by Judith Curry
Their [climate scientists] actions may have limited discernible influence in terms of ‘bending the curve’ on emissions, but their efforts to ‘walk the talk’ have tremendous symbolic value – Max Boykoff
The carbon footprint of Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio – both strong activists/advocates for fossil fuel reductions – apparently have colossally large personal carbon footprints. Their hypocrisy is not lost on the public.
Climate scientists, with their much more modest life styles, can’t match Gore and DiCaprio in the carbon footprint department, but nevertheless their carbon footprints are much greater than the average middle class individual owing to their colossal amount of air travel.
So, Should scientists give up air travel? Excerpts from a weather.com article:
Globally, air travel accounts for 2.5 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. If air travel were a country, it would be roughly on par with Germany in emissions. And if air travel by climate scientists were a city, it would be a one-stoplight outpost.
In other words, climate scientists curtailing their air travel would make a microscopic dent in reducing emissions, but a new paper argues they should do it anyway, because their influence goes far beyond numbers.
“It’s a credibility issue,” Corinne Le Quéré, a researcher at the Tyndall Centre, said in an interview via Skype. “We’re trying to support a change in culture.”
“Their [climate scientists] actions may have limited discernible influence in terms of ‘bending the curve’ on emissions, but their efforts to ‘walk the talk’ have tremendous symbolic value,” Max Boykoff said. “Moreover, because this has become such a politically charged and high-stakes issue, their actions are scrutinized much more than those who aren’t studying the problem.”
Making symbolic decisions does come with real world tradeoffs, however.
Le Quéré said turning down a speaking engagement can be off-putting to event organizers and as the current system is structured, can deprive scientists of time with their colleagues, which is invaluable for stimulating new ideas and connections.
Another tradeoff scientists must weigh is their ability to raise social consciousness about climate change, and whether that’s best achieved by making themselves as visible as possible, or serving as examples on how to live more sustainably.
Peter Kalmus, walking the talk
Climate scientist Peter Kalmus is profiled in the article How far can we get without flying? Excerpts:
I’m a climate scientist who doesn’t fly. I try to avoid burning fossil fuels, because it’s clear that doing so causes real harm to humans and to nonhumans, today and far into the future. I don’t like harming others, so I don’t fly. Back in 2010, though, I was awash in cognitive dissonance. My awareness of global warming had risen to a fever pitch, but I hadn’t yet made real changes to my daily life. This disconnect made me feel panicked and disempowered.
Then one evening in 2011, I gathered my utility bills and did some Internet research. With these data, I made a basic pie chart of my personal greenhouse gas emissions for 2010.
This picture came as a surprise. I’d assumed that electricity and driving were my largest sources of emissions. Instead, it turned out that the 50,000 miles I’d flown that year utterly dominated my emissions.
Hour for hour, there’s no better way to warm the planet than to fly in a plane. If you fly coach from Los Angeles to Paris and back, you’ve just emitted 3 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, 10 times what an average Kenyan emits in an entire year. Flying first class doubles these numbers.
However, the total climate impact of planes is likely two to three times greater than the impact from the CO2 emissions alone. This is because planes emit mono-nitrogen oxides into the upper troposphere, form contrails, and seed cirrus clouds with aerosols from fuel combustion. These three effects enhance warming in the short term. (Note that the charts in this article exclude these effects.)
Given the high climate impact, why is it that so many environmentalists still choose to fly so much? I suspect that most people simply don’t know the huge impact of their flying—but I also suspect that many of us are addicted to it. We’ve come to see flying as an inalienable right, a benefit of 21st-century living that we take for granted.
The quantitative estimates of my emissions guided me as I set about resolving the dissonance between my principles and my actions. I began to change my daily life. I began to change myself.
My first change was to start bicycling. I began by biking the 6 miles to work, which turned out to be much more fun than driving (and about as fast). It felt like flying. Those extra few pounds melted off. Statistically speaking, I can expect biking to add a year to my life through reduced risk of cardiovascular disease.
Other moves away from fossil fuels turned out to be satisfying as well. I began growing food, first in the backyard and then in the front, and I discovered that homegrown food tastes far better than anything you can buy. I began composting, an honest and philosophical practice. I tried vegetarianism and found that I prefer it to eating meat; I have more energy, and food somehow tastes better. I began keeping bees and chickens, planting fruit trees, rescuing discarded food, reusing greywater, and helping others in my community do the same.
Now, I feel more connected to the world around me, and I see that fossil fuels actually stood in the way of realizing those connections. If you take one idea from this article, let it be this: Life without fossil fuels is fun and satisfying, and this is the best reason to change.
I experienced a lot of social pressure to fly, so it took me three years to quit. Not flying is an ongoing challenge as I progress in my scientific career, but I’m finding that I can thrive by doing good work and making the most of regional conferences and teleconferencing. Not flying does hold back my career to some extent, but I accept this, and I expect the social climate to change as more scientists stop flying.
In today’s world, we’re still socially rewarded for burning fossil fuels. We equate frequent flying with success; we rack up our “miles.”
JC reflections
Well I have to say that I hadn’t realized the full impact of flying on the carbon footprint of jet setting scientists.
In the climate science community, it’s a badge of ‘importance’ to fly 100,000 or even 200,000 miles or more per year; IPCC principals and those involved in the World Climate Research Programme (steering committees, conferences) easily rack up well over 100,000 miles. Really high annual miles is unique among the climate field, since the UNFCCC has globalized this issue and there is a mandate for participation of global scientists and holding meetings in relatively inaccessible 3rd world countries. Many climate scientists ‘virtuously’ purchase indulgences in the form of carbon offsets to counter the effects of their flying (hah!).
I minimize my own flying since I regard time spent on an airplane to be usually on net a waste of time (I’m not very good at working on a plane) and disruptive to healthy personal routines. In the 1990’s, when I was heavily involved in WCRP Programmes, one year my miles made it over 75,000. Personally, I regard it as a badge of honor if I can keep my miles below 25,000 (which I have been able to do about half the time). At the moment, I fly several different airlines (based on convenience and cost), so it isn’t easy to track my miles), but I expect my annual total is around 25,000.
So there are two issues here that I see related to the colossal amount of miles that climate scientists fly – walking the talk, and wasting a colossal amount of time and productivity.
Max Boykoff and Peter Kalmus effectively make the case that climate scientists should walk the talk. One might argue that climate scientists who are vocal activists/advocates for fossil fuel emissions reductions are hypocritical for flying around so much. If a climate scientist of the activist/advocate stripe doesn’t feel some cognitive dissonance over their own personal carbon footprint, well it is difficult to defend against a charge of hypocrisy.
Circa 2006/2007, during my alarmed phase, I traded in my Subaru for a Prius (no idea at this point if this was a net carbon/resource savings, but it was good PR), moved to a location where I could walk to work (and grocery store, etc.), religiously ran around turning off lights and turning down the thermostat (my staff at Georgia Tech ran around turing the lights back on and turning up the thermostat). My motivations were personal cognitive dissonance, as well as the PR need to walk the talk. At this point, I do try to minimize my overall ecological footprint (I don’t regard carbon to be a particular priority tho) as matter of planetary aesthetics and ecosystem health.
The bigger issue that concerns me is the insane amount of travel that climate scientists do, particularly those involved in the IPCC and WCRP. I understand the value of conferences and some face to face interactions. But committee meetings (panel reviews, etc.) can and should be done electronically via the internet. IPCC meetings should definitely be done via the internet – this could only improve the process of manufacturing consensus and making it more bully proof. Apart from the colossal loss of productivity associated with a large amount of travel, there are adverse health effects as well (recall Steve Schneider actually died on an airplane).
I am really minimizing my own personal travel, max of one international trip (business or pleasure) per year, and trying to stay overall below 25,000 miles. I get a pretty large number of invites to speak – I have managed to arrange Skype presentations for many of these. I rarely to never meet with my collaborators. I have not personally seen my co-author Vitaly Khvorostyanov since the 1990’s. I’ve met Marcia Wyatt in person exactly once (I’ve never met Sergey Kravtsov in person). I’ve met Nic Lewis in person exactly once. Face to face is not required for effective collaborations. Email and the blogosphere can very effectively foster collaborations.
It’s time particularly for the IPCC to drop the hypocrisy of a large number of meetings in obscure locations that result in a very large number of air miles. Not to mention the drain on the productivity of the scientific community.
MIchael Kelly nailed this airmiles hypocrisy long ago:
“Next, Phil Jones goes to Madrid, Pune, Chicago. His interlocutor Kevin Trenberth one-ups him with Beijing, Hawaii, New Zealand. I am finding this kind of thing amusing again. Laughter is really God’s way of making up to us for the scarcity of ground-to-air missiles. Pune? Pune? They are going to places I have literally never heard of. They have invented a whole country just to be able to go somewhere I never will. A special country that only climate scientists can go to. Maybe Pune is the country where all the predicted sunny weather is happening.”
http://michaelkelly.artofeurope.com/cru.htm
Kelly’s knowledge of geography is rivaled only by his ignorance of semiotics.
Pune, Madrid, Chicago — Those are all cities.
Two wings good, four wings bad.
========================
I don’t who are the bigger hypocrites, activist climate scientists or chronically lecturing celebrities. While they globe hop piling up hundreds of thousands of miles per year going to critically important functions like the Cannes Film Festival and Tony Awards and Grammys, they condescendingly tell impoverished inhabitants of the third world existing on $1 per day, that they need to take one for team.
For most of those in extreme poverty, the closest they will come to putting on flying miles, is when they look up at the planes 5 miles overhead soaring over their huts.
Asceticism is not a theology intended for the high priests.
It’s only intended for the laity, even though Pope Francis says he would like to change that.
http://imgur.com/29CDXUC
I think if you remove the international conferences and associated high living and opportunity to present to throngs of admiring attendees and be famous and schmooze to personal advantage with huge green NGOs and have the opportunity to get plushy jobs at the UN so you can keep doing all of this……well then people wouldn’t want to go in to “climate science” – except those few interested in the “science” part.
“Walking the walk” is important and laudable in most meaningful things, but of course it goes without saying that unless people are flying their own private jets, the commerical planes would still be flying those routes with, or without, a climate scientist on board.
The bigger issue is the “group think” and the confirmity that drive the warmists. The conforming peer reviews are really the result of peer pressure because they all know that the overwhelming amount of funding only goes to those who “talk the talk” of CAGW.
Well said. I also wonder why flying 1st class is twice as carbon intensive as flying coach. And shouldn’t the emissions be normalized over the number of people on the plane?
John, It’s the number of seats per row, roughly a first class seat covers two economy seats.
https://talkairlines.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/ca-7481.jpg
re ‘commercial plane would still fly be flying those routes with or without a climate scientist…’
Not sure this is the whole truth.
Most airlines practice very effective load management to maximize revenue per flight. As such while a single ticket may not change matters, it does not require very many empty seats to change the flight schedule.
