found reviewers forced more changes to theory than data [link]…
In @NatureGeosci, @kevinclimate criticizises #IPCC’s smooth 2C scenarios for being ‘unrealistic’ and ‘speculative’ [link]
New Lewandowsky paper. Ben Pile writes: It doesn’t seem unreasonable to suggest that the @royalsociety have gone batshit mad. [link] …
Like any other product of (diplomatic) negotiations, #IPCC SPM are ‘unreadable’. Won’t change [link] …
What is the solution for a non-problem?
ResearchGate’s solution was to post figures of the experimental data at the very start of the research paper: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280133563
That’s it, in a nutshell. What problem?
Spending money is the solution: it can’t make a non-problem worse.
An inefficient allocation of scarce resources caused by government planning, printing and spending of capital is the problem.not CO2.
Agreed. But part of the warmist scam is avoiding accountability for the spent money, since no mitigating effects can be measured.
Pingback: Week in review – science edition | Enjeux énergies et environnement
Today we face an evil and powerful force that is even now being defeated by coincidence !
[God’s way of remaining anonymous.]
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/16/critics-probe-scientist-who-asked-obama-to-use-anti-mafia-laws-to-silence/
NASA’s @ClimateofGavin: Models attempting to put $ figure on climate change are “hopeless”: Bad link – try this?
http://www.carbonbrief.org/the-carbon-brief-interview-dr-gavin-schmidt/
thx
“Bad link – try this?” I beg to differ. It’s true the link Professor Curry supplied does not go with the description, but it is a good link to another carbon dioxide issue.
I see Professor Curry has corrected the link. The link I was referring to is for the “Carbon Dioxide: the good news” article.
Aplanningengineer, on another topic, the state of California has passed and signed SB 350 which mandates that 50% of the Golden State’s electricity come from renewable energy resources by 2030.
As far as you are aware, has there been any noticeable near-term impact on how California’s power planning activities are being managed as a result of the passage of this law?
BTW, hydro is not a renewable in California. Not expensive enough.
BB – I wish I knew more and will try to find out more. Stability and transfer limits in CA are greatly impacted by inertia levels which will be necessarily be limited as asynchronous renewables make up a larger part of the resource base.
The reaction from NERC (The entity charged with ensuring reliability by FERC – through development and enforcement of reliability standards) is that the Clean Power Plan is the law, no point in debating, challenging or pointing out the flaws, but rather NERC and the power providers need to work together to ensure reliability given the CPP mandated. (Note – While NERC is charged with reliability – they do not have any responsibility as far as cost and economics go.) To me it has the feel of good soldiers tasked to be the first wave on Normandy Coast.
I’m sure the planners in CA are doing the best with the task at hand and the limits imposed on them. I hope to learn from what they do.
If they were willing to question the exclusion of pumped hydro as a means of mandated energy storage, that might help. AFAIK there’s plenty of existing structure that could support additional turbines/generators/motors, which as I understand your posts could contribute to stability. (Especially if the generator/motors were running constantly.)
And if they use existing dams/reservoirs, the cost would probably be far lower than bleeding-edge battery technology. (I did a quick search a while back, but was too busy to save the links. However, AFAIK from that search there’s plenty of potential.)
Good advice – I don’t know how to make the powers that be listen. The political challenge to the EPA as to the priority between reliability and “pollution” probably should come from FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission). FERC and EPA are the Federal entities. NERC is a private group that implements FERC policy (NERC is also subject to Canadian governmental authorities.)
I do: write up the recommendations, with the proper research and links to appropriate sources, Publish it anywhere. Here for instance. I just wish I had the time, and access to the right resources, to do it. Not to mention the expertise. I can speculate about costs and such, but don’t have the experience or the resources.
For all I know, somebody’s already done some cost estimates on upgrading all of California’s major pumped hydro storage resources to use their maximum capacity over a few hours, or at least a daily cycle capable of balancing the solar “duck curve”. I wouldn’t even know where to start looking.
According to my back-of-the-envelope calculations, the Helms Pumped Storage Plant could support around 5 times its 1.2 GW (1,212 MW Nameplate capacity) on a daily cycle. Twice or three times that for a few hours, which would provide huge phase stabilization if I understand correctly.
PE says “political challenge to the EPA” That becomes less and less likely every day. The Obumbles administration has stacked the deck to have more Presidents like him. About the only thing he is good at is dragging the US down to a second class country and implementing socialism. Otherwise, he has no talent.
From the article:
…
Over the past 18 years, the U.S. has admitted over roughly 700,000-800,000 citizens into our voting population every year, with a few years reaching 1 million.
Between 1989-2013, the U.S. has admitted 25.3 million legal permanent residents.
During a comparable 25-year period at the height of the Great Wave, from 1900-1924, only 16.8 million green cards were issued. The current wave has been 66% larger than the Great Wave in terms of green cards issued.
While the immigration wave of the modern era was 66% larger than the Great Wave, the “naturalization wave” underway is 329% greater.
3.52 million immigrants have been naturalized in California since 1996, roughly one-fourth of the total naturalizations nationwide.
According to a 2012 survey, current immigrants favor Democrats over Republicans by almost 4-1.
A number of critical states have doubled or tripled their immigrant population over the past few decades, which in turn has helped Democrats create a “blue firewall” in the Electoral College.
…
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2015/10/report-limitless-immigration-creating-permanent-democrat-majority
Voters can only vote on what they’re given to vote for.
But the realities of power are far more complex than that, and many (most?) of the powerful bureaucrats, even in a state like California, have a number of responsibilities that they have to fulfill to keep their jobs.
I’m not an expert on how to achieve maximum effect in manipulating a system like the current one to achieve desired effects, IMO/AFAIK nobody is. The whole system is brand new, with the Internet and all.
But an important point is this: when people have problems, they’ll jump on available solutions. The better supported those solutions, the more likely they are to jump on them. Support can be political, but it can also be technical.
I would be willing to contribute some of my (volunteer) time to a project to document how California could achieve phase stabilization, along with massive amounts of storage, more cheaply than with the bleeding-edge batteries its current energy storage mandate requires.
I don’t claim much expertise in the subject, but I’m a crackerjack writer (see my many comments here, whether you agree with them or not), both in a word processor (openoffice.org writer) or native HTML. I’m willing to proofread, suggest changes in wording and semantic analyses, and do internet (e.g. Google) searches when I have a good idea what to look for. I can proofread, check calculations, etc.
A crowd-sourced project to solve California’s phase stabilization problems before they cause major headaches could have a major effect on our overall energy situation. According to my preliminary, back-of-the-envelope calculations, California could add 40 GWatts peak of solar PV, call it 10 GWatts averaged daily, to its generating capacity using otherwise unused land in the Owens Valley/Mono Lake area. This adds up to around 1/4 to 1/3 of its typical usage.
If this energy is stabilized/averaged using pumped hydro storage located in the Western Sierras, using primarily existing dams and reservoir capacity with new turbines and motor/generators, the latter running 100% of the time (i.e. even when energy isn’t going into or out of storage), it could potentially provide a huge amount of phase stabilization (if I understand correctly), as well as storing the energy from utility-level solar PV with turn-around efficiencies in the 85-90% range.
I realize that tunnels and/or high-pressure pipes would be needed, and these would add to the cost. But not necessarily as much as in projects from decades ago. There are certainly trade-offs: canals or low-pressure aqueducts would probably be much cheaper, but might degrade the quality of the area(s) as “wilderness”.
Once such a preliminary study is out there, the potential exists for those facing problems with phase stabilization to push much harder for more detailed studies, which in turn could lead to a more rational approach to power storage in California.
Here’s my question: are people here who understand the technical details willing to help solve a problem with a general plan (“renewable power”) they don’t really approve of? Or are they going to just stand back and shoot arrows?
http://civicvirtue.info/weblog/wp-content/uploads/Maro-Roman-aqueduct1.jpg
Roman aquaduct in Spain – Nerja, Costa del Sol. (from here)
Imagine how cheaply such as this could be built using modern technology, properly applied.
Quoting a National Law Review article published October 17th, California law SB 350 sets targets of 33% renewable electricity by the end of 2020, 40% by the end of 2024, 45% by the end of 2027, and 50% by the end of 2030. Energy efficiency in California is to be doubled by 2030.
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/california-enacts-law-requiring-50-renewables-2030
Regarding my original question to ‘aplanningengineer’ concerning the impacts on California’s power planning approach from SB 350, existing California state law now requires the Independent System Operator (ISO) to ensure efficient and reliable operation of California’s electrical transmission grid.
The newly enacted SB 350 law provides for the transformation of the California ISO into a regional organization to promote the development of regional electricity transmission markets in the western states. The new law requires the ISO to propose governance modifications to accomplish this goal, modifications which must be approved and implemented by the California state legislature.
As I interpret the referenced article, what this means is that the California ISO now takes on the additional responsibility of promoting the development of a renewable-friendly grid architecture for the entire western United States, not just for California by itself.
For an example as to what kinds of new power planning activities might take place under this newly enacted law, what if the California ISO were to write an inter-government proposal for approval by the California state legislature that the states of Nevada, Arizona, Utah, and California should cover a good fraction of their respective arid land areas with solar energy farms and to sell a good portion of their solar-produced energy to California energy consumers.
We should expect that the California ISO would have to prepare a feasibility cost analysis for the proposal, one which included a reasonably detailed ‘basis-of-estimate’ technical architecture for the kind of solar power generation facilities, energy storage facilities, and power transmission facilities needed to support large-scale generation of solar power in the states of Nevada, Arizona, and Utah for a power market which resides primarily in the state of .California.
The upshot here is that anyone who has power planning experience in California is going to be busier than a one-armed wallpaper hanger.
You are right BB, California’s reliability will impact and be impacted by the others on the grid. It’s a lot of work for planners, job security and a potential financial bonanza. It raises the question “why aren’t planning engineers the biggest endorsers for increasing renewables?” I’m hoping everyone knows the answer to that question.
Germany manages it by buying power from neighboring countries, even if they burn fossil fuels to generate the electricity. But obviously, if everyone did as Germany does, that would no longer be viable. Oops!
No Need For “Economic Kamikaze Program In Paris”
It would appear that global warming is declining already for reasons other than stated – GHG RF is slowing down.
the @NatureBiotech article starts off:
“Smear campaigns against those speaking out against Scaremongering…”
It happens to be about GMO but could be about Nuclear, Fracking, Climate, whatever…
the USGS statements on the SC floods being barely a 1 in 100 year event much less 1 in 1000
and the firing of the French meteorologist
shows his statement is true …
“we are hostage to a planetary scandal – a war machine whose aim is to keep us in fear”
surely this monster is on the verge being exposed to the general public
Given the vast forces behind this machine I see no reason to believe it is on the verge of being exposed. Most governments, the MSM, powerful advocacy groups, etc. The most we can hope for at this point is a draw, but for those advocating radical change, a draw is a loss.
David,
Almost 500 years of deception about the source of energy that made our chemical elements and sustains our lives was exposed on ResearchGate:
What do you mean by “exposed”? I strongly suspect the vast majority of Americans believe the whole “global warming” thing about as much as they believe the nonsense about “Nine out of 10 dentists recommend Crest.” So, when they hear about a “Climategate”, they yawn: “I knew it all along.”
That is not what the polls show, AK. It appears that roughly half of the people believe the scare.
Not necessarily in the sense that they’ll act (that is vote) on that belief. What they tell the polls is what they think they believe. Not what informs their actions. (With votes being somewhere between, depending on what they really believe about the effectiveness of their votes.)
Your point is good, AK.
Many people will also tell pollsters they believe in a god of some sort. Their day-to-day actions suggest that the influence of the more strident priests is limited, to say the least.
David: The NY Times published a detailed poll and confirmed your claims David by 65-35 margin or there abouts. UNFORTUNATELY, when it came to specific actions — such as artificially jacking up energy rates by taxation to discourage usage — the poll numbers reversed.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/01/29/us/global-warming-poll.html
The message here is that a big chunk of the public (especially the bobo types) will parrot back climate propaganda… but when it comes to dollars and cents, people wise up pretty quickly.
Related / folllowup on @ “The Fed’s $50 Billion Ethanol Mandate Is Actually HARMING the Environment”, increasing pollution.”
Corn ethanol is a politically charged issue (particularly in the run up to a presidential election and making big changes does not fit into the liberal party anti- business / anti – big oil motif and storyline..
Gov’t Watchdog Investigates If EPA Is Being Honest About Ethanol’s Environmental Impacts http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/16/govt-watchdog-investigates-if-epa-is-being-honest-about-ethanols-environmental-impacts/
– The EPA inspector general’s (IG) is asking agency officials for records on reports to Congress on the environmental and resource conservation impacts” of the ethanol mandate, or the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS).
– The IG’s investigation to see if EPA was properly reporting the environmental impacts of the RFS – comes right after the American Council for Capital Formation released a study claiming that mandating corn ethanol was damaging the environment and contributing more to global warming than conventional gasoline.
The corn ethanol issue is similar to the Keystone XL fiasco – it is an ideological and tactical element of the bigger plan to thwack big business / big oil and fits in well with the president’s plans for his “legacy.” The leading candidates for the Democrat presidential nomination are against the pipeline (Clinton flip flopped). Both of these are in spite of the fact that not building the pipeline favors shipments of petroleum by rail.
The facts are:
– The State Department feasibility study for the Keystone XL pipeline indicated that the Canadian crude oil will reach the market whether or not Keystone XL is built, either in the U.S. or overseas.
– Department of Transportation and Office of Hazardous Materials Transport statistics indicate that fatalities-per-billion-ton-miles for crude transport by rail historically has been around 0.100 versus 0.004 by pipeline, representing a 25 times greater risk of loss of American lives transporting oil by rail versus pipeline.
– There are 500,000 miles of interstate pipelines in the U.S. carrying crude oil, petroleum products and natural gas; Keystone XL, at 1,179 miles, would represent just 0.2%.
– The American Association of Railroads reported that as a result of rapid growth in domestic oil production and constraints in pipeline infrastructure, the number of crude rail cars has expanded sharply, from under 20,000 in 2009 to over 400,000 today, often traveling through populated areas. Meanwhile, we continue to read new headlines weekly of major railcar accidents involving crude and hazardous materials.
The net effect on global carbon emissions is marginal to nil, since the oil will be extracted and sold in the market in any case.
– Permanent job creation is small.
– Shipment by pipeline is roughly $10 per barrel cheaper than by rail, which is significantly growth positive.
Diane Furtchgott-Roth, “Pipelines Are Safest For Transportation of Oil and Gas” http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ib_23.htm#.ViFdO5WFNZk
The pipeline was undecided and “studied” for 6+ years because it is a symbolic, politically divisive issue to be leveraged on the bigger issue, in this case the president’s climate legacy; and became expedient to exploit in the run up to the COP21 Paris meeting, along with the 2016 presidential election. To be clear taking this position is a vote to put American lives and property at significantly greater risk.
The Saudi’s stance on crude oil is hurting them, but probably hurting lots of other countries more. From the article:
…
Finance Minister of Saudi Arabia Ibrahim bin Abdulaziz Al-Assaf
Saudi Arabia’s finance ministry is closing the national accounts one month earlier than usual this year, suggesting it is tightening its control over spending as low oil prices create a record state budget deficit.
The world’s top oil exporter is grappling with a budget deficit which economists estimate could total $120 billion or more this year, and the finance ministry has taken other unusual steps recently to clamp down on excess spending.
…
The new deadline to make payments is Nov. 15, the document says. In past years the deadline fell in mid-December; last year it was Dec. 18.
The document does not elaborate on the reasons for the change, or say how government bodies are expected to cope with the earlier deadline. Calls to the finance ministry seeking comment were not returned.
…
Since August last year, the government has sold more than $80 billion of foreign assets via the central bank.
…
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/13/saudi-brings-forward-state-spending-deadline-in-budget-clampdown.html
As always, the science list contains lots good stuff. However I took a look at:
How studying other planet’s climates can help us understand our own. Great article: [link] featuring carbonate thermostat
But when I read it I got this far:
And I just busted out laughing. That is NOT what CO2 did during the ice ages. Instead it slavishly followed the temperature variations, going up and down with temperatures with absolutely no sign of any “buildup of warming CO2” during each ice ages. To the contrary, in the Vostok data, in general the CO2 was LOWER at the end of the ice ages than we would expect from just looking at the temperature, not higher as the author claims.
At that point I quit reading …
Anyhow, thanks as always for a great bunch of scientific articles.
w.
Willis, Thanks! I was just about to start reading that.
The oceans are huge carbonate drinks, CO2 follows temperature, when it can. When CO2 takes off on its own, temperature does not follow.
The very first sentence:
Yes, since the end of the LIA. Is that what he means? (/sarc)
Let’s see… Any planet with a similar solar constant, rotation speed, gravity, and atmospheric composition?
[…]
Sheer speculation (AFAIK).
I could find more excerpts, also highly speculative. The whole thing is a fantasy, designed to push the notion of a greenhouse-destroyed earth.
AK,
The author claims to be an astrobiologist. He might not be aware of things like the LIA.
This might explain why he wrote :
“Using the same equations with which we model possible future Earths, we have been able to successfully duplicate the present-day climates of Venus, Mars, and Titan.”
Unfortunately, his modelling doesn’t seem to work with respect to the present day Earth, only the future Earth. More specious Warmist nonsense.
The fact that the surface temperatures of the planets to which he refers have dropped over the past few billion years appears to have escaped his notice. Maybe his brain is overheating – cerebral warming transference syndrome?
Cheers.
You are much too kind.
Using Mars and Venus as an example of climate change is convenient fud’ding. Mars is cold because it is small and can’t hold enough gases, and Venus is hot because it has a dense sea of gas. The bigger ball of gas you have, the hotter it gets downunder.
The key question is why Earth has the amount of atmosphere it has. And there are plenty of details that affect, like magnetic field, seas and plate tectonics.
AK,
“Spacecraft studies of Earth’s neighbors in the solar system have revealed that both of our near-neighbor planets, Venus and Mars, once enjoyed Earthlike environments at some time in their past, until each underwent a change of climate that would have been fatal for any surface life.”
Sheer BS IMO.
Planetary scientists aren’t even sure if Venus ever had liquid oceans.
When we compare Earth with other planets, we see how easy it is for a planet to permanently lose a pleasant climate. Venus and Mars each started out with warm oceans and volcanoes, and the same carbonate thermostat that keeps Earth temperate was once also operating on our planetary siblings.
Our thermostat set point is the temperature that Polar Oceans freeze and thaw. Our thermostat turns on powerful snowfall when the thermostat is exceeded and turns off the powerful snowfall when the thermostat setting is not exceeded. There is no carbonate thermostat with a fixed temperature set point. There is no data or theory that supports that.
popesclimatetheory,
“Venus and Mars each started out with warm oceans and volcanoes…”
No, not at all.
Jeff, I wrote “Venus and Mars each started out with warm oceans and volcanoes” as part of a paragraph I was posting about.
My point is that CO2 does not and can not regulate earth temperature.
Not at 260, not at 280, not at 400, not at 7000. Whatever influence that CO2 has is lost in the influence of Natural Variability. Human CO2 influence from 100 ppm does not show up in actual data.
Willis: the author of the article may have been referring to an earlier period, in the late Precambrian, when (so the hypothesis goes) there was a more sustained ‘icehouse earth’ episode. See Hoffman et al, 1998. A neoproterozoic snowball earth. Science, 281, p 1342.
The idea is that the entire ocean surface may have frozen. Volcanoes continued to pump out CO2 but most other surface processes stopped. The added CO2 could no longer be absorbed into the oceans but built up in the atmosphere. Eventually there was enough CO2 generated atmospheric warming to start melting the ice. I’m not convinced, but it’s an interesting idea.
the key phrase
‘A lengthy ice age “
Coldish | October 17, 2015 at 6:30 am | Reply
Willis: the author of the article may have been referring to an earlier period, in the late Precambrian, when (so the hypothesis goes) there was a more sustained ‘icehouse earth’ episode.
Perhaps … although AFAIK nobody has proxy data for before, during, and after the hypothesized “snowball earth” episode.
Steven Mosher | October 17, 2015 at 12:57 pm |
it’s also the handwaving opt-out phrase, since it is totally undefined … in any case, out of the last million years, we’ve spent around 900,000 of them in the icebox. But there is no indication that at the end of that period CO2 levels were higher than at the start …
Thanks to you both,
w.
Regarding the Royal Society symposium on uncertainty:
Alice in ClimateLand.
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/roypta/373/2055/20150092.full.pdf
The lowering of the lower bound increases the probability of the higher values? Alice indeed. Except Alice would never have said this because Carroll was a logician.
The geniuses who always use a latitude-longitude grid in their models, thus modeling polar areas in a high resolution, and equatorial areas – much larger and where most energy comes – in a low resolution, are now becoming uncertainty experts. Except they do never publish a standard deviation of .. of whatever method they use to estimate uncertainty – or whether the distribution is Gaussian in the first place.
Curious George:
They essentially changed the standard deviation of presumed risk to further exaggerate the high-end (right tail) risks. They claim they are applying “reasonable” assumptions to IPCC’s lowering of likely climate sensitivity but it is utterly unreasonable to interpret new science producing a lower bound as an “increase in uncertainty”.
They also utilize a “willingness to pay” (to avoid global warming) metric and simply argue that the inability of researchers over recent decades to establish the precise climate sensitivity = scary uncertainty = pay more.
Now THAT was an easily predictable result.
Clearly, climate is not the only thing they do not understand.
Violating UCLA’s speech code:
“There is no flat line in climate.”
~ Dr. Lee C. Gerhard
Anti free speech at UCLA. RICO impulse alive and well
behind the ivy walls of academia.
‘University administrators bear the most culpability.
After hearing objections to the theme party, but before
finishing an investigation into it, UCLA officials
suspended the social activities of the fraternity and
sorority, effectively punishing them without due process
even as these same officials publicly acknowledged that
they didn’t have all the facts. Moreover, university officials
are abusing their authority merely by investigating protected
speech in the first place. And the student newspaper is
cheering them on, demanding in an editorial that the office
of UCLA Fraternity and Sorority Relations take a more
active role in preemptively clearing all party themes.’
The governmental-education complex, which is fascist to the core, can no longer avoid the evil truth of its relationship with haters of Americanism and despisers of the foundational principles of individual liberty and personal responsibility.
“I am sure that you are perfectly nice at a personal level, but no way would I take on somebody who had served in the Israeli army.” – Oxford pathologist, Andrew Wilkie, who declined a doctoral application from a student of the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Tel Aviv.
Don’t get me wrong. I am sure this authoritarian tosser is perfectly nice at a personal level. And I’m sure his academic career is only enhanced by being an authoritarian tosser.
Not sure how the “attack on free speech” fits under “science,”but perhaps if it does…this will also…
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/upshot/tom-brady-and-political-beliefs-it-depends-what-team-youre-on.html?smid=nytcore-iphone-share&smprod=nytcore-iphone
You haven’t been takin’ notice Joshua. Of course
we’re a tribal bunch, team loyalties ‘n such, all the
more reason, given integrity of the science requires
critical debate and testing, that free speech is essential
ter the evolution if science. bts.
That WordPress! Moderates me response ter Joseph
regardin’ free speech. )
BTS,
WordPress doesn’t like it if one use the name Voldemort as it considers that name to remain ‘unspoken’ (unwritten?).
Oh well, Danny, that explains it!
A lot of the debate does seem to be tribal (and you’ll always have tribal elements in human behavior) but I think it’s exagerated for the skeptics. . From my viewpoint – those skeptical of the science are more diverse than the alarmist crowd. Recognizing that as far as politics go climate skepticism is identified as conservative, republican possibly libertarian issue. However, I feel many “skeptics” here do not identify that way and that we likely have a wide diversity of beliefs across other “political” subjects. The people I know banging the drum to solve the climate problem now – seem pretty much ideologically aligned on other issues as well. Many of the people I know who are climate alarmist tend and refer to deniers classify them as conservative religious know nothings.
PE –
You do realize if course, that “realists” tend to think that tribalism applies more to “skeptics” than themselves. And, of course, it’s easily predictable that each side would draw such conclusions.
Despite your anecdotal impressions, there is little doubt that there is a very strong association between ideology and views on climate change, on both “sides.” In fact, among about views on climate change tells you more about who summer is than what they know about the science.
FYI, your use of a polemic to describe those who are more concerned about ACO2 envisions than you fits with the larger pattern of identity protective cognition that is associated with tribalism.
Engineer, the only truly skeptical ones that I would pay attention to when it comes to any conclusion related to the actual science would be experts in the field. I am afraid that a lot of “skeptics” when it comes to climate science too often rely on the opinion non-experts to form their opinions.
Joshua and Joseph,
I’m a believer in reasonable assumptions supported by facts.
Neither of you seem to have anything more than opinions.
Someone said opinions are like ****holes – everyone has one. Have you any facts, or just more opinions about other people’s opinions?
What’s the ideal level of CO2 in the atmosphere? Why? Or do you have no opinion yourselves, but are quite prepared to assert someone else’s opinion, because in your opinion their opinion is an expert one.
I might sound as though I have already formed an opinion, but that’s only your opinion, of course.
Got any facts?
Cheers.
He who can’t be named. Of course I realize that. Your posting of the link seemed to suggest you saw it as a one sided caution to climate skeptics. This is not a group where most reject the climate orthodoxy for tribal reasons as your posting seemed to suggest. I’ll ask you later who are the nontribal defenders of the climate orthodoxy here.
I’m not biting n the charge of polemics. What’s the word I should have used, as they all can be. so tainted? Anecdotal may be much better than some surveys we see. There is a body of people I see posting and reposting climate doom on Facebook, commenting on web forums hat this is the number one problem. Recent stuff like Seth Mcafarlane pressing Bernie Sanders calling Climate Change the number one national security problem, Bill Nyes five reasons about climate, pictures supposedly of lakes drying up due to climate ). I was just invited to a showing of the Oreskes film and saw a lot of general comments there. Climate is grouped by many as an indivisible part of a stance on inequality, social justice, sexism and racism. These people are in the public debate but from my perspective for the most part many have have no idea of the climate issues.
I suspect that in the US those who don’t avoid those they disagree with see something similar and that it may resonate. I’m not comparing blogs to blogs or extremists to extremists but general libs to cons. I see many general libs beating the climate drum and no conservatives acting similarly on Facebook and I see a lot of wacky conservative crap (as well as wacky lib crap too).
If someone steps away from their tribe on an issue that motivates me to look at their reasoning. I think many posters here probably more closely identified with liberal rather than conservative camps. There are no doubt many conservative posters here as well. I think there are many here who feel estrangd from liberal friends for their climate views, I haven’t seen many here who started out with a conservative inclination or remain conservative but who are alarmed about climate. I doubt many here feel a loss from exclusion from conservative friends because of their climate views, Man of us skeptics voted for Obama (at least once). Did any significant number of alarmists vote for Romney orBush? Maybe they will speak up here and I’ll learn something, in any case those who go against their initial identification and face scorn from their communities are probably the least tribal.
Share your anecdotal perspective and let’s see if it resonates or rings true with me or others. You do less than that-when you merely assert. It is. My perspective – great statement of the obvious.
This would be a good test of tribal identification among the denizens. I suspect we’d find more diversity in views across columns from the skeptics here versus the orthodox on climate. What say you? Who are the tribalists?
http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs/
PE –
thanks for the response. No time to respond in-depth now…will try later (pending moderation).
For now, I will just note that I posted the same link at a “realist,” site, which engendered a response that (essentially) the tribalism described in the article applies to “skeptics” but not “realists.”
Well Mike I wish “skeptics” believed it was only a ‘matter of opinion’ Unfortunately, I see a lot of is “skeptics” questioning the motives of scientists or using condescending general categories like “group think” to describe their behavior. I think it’s difficult to know what motivates a single person or how they arrive at conclusions, much less trying do that with a large group (i.e. climate scientists). Wouldn’t you agree?
Joseph,
I you read what I wrote, you might realise that you “answered” a question which I didn’t ask.
Even though you declined to answer any of my questions, I will answer yours. If I threaten to shoot a person unless they hand over their money, and they indeed hand over their cash, I believe I can make the not unreasonable assumption that the person has not suddenly been smitten with an overwhelming feeling of altruism towards me, for religious reasons. That’s just my opinion.
So no, I don’t agree with you.
If you are referring to the actions of Warmists, you may be right. I don’t believe they are all mentally deranged, merely gullible and in denial of fact. No motivation necessary. The conclusions arrived at by say, the IPCC, are just bizarre. I ascribe the behaviour of some of the contributors to delusional psychosis, some to a desire for the approbation of their peers, and for many, mental laziness, playing follow the leader in the hope it is a valid career survival strategy.
Of course, some are just mistaken. Not the first scientists to believe, en masse, in something that was later shown to be incorrect.
Facts will triumph. Suits me, as I have changed my mind in the past, when new facts emerged contrary to what I had believed to that point. I wouldn’t expect Warmists to behave in that fashion, necessarily.
Cheers.
J – funny timing, but since the above posts I am just starting to see conservative post memes challenging the climate orthodoxy and its supporter (two from one conservative friend in the last day). One from conservativeByte about more and less ice on the poles signaling global warming in a way recognizable to liberals with a BA in art history, First things of this sort of climate anti orthodoxy I’ve seen at least in ages, but maybe it’s just been a lack of such development by contrarians and it will trend up as have the climate alarm memes. In any case I think there are liberal and conservative bases of support for the dueling sides. But I don’t see a symmetry in Climate Etc participants in “tribal” defections or diversityof politcal briefs. Are there otherwise mostly conservative posters here who were swayed by the particulars of climate to leave the fold on that issue? Seems there are many luke warmers and the like who have. (But I’ll admit that might be because there are many less from that climate view anyway.).
pe on tribal identification: I’ve never been tribal (except re Newcastle United, alas), my life summary is “I’ve always been different,” though that reflects people’s reactions to me rather than any deliberate attempt on my part. I was a long-time supporter of UK Labour then the ALP, and think that the ALP’s Bob Hawke (whom I worked for) was the best PM in the last 40-odd years, with the best government. But the ALP went downhill post-Hawke, and in Queensland from 1998, there is no way I could support the ALP again. Many of my views (at 73) tend towards those of the conservatives in our community, but many don’t, and I’m not a natural fit with many conservatives. I agree that being pro-CAGW seems to come with a leftist package, while being sceptical of it does not give a clear indication of one’s broader stance.
I’m a conservative and must admit I come here mainly to kick any warmie heads that poke above the ruck. That said, I often can’t identify with right-wingers or even many libertarians. I admire Thomas Jefferson as much as anyone, but if bigger and more intrusive government could have stopped him using child slave labour for his nail factory then I’m prepared to to side with big government against Jefferson.
If you’re not prepared to get into some trouble with your own side, you’re probably too far onside. For example, I value and relish Mark Steyn’s writings on popular culture but I don’t want to have to cover for him because he’s Mark Steyn. His words are his own, and he has to answer for them. I hope he wins, but that’s another matter.
Also, I’m not convinced that it was okay to pilfer and handle the climategate emails and I’m not convinced by the attitude of we-were-misled by those who should have always been more skeptical. That’s an opinion which might get me into trouble with my own side, though the trouble amounts to very little so it would be absurd for me to talk of my “courage”. I’d likely shut up if there was a lot at stake. I’m just an internet opinionator, not Giordano Bruno risking the flames.
Sure I favour the individual over the collective, all things being equal. I like free markets that really are free, and not free to be rigged by monopolists or that leftist New Class who’ve discovered The Market the way teenage boys discover sex. Sure I’d like to see Brussels turned into a parking lot and Canberra declared a National Park…but I can live with some big government of societies which are themselves big and complex. Matter of degree.