In addition, over the longer term (assuming we have not all – in the words of a famous economist -died), fewer ticket sales should lead to airlines buying fewer / smaller planes.
Having said this, I will not willingly substitute the delight I get from holding/playing with my grandchildren (which takes a flight across the Atlantic) by relying solely on ‘skyping’
sailorman007 said:
There’s no substitute for pressing the flesh when it comes to movement building or political campaigning either.
In Peak OIl: Apocalyptic Environmentalism and Libertarian Political Culture, Matthew Schneider-Mayerson argues that radio and television are useful in building movements in a way that the libertarian culture of the internet is not:
Schneider-Mayerson suggests that movement-building requires more “traditional group events, such as mass meetings, rallies, or marches.”
One can see this dynamic at work in the Pope’s recent visit to Mexico. (I live in Mexico, so was very atune to his visit.)
The all-time masters of mass meetings, however, were the National Socialists:
Who pays for all these excursions? My hunch: the hapless taxpayer in the majority of cases.
@kim: as one who first flew in a Tiger Moth I must disagree – four wings good!
Yes, the unnecessary flying indicates that some climate scientists are Giant Flaming Hypocrites.
Which is just icing on the cake of the Absurdly Silly Squiggly Science they foist on innocent people.
Andrew
‘Looking forward to seeing you in Tahiti, we can enjoy
some nice tropical drinks with umbrellas in them.’
Uh oh, those emails. Warmist Mann to warmist Jones,
definitely not walking the climate walk.
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com.au/2011/11/walking-walk-warmist-mann-to-warmist.html
Asceticism runs through Western Civilization like a thread.
We saw it in the 7th century:
We saw it again in the 13th century:
And we saw it again in the late 18th and early 19th centuries:
Regarding Thoreau, I also read on a blog he sent his laundry back to his mother to wash twice a week.
Why even Wendell Berry, who hates roads, admits that
he drives around the country-side telling other people to
stay at home.
And we saw asceticism and the celebration of the primitve emerge once again in the late 19th century:
http://imgur.com/3St1DKW
This post seems to suggest that all climate scientists are CAGW adherents. That is far from true. (It is also a common rhetorical device used to support the erroneous ‘consensus’ theme.) The proper question is should CAGW activist climate scientists walk the talk, not climate scientists per se. Many climate scientists have no talk to walk.
Yes, in my comments i made it clear i was referring to activists/advocates
“I think it assumes that climate scientists think that our current rate of CO2 emissions and climate change is a problem”
PAGW
(Problematic…)
Andrew
Well, the question is: are the conferences and airline flights being used as a carrot?
Has Dr. Curry’s level of conference/panel invites increased or decreased since being branded a “skeptic”?
No, David, I think it assumes that climate scientists think that our current rate of CO2 emissions and climate change is a problem. I don’t think the impacts need to rise the level of catastrophic for action to be needed.
There is no evidence that CO2 is harmful or “Climate Climate” is outside of historic bounds.
When the temperature is indubitably, and the standard is indubitably, beyond historic maximums this interglacial, we can start examining whether it is harmful. At that point we can start looking for evidence.
The 7.01 GT of absorption in 2014 says we will get out of trouble twice as fast as we got into it. And we get more food for free (and so do all the cute soft furry little animals) until problems emerge.
climate scientists think that our current rate of CO2 emissions and climate change is a problem
This is a good question for the climate scientists on the blog:
1. Are CO2 emissions and climate change currently causing problems (net harm greater than net benefit)?
2. Will it ever cause problems?
3. What are those problems?
4. At what PPM and temperature?
You keep saying that. I have seen a lot of evidence to the contrary.
All the tree lines were higher (up to 200 meters in Scandawhovia). To use tree proxies from the northern areas to show the MWP was cooler is just absurd.
They are pulling 1000 year old stumps out from under Alaskan glaciers.
Sea level in the MWP was 6 inches higher.
One of the Viking settlements in Greenland is still permafrost. Hard to grow grain on permafrost.
What is your evidence today is warmer?
<Sea level in the MWP was 6 inches higher.
I don’t pretend to be an expert (unlike you) so I don’t feel qualified to cite all the evidence, but I was wondering where this came from?
1500 ppm, is a good start.
http://www.naturalnews.com/040890_greenhouses_carbon_dioxide_generators_plant_growth.html
People who live in big glass houses…
Joseph asks, “I don’t pretend to be an expert (unlike you) so I don’t feel qualified to cite all the evidence, but I was wondering where this came from?”
Sorry, I don’t know why I can’t reply directly to that message. On this blog, Tony Brown has written a summary of sea level change through the holocene — it was supposed to be in three parts, but I can only find the first:
https://judithcurry.com/2011/07/12/historic-variations-in-sea-levels-part-1-from-the-holocene-to-romans/
“So notwithstanding the statements of the IPCC AR4 who assert a sea level status quo from ancient until modern times, there are many studies that point to a picture of relatively static sea levels after the initial Holocene rise. These then show that some 3000 years ago there was a further inundation (think Lyonesse in Cornwall) and in early Roman times levels were somewhere around current levels. Levels then rose significantly through the Roman period peaking around the 700 AD Byzantine period at levels higher than today, which concludes at this period of study for Part 1.
Here is another source. Grinsted is more concerned about future projections, but figure 7 (page 8) is a graph that a number of sources seem to use.
https://b24ef414-a-6233b4b2-s-sites.googlegroups.com/a/glaciology.net/grinsted/Home/PDFs/grinstedclimdyn09sealevel200to2100ad.pdf?attachauth=ANoY7coA_Ta03BlCn0CaZO6B6gKBf0iSZhe572Edc48vr5HjxVCyUF_nZ2ajozzVRe7yUlsR9t-_MZMknwj3kdto9b9JIY3QoA7LoCIsRxnmHs5snsBcTg9QUek0GfA0PIYg9Er1ymU26V8KTR_0Q5TBISnfO3ZDYkfn240SMVoAVaUUWcAQEIABmOcCtA5zQmISCo4hX_dPaf1HymtosWuuvIYAVSytb1gcl8CM0vgkQPUhiIJTH1ERS3j70q4otH3SbyGn5v9D&attredirects=0
lorcan
Try reading these studies more closely and examine the basis for the assessments.
Regarding sea level- prior to the satellite era it was VERY difficult to accurately determine global sea level changes because of how sea level was measured. Measurements were impacted by both changes in sea level and changes in the local land height. The changes in land height were frequently dominate.
Since the satellite era (1992) sea level has been rising at a pretty consistent rate of about 1 foot per century. There is no reliable evidence of the feared drastic acceleration.
Rob, I’m not convinced that these studies are definitive that the MWP (formerly known as the Medieval Climate Optimum) had a higher sea level than modern times, Joseph asked for the evidence and I provided it. Obviously, we don’t have satellites during the MWP, so we use what we have. Grinsted is not a skeptic — so it is worthwhile to see his past estimates.
That being said, a sea level rise of one foot per century seems high. It should be closer to about 2.5 inches per century or ~6cm.
Yes, and absent X aliquot of Anthro forcing, there may well have been deceleration.
We need to worry a lot if sea level stops rising. We should worry a little if rise decelerates. We really need to figure out what is going on, absent politicized science.
What are the chances?
==============
“That being said, a sea level rise of one foot per century seems high. It should be closer to about 2.5 inches per century or ~6cm.”
There is no rate that sea level rise “should be”. It is what the system determines. Humans adjust to conditions. The rate of raise is no threat to humanity.
Buffy writes — “There is no rate that sea level rise “should be”. It is what the system determines. Humans adjust to conditions. The rate of raise is no threat to humanity.”
Is my English that difficult to understand? I need to work on my writing skills.
The sea level has risen 4 meters in the last 7,000 years. That is 5.7 cm per century or 2.5 inches per century. Not a foot per century.
“Globally, air travel accounts for 2.5 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. If air travel were a country, it would be roughly on par with Germany in emissions. And if air travel by climate scientists were a city, it would be a one-stoplight outpost.”
Given the above argument, we in South Africa can only have a minimal effect on global emissions even if we ceased to exist on earth.
Therefore, doing nothing is the best way forward.
Hi Judy – Excellent post. Here is just one example of the abuse of travel by the IPCC WG1 group
https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2008/07/24/climate-oligarchy/
and
https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/significance-of-climategate-2-further-evidence-of-the-failure-of-an-appropriate-and-accurate-assessment-of-climate-science/
The Hawaii meeting I discussed was held simply a reward, mostly (or all) with federal grant support to award themselves with an Hawaiian vacation.
Roger Sr.
Is it ok to suspect someone wasn’t invited?
Thank you, Dr Pielke, for presenting the issue so clearly.
A good example of the religiosity of environmentalism.
My work requires me to fly. If I refused to fly, I would lose my job, and eventually lose my car and house. At that point I would be homeless living under a bridge…think how low my carbon footprint would be!
Hypocrisy knows no boundaries.
In addition to globe trotting activist alarmist scientists (some of whom are fully funded by tax dollats) failing miserably to”walk the talk” we also have political candidates issuing inane comments and sound bites regarding the absolute unanimity of the scientific community worldwide regarding a certainty of anthropogenic catastrophic climate change.
Sanders in particular considers ACGW caused by fossil fuel combustion the most important issue facing mankind. Yet, Sanders in particular makes no serious attempt to “walk the talk” in a meaningful and demonstrative way.
The Washington Times chimed in on the issue:
Sanders and Clinton are actually demonstrating a worse side (if there can be) of this hypocrisy. That being trumpeting their concerns regarding ACGW, actually engaging in large CO2 footprint political campaigns, and then attempting to offset the actual using an abstract which does nothing in the present to actually offset. “hah!” is pretty much spot-on
“Flying first class doubles these numbers.” Can someone explain this – it makes no sense to me.
Fewer seats per aircraft, for one.
I think it alludes to the extra space taken by a first class seat. If first class were configured same as coach, more people per gallon of jet fuel could be loaded.
That’s much more of a distant relationship than the direct impact of flying at all. I wouldn’t count it as double.
Activists need to be shameless. From Sydney, Di Caprio jetted privately into three different timezones to have a triple New Year. I like that. He knows he’s B’wana Leo and his herd want to experience worshipful submission, not dreary example.
Be like Woody Harrelson and send the plane from Europe back to the US to fetch your favourite vegan belt. It’s like a Renaissance pope relaxing with his mistresses or catamites after a hard day’s piety: he just gets all the more respect. The brazenness maketh the celeb activist. This walking, cycling, vegetable-tending climate scientist is heading for obscurity. I hope Kalmus knows that.
Btw, how does one have all these quaint farmyard experiences anywhere near the Kalateenee State Forest? Our wildlife would be unlikely to leave me a spray of half-dead parsley unless I grew my stuff in a fort of bamboo and wire. Gardens are for cities. For the bush you need Aldi and Woolworths.