Really, for me it’s about kicking warmies. I just like doing that, okay?
PE –
IMO, there are at least two primary components to the tribalism: identity aggression and identity defense. I see both, quite abundantly, coming from the “skeptical” side of the battle line in the climate wars.
Even if I were to grant that there is more fundamental variety in the “skeptical” arguments than among “realist” arguments (personally, I’ll reserve judgement until I see some non-purely anecdotal evidence on that ), and even if I were to grant that variety of arguments is an important metric for quantifying tribalism, it certainly isn’t the only one. Look at this blog and any other in the “skept-o-sphere” and you will find identity-aggression and identity-defense as an overriding characteristic (as you will on “realist” blogs also, of course).
And as I said, anecdotal observations aside, the evidence of a very strong correlation between ideology and views on climate change is overwhelming, IMO. It is even “dose-dependent,” ; for example the data show that among Tea Partiers the ideological association is stronger than among mainstream Republicans. Tea Partiers are more sure in their opinions about climate change just as they are more certain that they know a great deal on the topic and that they don’t need any more information to evaluate the science. That kind of “dose-dependency” is the kind of pattern that lends a depth of significance among associations.
“Alarmist” is a polemical term. I’m not saying that you (necessarily) intend it as a polemic, but the ubiquitous use of polemics in the climate wars is an indication of the identity-aggression I spoke of before. Just as the term “denier” is used as a polemic, so is the term “alarmist” or “warmist” … etc.
I’m certainly not in a position to evaluate the facebook posts of libz and conz on some large-scale basis, but it doesn’t take much in-depth study to see that polemics with reference to climate change are ubiquitous in mainstream conservative media, such as Fox News, Limbaugh, Hannity, O’reily, the Wall Street Journal, etc. IMO, the polarization and tribalism related to climate change is no different than what we see with so many other issues. For the vast majority involved, the issue of climate change is a proxy for a more generalized ideological warfare.
As for my anecdotal perspective, FWIW, my observation about the pervading ideological orientation at this blog and other “skeptic” blogs is quite different than yours.
Engineer, the only truly skeptical ones that I would pay attention to when it comes to any conclusion related to the actual science would be experts in the field.
When the field has all gone down the wrong path, that is the last experts I would pay attention to.
Sometimes, the consensus experts turn out to be wrong, most times in history, the consensus experts turned out to be wrong.
This is just one more time.
Thanks J. I think the aggressive component is what’s of importance. And I suspect I may be flawed in writing off the aggressive skeptics as aberrations (or outside the fold) and taking the aggressive XXXX (whatever term you failed to supply me as an alternative for alarmists) as typical.
Alarmist is the least the offensive descriptive term (to all perspectives) that I can think of. Most I know are proud to spread the “alarm”. I wouldn’t mind being known as an “alarmist” when it comes to expected grid costs. Again if you have a suggestion for a good term, I’d appreciate it.
I have to admit my polling sample may be badly skewed. On what I see it seems that Sanders should be killing Clinton. So maybe I’ve got an off sample or maybe the Sanders/climate concerned group is more vocal and possibly aggressive.
Anyway two concession from me and one push back.
Pope… I don’t know that I disagree with you, its just a question of where your experts can come from. Specialists in the field are not the only experts. I think back to when the Soviet Union unraveled. For the most part Academics specializing in Kremlinology did not see it coming, but other policy disciplines did. Similarly scientists/engineers in eh field of superconductors where the worst to rely on as they were predicting major breakthroughs that have yet to materialize. But others with a broader understanding of technology, despite their less skilled understanding of the physics and chemistry, had more realistic expectations.
When it comes to climate, can some generalist look at a variety of info and come up with conclusions worthy of respect? Not knowing the most on any topic but having a broad base could have value. Specialists are not always the best. I have respect people for knowing a lot of “somethings” like: Knowing something about statistics and the statistics behind climate studies, knowing something about psychology and group processes, knowing something about prediction, knowing something about history, knowing something about politics, knowing something about the history of science and how science progresses
PE –
The terminology is a problem. I kinda played with using Someone Who Is Relatively More Concerned About Recent Emissions (SWIRMCAREs) and Someone Who Is Relatively Less Concerned About Recent Emisions (SWIRLCAREs)…but obviously that’s not practical terminology. Maybe just those who are relatively more and relatively less concerned.
There is a difference between alarm and alarmist. Saying that someone is alarmed doesn’t have a polemical connotation, but calling someone an alarmist does. And as such, I don’t think that “alarmist” is accurate for a great deal of people involved (any more than “denier” would be). You are alarmed about expected grid costs, but does that make you a “chicken little” a “fearmonger” a “scaremonger” a “doomster” (synonyms for alarmist)? IMO, the easy way that polemics slip off the tongues of those engage in exchange about climate is a sign that there’s more going on beneath the surface.
Lots and lots of dots and dots.
===========
“Not sure how the “attack on free speech” fits under “science,””
Scientists calling on the president to instigate show trials based on the RICO law for scientists they disagree with notwithstanding?
It’s great fun in socialist/communist countries.
The future shall not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Climate.
===============
I guess that if the “attack on free speech” article qualifies under science this one might do so as well:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/upshot/tom-brady-and-political-beliefs-it-depends-what-team-youre-on.html?smid=nytcore-iphone-share&smprod=nytcore-iphone
Hmm. That suggests that Fans of c02 will diminish their support with increased knowledge
While people who are not fans… well information doesnt change their belief
You never know.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/10/17/kostigen-extreme-weather-perceptions/74119888/
Whether it is just the weather in climate town today.
Dimowits believe whatever Obumbles tells them.
WEEKEND: First big cold snap to bring sub-freezing lows to East…
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2015/10/15/first-big-cold-snap-to-bring-sub-freezing-lows-lake-effect-snow-for-eastern-u-s/
Winter outlook: Big snow for Northeast…
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/15/us/noaa-winter-forecast/index.html
World on brink of ’50 year ICE AGE’…
http://www.express.co.uk/news/weather/612369/SHOCK-CLAIM-World-is-on-brink-of-50-year-ICE-AGE-and-BRITAIN-will-bear-the-brunt
Giant ‘Hole’ in Sun 50 Earths Wide…
http://www.space.com/30839-giant-sun-hole-50-earths-wide.html
As I was reading ’50 year ICE AGE’ the voice of James Carville “the ragin’ cajun” kept coming to me “it’s the sun stupid”.
State of the art climate model or cheesy movie? I prefer the imaginative colour scheme of the model but the cheesy movie has more realism. Don’t know which had the higher budget, but these non-Kardashian models don’t come cheap.
OT: JIASO PDO index for September is 1.94.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2015/anomnight.9.28.2015.gif
Latest:
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2015/anomnight.10.15.2015.gif
To go along with the ethanol (and it has some merit, but as JCH says we need something): http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-10-16/big-oil-rolls-out-al-gore-to-torpedo-ethanol
(and it’s interesting that it’s a Bloomberg Politics article, not science)
Then this ad on: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-16/big-oil-s-murky-climate-liam-denning
Well, MTBE made for great talk radio theater…
A belated response to a previous post which contained a link to an article about hydropower reservoirs as methane bombs. I did not find a correlation in the data. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2674147
Climate Research: Could ‘The Day After Tomorrow’ happen?
“Although the scientific credibility of the film drew criticism from climate scientists, the scenario of an abrupt collapse of the AMOC, as a consequence of anthropogenic greenhouse warming, was never assessed with a state-of-the-art climate model.”
It doesn’t seem rational anyway, increased CO2 forcing of the climate should increase positive NAO:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-3-5-6.html
Yet low AMOC events occur during negative NAO episodes:
http://www.rapid.ac.uk/
New study claims atmosphere drives AMO [link] …
“While the overall rise in average temperature of the Atlantic is caused by greenhouse gases..”
How disappointing, if that were so, previous centuries would tend to show no long term trends.
Strange that they are overlooking the AMOC rather than seeing the association between the NAO and AMOC, and that the atmospheric changes drive the AMOC and hence the AMO.
“These results force us to rethink our ability to predict decade-scale temperature fluctuations in the Atlantic and their associated impacts on land. It may be that many of the changes have limited predictability, which means that we should be prepared for a range of climate outcomes associated with global warming,” said Clement.
Surely if you expect a 60-80yr AMO cycle, that would narrow down the range of possibilities.
It is fairly obvious that few people accept that the solid crust is at its thinnest under the oceans. This has two implications. Heat loss from the hot interior of the Earth will be proportionally greater where the crust is thinnest (ignoring crustal fractures which expose the molten interior directly through the crust.) The oceans are absorbing heat from the hotter surface below continuously.
So the oceans in general are separated from the red hot material under the crust by 5km or so. You might think this is a lot, but the temperature gradient is sufficient to ensure that oceans and lakes of any reasonable depth cannot freeze throughout. Luckily for us!
The same mechanism is shown where liquid water accumulates under ice sheets or glaciers in many cases. The geothermal heat exceeds the ability of the ice to transport it to the ice surface. It is not at all unusual for the warmest ice to be found at the bottom of the glacier.
The second implication, and being slowly realised, is that thin crust is more mobile, and subject to fractures, as well as giving rise to a completely unknown number of “thermal vents”, pouring a completely unknown amount of heat energy into the base of the ocean.
Taking into account magma plumes, the chaotic movement of the viscous mantle layers, and the incessant movement in all dimensions of tectonic plates, it is completely unsurprising that the oceans are not static, but rather appear as complex chaotic fluid dynamical systems.
Sometimes parts of an ocean will be warmer than “average”, sometimes “cooler”. Sometimes convection currents will cease, and then reappear following a different path.
At different depths, currents may flow in completely opposite directions for apparently inexplicable reasons.
We really haven’t got the faintest idea of what’s likely to occur, when, or even why. And we’re asked to believe that “climate scientists” with their magic averages of a handful of average temperatures derived from readings taken under constantly varying conditions over a handful of years are meaningful?
Pull the other one. It plays Jingle Bells!
Cheers.
So the oceans in general are separated from the red hot material under the crust by 5km or so. You might think this is a lot, but the temperature gradient is sufficient to ensure that oceans and lakes of any reasonable depth cannot freeze throughout. Luckily for us!
Water gets denser as it gets colder, until it gets close to freezing and then it gets less dense. water at the bottom is not cold enough to freeze because that water is going to be at the top, near the ice. It is really hard to freeze a lake throughout because it freezes on top and protects the water below from the atmosphere.
“Carbon Dioxide – The Good News” Idur Golkany
Golkany gives a good summary of numerous CO2 benefits.
Tribal Science
Note Dyson’s foreward on the tribal character of science, highlighting politically driven climate science policy:
Yes, CO2 is better for plants, but what really matters is that we are mammals. They spend what little bit they have on human health impacts trying to downplay the temperature effects, possibly trying to ignore that for mammals it is the temperature that matters more than CO2. There is a negative correlation globally between both health and wealth with temperature. Warmer countries tend to be poorer with shorter lifespans. This isn’t a coincidence. It is related to an additional stress factor from working outside in hot conditions, and the increased presence of insects and diseases. So Goklany and Dyson may jump around rejoicing for the plants, but the mammals are a different and untold story in their narrative.
Jim D | October 17, 2015 at 12:22 am
If that were true, we’d expect to see differences in lifespans between e.g. Alaska or Minnesota, and Florida.
We’d also expect to see shorter lifespans in Phoenix, Arizona than in Vail, Colorado.
Yes, there are many poor countries in tropical regions … but as far as I know, there is no data to support your hypothesis that the reason for this is temperature. In fact, the data suggests otherwise. Here’s a graph of life expectancy vs. distance from the equator:
http://www.bit.ly/1XanOxF
This does not show your proposed relationship.
However, I’m happy to be convinced otherwise. Citations would be useful.
Best regards,
w.
Life expectancy is mainly to do with wealth and wealth is mainly dependent on governance, law and order, property rights, etc., not climate.
That’s a very interesting graph. Thanks for posting.
Additionally, it’s worth pointing out that the overwhelming majority of land area where people can live is situated to the North (and to lesser extent the south). In order for Jim D’s assertion to be correct, he would have to control for population density and wealth.
Way to go Jim D, 200 years of Imperialism let off the hook.
Next they’ll be letting off the various players in the Syrian conflict in order to blame that chaos on climate, oh wait!
Willis, you have to be ignoring Africa to make your assertion about lifespans from that graph. Regarding wealth, GDP per capita would look something similar.
Here you go, little yimmy:
http://www.mapsofworld.com/africa/thematic/life-expectancy-at-birth.ht
Sorry to embarrass you little fella, but the longest life expectancy is in the hot North African countries. Ple3ase stop making a fool of yourself. Do some research before shooting off your trap.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/Life_Expectancy_2005-2010_UN_WPP_2006.PNG
The people who live in Algeria, as an example, mostly live close to the coastline, which is a fair distance from the equator. They have French-style medicine, which is generally very good.
Don, you have to wonder why the areas of Africa with lots of vegetation are the same ones that offer the shortest lifespans. Perhaps these types of situations are worse in some way, and we should not be hoping that vegetation expands. I think it is the humidity and higher wet-bulb temperatures that are the problem in those areas, and vegetation makes those worse. People can live in deserts, but those populations are sparse for a reason: limited resources. When deserts encroach on populations, like in the western US currently, it is not good.
Why did you cherry-pick Algeria, nimrod? Compare North Africa, where it is very hot with Southern Africa, which ain’t so hot. The countries of South Africa and Zambia (formerly Rhodesia) had highly developed medical infrastructures. It’s not the heat that kills off people. It’s the corruption and the poverty.
You are just throwing crap out there without any thought or facts behind it, yimmy. Really struggling today, little dude.
You are the one who keeps talking about Algeria, Don. It has a sparse population due to low resources. They can be helped by countries further north with more beneficial climates, but without them, they are in trouble. Same goes for the oil states who rely on the developed world outside their borders for income. Hot and desertlike alone isn’t much good.
Because it’s North Africa, and my wife worked in the Sahara during their Civil War.
Look at the map, clowns. Discussion over.
Deserts have sparse populations, Don. There is a reason. Think.
You are pathetic, yimmy. Deserts have sparse populations, because there is almost no freaking water. Not because the people die from the heat. You are a time waster.
Don, you are not thinking it through. More heat, less water, less people. This is one causation path that could apply elsewhere in a changing climate. Another path is more vegetation, more humidity, more insects and disease, shorter lifespans, less people.
Ah, more heat less water. So, it’s time to stop the strongly positive water vapor feedback BS. Enough of the nonsense, yimmy.
Greening of the Sahara. That nasty vegetation is making a comeback:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html
Jim D: More heat, less water
You made that up.
MM, some significant areas are projected to get drier, e.g. the Mediterranean, as part of the expansion of global tropical circulations polewards.
Some areas “green” and some “brown”. It’s a shifting pattern as expected from already ongoing climate change that is more often denied except when it comes to this example of it. How about Arctic ice, and melting permafrost? Take everything together.
Boy – you’d almost think that modernization, literacy, clean water, affordable energy, competent public services etc. had an impact on life expectancy.
At the moment modernization includes decarbonization and energy efficiency to a growing extent. This is the way technology is advancing in the next few decades whether you like it or not.
Decarbonization in the next few decades is a pipe dream.
Wishful thinking.
Explain how decarbonization happens in the next few decades.
Decarbonization is a process that has already started in some countries case you didn’t notice.
Why should I? You’ve several times said that my comments aren’t worth reading.
I’ve made several proposals, both in a political and a technological frame, for how “decarbonization” might be achieved. I don’t claim that it’s certainly possible. But those proposals demonstrate that it’s not certainly impossible.
Fact is, if solar PV deployment continues to grow exponentially at roughly the rate it has for the last 4-5 decades, by 2045 (3 decades) it will be providing at least 1000% (roughly) of humanity’s current electricity usage. 10 Times!
Will it continue? Who knows? Many observers would probably say it depends on the policy decisions made today. Could policy be implemented that would support such growth without seriously impacting energy prices during that same 3 decades?
IMO yes. Your claim that such a possibility is a “pipe dream” is tantamount to saying it’s impossible. I’m not saying it’s certainly possible, but it certainly looks feasible, given the right policy decisions.
Jim D: MM, some significant areas are projected to get drier,
That’s different from “more heat, less water”, which you made up. Globally, higher mean temps produce higher absolute humidity and higher rainfalls (cf the O’Gorman review which Matt Cassen recommended to me.) Local projections are totally unreliable.
You are rambling, Mr. AK. I didn’t say decarbonization is impossible. I can think of several ways it could be achieved. Big a$$ nuclear holocaust would put a stop to most human generation of CO2. Giving Chicken Littles like you and yimmy absolute power to implement your exponential PV schemes would put us on the path to a Neo-Stone Age. I could go on, but the other possibilities are too outlandish.
Jim D said:
“At the moment modernization includes decarbonization and energy efficiency to a growing extent. This is the way technology is advancing in the next few decades whether you like it or not.”
I am all for energy efficiency, who isn’t?
As to decarbonization….well – Al Gore made millions off carbon credits so I’m sure there’s a new group of suckers to fleece.
Have at it!
Life expectancy is mainly to do with abundant energy from fossil fuels.
The alarmists are trying to prevent the poorest people on earth from ever getting abundant energy from fossil fuels. That is genocide.
Jim D,
Just what do expect people to subsist on after you kill all the plants? Tuck into a nice steak? Sorry, cows eat grass. Maybe we could all eat fish? Nope, once all the land based vegetation dies, all animal life follows shortly thereafter.
Maybe you could model some food – there’s a thought!
But wait – mammals exhale CO2, so you will have to kill them all anyway!
Or maybe you could sequester all that exhaled CO2 and raise a few plants in glasshouses. Oh what fun – sitting around in the dark, freezing and starving. Are you dim, Jim, or do you really and truly believe the pablum you have been fed?
Too much Warmism can lead to softening of the brain, you know. A prefrontal lobotomy might improve things if it gets really, really bad. Another bizarre belief shared by the best and the brightest in the field, not so long ago. It might suit you.
Cheers.
AMO up.
PDO on the way back up
SST up
ONI – up
SOI – way down, prolonged
You’ve got nothun but your junk arguments.
How are you proposing to kill the plants, Mike? It is climate change that kills the ecology systems, but you seem to want more climate change, not less. Measure what you say against facts.
“It is climate change tha kills the ecology”. I guess climate change has been killing the ecology for something like 4.5 billion years. Ecology would appear to be tough to kill.
Extinction rates become larger with the degree and speed of climate change. This is one thing we know from paleoclimate.
Jimd
Ecological systems is itself a theory but we have numerous examples of climate change through history which impacted, as now on the ecology, such as these
‘Saint Cyrian was Bishop of Carthage around 250AD.* (see Note 1) He was talking about the huge increase in Rome’s population which had caused wars against Carthage and the building of 500 towns in North Africa to satisfy the eternal city’s ever increasing needs for timber, cereal, and exotic animals for its gladiatorial contests. Here is an account of lack of sustainability and climate change caused by a variety of factors, with the hints of a decline in the warm climate that had sustained Rome now starting to work against them as it intermittently turned cooler
‘The world has grown old and does not remain in its former vigour. It bears witness to its own decline. The rainfall and the suns warmth are both diminishing. The metals are nearly exhausted the husbandman is failing in his fields. Springs which once gushed forth liberally now barely give a trickle of water.’
Around 1560 the Rev Schaller, pastor of Strendal in the Prussian Alps wrote;
“There is no real constant sunshine neither a steady winter nor summer, the earth’s crops and produce do not ripen, are no longer as healthy as they were in bygone years. The fruitfulness of all creatures and of the world as a whole is receding, fields and grounds have tired from bearing fruits and even become impoverished, thereby giving rise to the increase of prices and famine, as is heard in towns and villages from the whining and lamenting among the farmers.”
The reality of this period of cold is reinforced by this account from 1610 when John Taylor, talking of the hills around him in Deeside Scotland, remarked that “the oldest men alive never saw but snow on the top of divers of these hills both in summer as in winter.”
Tonyb
No we don’t.
tonyb, and they are talking about climate changes in global terms of a few tenths of a degree, not degrees. The current situation is an order of magnitude more change due in the next century. The past gives no parallel to how civilizations respond to this kind of change, but if subtle changes and their impacts in the past are a clue (Romans, Vikings, early Americans), it will be somewhat massive in scope when you have rises of several degrees per century.
Jimd
But we don’t experience global temperatures, we suffer local ones.
The 1560 event cited was the start of the first brutal period of the little ice age
https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/11.jpg
Temperatures changed by some three degrees centigrade in just a few years.
We are currently in a downturn in the UK with the anomaly for this year hovering around the 0 .2 .c level quite a downturn from its decadal peak at the end of the last century although we obviously still have warm years,
Tonyb
Jim
To save you the trouble of you looking for it, here is the current CET as updated by the Met office
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/
Tonyb
Tonyb, yes, it is the scale again. Imagine if everywhere was changing at the same time. You can’t bring in supplies from unaffected areas, because now everyone is competing to stay on top of the change.
Jim
Climate has always changed and today is no different. Not everywhere is either warming or cooling as both Britain and the UK are currently demonstrating.
As I say, a global average temperature is meaningless, it is what s happening ‘locally’ that matters.
Tonyb
Also regarding cooling there. There is an anomalous cooling in the last couple of years off Greenland in the North Atlantic. This may be related to Greenland’s melting, and the beginnings of Hansen’s meltwater pulse scenario where Europe’s temperature declines through 2100. Or it may warm back up again. There are some unpredictable local effects of climate change for sure.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=6&type=anoms&mean_gen=0112&year1=2014&year2=2014&base1=1981&base2=2010&radius=1200&pol=rob
Jim
As your own chart shows, not everywhere is warming. I am sure not everywhere was warm during the MWP or cold during the LIA. We should be looking at the nuances of the climate rather than some global average which swamps the regional changes.
Tonyb
First, they are looking at local and regional. That’s how they figured out some places are cooling. If they weren’t looking locally, they never would have known that.
Global? Here’s why he does not want to look at global.
The pause has made fools out of a lot of smart people.
We are pushing rapidly into new global territory, and one of the new things that is happening is Greenland melting. This is not just another fluctuation, and should not be dismissed as such.
Try again:
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/files/2015/08/Abraham_Models_Vs_Surface_Measurements.png
At 6 .28 jch admitted that some places were cooling. Local and regional cooling receives very little attention. Surely admittance of the pause can’t be far away
Jimd
The two warmest consecutive decades over the ice in Greenland were the 1930 and 1940 period, according to Phil jones.
Tonyb
Jch
Look at your graphic and at Jimd graphic and the need to look at the nuances as to what is happening locally father than globally should become clear.
Tonyb
Tonyb, so sea level now is much higher than in those decades and rising more in the future. This should tell you that there is a trend that, importantly, includes Greenland and Antarctica. It is not just another fluctuation we are witnessing and people need to realize that. It’s a continuation and projected further continuation of a trend to a perturbation maybe four times the size of today’s by 2100. We have barely started and it is already noticed even by the skeptics.
It’s data. There is no admission.
The only admission we’re waiting for on the pause is of its near complete insignificance.
Because it’s slip slip slipping away.
JIMD
You said;
‘It is not just another fluctuation we are witnessing and people need to realize that. It’s a continuation and projected further continuation of a trend to a perturbation maybe four times the size of today’s by 2100.’
It is a trend we can trace back to 1700. The last high water stand was around 1580. Land temperatures started rising around 1700. Glaciers started melting ar8und 1750. So the best evidence we have is that this is another fluctuation in a longish term trend and one of many such fluctuations and trends that we can trace back over the last 2000 years.
tonyb
Tony B,
Perspective? You are providing perspective? I was under the impression (from Jim, I believe) that everything man caused began about 1950: http://www.nps.gov/kefj/learn/nature/upload/The%20Retreat%20of%20Exit%20Glacier.pdf
Hi Danny
Interesting article and some nice photos.
I think it would be useful if, instead of continually promoting the notion of unprecedented ‘climate chaos’ we instead majored on climate context. I don’t know if you ever saw the graphics I had done that illustrated the advances and retreats of the glaciers over the last few thousand years? Will you see if you can view either of these links? If so I will tell you how they were developed
https://photos-6.dropbox.com/t/2/AADDN4jmMblQxa21HfEgjpBupVSSbD4m6tAps7AEiXSWow/12/219179529/png/32×32/1/_/1/2/image003.png/ELOE76QBGBggASgB/zOxaQiMLnNyDIXCh39LLwC93DeoxsfMZD69JV2TC5PI?size=640×480&size_mode=2
https://www.dropbox.com/s/cgear5l4enu4kuc/image003.png?dl=0
Tonyb
Tony,
That’s a pretty large graphic!
I could not access the dropbox, but I have that from an earlier offering from you.
Visited Exit glacier a few years back and Jim’s comments made me recall the signage which the National Park Service has dating back to the 1800’s when that particular glacier showed retreat (at least as far as the NPS records go).
Perspective is something which often is ‘arm waved’ away yet at least as far as I’m aware the prior to anthro retreat has not yet been explained. Until that prior retreat can be explained, I’m not quite comfortable that we should attribute it solely to AGW. Especially since under other glaciers in Alaska (Mendenhall: http://www.livescience.com/39819-ancient-forest-thaws.html) evidence of ancient forests exists.
Wow! Sorry everyone for the giant glacier graphic!!
tonyb
Hi Danny
Yes, interesting about the glacier you visited and the ancient forests.
We can trace Glaciers back some 3000 years from observational records. My graphic was derived from the hundreds of observations Le Roy Ladurie gathered, together with those by Pfister and other modern glaciologists and my own work in examining glaciers personally in Austria and Switzerland and gathering together the information known about them.
It is nothing more than a very broad brush approach but illustrates that the modern notion of a virtually constant historic temperature can not be sustained. We currently appear to be in one of many warm periods in between glacial advances.
tonyb
Tony,
That’s cheating – making glacier graphics appear larger than they actually are ;-)
Peter
yes, I just need to learn how to shrink JCH’s alarmist warming graphics by around 90% and we can all go relax.
tonyb
Based on countries’ census data.Post Industrial Revolution.
https://www.google.com.au/?gws_rd=ssl#q=hans+rosling+life+expectancy+video
Mike,
I have no idea if this is true or not. My understanding is that we have not had sustained wet bulb temperatures above abut 31C, so am not sure how it can be as high as 36C in Darwin. Irrespective of that, mammals cannot survive in sustained wet bulb temperatures above about 35C. Do you dispute that? You could try reading this which both discusses the impact of increasing wet bulb temperatures and appears to indicate that the maximum is around 30C.
ATTP,
But we’re talking of increases of 1.5 to 2C depending. From the link you offered.
“While this never happens now, it would begin to occur with global-mean warming of about 7 °C, calling the habitability of some regions into question. With 11–12 °C warming, such regions would spread to encompass the majority of the human population as currently distributed. Eventual warmings of 12 °C are possible from fossil fuel burning.”
Who’s calling for 7C or anywhere near 11-12C? Not that I can see in RCP 8.5 and no one is talking about BAU that I’m aware of.
Danny,
Most people who work in this area now think that keeping warming below 2C is going to be virtually impossible (well, not without drastic emission reductions starting now, which seems unlikely). To be clear, I’m not suggesting we will warm sufficiently to get to wet bulb temperatures of 35C, but every degree of warming is likely to increase maximum wet bulb temperatures by about 0.7C. Also, my response was mainly to your comment about the range of temperatures that mammals experience during a day. They might be able to comfortably survive a large variation, but that doesn’t imply there aren’t temperatures that would have severe consequences for mammals.
Rosling’s presentation is very illuminating. But, as the wholesale post-WWII jump upwards shows, it’s not the money, honey, but the access to modern medical care.
“Most people who work in this area now think that keeping warming below 2C is going to be virtually impossible”
Are those the same people whose climate models were 95% wrong on the hot side?
‘Are those the same people whose climate models were 95% wrong on the hot side?’
:-p I look out and there is wet bulb temp of +6C. Not all mammals can survive that for a prolonged period, it’s too cold. We got two precious degrees more during the instrumental period, and no-one, really, wants them removed.
I somehow fail to see the problem with wet bulb. Without fossils I’d probably be dead or not born in the first place. A jungle is full of mammals even in the hottest web bulb areas. It might not be convenient for me, but does not seem to be an ecological problem.
Jim D: They spend what little bit they have on human health impacts trying to downplay the temperature effects, possibly trying to ignore that for mammals it is the temperature that matters more than CO2.
Are you in agreement that increased CO2 causes an increase in the net primary productivity?
Didn’t you totally make up the rest of your post?
MM,
That’s a good question. What range of temps do mammals ‘endure’ from say 8 am to 4 pm within a days time? And what is the total temperature ‘increase’ (defined as global warming) from say 1850 to present?
Danny,
You should familiarise yourself with wet bulb temperature. Mammals cannot survive without technology (or without burrowing, maybe) in wet bulb temperatures above about 35C and there can be negative impacts at even lower values. The highest recorded is around 31C. It increases at about 0.7C per 1C of warming.
ATTP,
Thank you. Wet bulb is an area with which I’m fairly familiar. I grew up a bit south of Houston, Texas a town which likely would not even exist had it not been for the wonderful invention of one Mr. Willis Carrier.
(Sling psychchrometer from days working for Trane).
Now this was Jim D’s comment: http://judithcurry.com/2015/10/16/week-in-review-science-edition-25/#comment-737250
and my follow up question (which is unanswered by the suggestion to learn about ‘wet bulb’) http://judithcurry.com/2015/10/16/week-in-review-science-edition-25/#comment-737264
Much of the conversation is ‘relative’ (and I don’t mean regarding humidity).
I get that once it becomes (assuming it does) become extreme it’s an issue, but Jim’s indication was that those who live in the tropics might not do as well health wise as those who live in Siberia and lacking studies to support I’m not sure I’m comfortable that his indication is accurate today.
ATTP,
Maximum wet bulb temperature in Darwin Australia (as of July 2015) exceeds 30C for every month except July.
It is 36 C for five months of the year. At least according to figures appearing on the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s website, supplied by Dr Hyndman, sourced from Sports Medicine Australia. Have a look, if you wish.
You probably need to sort them out. I don’t believe the ABC would listen to me. They seem to think I’m a “denier” or something.
Maybe the Warmists (if any) at the ABC are more confused than I thought. Or maybe the people who live in Darwin are just incredibly tough. To be honest, I don’t believe the ABC figures. I don’t believe their promotion of the “evils” of CO2 either.
Oh well, maybe I’m just a natural born unbeliever. Good luck to you with pulling the relevant people into line. I reckon you’re just the man for the job.
Let me know if you need a hand.
Cheers.
Sorry, put my response here.
aTTP is apparently relying on studies from a few years ago, some of which asserted potential human extinction due to climate change. As I recall, the studies started by assuming 10C global temperature increases in order to achieve significant areas with 35C wet bulb temps.
I think his post here has earned him another “scary scenario” merit badge.
ATTP,
Your attempt to ignore the point that humankind would perish if CO2 is removed from the atmosphere is duly noted, and dismissed.
I could point out out that more people die of cold than heat, but you will of course ignore this. I thought there was a limit to Warmist foolishness, but it appears I was mistaken.
Good luck with the weaving, ducking and bobbing exercises. You might want to brush up on your diversion and obfuscation skills. People are starting to realise CO2 is plant food, and that the world has cooled since its creation.