Here’s to planes and to supermarkets and to the democratisation of consumption. John D Rockefeller saved the whales by making lots of kerosene and then by ruthlessly cutting the price of kerosene. The automatic washing machine has liberated billions of women. We play lightly at primitivism because we know we only have to turn a knob, flick a switch or pick up a phone and the vast resources of Westinghouse-world will be there for us. Just like that very first minute after Earth Hour is over for another year.
> Just like that very first minute after Earth Hour is over for another year
The MSM promote Earth Hour relentlessly. The lights in their offices are turned off for that hour so the plebs can see darkened rooms from the street, but the Reuters feed to the computers still goes full bore – can’t miss a scoop, can we ?
mosomoso said “John D Rockefeller saved the whales by making lots of kerosene and then by ruthlessly cutting the price of kerosene.”
I never thought of it that way, but it may be true. Rockefeller saved the whales by eliminating his competition. Monopolies aren’t all bad.
And the inventors of synthetic fibres saved countless wild animals. (Two million koalas slaughtered for pelts in one year in the 1920s. Now we lose our koalas to feral predators which we don’t hunt hard enough. Go figure.)
Boll Weevils are animals. Synthetics didn’t do them any favors, but no one likes Boll Weevils anyway.
[i]”I never thought of it that way, but it may be true. Rockefeller saved the whales by eliminating his competition. Monopolies aren’t all bad.”[/i]
No — this is ridiculous. Rockefeller started out fine by reducing the cost of acquiring more oil by significant amounts. After that, he used his powerful monopoly to crush any possible competition. The development of fossil fuels helped save the whales, but the conversion to fossil fuels was slowed by Rockefeller’s monopoly power.
[i]”Boll Weevils are animals. Synthetics didn’t do them any favors, but no one likes Boll Weevils anyway.” [/i] This is also incorrect. You must have never heard of the Boll Weevil monument in Enterprise, Alabama.
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boll_Weevil_Monument#/media/File:Boll_Weevil_Monument_Alabama_Historical_Marker.JPG[/url]
“The Boll Weevil Monument in downtown Enterprise, Alabama, United States is a prominent landmark and tribute erected by the citizens of Enterprise in 1919 to show their appreciation to an insect, the boll weevil, for its profound influence on the area’s agriculture and economy. Hailing the beetle as a “herald of prosperity,” it stands as the world’s first monument built to honor an agricultural pest.”
lorcanbonda, thank you. I didn’t know there was a monument to boll weevils.
I think there is a distinct difference between the impact on CO2 emissions from an individual flying in an airliner or private jet. In the case of the airliner, the flight is going anyway, with or without you and although there is a measurable difference in the fuel burned based on the decreased weight of a passenger and luggage, it is on the order of 200 gallons for an 8000 mile round trip assuming a 250 pound passenger including the luggage weight, it pales in comparison to a private jet that is carrying one passenger for that same trip requiring over 5000 gallons for the round trip.
No sale.
By that line of reasoning it would be OK for a vegan to eat a nice juicy piece of sirloin steak from the supermarket “because the cow was dead, anyway”.
Good point, John Collins. If all climate scientists stopped flying, I doubt it would cause any flight cancellations. There just aren’t enough climate scientists too matter. It could matter if everyone who believes AGW is a problem stopped flying or just cut back on flying. Doing less flying is not a bad idea. It’s turned into a pain in the butt anyway.
I think that’s the point. If only . .
For COP21:
40,000 participants. (109 Boeing 747’s)
This figure includes 25,000 official delegates (government figures along with representatives from intergovernmental organizations, UN agencies, NGOs, civil society), 3,000 accredited journalists who will be noting down every development, organizers, speakers and world leaders.
3,000 people hired to work at COP21.
11,000 police France’s interior minister announced would be deployed, of which 2,800 will be stationed at the conference venue, with the remaining 8,000 carrying out border checks.
9,000 tonnes.
That’s how much CO2 is expected to be produced just by hotels during the conference, not taking into account the emissions from transport, electricity and other sources linked to COP21. To compensate, organizers plan to have 27,000 trees planted in Peru.
235
This is the carbon footprint of a large cappuccino, measured in grammes of CO2 equivalent (gCO2e). A large proportion of the emissions come from raising the cow to produce the milk. For a cup of home-made tea or coffee with no milk, the figure is just 21 gCO2e. As well as getting world leaders to agree on limits for carbon emissions, the conference also aims at making ordinary people more aware of their contribution to climate change.
0
The number of truly legally binding and global treaties on climate change before now.[..]
http://www.thelocal.fr/20151130/cop-21-in-numbers-the-facts-and-figures-to-know
Raven, you misinterpreted me. I said “everyone who believes AGW is a problem.” Those who attended COP21 are not everyone.
The hypocrisy accusations against climate scientists seem unfair to me.
Climate scientists aren’t saying you are bad if you fly. But here we have some climate contrarians, who think it’s OK, to fly calling climate scientists hypocrites for flying.
I believe hunger in some parts of the world is a serious problem and needs attention, yet I eat well. From the posts I’ve seen here, I would be accused of hypocrisy for not going a a diet of rice and beans, and sending my food bill savings to starving children?
Max1OK,
I hadn’t intended to misinterpret but more to illustrate the broader picture that there “just aren’t enough climate scientists too matter” only represents the tip of the iceberg when it comes to climate jamborees.
“climate contrarians”? Who/what on earth are they?
I trust you’re not looking to resort to language control with a view to defaulting to an argument from some sort of consensus. That would be fatal.
But to get back to it, “climate contrarians” acknowledge the net beneficial value of CO2, and thus, are not conflicted
If climate scientists were to also acknowledge this, they would do themselves a world of good in terms of credibility and be better positioned to counter accusations of hypocrisy.
And that’s the underlying point – credibility.
Credibility is a function of integrity, both personally and professionally.
I use “climate contrarian” to cover both climate deniers and climate skeptics. Climate contrarians who believe more CO2 will have a net benefit need to consider why greenhouses use air-conditioning.
max, “Climate contrarians who believe more CO2 will have a net benefit need to consider why greenhouses use air-conditioning.”
It is interesting how this type of incorrect buzz phrase or sound bite is used. The greenhouse effect is a simplistic analogy for how CO2 helps retain heat and the “air conditioning” in real greenhouses is normally just forced ventilation to replace convection blocked by the physical barrier of a greenhouse. Without convection you could get a “runaway” greenhouse effect, but since the atmosphere isn’t a closed system with physical barriers, convection is negative feedback to warming.
If warming happens to be at the low end, pretty much like most current estimates indicates, the added CO2 should be net beneficial and there is as high or higher probability it will be beneficial as there is it may be detrimental. The job of climate science should be to reduce the uncertainty rather than dream up neat little, meaningless buzz phrases
Climate contrarians who believe more CO2 will have a net benefit need to consider why greenhouses use air-conditioning.
Max, given the fact that a greenhouse’s specific purpose is to create an evironment significantly warmer than the ambient surroundings (with the added benefit of being able to raise the CO2 level to +1000ppm), I think your comment is the silliest in this thread so far. Congrats.
max1ok | February 23, 2016 at 2:04 pm |
I consider myself a climate apostate, meaning someone who used to accept the basic climate science paradigm that ∆T = lambda ∆F but now rejects it … in any case, a definition of what you are calling a “skeptic” and what you are calling a “denier” would make your comment understandable to the rest of us.
You could not have picked a more appropriate example, as it disproves your claim entirely. Greenhouses often have the CO2 levels artificially increased up to about 1,000 ppmv. Here’s a factsheet from the Ontario (Canada) Ministry of Agriculture regarding the use of increased CO2 levels in greenhouses to increase productivity.
The effect outside of the greenhouse has also been studied, and in semi-aird regions of the planet, the increased levels of CO2 have already caused a 10% increase in plant growth.
The next time you feel the urge to make a pronunciamento regarding climate science, please remember that your belief in this matter was not just wrong, but 180 degrees wrong. You claim that increased CO2 in greenhouses reduces plant production, whereas it is well known that CO2 in greenhouses actually increases plant production, and that commercial greenhouse growers artificially raise their CO2 levels for that reason.
Me, I do my best to remember to do my homework before uncapping my electronic pen, and to recall that google is my friend … but I have to add that I’ve been caught out more than once myself. So please take this in the sense I’ve intended, which is for everyone to be more skeptical about their own “facts” … including myself.
Best regards,
w.
max1ok,
OK, so it’s some kind of circumlocution covering two different positions then?
Is this a science based circumlocution?
I only ask because, as far as I can see, it’s absurd to suggest that anyone denies climate. I expect you’ve seen this obvious reply many times, in which case, why persist with the obfuscation?
Secondly, scepticism is a cornerstone of science, so the inclusion in your blanket poetic euphemism is even more confoundingly absurd.
I’m intrigued, though: why haven’t you thought this through?
Since it’s Sunday, please allow me to get a little Biblical:
Which of these is easier?
a. Changing the temperature of an object with 197 million miles of surface area
or
b. Altering a squiggly line and coloring it to make it look like you did a.?
Andrew
I do not think the carbon footprint hypocrasy is a big deal for climate scientists. It is for DiCaprio. The cost of travel and the loss of productivity is troubling, since most climate scientists either work for the government or are supported by government grants, and it is our tax dollars being wasted.
The big deal, IMO, is that the constant international travel for UNFCCC conferences, IPCC meetings, and the like functions as a direct bribery system cementing a consensus around the UNFCC presumptions and the AGW IPCC charter. Root cause of Karlized data, pretending climate models are not gravely flawed, unwillingness to revise the original Charney estimate of sensitivity, ‘all anthro’ attribution, and the like. Challenge any of the consensus beliefs and you lose your travel invites to numerous all expenses paid quasi paid vacation junkets. Gave the specific example of AR5 WG2 in essay CAGW: Venice, Boulder, Berlin, Tsukuba, Calcutta, Lima, San Fransisco, Buenos Airies, Bled, Yokohama. From 2009 to 2014.
Where would dicaprio’s profession be without fossil fuels…
They would be stage actors by candle light, not movie stars with pritae yachts visiting the world cup soccer in Brasil with 200 close friends.
Sociologists should be sensitive to the latent “herding” effect of such inducements.
Despite the uncertainty, no matter what the West claims everyone else should do, people living in the Third World and developing countries want to live more like us. They do not appreciate being told that they must live poorer than we do. Western academia’s restrictive energy use recommendations will not last long there.
The global warming alarmists set a poor example. Their argument for restrictions on energy use fails when no one on that side of the argument will declare victory when more people live more poorly and die sooner due to the adoption of their recommendations.