Maybe you could call for a law against breathing. That would reduce the amount of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere. But that would just be silly, wouldn’t it? Just like every other lunatic Warmist proposal, really.
Cheers anyway.
Mike,
Your attempt at strawmanning is completely ridiculous. You aren’t interested in a serious discussion are you? That’s rhetorical, obviously.
Mike,
You do realise that breathing is carbon neutral, don’t you?
opluso,
You deserve a “didn’t bother to read or, if you did, think about it” badge. You could try not strawmanning what people say, but that appears to be the norm, so maybe it’s tought to break the mold.
Mike Flynn | October 17, 2015 at 6:31 am |
ATTP,
Maximum wet bulb temperature in Darwin Australia (as of July 2015) exceeds 30C for every month except July.”
That isn’t true, not even close. It’s Oct now, and it isn’t even true for October.
… and Then There’s Physics: Mammals cannot survive without technology (or without burrowing, maybe) in wet bulb temperatures above about 35C and there can be negative impacts at even lower values. The highest recorded is around 31C. It increases at about 0.7C per 1C of warming.
Exactly how does that support Jim D’s claim? Is there any evidence that warming since 1880 has been harmful to mammals? Is there any evidence to support the hypothesis that a further doubling of CO2 will be harmful to mammals?
aTTP:
Sorry we got crossed in postings since you did attempt to explain what you’d meant by the post I was responding to. Though you did not, in fact, dispute my reference to the original source of your wet bulb dreams.
Nonetheless, you do have a tendency to oscillate towards the “doomiest” of possibilities and I do not believe that is a random error on your part.
ATTP:
Breathing is most certainly not “neutral” at least not in the sense that most sentient people comprehend the term…we are creatures that oxidize things…that is, we create CO2 as a result of living…
By your metric everything is “carbon neutral”, because in the vast majority of reactions taking place on the planet, carbon is neither created or destroyed. Maybe if youre hanging out in Fordo, you might get to see some carbon destroyed by accident…or if you hang around some unstable isotope of carbon, you might indirectly witness its decomposition into another isotope, but really…this line of BS is beneath a thinking person. Im disappointed, but not surprised by your post
The idea that breathing doesn’t result in a net increase in CO2 is at best a misapprehension.
Ever take a biology course?
Little kenny slumming, again. It’s amusing that he comes here to get down in the mud and tussle with the unworthy curs he censors and bans on his own little lonely blog.
Breathing is of course carbon neutral, unless you are eating fossil fuel based food or deep soil. The carbon from our CO2 comes from what we eat, and that carbon comes ultimately from the atmosphere via animals and plants. It is part of the cycle.
How do you even make the connection between CO2 in the atmosphere and productivity? Temperature, yes, a negative impact for clear reasons. CO2, I don’t see it.
Jim D:
The research that actively manipulates atmospheric CO2 concentration shows that increased CO2 increases plant growth rate, or increases resistance to drought, or both. Evidence is summarized in the GWPF-sponsored review.
It isn’t that hard to “see” when you reflect that plants are made of C taken from the atmosphere via photosynthesis acting on CO2.
well, that could have been done better. This is the quote from Jim D that was supposed to be in italics: How do you even make the connection between CO2 in the atmosphere and productivity?
more on the topic here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2435.12532/abstract
It is not included in the GWPF-sponsored review.
ATTP,
You wrote –
“You do realise that breathing is carbon neutral, don’t you?”
No I don’t. Anyone who goes along with such an absurd statement is obviously either mentally deranged, or a Warmist used to passing off unsupported nonsensical assertions as fact.
Which camp do you fall into?
It looks like someone else has pointed out how misguided your statement was, but as a Warmist, you’ll no doubt continue to wallow in fantasy rather than accept fact.
How about asserting the Earth’s surface has warmed since it’s creation? Or maybe that the endless recalculations of temperature records allows you to peer into the future?
Even more silly, how about claiming you can warm something by wrapping it in CO2? I’d like to see that! Maybe you could use the principle to build a perpetual motion machine. I’ll buy the first one. How much will it cost?
Cheers.
Michael,
Hold my post a bit closer. Can you see where I wrote “To be honest, I don’t believe the ABC figures.”
This looks like more nonsense promoted by the MSM, to what end I can’t imagine. Maybe they think that people will believe that we’re all going to die from global warming.
As I said, I’m an non discriminatory unbeliever.
If the figures upset you, it’s no use complaining to me. I agree with you. Complain to the Warmists at the ABC. They might listen to you. Or maybe not.
Cheers.
MM, so you were talking about plant productivity. Do you equate that to crop growth, or what was the reasoning there? Perhaps it makes plants less nutritious? Do we know it helps?
Jim D:
“How do you even make the connection between CO2 in the atmosphere and productivity?”
“Plants process both carbon dioxide and oxygen, but they can make sugar only from the CO2. When they get an oxygen molecule instead, it’s a double whammy; not only do they not make sugar, they release one of those valuable CO2 molecules. C4 plants get their edge from cells that act as gatekeepers, keeping oxygen out and allowing only CO2 to get into the system. It’s all photosynthesis, all the time.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/in-defense-of-corn-the-worlds-most-important-food-crop/2015/07/12/78d86530-25a8-11e5-b77f-eb13a215f593_story.html
It’s framed as CO2 having value for corn production. It is an input in the production of carbohydrates. Carbon plus water. Carbon dioxide + water + light energy = carbohydrates + oxygen. If my factory was making carbohydrates, I’d have plenty of Carbon on hand. There may be an argument that plants don’t know what to do with too much CO2.
Mike Flynn | October 17, 2015 at 8:13 pm |
“Hold my post a bit closer. Can you see where I wrote “To be honest, I don’t believe the ABC figures.”
Just though ti’d help you out – is no need to believe or not believe. Checking a simple matter of fact will solve that.
Though to be honest, I should have checked more carefully – it was a comment by a skeptic, after all.
The numbers quoted in the ABC story you referred to are, in fact, correct.
While the max wet bulb temprature, that you referred to, is not over 30 deg C all year in Darwin, the wet-bulb globe temp index, as per the ABC story, is.
Just need to remind myself of my golden rule – you can trust the ‘climate skeptics’ to get the facts wrong whenever it suits their ideological position to do so.
Jim D: Do we know it helps?
At least now you see the connection, right? Increased plant food (CO2) increases the plant productivity.
Would you bet the world on the plant food overcoming all the negative factors?
Jim D: Would you bet the world on the plant food overcoming all the negative factors?
First, absorb the fact that the evidence supports improved plant growth with increased CO2. Let it sink in. There is no evidence that increased CO2 harms plant growth in any way, and there is evidence that increased CO2 increases crop yields and net primary productivity of natural vegetation.
How much to bet against what other threats there might be can be done after absorbing that fact: the evidence supports the claim that increased CO2 has net direct beneficial effects on plant growth. You don’t want to be an “evidence denier”, do you? The evidence to date supports the hypothesis that increased CO2 increases crop yields and increased primary productivity of natural vegetation.
Second, absorb the fact that the reviews of the evidence, such as the paper by O’Gorman et al, support the hypothesis that increased mean temperatures causes increased rainfall. That follows from models and from empirical studies. It was in the Romps et al paper as well. Once again, you do not want to be an “evidence denier”! Warming increases water vapor and rainfall. That’s the evidence to date. It is within your rights to have beliefs in defiance of the evidence, but you should at least accept what the evidence is, whether you believe it or not. The evidence to date is that increased warming produces increased water vapor and increased rainfall.
CO2 enhances plant growth. Warm increases atmospheric water vapor and rainfall.
Danny
“That’s a good question. What range of temps do mammals ‘endure’ from say 8 am to 4 pm within a days time? And what is the total temperature ‘increase’ (defined as global warming) from say 1850 to present?”
Very bad questions and off topic. try again
MM, the IPCC do weigh up that CO2 helps plant growth against all the other factors around warming. It is not something that is denied, but it is only a part of the picture. People like Goklany and Dyson have a simplistic one-dimensional view based on greening, and just do not consider the big picture or any of the negatives at all. It’s all green fields and roses for them, and a lot of people want to hear that too.
Got a minute?
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/10/17/green-vegan-liberal-sees-light-climate-change/
See the light.
Who’s gonna collect my welfare? Pay for my Cadillac?
===================
Michael,
Yes. I noticed that the ABC, in the best Warmist tradition, presented the scary “Average Wet Bulb Temperature. . . ” as the title of the large graphic, and hid the crucially important “Wet Bulb Globe Temperature” in small print at the bottom.
It didn’t fool you, but it certainly sucked in ATTP, and no doubt others (just a guess, of course).
But it does get a little more interesting. I don’t know if you are aware that the Australian BOM doesn’t actually measure the WBGT. It says “Because the Bureau of Meteorology uses an approximation to the WBGT, the user should clearly understand the limitations of this approximation as compared to a real measured WBGT. ”
So the scary title doesn’t mean what it seems to, and even the fine print doesn’t point out the limitations of the metric in any case.
It all sounds like Warmist “business as usual” to me.
Or maybe just another string of unavoidable and minor mistakes by the very knowledgeable ABC journalists, do you think?
Cheers.
Mike Flynn | October 18, 2015 at 12:20 pm |
“Yes. I noticed that the ABC, in the best Warmist tradition, presented the scary “Average Wet Bulb Temperature. . . ” as the title of the large graphic, and hid the crucially important “Wet Bulb Globe Temperature” in small print at the bottom.”
Yet more dissembling from Mike Flynn. Another example of my Golden Rule for ‘Skeptcis’.
There’s no “small print at the bottom” – the wet buld temp index is explained in the 3rd para, first quote from Dr Hyndman.
“There is a negative correlation globally between both health and wealth with temperature. Warmer countries tend to be poorer with shorter lifespans. This isn’t a coincidence. It is related to an additional stress factor from working outside in hot conditions, and the increased presence of insects and diseases.”
Wow, you actually said this? So much for your already thin credibility Jim D.
It’s funny, a person could read so many of your comments, and get the idea that you are really intelligent, and well-versed on climate science…and then you come up with this – this – this total embarrassment of a comment.
Ha ha ha. You really stepped in it this time Jim D. The correlation you cite is just that, correlation and nothing more. My evidence?
Singapore – a very wealthy country with very few natural resources. Much wealthier than the U.S. by purchasing power per capita. Right on the Equator. 5.4 million people live there.
Hong Kong – Very wealthy and pretty hot there too. 7.8 million people thriving in the heat.
Equatorial Guinea and Gabon – wealthiest countries in Africa. Right on the equator.
Taiwan – 23 million people living closer to the equator than anywhere in the continental U.S. except Miami (a pretty wealthy city BTW). They are wealthier than Belgium and Canada.
Australia – 23 million living pretty large – one of the twenty richest nations. most of the nation closer to the equator.
Plus Hawaii – shouldn’t they be poorer than the rest of the country by your measuring stick? Hmmm – They are the state that the fewest people would leave if they could, and they are the 8th wealthiest state in the union.
I could go on…
Sorry Jim D, but heat ain’t got nothin to do with it. Just a coincidence due to European migration patterns and economic and political cultures.
This is the “let them have air-conditioning” argument. Tell that to people in Africa, India, Bangladesh. These are the vulnerable agrarian populations that happen to also be in warm countries where the climate is not about to help them.
“Let them have air conditioning”? You are talking nonsense Jim D.
The reason the populations you cite are “agrarian” and “vulnerable” has nothing to do with climate, and everything to do with politics and economics. You’re just picking tropical poor countries and acting as if they have to be poor because it’s hot there. I already gave several examples in Asia and Africa that are right on the equator, but doing fine economically in spite of the heat, but you conveniently ignored them.
Your game is easy to play Jim D. How about the poor people of Nepal in those cold-a$$ mountains? How about the Inuit? How long do those people up in Siberia live? The average lifespan of a Russian man is supposedly 64 years.
http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2014/01/31/Twenty-five-percent-of-Russian-men-die-before-the-age-of-55/53201391229919/
By contrast, the average lifespan in Bangladesh is 70.3 years.
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=life+span+in+bangladesh
No Jim D. I’m sorry, but you lose this one. But thanks for playing. Please don’t dig yourself any deeper.
You can deny that there are large populations vulnerable to climate change, but thankfully the UN doesn’t, and neither hopefully do many of its nation members. There may be billions of people whose livelihoods are threatened or degraded by the new normal and new extremes introduced by a several-degree temperature change that shifts the summer seasonal average at most land locations by many standard deviations over this next century. In a typical location, the coldest summers of the future will match the hottest extreme now. That will leave a mark even on those with a/c. And we haven’t even counted sea-level and ocean acidification yet.
Jim D: a several-degree temperature change that shifts the summer seasonal average at most land locations by many standard deviations over this next century.
More made up ****. Is it that you don’t know anything?
Summer time, trah lah, and the livin’ is eeasy,
… except when yer have a year without Summer
like 1816 with its major food shortages across the
northern hemisphere, failed harvests in Britain and
Ireland, demos and lootin’ in European cities.
Except another bad Summer like the Summer of 1788
a significant historical date, and the storm that swept
across Northern France on July 13th, when hailstones
killed men and animals and devastated hundreds of miles
of crops on the eve of harvest, half-way through a veritable
catastrophic year followed by the longest coldest winter in
living history.
The serfs weren’t happy.
Surprising that there is still this automated belief that warmer=drier for Africa, ME and Asia. Still, if nobody checks…
By the way, I have no idea if a global temp is a useful fact or useless factoid, but marked coolings over big areas too often coincide with dynastic strains and migration periods. When it comes to making populations shift, the droughts which come with cooling can out-do even Merkel and whoever had the bright idea of toppling Gaddafi.
If temperature does have any effect on life expectancy, it pales into insignificance against myriad other factors.
Besides which, until relatively recently in human history, life expectancy in today’s civilised countries wasn’t that great either.
MM, I will just assume you don’t know about the IPCC reports. Several degrees by 2100, yes, that is what the scientists say. This should not be new, and you can swear as much as you like at their projections.
Jim D,
You wrote –
“Several degrees by 2100, yes, that is what the scientists say.”
Oh I see. A scientist said it, so it must be true! Would you like me to provide a list of things that real scientists said were true, ie factual, but turned out to be wildly incorrect. Do a bit of your own research first, if you like. You might like to start with Lord Kelvin, or Trofim Lysenko.
You choose to believe a ragtag mob of second rate fortune tellers who claim to be able to look into the future. Good for you! You have the brains to realise that these fools provide predictions for no charge (being fully funded by the taxpayer of course), whereas professional fortune tellers have to make a living by making good enough predictions that they get repeat business.
Opinions are worth what you pay for them. Climatologists’ opinions cost you nothing, and have the same value at most.
What preparations have you made on the basis that the predictions of doom come to pass? Or are you all mouth and no trousers? It’s not too late to move to Patagonia or Siberia you know! Good luck with your precautions.
Cheers.
Jim D | October 18, 2015 at 2:04 am |
And we haven’t even counted sea-level and ocean acidification yet.
The coal ash is 10% by weight of the burned coal. The coal ash is what is left of plants after you burn the carbon away.
Coal ash is caustic. This is why it is a disposal problem on land. The obvious thing to do is dump the 60% of coal ash that isn’t used, after 40% is used for concrete, back into the ocean. CO2 + coal ash is complete plant nutrition.
We could just dump it into the rivers (they flow to the sea), or for a more beneficial effect dump it directly into the nutritionally starved core ocean. Either way it will all mix together with the CO2 emissions eventually.
Since only about 1/3 of the CO2 is going into the ocean and we have 60% of the coal ash available we can make the ocean more alkaline (than it is now) if that would please global warmers, for only about 6% of the cost of shipping the original coal.
Let them have air-conditioning. That means let them have abundant energy from fossil fuels. Alarmists are preventing them from a better life.
I live in Houston. We have abundant energy and we have air conditioning. Houston started doing very well, even before air conditioning. Houston started doing well because Houston has abundant, affordable energy.
Houston is getting more and more people and businesses from California where they are taking away the abundant, affordable energy.
Warm places do just fine when there is plenty of water and abundant, affordable energy.
Trees reap benefits of climate change The Australian 17/10/2015
A huge field experiment on Sydney’s fringe has revealed an ¬upside to climate change: trees capitalising on abundant carbon dioxide to make up for a lack of water.
Scientists studying tracts of bush near the Hawkesbury River have found Australian trees feed themselves more efficiently under the higher CO2 concentrations predicted for 2050. “Either they use the same amount of water but they do more photosynthesis, or they do the same amount of photosynthesis but use less water,” said Belinda Medlyn, a theoretical ¬biologist with Western Sydney University. “Either they’re getting more carbon for the same amount of water, or they’re getting the same amount of carbon but using less water.”
The findings, published in the journal Functional Ecology, have emerged from the first three years of what the university bills as Australia’s largest climate change research experiment. Since 2012, the researchers have pumped extra CO2into three of six basketball court-sized rings of 80-year-old bush. This has raised the CO2 concentration in the three plots to about 550 parts per million, up from the ambient level of 400 ppm.
Measurements revealed that for each unit of water absorbed, the trees in the CO2-enriched rings reaped 35 per cent more carbon than the trees in the control plots.
The Hawkesbury study is the first in the world involving ¬mature native forest, and demonstrates the benefits of extra CO2 in typical Australian woodland with low-nutrient soil.
Professor Medlyn stressed that the ¬experiment had analysed extra CO2 only “at the leaf scale”, with more work needed to observe the effects on whole plants and communities. Hotter conditions would probably cancel out benefits of higher CO2.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/trees-reap-benefits-ofnbspclimate-change/story-e6frg8y6-1227572132164 (paywall)
I’m sure travelling south, like Congo, puts my health in danger, and getting into Afghanistan could be too hot, but I really, really wonder if it is the temperature and not the anthropogenic local culture.
There is no man as blind as a young man with an ideology.
Jim D,
Better not let that little gem of knowledge get out to all of the retirees in FL and AZ
Re the Royal Society humourous piece on knowledge about climate change.
Here I was, thinking that an advance in thinking will happen one day when a way is found to separate natural variations from man-made ones.
That better estimates of climate sensitivity might then be possible?
How did I miss not only that day, but also the scientific details of the method?
Was it not a week ago that JC aired an article about some scientists fooling themselves and others?
What a load of imaginative claptrap.
It should not be confused with proper science.
Oh well, I suppose it had to happen. I read the “paper”.
A humorous piece indeed. What else could be expected from a seasoned troupe of Klimate Klowns. Side splitting – I laughed till I cried!
Your review was not positive enough, for such a tour-de-farce. You wrote – “What a load of imaginative claptrap.” I would be so effusive as to characterise it (with your kind permission), as a giant steaming pile of stinking ordure, merely modestly masquerading as a load of imaginative claptrap.
Let us not damn the authors with faint praise! I await the next production of the Klowns with bated breath. Can they plunge to dizzying new depths with each more ludicrous performance?
The world wonders!
Cheers.
Dr Curry,
Do you think it might be worth doing a blog post on the
Philippe Verdier situation? I think it highlights the issue of the politicisation of science you have been discussing a lot recently especially when you consider the motivation for writing the book and the response to its publication. If you weigh the response to the Charlie Hebdo shooting and a book highlighting concerns about science and politics, it rather exposes considerable hypocrisy.
agnostic2015, several bloggers have posted on Verdier: Bishop Hill, James Delingpole, Marc Morano, myself: https://thelukewarmersway.wordpress.com/2015/10/14/climate-purge-in-paris-in-advance-of-cop-21/
I guess freedom of speech isn’t as important as it used to be–note Judith’s link in this post to what’s happening at UCLA. (OTOH, a frat party celebrating Kanye West and Kim Kardashian? Maybe higher education isn’t as important as it used to be…sigh…)
Be careful not to confuse America’s guarantee of political “free speech” against the government with rights (or lack thereof) in other countries. Nor should it be conflated with a right to annoy one’s employer.
Hi Thomas,
Yes I know it has been covered by other bloggers but the issues the case raise are topical at Climate Etc at the moment. I also think Judith carrying stuff like this carries a bit more weight. She is a practising climate scientist who is outspoken about scientific integrity and keeping politics out of science, and this situation plays to those issues closely.
Now, a word from a science that can produce testable hypotheses. Or perhaps, it isn’t science if it can’t.
From the article:
…
While both the classical and quantum approach are extremely accurate in their respective regimes, what happens in the intersection of the two regimes is still unclear. We don’t have a rigorous theory combining our classical and quantum models. We also don’t have certain key observational evidence, particularly in the nexus of quantum theory and gravity. But as quantum experiments increasingly study more massive objects and gravity experiments become increasingly sensitive, we’re approaching the point where “quantum gravity” experiments could be made. That’s the goal of a recently proposed experiment.
Since there isn’t yet a unified theory of quantum gravity, folks have instead focused on approximate approaches. One such approach is to add gravity to quantum theory a little bit at a time. This perturbative approach quantizes objects and their gravitational fields, and it works well for weak gravitational fields. One of the predictions of this approach is the existence of gravitons as the field quanta of gravity, much like photons are the field quanta of electromagnetism. However with stronger gravitational fields the approach becomes problematic. Basically, perturbative gravity builds upon itself in a way that is unphysical, so the model breaks down.
Another approach is known as the semi-classical method. Here gravity is treated as a field of space and time just as Einstein proposed, but the objects in spacetime are treated as quantum objects. The most famous prediction of this model is the Hawking radiation of black holes. The semi-classical model is not without its problems, particularly with strong gravitational fields, but for weak gravitational fields it reduces to the Schrödinger–Newton equation, which describes quantum objects interacting through classical Newtonian gravity.
…
http://www.forbes.com/sites/briankoberlein/2015/10/16/a-new-experiment-may-determine-whether-gravity-is-quantized/
For those who did not notice the twitter note about Dr. Curry speaking at the Oct 30 Cato conference, here is the URL:
http://www.cato.org/events/preparing-paris-what-expect-uns-2015-climate-change-conference
Thanks for the reminder.
So this “Week in review – science edition” includes a link to a non-peer reviewed bespoke publication from the GWP and a puff piece about it on breitbart.com, a reprint of an eight-year old popular article on comparative planetary climatology, a rambling hack piece on climate change history from the National Review, blog posts from NoTricksZone and joannenova.com and a snarky comment about a peer-reviewed article in the PhilTransRoySoc A?
Has Dr. Curry drifted so far away from mainstream science that she’s forgotten what it means?
Being peer reviewed, and being published in the PhilTransRoySoc A, elevates an article above any snarky comments.
AMGEN could only reproduce 11% of peer reviewed studies.
The hockey stick slid through peer-review pretty easily. The checkerspot butterfly study got a pass too.
Peer review and $5 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
There should be another level of review for any study used for government consumption where the reviewers actually read the paper, look at the methodology, and examine the data. The reviewers should get a 50% bonus for rejecting the study for cause and a 100% bonus for discovering evidence of malfeasance. The government should be banned by law from using any study that hasn’t both passed the deliberately hostile review process and transparently disclosed all information.
To the extent that the AMO is fundamentally wind-driven, the conclusion that the atmosphere drives it seems almost tautological.
Judith
Don’t know if you saw this from Susan crockford which states there has been no trend in west Hudson ice since 2001 .
http://polarbearscience.com/2015/10/13/western-hudson-bay-polar-bear-numbers-are-stable-no-trend-in-ice-breakup-or-freeze-up/
The arctic divides naturally into a number of different areas, it would be interesting to know the trends in each of them this century
Tonyb
The Sea of Okhotsk (which is not polar bear habitat) has seen a significant decline in maximum ice coverage during the satellite era. It contributes much of the overall trend in declining “arctic” ice since the late 1970s.
Opluso
Averages prevent us seeing the nuances of the situation whether it is Land temperatures sea temperatures or arctic ice.
Tonyb
opluso,
I’m not disagreeing with you, but I support climatereason as to usefulness or otherwise of averages.
You might think an average temperature of 25C would be quite nice. Unfortunately, this might relate to a location in the Libyan Desert, being an average of 50 C and 0 C. I know this is extreme, but it’s the extremes that are likely to kill you.
Ice coverage in any particular area seems to vary. I’m not sure whether anybody can predict it in any useful sense. I keep thinking of the “Ship of Fools” getting stuck in the very ice that the “fools” were sure was vanishing due to global warming or some such.
I just figured out that if I start with a double Laphroig, and drink it all, the the average of the initial two and and the final nothing, or zero is one, so I can drink twice as many, and tell my wife that I only consumed the equivalent of a single double! (On average, that is.)
Apologies. Only joking. Cheers.
Never try ter cross a river that is on average four feet deep.
beththeserf,
Dang me! Good one!
My experiments with averages obviously induced a bit of retrograde amnesia.
How about the company that installed two toilet cubicles, and installed two toilet paper dispensers in one cubicle only, on the basis that, on average, there was one toilet paper dispenser per cubicle?
Stop! Stop! I give up!
Cheers.
Mike Flynn:
The Sea of Okhotsk is quite important as a nutrient driver in the northern Pacific and changes in its ice regime can have serious consequences. However, impacting the arctic ice pack is not one of them.
The custom of including Okhotsk/Sea of Japan ice in the broader average creates a false impression of actual arctic conditions. I wonder if it started during the satellite era (almost typed error)?
I have nothing against the use of averages when they make sense and enhance, rather than degrade, our understanding of the phenomena being examined.
Try growing my bamboo with an eye just on average annual rainfall rather than spring shooting rainfall, summer humidity levels, allowance for winter stressing, and autumn falls for rhizome development.
Monthly averages can indeed tell you a lot about what to expect over the long term, but you can forget annual averages. Average annual rainfall can be perfect, achieved annual rainfall can be perfectly on that perfect average…but it is about as meaningful as those min/max readings which don’t tell you how long it was hot or cold for and how much cloud was about to scramble the whole record. Factoids.
It’s like Alan Border’s Test average. It’s not a matter of how much…but of HOW. When I was young it was a mark of education that you were instantly skeptical of statistics, and for easily understood reasons. All changed now. Ravenous Publish-or-Perish will gobble all the stats and factoids you can manufacture.
From Carbon Brief’s interview with Gavin:
“And one of the things that we’ve found is that in some of the calculations where they come up with a slightly lower number there are some systematic problems with those kind of calculations that mean that that’s not really a valid response and it really should be little bit higher, in line with the estimates that have comes from paleoclimate, which I think are the more robust ones.”
Is this as absurd as I think it is?
Salute the brave soccer moms fighting the carbon wars through the trenches and barbed blogs with their suburban assault vehicles.
=============
True, what unites SUV-driving soccer moms in the global warming war is their embrace of technology.
I’ve long considered Techno-Optimists vs Malthusian DoomSayers to not even be a sporting contest. Yet look at the field.
======================
The Lewandowsky article is a comprehensive review of several other studies related to uncertainty and decisionmaking and overlaps with themes that Judith frequently addresses. Several of the reviewed articles refer to the idea that climate change is too complex and uncertain to predict all its consequences. Under these conditions, where uncertainty increases by degree with climate change, the best course is to reduce climate change itself which is the surest way to reduce risk. Another paper tells us that uncertainty is not the friend of cooperation. Given a 50% chance of a poor outcome, people will not cooperate to reduce it, but when it rises to 90%, they will. The skepticism merchants play to this aspect of psychology in the hopes of no cooperation. Other work tells us that planning on past trends is better than planning on hopes of a reduced trend regardless of whether mitigation is attempted or not. These are all highly relevant studies, and this article makes a good summary. We need Judith to try to rebuff point by point rather than dismiss via Pile what this area of research is saying because sowing uncertainty is her main effort these days. It deserves attention and debate here.
Nasty little clown. Judith is not sowing uncertainty. She is calling it as she sees it. That is science. You should stop gratuitously insulting Judith, if you want to have any credibility here.
“Given a 50% chance of a poor outcome, people will not cooperate to reduce it, but when it rises to 90%, they will.” Lying for a Cause is a good lie. Concentration camps for disbelievers come next.
OK, JimD. Flip that switch and reduce climate change. The world awaits your magic touch.
I’m not going to call Jim D insulting names. I wish others would also resist the ugly temptation.
Nevertheless, we’ve gone from consensus assertions of near-absolute certainty over CO2 impacts to admissions that great uncertainty remains. I suppose that is progress.
Unfortunately, their proposed response is the same for each tail of this uncertainty curve. I suppose that is to be expected of policy advocates.
The world has a very poor record of responding to uncertainty – just think WMD for starters
Read the article, people. None of these comments show that anyone has a clue what it says. Try some rebuttals, even. Judith puts these up for people to read and consider, and posts Pile’s snide, but baseless and unreferenced, remark alongside to give you comfort when faced with expert opinion.
Jimd
Ok, at your recommendation I have read the article which seems unremarkable but undoubtedly Expresses alarm and that the uncertainty is only likely to mean agw is worse than we might hope.
What is the Ben pile reference about?
Tonyb
My guess is that Ben Pile’s only response was a Twitter remark, which is a normal means of unsubstantiated sniping by this group. The articles referenced are free too, and the Risbey one on betting based on 15-year trends (relevant because of the pause) is also of interest if you want to delve deeper.
tonyb, your comment seems to have missed the mark on what they were saying. They are not saying that AGW is worse than we thought, but that more uncertainty should lead to more action rather than inaction. This comes down to probabilities and optimal risk reduction policies.
Jimd
I thought I said exactly what you subsequently said at 3 .38 so I haven’t missed the point.
I took the opportunity of looking at some of the references that the authors use to support their arguments. In particular Ref 14
I happen to know a great deal about the subject having been appointed to the UK environment agency flood defence committee by defra because of the year 2000 floods that the authors reference as proof of climate change. It is a shame the authors did not delve deeper.
The EA is a govt agency and therefore subject to political pressure. They were told to investigate the (assumed) climate change induced event by the deputy prime minister, John Prescott, a man of little talent Who was responsible for climate change matters in the Blair govt and as far as I am aware will be feeding at the Paris trough in a few weeks time. The Two Subsequent chairs of the EA were also politically appointed, both being labour govt supporters.
The floods were not the worst since records began in 1766 . I have had this out with the met office who based the data on models prepared by Phil jones. We do not have rainfall records back to 1766 .
The EA were told to pin the blame on climate change which the top people were happy to do as this would increase funding and satisfy the politicians, but those on the ground were less happy.
Whilst there was doubtedly a lot of rain in autumn 2000 the prime causes for flooding were lack of coordination of agencies, building on flood plains and inability to maintain the watercourses with an aversion to dredging. This latter being a prime cause of the flooding in Somerset a couple of years ago. This Lack of maintenance was due to environmental reasons, with wild life being considered more important than people. ( Our local EA office was obsessed with the well being of water voles.)
The ea eventually concurred that climate change could not be blamed, or only peripherally. This article sums it up well. In particular see the top of page 8
http://variable-variability.blogspot.co.uk/
I hope the remainder of the papers references are more robust that reference 14 but fortunately for the authors I have neither the time nor the inclination to find out
Tonyb
From Section 3 of Lewandowsky, et al.:
No, they don’t. Reading a few and skimming others convinced me they are intended to give a veneer of legitimacy to the same policy prescriptions we’ve been hearing for three decades, or more. Most of them are slanted assumptions squeezed into ill-fitting analysis. Largely a waste of time but perhaps you could point out a couple that are worthy of more specific debate.
Even Lewandowsky admits climate uncertainty is not manufactured by skeptics but is the result of actual gaps in our knowledge. If you want to convince people to join your crusade, improve the relevant science. I can promise you that it will not work to simply declare “The sky is probably falling so trust us to take over a significant portion of the world’s economy.”