It’s no longer a source of stature to be part of the ‘American Dream’. It is now a great crown to be part of “American Guilt’. I have observed that since the sixties it is most cool to hate the ugly American and all of it’s selfish trappings. It didn’t really catch on entirely until this climate business came along. Just look at the eighties with all the self indulgent Billionaires Like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett ripping off the 1%. They were glamourized as heros. Reagan and capitalism was in vogue. Climate Science is the greatest boon to socialist thinking in modern times. Feel guilty or be ostracized or arrested. Welcome to Stalinism.
99%
While there are a lot of things I don’t like about Bill Gates, I don’t think he ripped anyone off. He did more than anyone to bring computing to the masses. I think he wanted to be more like Apple, but what he was good at was being like Walmart or McDonalds.
And I really miss the eighties where Reagan and capitalism were in vogue, especially the interest in the writings of Milton Friedman and George Guilder. I remember all the whining on the left about our (the US) lack of an industrial policy. 60 Minutes, did a piece on how France was nationalizing their computer companies which had the tone, “this is what we’re up against!”
Before Clinton’s big internet boom, there was a lot of angst about the economy. The only notable exception I can think of was Malcolm Forbes who said companies had gotten lean and mean and were ready to really roll em in the 90’s.
surely travelling 50000 miles emits something around 23000Kg not 13000?
http://www.carbonify.com/carbon-calculator.htm
I wont pass any moral judgement on anyone else’s life style, except sanctimonious activist celebs who burn carbon whilst preaching how everyone else must stop.
tonyb
What’s not addressed is how air travel has improved the well being of humans through economic activity, tourism, medical care, proliferation of the arts, defense, etc.
Who’s to say which air travel has benefits that outweigh the potential impact of GHG emissions.
If someone flies on a commercial airline they are not leading to higher emissions. The plane would have emitted CO2 regardless of whether they were on board.
Less travel, less commercial flights..
How will they oversee their Global World Without Borders without air travel?
They claim to set us free and then confine us to pedal distance.
I don’t like them.
tonyb sez “I wont pass any moral judgement on anyone else’s life style…”
_______________
If this means you won’t call me a hypocrite for using fossil fuel while advocating using less, you are a good man.
Tony B,
Son of a father from the depression in the U.S. Still turn off lights and scrape the bottom of the mayonnaise jar. Used to stretching paychecks monthly from the military as this was better than the farm life of the 1930’s where the boys had to take up the slack after father passed from ‘consumption’ (Dad volunteered in 1941 and married a Brit) . Am my father’s son. Not impressed by those who talk the talk yet don’t walk the walk. DiCaprio is much to young to know.
Gorston-on-sea is my grandfather’s home (never met him). His boat was 1/2 named for me.
Uncle flew the B-21’s and still walks the planet thanks to provenance. It’s still ‘English’ pancakes and not crepes’ (w/ lemon and sugar) . Always will be.
Many climate scientists ‘virtuously’ purchase indulgences in the form of carbon offsets to counter the effects of their flying (hah!).
Personally I think that is a good idea, when the money is used for reforestation/afforestation or providing solar power to electricity-poor communities. Unlike the “indulgences” of the pre-Reformation Catholic Church, these indulgences provide a measurable Earthly benefit. Mine went to reforestation projects in Central America and Ecuador. If you believe that CO2 is a problem, then it is a virtue for you to pay out of your income to become CO2 neutral.
matthewrmarler said:
I’m not so sure about that.
I’ll take the “measurable Earthly benefit” the Church provided over what the climatariat provides any day:
Glenn Stehle: I’ll take the “measurable Earthly benefit” the Church provided over what the climatariat provides any day:
maybe, but I was addressing only “indulgences”.
At the moment, I fly several different airlines
That I’d like to see! Doesn’t it make you feel “torn in different directions”?
Hahaha, funny!!
Hope he doesn’t need a new rain coat soon, or…groceries.
Does he bicycle to and from work in mid-winter rain ?
Even if he does, it’s not an example I will emulate
Another softball post for the needy WUWT crowd. I see Dr. Curry has learned much from her sensei, Sen. Ted Cruz of Canadia.
That’s fair though.
Global warmer’s must be softball players too. They do everything else underhanded so they must throw that way as well
Did Climate scientist Peter Kalmus have a “Road to Damascus” (or perhaps more fittingly, a “Flight to O’Hare”) moment, or was he just not paying attention? I haven’t torn up my front yard yet, but I have had a large (and still expanding) garden everywhere I have lived for the past 30 years, my commute is 20 feet from the bedroom to my office, and sweaters while working in winter make a 62F thermostat setting during the day feasible.
I don’t do any of this to serve the goddess Gaia but because it makes a lot of practical (the garden) and personal economic sense, and don’t lose a moment’s sleep about boarding a plane when I have to be somewhere where flying is the only real practical alternative.
Our Hostess has been part of a symposium that proves you don’t have to travel to participate fully in a conference 1000 miles away. It’s not rocket science.
Al Gore would be much more believable had he taken a high tech Henry David Thoreau approach and did all his preaching via the internet from a modest lakeside cabin. I am convinced more than ever that at the end of the day all the travel many of the alarmists do is all about power. The hypocrisy is truly breathtaking.
Presumably Mr. Kalmus is too young to have done so in the late 60’s and 70’s, so it is refreshing that he has rediscovered the reconnection ethics pioneered then…a good walk to walk regardless the nonsense he otherwise talks.
I agree with this article in many ways. It seems to me that climate scientists are expecting the world to undertake extreme hardship to work through the conversion from carbon to other fuel sources while not considering minor steps on their own.
This is not a question of abandoning talking to people, rather, in this day in age, telecommuting conferences are technically easy. It’s much easier to meet over computer connections than it is for a lower middle class employee to reduce the impact of their driving 40 miles each way to work. They can’t sell their house and move to a more expensive house; they can’t afford a new car (so they buy twenty year old cars), and they certainly can’t bike to work.
That’s where the hypocrisy comes in. If scientists can’t take the simplest steps to reduce carbon, then how can they demand others make much greater sacrifices? Leonardo DiCaprio rides a bike to work, but he took twenty private flights the same year he attended a carbon conference in Brazil.
One area this article lacks is the carbon cost of consumption. He only deals with direct carbon generation. Wealthier people tend to have higher consumption. I’m sure that he buys food — there is a carbon component in transporting that food, processing it into finished goods for sale, and storing it in refrigerated containers. Similar logic holds true for every item he purchases.
As I understand it, the carbon component of these indirect sources tend to be much more significant than the direct sources. Cutting air travel doesn’t affect them at all.
It’s not just the carbon cost of consumption. Wealthy people by the very process of getting all that wealth have vastly increased carbon footprint because every dollar of their wealth has associated carbon costs. Someone somewhere used carbon to make the money the wealthy accumulate. The wealthy also tend to consume products and services that have significant added carbon costs. These people have triple-and quad-whammy carbon footprints.
In the case of so called celebrities such as Leonardo DiCaprio and others in the entertainment industries, the carbon cost of their wealth are especially egregious because the products and services offered by them are for the most part unnecessary and indeed are pure discretionary consumption.
Picking big collective targets and ignoring heavy uses pursued by the few will always skew to harm the poor and privilege elites.
I don’t think wealthy people have a right to a bigger footprint than those who are. less well off. It’s true that some things are pursued by a small portion of the population so that collectively they don’t add to much. Some things are seen to be of great value to many and they add collectively to a large amount. At the end of the day I think it’s more equitable and just if we focus on how individuals wish to get value from CO2, not how big the collective groups are. Looking at that chart electricity seems small. Individually many people value cheap fossil fuel generation. It is the choice of the masses. Why put the burden on the poor and give cigarette boats a pass, because few people can afford such boats that let alone pay for the fuel. At the end of the day the minuscule part of humanity who can afford cigarette boats can’t add to much of a significant total. Giving the worlds poor basic creature comforts would add to a lot.
A light bulb for a person for whom every penny counts, versus a cigarette boat for a wealthy person is an extreme comparison. But the logic holds across the entire mitigation approach being promoted. Greens are elites and either they have not thought enough, they have their own interest at heart and/or are at least somewhat deluded.
Perhaps carbon offsets could help correct for this. No expert there, but they seem rife with gamesmanship and potential for distortion. But something more than targeting “high use” categories, letting the chips fall where they may (on the poor) is needed.
I’ll take “they have their own interest at heart and/or are at least somewhat deluded” for 20, Alex.
It is not about hypocrisy. It is about science. Can anyone demonstrate that certain CO2 equivalent emission (of traveling by plain or by car) increases that correspondant decimal in the global temperature?. I guess nobody can do this, then, why are we (I mean, IPCC and all collaborators/followers) spreading idioticity worldwide?
That’s not really how to measure “hypocrisy”. If someone advocates doing everything possible to reduce our carbon footprint, then they do nothing to do so themselves — that is hypocrisy regardless of the science.
That being said, there is plenty of evidence that carbon increases temperature — the questions of magnitude arise when we are discussing feedback mechanisms.
> … carbon increases temperature
It’s carbon dioxide, CO2
Calling it “carbon” plays into the propaganda
Please don’t bother telling us it’s “common usage”. That’s the point of propaganda
Yes, pure carbon is a solid at room temperature. I’m not sure how it feeds into any propaganda. That being said, CO2 is well documented to retain energy in the form of heat. The questions are not around the basics, rather they involve the interaction of complex systems.
Earth Temperature data does not show measurable warming with increased carbon use. There is not any evidence.
Model output and Theory say it happens but it does not show up in the data.
Modern temperature has the same signature as in the Roman and Medieval warm periods.
I always enviisioned IPCC meetings as being rather intoxicating to the participants, particularly to the appointees from small impoverised countries. A real endorphin rush.
On arrival and greeting their acquintences from the last meeting, the first question is always, ‘Where shall we meet next year?’.
The UNFCCC meetings are much larger. Both meet many times a year, in various ways, not just once.
Whoops! Missed the foerest for the trees.
“Climate talk” are mostly lies, damned lies, and statistics of the worst sort. Adding a hypocrisy makes it more consistent.
I’m sorry, but I don’t find the author’s numbers believable. According to him, if he didn’t fly his CO2 emissions would be 19,000 – 13,500 = 5,500 kg CO2. That’s about the average CO2 emissions for a citizen of Azerbaijan, and about two-thirds of the average Chinese citizen’s emissions … unless he is a monk, I’m not buying that idea at all.
w.
Indeed.
I don’t see anywhere in his pie the CO2 being used for his clothes, furniture, shampoo, cell phone, computer, internet use, postal service and hospital visits.
;-)
He doesn’t include his “personal” emissions either. 365 kilograms for CO2 and I’m not even going to guess what his methane emissions are.
no mention of fuel use in the growing and transport of his food.
The recent COP-21 meeting Paris must have left one huge carbon footprint of flying for the 40,000 odd people who went there, plus their cost of getting there, hotels, meals, limousines, etc. Estimated cost – $2 billion at least.
How hypocritical can you get?
And what of the hypocrisy of polar bear biologists, who harp incessantly about the horrors of fossil fuel use, when their research would literally grind to a halt without jet fuel and oil for the helicopters they use routinely for months at a time?
http://polarbearscience.com/2015/03/24/hypocrisy-of-arctic-biologists-fossil-fuels-for-me-but-not-for-thee/
I could be wrong, but my guess is that compared to all varieties of climate research, the carbon footprint of polar bear field biologists exceeds them (or comes damn close to it), except perhaps the ice-core folks.
Like your website.
https://polarbearscience.com/2015/03/17/supporting-document-for-canadas-polar-bear-status-maps-reveal-surprises/
The bigger problem seems to be that they quit counting polar bears in 2010 presumably because the polar bear population was getting too large to count.
The USGS site only has data to 2010 and lists nine “Polar Bear and Sea Ice Scientists”. It would seem that they are just counting sea ice now. Flying them all that way just to count sea ice doesn’t look like money well spent, and leaves a whole bunch of wasted carbon footprints in the ice.
I nominate this comment for the best one so far this year.
SC, IMO you are right on their carbon footprint, not to mention you have showed the scientific result of that footprint is just wrong. Animal Farm comes to mind.
BTW, loved your thriller Eaten. Highly recommend to all denizens. A much more plausible scenario than tipping points (delta SLR), increasing weather extremes, or Arctic summer ice decline to zero (which you have pointed out is irrelevant to polar bears). In the end, I suspect mockery and ridicule rather than sciency stuff will bring the warmunist CAGW edifice down. Potent, politically.
sunsanjcrockford, it looks like you accuse people of being hypocrites for collecting data and then request the data they collect. That’s puzzling.
You need to put down whatever you are smoking and take a few breaths to clear your head before you post.
If Dr. Crockford has to request data from a science study funded by tax dollars there is a problem. This data is public domain by definition. Any scientist who thinks that the data from a publicly funded study is “their” data and they have any right of control over it should be debarred. We don’t need their kind of science.
Perhaps you could provide a link to where the good Doctor accused someone of being a hypocrite for collecting data? It is hard tell what you misread, misunderstood, or misinterpreted without a link to the article.
See “hypocrisy” in the first sentence of her post, referring to polar bear biologists using helicopters in their work.
Aren’t polar bear counts done from the air?
She requests data on polar bear counts. See the above link to her web site.
Reminds me of a preacher criticizing moonshiners for making corn liquor and then ordering a jar of it.
There are times when flying is necessary — to get to isolated places, or when a face to face meeting is necessary or when you just have to get to a misbehaving device and twiddle wires. BUT I find it extremely annoying that a large number of high profile loudmouths preach virtue but do not behave virtuously. I don’t have any argument with the folks who got to the recent Paris travesty on foot or bicycle or train or even by car if it was a reasonably economically vehicle or was shared with others. But why was not even a token attempt made to have world leaders and their massive entourages stay home and participate by teleconferencing?
Even if CO2 emissions are a problem it’s a little hard to envision the crew the showed up in Paris solving it. To paraphrase an old IT joke. You have an emissions problem. So you say let’s have a conference and solve it. Now you have two problems.
The papacy of Pope of the Catholic Church has developed a very large carbon footprint, This is noteworthy especially since Pope Francis has been outspoken, lining up behind the consensus and vocally critical of skeptics. John Paul II (1979-2004) greatly expanded the travels of the Pope outside of Rome. During his papacy John Paul II (known as the “Pilgrim Pope”) made 104 foreign trips, more than all previous popes combined, logging more than 725,000 miles. Benedict traveled less, visiting around 25 countries (2005-2012). Francis (2013+) so far has had a busy travel schedule, visiting 21 countries to date, with firm schedules to visit 17 more through 2018, and unscheduled plans to visit 18 more … a total of 56 completed and planned trips to foreign countries. So it seems the papacy is not up there with Al Gore, Leonardo DiCaprio, the Wall Street fat cats, the Golden State Warriors, New York Yankees and Denver Broncos … teams, having the largest carbon footprints. From my own experience, a typical senior level executive in a major corporation might log hundreds of thousands of miles each year and depending on the company/job up to a million miles per year.
Danley, some hard numbers. I was a senior exec at a global consulting firm and a Fortune 50. From 1983 (when I returned from nearly six years in Europe and joined American, United, and NW frequent flier programs), I accumulated 4 million miles on American, 1.5 million on United, and 0.8 million on NW. This despite taking the family of 4 on a ski vacation every year to Utah, Colorado,or Switzerland to burn up miles. This also despite the last 5 of those years mostly flying the corporate airforce of 9 Desault Falcons and 1 G4. Fond memories of taking my team on the G4, stopping in Long Island to pick up execs from a potential strategic partner the corporation later acquired, then going to Stockholm for 2 days of negotiations with Ericsson on a JV. By corporate tradition, the spare third pilot and the most senior exec on board (me) were the cabin crew preparing and serving the rest of our ‘guest passengers’ their meals and beverages.
What we clearly need is a solar powered jumbo passenger plane. The gossamer titanic perhaps?
I believe that the (non-solar) prototype was the LZ-127 Graf Zepplein. It flew over a million miles in the 1930s and made numerous transoceanic trips. Time from Germany to New Jersey — around 4.5 days. Sounds OK to me. Four or five days transit time might discourage on a LOT of dubiously necessary air travel.
Look, if you join the Browns Party all you need do is send money to me and I’ll spend it much the same way Leo does. I’ll even show video evidence of your money going over the pub counter. There will be complete transparency.
The huge advantage of joining the Browns is that several years from now you won’t have to remove any of those 1000 tonne cement slabs, with wiring and metal reinforcing, which are used as bases for wind turbines. (Nobody is sure the bases can be removed economically, but the bird-mincing blades are full of resin which can be shredded and sold off for fresh concreting jobs.) With the Browns, your money is disposed of quickly and decently. Well, quickly anyway.
Join the Australian Browns! We’re open to all nationalities and genders and trans-genders. Just send money. You’ll never see it again.
How much does it cost ter join?
Widow’s mite stuff is a bit of a bore, to tell you the truth. As leader of the Browns I wouldn’t get out of bed for less than four figures. Still, money is money. Just give what you can, but we’d appreciate it if poor people wiped their coins and notes carefully before sending. You’ll never see that money again. That’s our promise to you.
The Australian Browns. No unrenewable renewables, no decaying white elephants – just open and transparent debauchery. We’re working towards a better future for our children’s pubs, casinos, bawdy houses and foie gras importers. (Written by m. moso on behalf of the Australian Browns)
Would if could. But Mosomoso woild confuse my US$ for his Aussie$. And maybe his bamboo for my and hickory. OTOH, if you invite me down under for an all expenses paid inspection tour of the Browns, I somehow am fairly sure you will get two thumbs up. No different than my ‘bribery’ comment upthread.
Count me in.
There’s some confusion here. All the expenses are paid by you, the suckers. (We have common roots with the Greens, after all.)
I should add that Premium members (remitting five figure sums via Western Union only) will be sent complimentary videos of our annual toga party. Ultra-Premium and Premium-Pro members get free postage and extended director’s cut version.
The Australian Browns. Those clunky wind farms and rusting tidal generators are so last millennium. We take your money straight to the pub. Send a clear message to the Canberra elites that we want daiquiris and we want them now!
Moso’s Party. Hmmm. You have my vote but as for the Libs and Labour, I will not get my hands dirty by participating in political monkey business. I know that this is a poor attitude but I prefer to travel, fish, drink red wine and make vapid blog comments in my spare time.
That’s fine, M-Twin. You are exactly what we want. No elections or ideals to worry about. You just get a bit cheery with red wine and start writing us checks. Just make sure you send the checks before passing out.
Think of the tonnes of metal, plastics, concrete and rare earths you won’t be paying for. Your money simply disappears and there is nothing to dismantle or recycle. The planet will thank you and so will the breweries. We’re the Browns!
Yes, somehow the guy who said: “Global warming is not just the greatest environmental challenge facing our planet – it is one of our greatest challenges of any kind.”
Was also:
Barack & Michelle on a Date, Fly to NYC for Broadway Play
Obama Flies to Florida for Taxpayer-Funded Golf Vacation
President Obama makes sixth trip to the desert, golfs
Of course, politics causes hypocrisy, but it’s also why we’re a laughing stock.
https://youtu.be/Ql-ZCk3T6bo
Even Egyptians can find no explanation for a POTUS who bombs for the Muslim Brotherhood, or variants thereof.
My two cents? Like all weak people, Obama likes facile explanations and physical violence.
It’s worse than we thought with air traffic. It generates ice crystals in the tropopause causing global brightening, that caused an increase of insolation of 4.6 w/m2 per decade in the USA. That dwarfs greenhouse effect.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/16/agu15-accidental-geoengineering-airline-traffic-may-help-create-an-icy-haze-thats-brightening-u-s-skies/
Check Chuck Longs briefing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoGZrwzWHJI starting around 11 minutes.
I had to smile when Max Boykoff said he had switched to bicycle to work 6 miles. Bicyclists are killed or injured by motor vehicle in increasing numbers and 40+% involve alcohol or drugs and another 20% are inexperienced (young) drivers. 40+% bike car accidents occur at intersections. Another 20+% occur while car overtaking bicycles.
Bike car interaction is an exquisite physics experiment with: mass and momentum. Add human frailties and the regression from air travel to bicycle suggests Whilber and Orvil had a better idea.
I don’t know about bicycles as an alternative to travel by air. The latter seems better for long distances unless you have a lot of time. Bicycles are better way to stay in shape.
max10k
Thank you for your response.
“Bicycles are better way to stay in shape.”
One of the issues with bicycles is, you need functioning knees and hips. The demographic of an aging population means there are just a lot more people with orthopedic, cardiovascular and neurological disabilities for whom bicycle travel become remote except of course when riding around the Floridian retirement community with their three wheeler on flat paved pathways.
The other thing about bicycles is their carrying capacity; i.e., groceries. I once saw a lady coming home from a large grocery store with the 24 roll Charmin bathroom tissue strapped to her bike mounted basket. Not much wind and no rain nor snow and all sidewalks.
Most people don’t live in Coastal California (thankfully) so dealing with inclement weather is a regular part of our day-in day-out routine.
I say all the above because I too was a bicycle enthusiast riding to and from campus and job for 6 1/2 years (slow learner) year around and had my share of “brushes” with the motor vehicle world. I also tried to ride to work also @ 6 miles away but had to have a change of clothes and a place to shower and time to do all this took significant time away from a young family they going to school (walking for the first 6 grades) the time I was peddling to work. I didn’t want to miss that experience with them.
As for long distances, from my house to New York City and back for a weekend family get-together, flying is the way to go. Skype doesn’t do it.