From Section 3 of Lewandowsky, et al.:
No, they don’t. Reading a few and skimming others convinced me they are intended to give a veneer of legitimacy to the same policy prescriptions we’ve been hearing for three decades, or more. Most of them are slanted assumptions squeezed into ill-fitting analysis. Largely a waste of time but perhaps you could point out a couple that are worthy of more specific debate.
Even Lewandowsky admits climate uncertainty is not manufactured by skeptics but is the result of actual gaps in our knowledge. If you want to convince people to join your crusade, improve the relevant science. I can promise you that it will not work to simply declare “The sky is probably falling so trust us to take over a significant portion of the world’s economy.”
(apologies if this comment is a repost — the original attempt disappeared. WordPress is a source of great uncertainty so I think we should turn it over to Lewandowsky, et al.)
You have got it all screwed up, yimmy. Purposely, no doubt. The alarmists are claiming that some degree of catastrophe is a certainty. That is what you characters are frantically trying to sell. The rest of us are unconvinced, due to a lack of evidence and a reasonable suspicion that the climate catastrophe Chicken Littles are self-aggrandizing hysterical exaggerators, by nature. Uncertainty is not good for the cause. Period.
tonyb, they only use reference 14 from a Nature paper as an example of how people use uncertainty. They are not endorsing it, and are trying to show different ways these things have been done in the past. So what you cite is an example that maybe you didn’t like personally for some reason, but does not pertain to what they are trying to say about those methods in their overview.
Don, no, the point is that adding uncertainty as the skeptics want to do actually leads to more need for action rather than less, so is counterproductive to what they really want, which is no action. If they want no action they have to show there will be no damage, not say that they are even less certain than the climate scientists about the future.
That is some convoluted BS, yimmy. We ain’t saying we are less certain than the alarmist climate scientists. You jokers are trying to sell the certainty of catastrophe. We are not buying it. You are desperate for action and you ain’t getting what you want. It’s on you to prove it’s necessary. If you want to admit to uncertainty, that’s fine with us. Uncertainty is the opposite of what you are claiming. Doesn’t help your story at all, little fella. Carry on with your foolishness. Your cred here is just about zero.
Don, well there is a lot of doubletalk of the type you just did. On the one hand you don’t like the amount of certainty, meaning you are less certain, but on the other hand you are certain that the climate scientists are wrong with the sensitivity. It is hard to know what to make of it, and it is not just you doing this here.
Fog bank? You shouldn’t even be in a car. Even in the best conditions they are known to kill.
zero
Jim D, your car used to do 0 to 2035 in seconds but now it’s just another no brainer head twister. What is your best guess now, back to the demolition derby? Good luck with that…see you around next time.
People like to discuss tipping points.
If you look at real data, there clearly is two tipping points.
When Earth is warm, it always tips toward cooler. Cause it snows more.
When Earth is cool, it always tips toward warmer. Cause it snows less.
Nothing follows from uncertainty.
You are driving into a fog bank of uncertainty. Do you say that no action is the best action?
You certainly don’t let the abominable snow man drive the car.
You are driving into a fog bank of uncertainty and a person who cannot drive a car (but is a wizard at climate modeling) demands control of the vehicle. In that case, I think I’ll hang onto the wheel a bit longer.
The worst you can do is stop and risk being rear-ended by a 40-ton artic
OK, some people couldn’t figure out the answer, which is you slow down until you are more certain of what is ahead of you. There is a parallel with emissions, for those who missed that and thought I was only talking about driving safety. Glad to help. Safe driving.
Your metaphor, like your policy, is worthless. Mosher is correct. Uncertainty is no basis for extreme action, how could it be?
Uncertainty is a spectacular opportunity to vacuum everybody’s bank account and to deposit the proceeds in the team’s accounts, while complaining about inequality.
“Mosher is correct. Uncertainty is no basis for extreme action, how could it be?
Except that is not what I said
“Nothing follows from uncertainty.”
Simply: nothing, logically, follows from a statement that we do not know.
Our EXTREME ACTIONS of pumping gigatons of C02, are not justified by a statement of uncertainty. Neither would EXTREME ACTIONS to stop this be justified by uncertainty.
what follows from uncertainty is guided by pragmatism, fear, hope,.. all very squishy. Its part of the reason both sides look extreme to each other.
Jim D,
Following from your own logic, I assume you are in a Church, or a Synagogue, or a Mosque, or a Buddist Temple, or all of them and more, multiple times a week. There is nothing as uncertain, (unprovable or disprovable via logic) as the existence of God and no more terrifying outcome than the possibility of going to hell.
If CAGW proponents continue to evoke the logic of Pascal’s Wager, then they need to live by that logic and get on their knees and pray.
If they do not, then they do not really believe in Pascal’s wager.
So Jim D, how many deities do you pray to and ask forgiveness from weekly? Because if you are not absolutely terrified of hell or being reincarnated as a dung beetle, your clearly don’t believe in your own argument.
charles, what you do as a precaution for yourself is judged very differently from what you do as a precaution for others. There are risk takers, but as long as they don’t put other people in danger, fine, let them. Individual decisions are not the same as societal decisions.
Silly analogy, yimmy. If we see a fog bank, we will pull over. If we see some clown at the side of the road with a hand lettered sign “FOG BANK STOP!” and it’s only partly cloudy, we keep driving.
Bur mosh…we dont pump “gigatons” of CO2 into the atmosphere because we are uncertain..we do because we are certain: we are certain that mass death and destruction of civilization will result from us stopping right now… do you deny this?
If so, youre a prat, an asshat, a pompous bloviating fool.
So, why dont you give up your electricity..your clean water…your natural gas delivered to your home…your precious homestead in berkley…
then you can opine.
hypocrite.
Jim D
“charles, what you do as a precaution for yourself is judged very differently from what you do as a precaution for others. There are risk takers, but as long as they don’t put other people in danger, fine, let them. Individual decisions are not the same as societal decisions.”
You missed charles argument.
His argument is this. You want to argue that the precautionary principle is a good thing. Charles is asking you if you apply that principle universally. Well you dont. And the reason why you dont is simple.
The precautionary principle is just used as an excuse to give the aura of rationality to your fear.
Here is the problem: you fear climate change. Others fear economic damage. Some people worry about leaving a broken planet to their children some people worry about leaving mountains of debt. and expensive electricity. You know bad weather kills. they know poverty kills
Your fear and their fear can never have a rational discussion.
you use the precautionary principle to manage your climate fears.. and charles is asking why you dont use that same approach with the fear of hell. get on your knees… it;s free.
david I don’t live in berkeley. can’t stand liberals.
I lived in Berkeley, CA in 1962-64 but I understand the connection between the integrity of government and government science:
https://reclaimourrepublic.wordpress.com/2015/10/19/politicians-fight-for-the-truth-leave-the-details-up-to-god/
david
‘Bur mosh…we dont pump “gigatons” of CO2 into the atmosphere because we are uncertain..we do because we are certain: we are certain that mass death and destruction of civilization will result from us stopping right now… do you deny this?
Notice that I didnt argue that we pump gigatons of c02 because we are uncertain. read harder.
Second, I certainty dont advocate stopping right now or in the near future..
read harder.
So far you havent learned your lesson about arguing by using strawmen or rhetorical questions.
pity
Jim D,
Cop out of epic proportions.
If you BELIEVE your own logic, you must be TERRIFIED of the afterlife enough to do whatever is necessary for your own well-being.
The other option based on what you wrote above, is that collectively, the vast majority of CAGW proponents have less concern for their own well-being than the worst of drug addicts, or sloppy petty criminals.
But your cop out of: individual vs. public well-being doesn’t even work:
Not only should YOU be going to a dozen churches a week, you need to be out proselytizing, and convincing others to worship with you. Instead of posting here, you need actively go out and try save the souls of those you know and every atheist you can solicit on the Internet. You need to be standing on a street corner with an The End is Nigh sign. You need to be working with groups who are trying to spread the word of God. Ever CAGW proponent who is willing to invoke the logic of Pascal’s Wager needs to jump on the religion bandwagon if they are to have any logical consistency.
Face it, you are a hypocrite, you do not believe the logic you are claiming should motivate public policy. It’s a talking point which you refuse to take to its logical conclusion.
The precautionary principle is applied in any regulations that protect the environment, public safety, etc. When there are known hazards and ways to avoid them by restricting certain things, we do them as a society with rules and regulations. Now we see the ‘but poverty’ argument as a reason for everyone including the wealthy countries to keep on doing what they are doing. These arguments forget that if there is one thing more important to the UN than climate change, it is their decadal targets to reduce poverty globally, which they just reaffirmed recently with the 2030 agenda for sustainable development, so poverty is a straw man. In fact, it is from the perspective of the poorer countries that the UN views climate change as a major risk for increasing poverty, which is why they take it so seriously. Affordable clean energy and climate action are just two of their 17 sustainable development goals. So, actually the ‘but poverty’ argument has it backwards. Do we stop emissions tomorrow? No, we can’t. Do we phase it out as fast as technology permits? Yes, why not. That is why Paris is aimed at a phased approach.
Jim D – there is a known hazard of an earthquake in California, Oregon, and Washington (and many other places). There are building codes that would prevent structures from collapsing in a M7 quake. Does the precautionary principle say that everything should be built to withstand a M9 quake? Do you believe that a precautionary principle means “shit in your pants in an anticipation of a disaster”?
Jim D:
That is something that most skeptics believe is going to happen with or without Paris (or the UN, for that matter).
Steven Mosher:
Exactly. The debate arises from the underlying premises. Our premises shape and filter the way we interpret the world around us. Arguing about climatological conclusions is having no impact on the respective premises.
Moshe, the fears are assymetric; one existentially real, the other a hobgoblin of imagined dangers and inappropriate guilt.
================
opluso, yes, something may happen anyway because now people are aware of the negative consequences of GHG emissions, but the UN reaffirms that this is a common goal and can make laggard countries feel more compelled than they otherwise might be to do something.
CG, there are communities on the west coast that only allow schools to be built above a tsunami inundation level. You may think that is just too precautionary. Different people have different opinions on what they would risk.
Jim D, in the case of the fog bank, you slow down as much as you dare, or can.
Because, although you’re not certain of what’s ahead, there’s a good chance that nothing much is going to change.
But you’re a lot more certain of the dangers from behind.
Same with emissions – you slow down as much as you can – but no more.
The analogy can be stretched further. Slowing down doesn’t work unless everyone does. Same with emissions.
JIM D
“The precautionary principle is applied in any regulations that protect the environment, public safety, etc.”
Notice the passive voice. you make it sound like the PP is just automatic. like it just happens.. that nobody decides.
You recommended the PP.
You think it makes sense
Charles asks you why the same logic doesnt apply WRT hell
Your answer was to avoid the question
So you’re not going to slow down unless everyone else does – even if they can’t?
People will only change as much as technology allows.
peter, that is where the analogy breaks down. It needs cooperation, or at least a hope that everyone is making the one sane choice.
The best response to little yimmy’s goofey analogies is to succinctly ridicule and move on. He’ll bog you down in foolishness.
Steve M, I made it very clear that the PP applies very differently when making personal choices of risk versus societal ones. It is like comparing what you would do as a racecar driver versus a bus driver. Both have to apply a sort of PP, but that does not lead to the same decisions. The example given was of an individual choice, which has no relevance to societal choices. Societal PP choices lead to resilience building, for example. These are usually practical choices based on probabilities. Are probabilities “fear” as you imply? I don’t think so. I think they are pragmatically derived estimates from what is known. People buy insurance as a form of PP too. It is not fear, but probabilities, that guide these decisions.
Jim D,
Not the best approach: “The example given was of an individual choice, which has no relevance to societal choices.”
What is being asked is for others to accept the ‘societal choices’ being made for them all the while ‘individuals’ are choosing to ‘burn away’. That those more climate concerned cannot see the hypocrisy in this kind of thinking is something that I cannot comprehend. Should enough ‘individuals’ (starting from the side of those more climate concerned) make choices which indicates a true level of concern it should have the positive impacts they so desire and should lay the groundwork for others to follow assuming the desired changes come about.
Driving giant SUV’s, jet setting, and living the ‘good life’ all while standing up and saying how awful others are for not accepting an imposed change on lifestyle makes no sense.
Your indications are that imposing change is a requirement for progress. I think showing change (leading by example) might just have more meaning.
Societal choices are often being made for people. Look at CFC and sulfate legislation or restricting pollutants. On an individual level, requiring driving insurance or seatbelts. This is not something new. Stricter gas mileage standards will soon mean that you will find it harder to buy a gas guzzler. Light bulbs are changing, as is your power production. I welcome these because they are more effective than individual voluntary actions.
Jim D,
I understand that ‘society’ imposes’ regulations, but seat belts? What was the level of uncertainty on which this decision making occurred? There are defined and economically sound reasoning behind energy efficiency standards. Pollution is the same when dumping certain toxins in a watershed contributes to known negative impacts. It’s a bit different in the climate conversation and ‘known negative impacts’ and I think even you can acknowledge same.
You are saying central estimates of 4 C are either unlikely or not so bad. That is your judgement. Others, more in the know, and in the majority, judge it differently, and look to restrict those actions that force the climate.
Jim D,
First, I’m not saying 4C is ‘unlikely or not so bad’. What I’ve read recently is a backtracking off of 4C to about 1.5 C (down from 2C being a threshold) and that same 1.5C being much worse than the previous 4C (well, maybe….or maybe not…..seems uncertain).
I am also quite comfortable taking a look at issues (starting with land use) which can be addressed based on incentives and not (yet?) by force.
That is my ‘judgement’. It seem that ‘majority’ to which you refer may not have any teeth (see Paris expectations) and based on it’s history it’s been ineffective so my ‘judgement’ suggests a different approach. And that approach does not let you off the hook as an ‘individual’ who does not carry (yet?) the evidence necessary to persuade ‘society’ to implement programs with some level of force.
But that’s just me.
Jim – you did not answer my question. However, you brought a new element – a tsunami inundation. I’ll appreciate a link. I would like to know if they consider a tsunami caused by a M7 earthquake, or a M9 earthquake.
CG, it was a New Yorker article from July that I referenced. They have been considering M9 since the mid-90’s when they realized they were overdue for one in the Pac NW.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-really-big-one
Larry King used to do an annual program on seat belts. All night people would call in with stories about somebody being thrown clear because they were not wearing seat belts, and somebody else dying in an inferno because they could not unfasten the belt. All night. Year after year, an annual program dedicated just to seat belt conspiracy.. These nut jobs would dial in and tell their stories with such sincerity, and then his guest would talk about studies and statistics.
Jim D, thank you for your reference – The New Yorker. A rather dramatic article – “I’ve been through one of these massive earthquakes in the most seismically prepared nation on earth. If that was Portland …” I imagine vividly the tsunami ravaging Astoria, going up Columbia River through Westport, Longview, St Helens and Vancouver, before continuing up Willamette River and submerging downtown Portland. A video of the model run would be nice to have; I am surprised that the article does not refer to it – or to any science. How many of these predictions have been peer-reviewed?
Jim D:
You keep missing the points other people are making. In this case, skeptics believe that economic forces and technological change will drive alternatives to fossil fuels over time without any government action.
Whether you think governments should try to accelerate the process depends on how you view the threat from global warming. If it is uncertain and/or distant, then you probably feel that government action is likely to do more harm than good.
CG, as you may know, earthquakes are not predicted from models, but using paleo evidence of frequencies to see their rate, and knowing that they are overdue in that way. For example, from sea-floor evidence they figured the average recurrence rate over the last 10000 years was 243 years, and we are at 215 years since last one, so the probability is starting to get high for another one, and you don’t need peer review to do that math for you, which is why precautions are taken and there are no people trying to oppose them.
opluso, you may think that there are natural tendencies to just leave coal, etc., in the ground anyway, but I don’t think that is something that would just happen without these types of policies. It is an important part of this to leave those fossil fuels in the ground (maybe 75% depending on how you estimate the resources).
It’s reassuring to know we have abundant natural resources, now we just need the right sort of government.
Jim D – I think you are confusing the strong precautionary principle with the weak precautionary principle. Perhaps in order to perform a bait and switch tactic. The initial argument you presented was essentially dependent on the strong precautionary principle. You were then challenged on if you were consistent on this by whether or not you agree with Pascal’s Wager. You then went on about how the precautionary principle makes sense based upon the fact that the weak precautionary principle makes senses in various cases.
The weak precautionary principle is a fancy way of saying to be risk averse.
The strong precautionary principle cannot be a reasonable basis of policy since it results in absurd policy recommendations, such as advocating the funding of flying spaghetti monster defense in case the flying spaghetti monster decides to appear and attack us.
You appear to be confusing the two by vaguely referring to the precautionary principle and changing what you mean when it suites you.
Jim D – “precautions are taken and there are no people trying to oppose them.” I got exactly the opposite impression from your New Yorker article.
CG, did you get the impression that they were not taking precautions against earthquakes? I don’t understand what you mean. I pointed to that article because you seemed to think no one applies the precautionary principle for large earthquakes, and maybe you still do?
-1, it is such a long thread, I don’t know which argument you consider an example of the strong PP. Do you consider slowing down for a fog an application of the strong PP, or just common sense? I am actually surprised that people would criticize this choice. Uncertainty means slow down, not full speed ahead, at least to me. Is that unusual?
This is certainly a strong precautionary principle argument:
“Several of the reviewed articles refer to the idea that climate change is too complex and uncertain to predict all its consequences. Under these conditions, where uncertainty increases by degree with climate change, the best course is to reduce climate change itself which is the surest way to reduce risk.”
This is a statement that the less you know about something, the more cautious you need to be about it. Take tipping points. If you know you are pushing towards what may or may not be tipping points, but the harder you push, the more likely it is you tip them, you push as little as possible. I would call this a common sense approach in the face of uncertainty. What’s the alternative under these conditions?
Way too many flaccid repetitive comments, yimmy. You are not going to win anybody over by carpet bombing every thread with the same old weak crap. Try a different approach. And make up a real name for yourself.
Jim D: This is a statement that the less you know about something, the more cautious you need to be about it.
What is “it”? The mechanism by which solar inactivity will produce catastrophic cooling? Certainly, that is not completely known.
How about the mechanism that produces the 950 year period in proxy-recorded earth temperature? There might be less known about that than is known about the absorption and emission spectra of the greenhouse gases — so we need to be more “cautious” about it, whatever that means.
How about the plan of the Russia, Syria, Iraq, Iran alliance to seize and control all the oil export facilities of Saudi Arabia? I dare say even less is known about that than is known about the Iranian plan to destroy the American naval base on Bahrain.
The problem with the “precautionary principle” and the argument that ignorance or intellectual fog must precipitate action is that there are always at least 10 existential threats about which not much is known, and the less that is known of each of them the more important it becomes. That is a recipe for paddling furiously in all directions at the same time.
Jim D:
The earth’s climate is a complex system. Uncertainty about potential outcomes compels some to push for changes in another complex system — the global energy/economic system. As you must be aware, most skeptics are concerned that “tipping points” exist in the economic system and tinkering with it could trigger seriously negative consequences. Uncertainty and PP applies in both systems.
Personally, I have no great allegiance to any particular source of energy/electricity. But I do have a strong preference for affordability and widespread access. Your concern over climate uncertainty applies to the future — possibly two generations or more into the future. My concern over access to affordable energy applies to today. I am hesitant to endorse proposals to reduce the well-being of people alive today on the chance that it might improve the well-being of people to be born tomorrow.
You and your friends are trying to convince people like me. If you can ever show that you actually understand the timing and the magnitude of climate changes AND can demonstrate a convincing grasp of the global economic impact of your mitigation strategies then people like me will support your efforts.
It is not good enough just to dress up in a scary Halloween costume and yell “Boo!” No candy for you.
“This is a statement that the less you know about something, the more cautious you need to be about it.”
Saying that less certainty implies more caution is fine. Going on to say that the existence of uncertainty somehow implies ‘the best course’ is the strong precautionary principle.
“Take tipping points.”
In the context of anthropocentric climate change, I’m doubtful these tipping points exist. They seem like a convenient way to avoid having to deal with the complexity of determining optimal policy with respect to climate change. If the impacts of climate change are some sort of step function (tipping points) as opposed to being gradual, climate change policy is a lot more obvious.
If you have evidence of these tipping points beyond pure speculation, then could you please provide it?
“I would call this a common sense approach in the face of uncertainty.”
Perhaps there is a tipping point in that if you eat too many sandwiches, the flying spaghetti monster will become angry and strangle you in your sleep. Does that mean you should avoid eating sandwiches in order to avoid being strangled in your sleep?
“What’s the alternative under these conditions?”
To make decisions using probability distributions that are quantified based on empirical data and and ignore that which cannot be quantified? I don’t make decisions based on the potential existence of the flying spaghetti monster, and neither should you.
Jim D – “you seemed to think no one applies the precautionary principle for large earthquakes, and maybe you still do?” You introduced tsunami in this discussion. Now you are reverting to earthquakes. Slimy. But I accept your U-turn. Does the precautionary principle say that we have to prepare for a M9 earthquake, and if so, who is doing so?
CG & Jim D,
For your science entertainment (earthquakes): http://news.discovery.com/earth/weather-extreme-events/usgs-scolds-rocket-scientists-for-earthquake-predictions-151021.htm
I think the main problem the skeptics have with making decisions related to climate change is that they don’t believe any part of the sensitivity distribution probability function, so they behave as if it doesn’t exist. If they were given a number near the center of the distribution like 1 C per 1500 GtCO2 emitted, they would deny that it is even possible rather than consider it in a policy. Uncertainty does not mean we know nothing, even though the skeptics adamantly claim they don’t know anything and are fairly convincing at it. We know the sensitivity is in a range, and even the lower end leads to policies to restrict emissions. However, when planning you take the worst case scenario, not the best. This is just common sense when given an evidence-based uncertainty range. I am not saying anything unusual here.
CG, maybe the worst, and most widespread, effect of an M9 is a tsunami, so people prepare for that. Don’t you consider this as a kind of preparation in answer to your question? While the M9 part of an earthquake is unlikely to be in a densely populated city center, a tsunami does not require such a local M9 to be dangerous. This is likely how they weigh the probabilities in planning.
We don’t buy your worst case scenarios, yimmy. If you think your incessant and insulting preaching is going to change that, you are mightily mistaken. Judith needs to put a comment meter on your little butt. You are taking up too much space with your foolishness.
“However, when planning you take the worst case scenario, not the best. This is just common sense when given an evidence-based uncertainty range.”
The upperbound of the 100% confidence interval for climate sensitivity is infinity. So the worst case scenario is a climate sensitivity of infinity (and we have just been lucky due to pure chance). Do you really think an infinite climate sensitivity is a reasonable basis for policy?
When planning, you should take into account the entire probability distribution, not just the worst case.
This is just common sense when given an evidence-based uncertainty range.
There is a Major Problem with this.
The uncertainty range is based on theory and flawed Climate Model Output. That is opinion and not any kind of evidence based on real data. The uncertainty range is worse than useless.
The Roman and Medieval Warm periods did occur without our manmade CO2. This warm period is caused by the same causes as the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods. NO ONE HAS PROVED THIS WRONG. NO ONE HAS IDENTIFIED A CAUSE FOR PAST WARM PERIODS THAT HAS STOPPED.
Don, no, the point is that adding uncertainty as the skeptics want to do
I am a skeptic of the alarmist warming junk.
I am not a climate skeptic. We have warmed and cooled in the same bounds for ten thousand years. I am 97% sure we will warm and cool in those same bounds for the nest ten thousand years. This modern, more stable, robust, climate cycle started ten thousand years ago, after millions of years of colder and warmer. This is the new normal.
Explain why we have been so stable in this new cycle and explain what stopped so that we can get out of this cycle. CO2 did not put us in this cycle and CO2 cannot take us out of this cycle.
I do explain this cycle. Ocean levels and currents are perfect and we will stay in this cycle until you can change ocean levels and currents.
http://popesclimatetheory.com/page55.html
Given a 50% chance of a poor outcome, people will not cooperate to reduce it, but when it rises to 90%, they will. The skepticism merchants play to this aspect of psychology in the hopes of no cooperation.
The alarmist merchants play to this aspect of psychology with 97% in the hopes of cooperation.
We need Judith to try to rebuff point by point rather than dismiss via Pile what this area of research is saying because sowing uncertainty is her main effort these days. It deserves attention and debate here.
We need Alarmists to try to rebuff point by point rather than dismiss what this area of research is saying because sowing certainty is their main effort these days. It deserves attention and debate here.
It looks like climate RICO is moving up the list of radical left actionable issues. Dem presidential candidates, including Sanders, are pitching for actions against Exxon. I also saw a couple of political roundtables on this issue over the last couple of days.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/democratic-candidates-investigate-exxon_5622eb16e4b0bce34700fe40?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592
More on that here, including a letter sent to US Attorney General on Friday by two congressmen. Parallels to tobacco. Look up duplicity in the dictionary and you may find Exxon.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-climate-change-cover-up_562133a2e4b08d94253eff49
Very effective huffpo crap, yimmy. You are really having an impact here. Go, yimmy!
I think that the skeptical organizations supported by Exxon over the years are shocked, shocked, that Exxon never really believed them the whole time. They need to be asking Exxon questions too.
Humans are imprisoned in a stonewall of deception, isolating us from the beautiful, bountiful, benevolent and easily understandable cosmos.
The universe lives and breathes because of opposing, natural forces:
1. REPULSION between neutrons [compressed (e-,p+) pairs]
2. ATTRACTION between H-atoms [expanded (e-,p+) pairs]
Humans have been imprisoned in this stonewall of deception for ~500 years (1543-2015), since Copernicus reported the fountain of energy at the gravitational center of the solar system,
The weakest stones in the wall of deceit are the standard solar and the standard nuclear models:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280133563
Judith, which prominent scientists, who predict catastrophe from AGW, do you respect? Thanks.
Looks like I landed in moderation because of the d-word, so I’ll try again:
Just one cotton-pickin’ moment there…
We’re constantly being told that CAGW is a d-nialist meme, and there was never a ‘C’ in AGW.
Now you’re saying something different.
If I no see no “C” then I no care. I there is no C then they no see no mo’ mo-ney. Therefore, there must be a “C” in CAGW. You see?
Studying other planets past climates can only tell us about the geological carbon cycle. The biological life-cycle can change very much quicker and make a big, big difference. Rapid changes in microbes and plants numbers + evolution are probably what’s been keeping the past few hundred thousand years so stable in temperature. Water is the key here to both Life and the climate. I don’t know of any Life on the other planets in the solar system that the geologists can study.
Sounds like a plan anng. Biological life and most specifically, mankind is indeed helping to keep our climate so stable over the past few hundred thousand years.
A statement in this Guardian article on nuclear power was confusing. The article says that a moratorium on new generators was imposed after the Fukushima disaster in March 2011. After safety reviews, in 2015 this moratorium was lifted.
What did this moratorium involve? It was not my understanding that construction on new nuclear plants stopped between 2011 and 2015.
Can someone clarify what the Chinese moratorium entailed?
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/25/china-nuclear-power-plants-expansion-he-zuoxiu
Uncertainty? It is really quite simple.
We are uncertain if some observed changes are from man or from natural variation.
If we use PP for man-made, that is a problem because not all people agree, some are uncertain.
If we use PP for nature, what do we do?
There is no solution until there is an accepted and precise way to attribute between man-made and natural. Hypotheses to date are unconvincing, some are even unscientific.
Geoff
Unnatural is the way of man.
“The term “analysts” refers to entry-level employees, aspiring to be full-blown Goldman bankers.”
Our words mimic the world we live in.
Yes. That, plus secret pal reviews and editorial blacklisting anyone who questions the National Academy of Sciences, NAS-directed-scientific-dogma.
NAS reviews budgets of federal research agencies for the US Congress, and takes a very dim view of anyone who questions projects the Nationsl Academy of Sciences has blessed with lavish funds in diverse research agencies, like the AGW projects.
From the article:
…
More than 50,000 California households have signed up for Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) financing since state legislators passed a law in 2008 allowing residents to borrow money for such things as solar panels and energy-efficient windows. The financing method, authorized by cities and counties, and funded by venture capital-backed startups like Renovate America Inc, Renew Financial LLC and Ygrene Energy Fund Inc, is then paid off through special assessments on property tax bills.
Because the improvements stay with the home, and subsequent owners will reap the benefits of them, the assessments are intended to remain with the property in the event of a sale.
But some homeowners trying to sell their houses have found potential buyers scared off by the higher tax assessments. And now realtors in the state are organizing against PACE, saying it makes getting new mortgages much tougher and can leave sellers stuck in their homes.
In Riverside County, an inland part of Southern California where PACE has been particularly popular, Paul Herrera, government affairs director for two realtor groups, said he gets daily phone calls from agents reporting difficulties selling homes with PACE assessments.
Sancho Lopez, a Riverside police officer and homeowner in an adjacent county, experienced the problem first-hand. He and his wife financed the $40,000 cost of 21 dual-pane, energy efficient windows and two sliding doors with a PACE loan. When they decided to sell their house, their realtor warned them it wouldn’t be easy.
…
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/green-financing-hobbled-home-sales-095148523.html
Free money is expensive!
I can’t help noticing the $2000 price per window for 21 (!) windows. Also, the guy bought a house with 21 single-pane windows? Did he do his due diligence?
Apparently not. The first bid I received on replacing my windows was similar to his (note to the unaware: it’s a scam) but I sought competing bids that ended up cutting the cost by more than half. If I had gone with basic vinyl windows I could have cut the price much more. Caveat emptor.
Did he even calculate a ROI for the 40k cost to reduce his monthly energy bill? In my case, the ROI did not offset the cost of window replacement in a reasonable time frame but I did it anyway.
In addition, I suspect he would have received a better ROI on attic insulation since inland southern California homes typically have higher cooling than heating costs. Basic double-pane windows help more in winter than in summer although siting and building design are important considerations.
Finally, when I was working on PACE financing proposals (years ago) an important consideration was making sure that the increase in property taxes was fully covered by the savings on annual energy expenses. That standard imposes a limit on extravagances and should reduce the typical residential PACE loan to a few thousand dollars.
Spain has “seen the light!” From the article:
…
Spanish renewable energy interests, consumer groups and opposition parties have slammed a solar self-consumption law passed this month after almost four years of consideration. Unlike a previous draft, the final legislation allows for battery storage, although with conditions that make it impractical.
Specifically, battery owners are not allowed to reduce the maximum power they have under contract with their utility.
Since the largest part of Spanish residential energy bills is related to the contracted power rather than actual electricity use, this makes it harder for battery owners to recoup the cost of their investment.
At the same time, residential customers have to pay a series of charges — dubbed a “tax on the sun” by detractors — and have to give away any power they deliver to the grid for free. Energy producers wanting to sell excess power to the grid at spot-price rates must register as a business.
The tax on the sun has a variable component related to the energy produced by the solar installation, and a fixed portion that depends on the contracted power that the government claims is needed to cover the costs of Spain’s electricity system.
…
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/spanish-self-consumption-law-allows-batteries-at-a-cost
Crude oil was still up a bit from $45 last week. But it’s not looking good for more upward price moves in the short term. The rig count continues down which eventually, at some point, should bring down crude inventories. But for now, inventories are up:
https://marketrealist.imgix.net/uploads/2015/10/US-crude-oil-inventory3.png
Source:
http://marketrealist.com/2015/10/will-api-crude-oil-inventory-data-hit-records/
Deep Sea bacteria which is found near thermal vents may help deal with CO2? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151022141716.htm
http://news.ufl.edu/articles/2015/10/deep-sea-bacteria-could-help-neutralize-greenhouse-gas-researchers-find.php