Don’t get me started on urban vegetable gardens on the 42nd parallel. Growing season variability was hard enough without the middle schoolers thinking it is alright to pilfer your ripening tomatoes, pulling partly ripened tomatoes and the entire plants out by the roots. I guess they hadn’t heard yet of fried green tomatoes. Strawberries are rabbit food. Squash ripens all at once so you are giving over-ripe squash to neighbors, friends, enemies and passer-byres. Not many takers for brussels sprouts.
I recommend a flock of back-yard chickens.
max10k
Our Township Ordinance allows for a flock of chickens, pigmy goats, a dozen or so rabbits and some other creatures big and small.
The problem is manure, i.e., the stuff that use to get caught between your toes and now gets stuck and dries on your cleated boots. The manure tends to build up and then washes into the wetlands when the rains comes. Of course the added nitrogen and stuff tend to promote growth of all sorts of non-indigineous plant species. Eventually the stench becomes so bad that most people can’t stand it, so off to the Farmer’s Market with the whole kit-and-caboodle: eggs, chickens and a few supplies to start your own stench farm.
You can have goats. That’s terrific! But don’t get a billy goat. I had one, and he was useless. Roosters are useless too.
Unless you are flying on private jets, the least effective way to save emissions is not to occupy that plane seat. The plane flies anyway. Your effect would be zero except for the inconvenience to yourself. I think it would be just a statement of no practical value to anyone who thinks about it. You may as well give up buying heavy items because they use more emissions to ship.
> The plane flies anyway
Not if there too many empty seats
Your usual single pole rotation …
So you only save if your flight gets canceled due to insufficient passengers. What are the odds of that happening? People have to think it through. Ordering less heavy goods also saves fuel. No one thinks of doing that. I knew the skeptics would try to find ways of justifying less air travel when I made my comment. Ironic, isn’t it.
Yes, it is hard to imagine an airline announcing a flight has been cancelled because a climate scientist has changed his plans.
Ordering less heavy goods also saves fuel.
doing without everything saves fuel. It takes fuel to grow and transport food. A sincere alarmist who did the right thing, would starve without heating or air conditioning.
max1ok wrote:
Certainly.
40,000 participants went to COP21.
Did they all ride in 40,000 available jump seats or fly “standby” ?
Nope.
Don’t be absurd! None of those guys fly commercial.
Jim D, good point. So what percentage of government bureaucrats and Hollywood actors plus Al Gore don’t? Hint: Obama, Kerry, Clinton, Gore, DeCaprio….We are having a bit of fun with some hairshirt nonsense in the main post. Not statistical, merely image worthy metaphorical.
Btw, giving up buying heavy imported cars saves carbon emissions and US factory jobs. Really. So what do you drive. We drive a made in America 2007 Ford 4WD hybrid Escape. Nicknamed Kermy, because that year Ford ran ads in SciAm with Kermit the Frog touting how green the hybrid Escape was. We even bought that color. And themprice delta was covered by the then extant stupid hybrid tax credit. So all our gas savings since have been found money.
This is another post about nothing much. Climate scientists flying on airplanes is not on the list of things folks are losing sleep over.
I am surprised to see little yimmy so confused. The idea is that the clown climate scientist who has stopped flying is walking the talk and hoping that others will follow. Isn’t that what you want, yimmy?
Let’s say that only ten other people are inspired by this clown’s zealotry to stop flying. Not much help there. But if millions of people reduced their flying by 25% it would have an impact. Fewer passengers mean fewer flights, little yimmy.
Just like if people reduced their purchases of heavy objects, fuel for moving crap around would be reduced. Lower consumption = lower fuel use, yimmy. Didn’t they teach you that at alarmist drone school?
This is what is interesting. Non-flying clown climate scientist says: “Back in 2010, though, I was awash in cognitive dissonance. My awareness of global warming had risen to a fever pitch, but I hadn’t yet made real changes to my daily life. This disconnect made me feel panicked and disempowered.”
Anybody see anything in there that indicates this zealot’s practice of alleged climate science might be just a little bit influenced by confirmation bias and noble cause corruption? Looks to me like he has been thoroughly Schneiderized.
Hey, did you all see what we did in S. Carolina? It’s going to sweep the nation. Pity that pandering peripatetic peronista pope. He’s liable to get his visa canceled. He might have to get a coyote to help him, if he wants to come back here after January 2017.
re ‘about nothing much’. I have another 10 days of acute busy-ness and travel(!) and deadlines. Hope to get back to more substantive posts after March 2.
Unless you are flying on private jets, the least effective way to save emissions is not to occupy that plane seat. The plane flies anyway.
This statement is absurd. Fuel Burn/Seat is in the aircraft specs.
757 21.7 kg first 500 nmi, 16.8 kg each incremental 500 nmi.
A 4000 mile cross the pond hop is 139.3 kg of fuel.
It should be calculated by the difference of the passenger’s weight on the mileage, and that is vanishingly small, and even that assumes your seat remains empty.
“and that is vanishingly small”
Huh? That is a Boeing spec.
The basis seems to be a 150 pound passenger.
http://gscleanenergy.blogspot.com/2013/04/how-much-gas-does-it-take-to-fly-you.html
Someone did the math for a 737 JFK to LAX trip, roughly 2400 miles, 180 passengers, 150 pound passenger assumed, typical luggage.
Full plane flight 6,900 gallons
Empty plane flight 3700 gallons
Fuel consumed per passenger 55 kilograms.
Now an extended range aircraft flying to Europe with higher initial fuel load would have 40-50% higher burn rate. The jet has to carry the fuel for the passenger, the passenger, and the passengers luggage. The 139.3 kg is ballpark for a 150 lb passenger with typical luggage on a transatlantic flight.
The people that contend that the incremental fuel consumption per passenger is insignificant are either misinformed or suffer from mental illness or defect. Half of the fuel on a fully loaded plane is burned purely because of the passenger load.
The real cost is the total fuel divided by the number of passengers. If climate conventions cause the airline to schedule more flights on some routes the scientists are responsible for entire fuel load of the plane – since they are the reason the flight is on the schedule.
JimD is right, which is why this post is absolutely right and absolutely wrong. The climate scientist not only has to stop flying to conventions, he/she needs to suggest that the government ban or limit flying. One flight every two or three months to Hawaii. Maybe one a month to Australia. None, really, to any Caribbean island. One a month trans-at and trans-pac
i suggest we start with Hawaii, the Caribbean, Australia and Japan as pilots. End daily and weekly flights to Australia all these islands in the name of Gaia. As JimD and friends are fond of claiming, everyone supports taking action so who could possibly complain.
PA, simply dividing the total fuel cost by the number of passengers is not correct. One empty seat saves a lot less fuel than that.
While it is cute that the skeptics care so much about aviation, it is only 2% of global emissions, and action on it or not will neither save nor destroy the world. Keep flying, and look for better ways to produce the fuels. That’s the only action needed.
It’s cute that you think that skeptics care about a doofus fever pitch NASA climate sighintist quitting flying to save the planet. But he should be a hero to your crowd. At least he is doing something.
JIm D
“While it is cute that the skeptics care so much about aviation, it is only 2% of global emissions ….”
_______
Look at it as a tacit admission emissions are a problem. Otherwise, why criticize people for flying.
You are perpetually confused, maxieokie. The criticism is for the hypocrisy, not the flying.
Skeptics have what we call the Leonardo Dee Caprio Standard, maxieokie. As long as we limit ourselves to a carbon footprint smaller than that of the little rapacious hypocrite and to one fewer of the fashion models to exploit at any one time, we are doing our part to save the planet from whatever.
Jim D | February 22, 2016 at 5:36 pm |
PA, simply dividing the total fuel cost by the number of passengers is not correct. One empty seat saves a lot less fuel than that.
Jim D | February 22, 2016 at 5:36 pm |
PA, simply dividing the total fuel cost by the number of passengers is not correct. One empty seat saves a lot less fuel than that.
1. An empty plane consumes half the fuel of a full plane.
2. Whether you assume half the fuel load divided by the passengers (for a full flight) is the cost or use the aircraft manufacturer’s seat burn numbers you came up with about the same figure.
3. If the conventions cause addition flights to be scheduled or retained on the schedule they are responsible for their seat and the 1/2 the fuel load that carries the plane not the passengers, since they caused the extra plane flight.
If say 30 conventioners cause an extra flight to be scheduled it is like the 30 conventioners chartered the flight – it is all on them even though in reality they all take separate planes.
Further, if they fly first class (low density) instead of coach they should be assessed a further fuel penalty since they are more likely to cause more/lower density flights.
The plane has to carry a passenger to 35000 feet and 4000 miles at an increased angle of attack. Yes it takes fuel to fly passengers.
Bottom line, a European flight is about 140 kg of fuel per seat and a minimum of 280 kg as a prorated share of the entire plane fuel load. On a half empty plane the prorated share would be 420 kg. The per seat is an average for a 150 lb passenger with typical luggage. Pick whichever number you like.
Don Montfort said on February 23, 2016 at 12:01 pm |
“You are perpetually confused, maxieokie. The criticism is for the hypocrisy, not the flying.”
_________
Climate scientists flying while urging the public to not fly would be hypocrisy. How many climate scientists can you name who are doing that?
Saying flying is OK then criticizing scientists for flying is hypocrisy or just as bad as hypocrisy. How many climate contrarians are doing that? I haven’t counted all of ’em, but there’s a bunch right.
Judith Curry said:
Well if you’re looking for absolution, that’ll do the trick every time:
This somehow also seems germane
Mr. Stehle – Love the quotes and that you seem to be data driven. Keep up the good work!
From Sir Arthur Canon Doyle’s White Company
*Referring to the Western Schism
AK,
Thanks for the quote. This for me is the crux of the matter:
The mathematical climate models and the evidence they are based upon are so abstract and beyond the knowledge of most people that almost nobody except climate scientists can comprehend or judge them. So even though the CAGW hell may not be quite as impalpable and supernatural a place as the biblical hell, it’s getting there. The bottom line is that, for the layman, acceptance of the models and their dire consequences boils down to an act of faith.
Furthermore, the climate scientists say they hold the keys to salvation. “Do what we say,” they admonish, “and the earth shall be saved. Otherwise the earth and all its creatures will suffer the consequences.”
In this regard the climatariat’s warnings differ somewhat from those of Christianity, because in Christianity the sinner typically pays the price of his own sins, while the non-sinners are saved. “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life,” as Matthew put it. But in the credo of the environmentalists, everybody and everything pays the price for sinning, regardless of whether they be one’s own sins or the sins of others.
Nevertheless, when the high priests of the climatariat are seen to not be following their own commandments, or when their practices are seen as being harmful to others in a palpable, this-worldly way, while they themselves continue to party it up, it creates a crisis of legitimacy and credibility. This is what happened to the Catholic Church in the late 15th and early 16th centuries.
Maybe the first to articulate this was Machiavelli, who in 1513 charged that there could be no greater evidence of papal
Luther was actually late to the party when it came to seeing the wantonness and venality of the upper hierarchy of the church. Early on he could be heard making naive declarations like this:
almost nobody except climate scientists can comprehend or judge them.
Almost everybody can understand that when model output does not match real data, the models are flawed. They have promised warming for decades and they fudge the data and still cannot get it to match. There is no need to comprehend anything else to judge them.
Many climate scientists ‘virtuously’ purchase indulgences in the form of carbon offsets to counter the effects of their flying (hah!).
If they were virtuous they would reduce their carbon footprint. Becoming virtuous by buying indulgences is conceptually similar to second-hand virginity.
They buy carbon offsets as an investment. If their alarmist efforts are successful, the carbon offsets will become more valuable, and they will sell them before they eventually become worthless. I read somewhere that Al Gore sold his cap and trade stuff before it went bust.
Now which door ter nail it to … ?
beth
We had contemplated nailing indulgences to the met office door but unfortunately not only are the doors metal but they also have security guards…
tonyb
tony,
oh the limits on freedom of expression. (
How’s yr research coming along?
bts
We all should start writing our representatives to ****can this monstrosity. This is something that should get the attention of every blogger, including Dr. C. From the article:
…
Under the TPP’s original terms, a country could limit the exposure of the owner of such a website to prison time, or to the seizure and possible destruction of their server, on the grounds that by definition their infringement didn’t cause any lost sales to the copyright owner. (Note that they would be liable for civil damages to the copyright owner in any case.)
Although a country still has the option to limit criminal penalties to “commercial scale” infringements (which is so broadly defined that it could catch even a non-profit subtitles website), the new language compels TPP signatories to make these penalties available even where those infringements cause absolutely no impact on the copyright holder’s ability to profit from the work. This is a massive extension of the provision’s already expansive scope.
…
http://news.slashdot.org/story/16/02/21/2022207/tpp-change-means-drastically-higher-penalties-for-copyright-infringement
Hypocrisy is very funny, especially when the hypocrisy is so very, very blatant, and the hypocrites are so insufferably arrogant. Won’t change a thing: they will remain simultaneously insufferable and ridiculous. And arrogant.
The following is my opinion only:
If they believed in their heart that CO2 emissions were as bad as they claim, they would act differently. Regardless of what they say, they demonstrate that they don’t believe their own rhetoric.
quote “Making symbolic decisions does come with real world tradeoffs, however.”
It’s not a symbolic gesture if the world really is at risk due to CO2 emissions. We would do everything in our power, yet nothing is being done. Nobody truly believes it. Even calling it symbolic in the article above demonstrates that they don’t take is seriously. Their heart knows it is a lie.
Good point Greg. If I thought the exhaust emissions from my car were contributing towards the future deaths of millions, I’d drive it precisely once more: to the scrap yard.
I wrote about this lack of real conviction among the vast majority of alarmists some time ago:
https://jonathanabbott99.wordpress.com/2013/12/12/making-beliefs-pay-rent/
Johnathan, I followed your link. That is excellent! Thanks!
°°°°°Jonathan Abbott said:
“What’s absolute,” says Cornel West, “is what I’m willing to die for.”
Most (but of course not all) people have both an absolute and an expedient morality, a “hierarchy of moral principles” as Amitai Etzioni, called it in The Moral Dimension.
When it comes to absolute moral values, Etzioni explains, it is the imperative quality that rules — the moral sense that the person “must” behave in the prescribed way, that one is obligated, duty bound.
One characteristic of these “sacred” moral principles is that in the areas of behavior in which they apply, they repudiate the instrumental rationality which includes considerations of costs and benefits.
Only after these sacred principles are violated do people enter into a second realm of decisions, in which moral considerations are weighted as against others, and calculations enter (e.g., people sometimes calculate how much to give — or if they give X, what it will do for their reputation, and so on).
Hannah Arendt in Eichmann in Jerusalem gives a wrenching example of absolute morality, which she juxtaposes next to Eichmann’s “objective and scientific” morality, which he felt was “far more advanced than the opinions held by ordinary people”:
°°°°°Jonathan Abbott said:
It’s pretty obvious that when it comes to the climate scientists’ moral principles regarding CAGW, they are of the expedient, negotiable type and not the absolute type.
As you point out, given the dire consequences of not following their moral mandates, this is a little puzzling.
I have shared it with many
In his book ” Sustainable Energy – Without the Hot Air” David JC MacKay has a detailed presentation of the carbon footprints of air travel. He also gives a counter argument to the excuse that “the plane is going anyway”. My climate scientist colleagues seemed quite surprised when I compared the footprint of their air travel habits with (occasionally) abandoning the use of an electric clothes dryer. They just didn’t know…
I’m confused. I looked up the weight of a 737. It’s about 70K pounds, depending on models. The fully loaded weight is about 130K pounds. It carries about 135 passengers with a maximum fuel load of 5,000 gallons and a range of about 2500 miles. That’s approximately 2 gallons a mile. Reducing that because of belly cargo to just one and a half gallons a mile for the less than 30K pounds of passengers that would be about 30 gallons of jet fuel to carry each passenger across the country. If his 50K air travel represents 10 roundtrips he would use 600 gallons a year. Burning that much jet fuel(at 20 pounds of CO2 per gallon of jet fuel) produces only 12K pounds. That’s only 2/3rds of his figure. Additionally I assume there is a healthy safety margin in the maximum fuel load/maximum flight figure and when not fully load with cargo or passengers it should use considerably less fuel. Plus aren’t new planes more fuel efficient? The Next Generation 737 carries considerably more passengers, a considerably longer distance, but only has a Maximum Fuel Load of about 1,500 gallons more. Was this guy just breast-beating about his imagined former sinfulness, perhaps doubling it, to demonstrate his rectitude after his epiphanous salvation?
You’ve got to love the Internet. It looks like a 747, about 86% full, transports somebody about 100 miles with a gallon of fuel. That includes all the cargo on the plane. It looks like a more accurate figure for 50K miles would be less than 500 gallons at 19 pounds CO2 per pound or 9,500 pounds, half his claimed amount.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft#Example_Values
100 mpg isn’t attained by any large commercial jetliners. Average is closer to 75 mpg per seat. Per passenger depends on how many seats are filled. For 66% occupancy, which isn’t uncommon, the OP is about right and you ain’t.
Hi David,
Thanks for the link. I’m not so sure about your usage of the word “ain’t’ though. You’ll note I prefaced my comment with “I’m confused, used numerous qualifiers (It looks like…) and added question marks at the end of several sentences. Kind of hard to be wrong isn’t it under those circumstances? Likewise your statement, “For 66% occupancy, which isn’t uncommon…” isn’t wrong, but is irrelevant. “According to the International Air Transport Association, the worldwide load factor for the passenger airline industry during 2013 was 79.5%.” I believe it was about the same last year, at least for North-American-originating flights.
I also believe the 75 mpg figure from Wikipedia does not factor in the fuel used to haul the Belly Cargo. My best guess is that the poster’s carbon footprint is about 2/3rds of what he thought.
Since you aren’t doing a single 50K flight but 12+ shorter flights, it would be closer to 563 gallons.
Yes, it is a common meme that we will start worrying about the claimed problem when the people claiming it is a problem start acting like it is a problem. For me, though, I think alarmist scientists would do a lot more for their credibility by simply embracing integrity and transparency and by beginning the basic rudiments of a quality system.
Yes, I am not one for symbolism, it’s being seen to do the right thing rather than doing the right thing. Useless
Alarmist scientists would do a lot more for their credibility if their model output matched real data.
Without that, it does not matter what else they do.
Judith,
If you come to the stage of putting priorities on your future air travels for whatever reasons, please consider one of the long flights in the form of a visit to Australia, where I know very many people will make you feel most welcomed.
Geoff.
POS
Looks like the good doctor deleted your mile high story, mate. Take it somewhere else next time. Try the pub if you’re still allowed inside.
Reblogged this on Climate Collections.
Climate scientists wearing Khakis in the office in December.. that’s the kind of symbolism they like
Oh dear David,
This was true. It happened, just as described.
Have we reached to sorry state wherein one cannot tell a true story without fear of objection?
…………..Another time in Darwin we had a reunion 21 years after discovery of a major mine. One of the wives told of those times 21 years before. She said “I could not get Lloyd interested in me. Out of desperation I asked him if it would help to put a paper bag over my head. He replied that he would have to wear one as well, in case mine came off.”
Again, this is true. Is it also prurient? If so, why?
I am not sure that cycling is such a good idea. All those CO2 emissions as the fat gained from attending COP banquets is burned off must surely be causing the sea level to rise at Tuvalu.
I think this falls into the category of “just can’t win”. From what I’ve seen, if climate scientists were to promote a reduction in flying so as to “walk the talk” they’d be accussed of being advocates, lacking in objectivity and biased. If they don’t actively avoid flying, they’re accussed of being hypocrites.
In that vein, I think this is a key point. Climate scientists are – by and large – trying to understand the consequences of us continuing to emit CO2 into the atmosphere. If there is the possibility of severe negative consequences, and these do materialise, it’s not going to be the fault of climate scientists who decided to still fly. They’re not highlighting the risks associated with climate change for their benefit, they’re doing it for the benefit of all. What we choose to do, given this information, is up to us collectively.
It may well be that people would take what they were saying more seriously if they were to reduce their flying, but that just returns us to the first point I was making in this comment.
Heh, ‘by and large’. This is the bargaining stage.
==============
“No, why would you think that?”
I don’t. I was being sarcastic.
Andrew
Please, please, please, Ken Rice, let’s discuss ‘by and large’. You fascinate me with this insight. Where did you find it, in the mirror?
============
attp, I doubt that, walking the talk is leading by example as Mosher pointed out. You start by whining about being between a rock and a hard spot, welcome to the real world. Then you wander into the precautionary meme, deny using the precautionary meme and now want to take your ball and go home because the conversation isn’t going your way.
There is nothing in life that doesn’t have potential unintended consequences. You could start a bike club to save energy and the whole club could be wiped out by one blown tire on a truck. Take a guess how many scientists have been killed in bike accidents? How many do you think have died because of biofuel mandates skewing the grain markets?
See, a rock and a hard place is extremely common.
Actually, it’s more because when people simply make things up to suit what they’re trying to say (as you are doing), the conversation becomes tedious and virtually impossible. I realise that there might be little else that you can do, but whining when someone decides that they’ve had enough of talking with you is a bit juvenile. Don’t let me stop you from pretending that you have the upper hand, etc, etc, but complaining when people decide that they’ve had enough of your misrepresentations, doesn’t really make for a compelling argument.
Kenny, I don’t have the upper hand since it is your rationalizations that are in charge. Limiting travel and maximizing use of telecommunications would be cost effective, increase productive time and put a great leading by example PR spin on the situation. Then climate scientists would be at worst criticized for doing the “right thing”.
As it is, climate science and a large number of not for profit organizations are catching a lot of negative PR heat for what many consider extravagant travel budgets.
Not that complicated, you really don’t need to invoke the precautionary principle or rationalize how globe trotting might save the world.
“They’re not highlighting the risks associated with climate change for their benefit, they’re doing it for the benefit of all.”
What’s the benefit we get again?
Andrew
BA,
The benefit of potentially avoiding doing something that could have severe negative consequences. We don’t have to do so, but being aware of this is clearly better than burying our heads in the sand. We do realise that we all live on the same planet?
“The benefit of potentially avoiding doing something that could have severe negative consequences.”
Ah it’s the potential benefit of nothing happening.
Pardon if I’m a little skeptical.
Andrew
Having wrought certain havoc, Rice cautions us with ‘could haves’.
================
Pardon me if I think you don’t really understand what it means to be skeptical.
Kim,
If I could tell the future, I would describe what will happen with absolute certainty. Since I can’t, I don’t.
kim –
Given that you don’t post under a full name, what’s with the whole passive-aggressive “Rice” stuff?
Years ago I said the Precautionary Principle should be applied to the climate alarmists’ Precautionary Principle. We’re getting around to it, slowly.
Buzz off, J. When you first showed up I called you the finest sophist money could buy. Well, I was wrong.
===================
“Pardon me if I think you don’t really understand what it means to be skeptical.”
Perhaps you could give me the correct understanding in your next comment.
We’ll call it a ‘potential’ understanding benefit until it happens.
Andrew
Are you suggesting that we should treat something that could have severe negative consequences as a benefit until the negative consequences actually materialise?
“Are you suggesting that we should treat something that could have severe negative consequences as a benefit until the negative consequences actually materialise?”
You’re obviously confused.
I’m just waiting for you to explain the correct understanding of skeptical.
Andrew
If I could tell the future, I would describe what will happen with absolute certainty. I can do that.
The same climate cycles have repeated for ten thousand years. Look at those cycles and you are looking at the future. CO2 started rising 7000 years ago and did not change the temperature cycle by any measurable amount. When it gets warm, Polar oceans thaw, snowfall increases and stops the warming. The ice piles up until it dumps in the oceans and on land enough to bring another little ice age. The polar oceans freeze over the surface, snowfall decreases and stops the cooling. The ice depletes and dumps less and less ice in the oceans and on land and allows warming into another warm period. CO2 does not change the temperature that polar oceans freeze and thaw. That is the thermostats for earth temperature and sea level.
http://popesclimatetheory.com/page55.html
BA,
Typically, skeptical is an actual process of investigation. What I think you meant was “dubious”.
No, seriously, you can’t. Noone can do that. Suggesting otherwise is utterly bizarre.
“skeptical is an actual process of investigation”
Sigh. In the interest of potential understanding, could you tell me what this process is supposed to be?
Andrew
Bah, ocean acidification and sea level rise are made up dangers. Warming, to the extent man can do it, is net beneficial. The global greening from AnthroCO2 is miraculous, now feeding an extra billion people.
The detriment of this social mania, and the dead and dying from artificially raising the price of energy are real, present, but not well accounted for yet.
There will eventually be an accounting of those who’ve pushed a false narrative, appealing to fear and guilt, and caused such widespread damage.
Some of the worst of the alarmists are already sensing it, for instance, see Ken Rice’s bargaining ‘by and large’ above. Another instance is how chary alarmists are of now owning the ‘catastrophic’ meme.
========================
Sigh. No, why not do your own homework?
“No, why not do your own homework?”
I thought maybe you were here to provide all of us some benefit.
Now you’re telling me to do homework.
Thanks a lot. lol
Andrew
No, why would you think that? I’m just someone who comments here every now and again.
No, I didn’t do any such thing.
Oops, forgot ‘weather weirding’. Another canard. There is no trend in severity since the rise of CO2 started, but it is a perfect meme for the pushing of alarm based guilt.
But, as a matter of fact, well of paleontology, weather and climate weirding is present around the transitions into and out of glaciations. So, if we really do get such increase in severity, it will be a sign of imminent glaciation.
One more false step of the hubridic.
========================
attp, “Are you suggesting that we should treat something that could have severe negative consequences as a benefit until the negative consequences actually materialise?”
You mean like nuclear medicine, chemotherapy and academia? Lots of things have beneficial and detrimental ranges.
Indeed, but that doesn’t necessarily imply that we should assume everything will be beneficial until something detrimental actually happens.
attp, it doesn’t imply the reverse either. No matter what you do there will be some unintended consequence.
Capt,
Are we just going to go in circles here? Of course there are benefits and costs. That’s, however, doesn’t mean that those who are presenting relevant information should somehow be expected to set an example before we take what they’re saying seriously.
…and Then There’s Physics | February 22, 2016 at 11:02 am |
Indeed, but that doesn’t necessarily imply that we should assume everything will be beneficial until something detrimental actually happens.
Ah, the “I’m not going to work today because I might get hit by a bus theory”.
Yeah, you might get hit by a bus. But planning your life around not getting hit by a bus and only using chauffeured door to door limo service to avoid walking in the street – like Jennifer Lopez – is unreasonable and unaffordable.
The only IPCC worry that is in the realm of reason is that crop reduction projection. Monitoring this when we get 2°C higher is probably worthwhile. If we monitor it now with test plots that will provide an objective measure of just how much benefit we are getting from CO2.
We really haven’t been harmed until the benefits are reduced to the 400 PPM level. So we will have decades of benefit “in the bank” to give us more decades to respond if yields start to decline.
For example, If yields start to decline when crop growth is 30% higher, yields have to decrease 19% before we back to 400 PPM productivity and actual harm is started. The yields have to decline 50% (from the 30% higher base) before we are as harmed as the global warmers would make us by forcing us to 280 PPM.
Global warmers want us to sacrifice 40% of our food (280 PPM). The proven harm of global warmers is much greater than hypothesized risk of more CO2.
Hey kenny, has your awareness of global warming danger risen to a fever pitch? Can fever pitch sighintists be trusted to perform objective research?
How many other gubmint climate sighintists working for NASA and NOAA are fever pitchers?
We’ll know more when we get the emails they are trying to keep hidden from the people who provide them employment security and pay them generous salaries and benefits.
What happened to willito? Is he snowed in?
attp “Are we just going to go in circles here?”
Yep, anytime anyone spouts precautionary crap that is where it should go, since it isn’t a valid argument, it is a motivational cliche.
The Chicken Little spouting of precautionary crap rose to a fever pitch long ago. What has it got them?
They should reboot and try:
open and honest science
open and honest debate
Andrew,
Quit picking your nose. It could have us potentially doing something that could have severe negative consequences.
Or so Ken Rice says.
I wonder if he picks the wings off of butterflys in order to save the world from unintended consequences.
And who did this, capt, because it certainly wasn’t me?
There are few so blind as he who won’t recognize his own argument.
There are few so biased as he who won’t acknowledge his own argument.
===========================
attp, “The benefit of potentially avoiding doing something that could have severe negative consequences.”
That isn’t much different than not doing something until it is proven to not have potential severe negative consequences. If you take a bath in a tub you are likely to have severe negative consequences. The younger you are or the older you get the more likely you are to die while bathing. Bathing though is not only an acceptable risk it is encouraged in society. I recommend you avoid bathing until it is proven to have zero negative consequences for your age group.
Huh? Well, this discussion has got about as silly as I expected. Well done. Job done, I guess. One day you may actually be interested in having a serious discussion, but I suspect I’ll never really know.
You are always free to take your ball and run along home to your echo chamber under the rock, wottsy.
> What happened to willito?
Thank you for asking, Don Don.
Here’s a little something related to Judy’s fallacy:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2016/01/18/holy-tu-quoque-batman/
Just as I had surmised, willito. You been snowed in. Don’t let that cabin fever get you down. Try to reconnect with the real world, asap.
Have you burned your gallon of oil this morning, Don Don?
You should, otherwise you’d be an hypocrit.
Thanks for the reminder, willito. Weather nice today. I think I’ll go down to Santa Cruz and crank up the engines on my ship for a few minutes.
I think this falls into the category of “just can’t win”. You have that right.
Climate theory is flawed, climate models are flawed, Mother Earth is not doing what they told us Mother Earth had to do, of course they cannot win, even Mother Earth is against them.
Victims alright, of their own hubris. This is an old, but always entertaining, story.
================
“if climate scientists were to promote a reduction in flying so as to “walk the talk” they’d be accused of being advocates, lacking in objectivity and biased.”
Oh, if only it were that simple. Many climate scientists are already advocates. For instance, the statement from the American Geophysical Union on climate change waffles back and forth between information and advocacy. Included in their statement are items such as:
“Human-induced climate change requires urgent action.”
They are a little fuzzy as to what those actions should be, but their statement includes, “Actions that could diminish the threats posed by climate change to society and ecosystems include substantial emissions cuts to reduce the magnitude of climate change, as well as preparing for changes that are now unavoidable.”
And the AMS says, “Avoiding this future warming will require a large and rapid reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions.”
I find it hard to believe that cutting back on flying is considered advocacy, whereas statements which recommends “substantial emissions cuts” and “will require a large and rapid reductions in … emissions” are not.
Scientists are already activists. As this article points out, if they don’t “walk the talk” then they are in danger of being labeled “hypocrites.”
Maybe you should read those quotes a little more carefully. If someone tells you what you could do to avoid something, or what would be required to avoid something, they’re not actually telling you to go ahead and do so.
“climate scientists are advocates, lacking in objectivity and biased.”
That Greenpeace and WWF are allowed with 1000 km of IPCC climate conferences, and allowed to sneak gray literature into the Assessment Reports, makes it clear that the iPCC climate scientists are advocates.
No reason to wait until a few do a perfunctory effort at “walking the walk” before “accusing” them. And it isn’t an accusation it is a statement of fact. We have a bunch of emails on that as well.
However if they don’t lead by example they aren’t real leaders and we should view their statements in that context.
No. Limiting personal CO2 emission, which necessarily limits how many thousands of miles of travelling one does, is what someone with integrity would do if they honestly believed CO2 emission were causing a serious problem for everyone.
Hell I don’t believe for a New York minute that CO2 emission is a problem and I’m still in the lowest quintile (USA) in regard to energy use. All I’m concerned about is energy cost and conserving as much as practical. Lower demand helps keep the price down for everyone.
I haven’t flown anywhere for over 15 years. Not that I have anything against flying it’s more energy-efficient than driving, I just don’t travel long distances if it’s not vital.
I live 10 miles from the nearest store and still don’t travel more than a few thousand miles per year by any means. My wife and daughter who commute 30 miles one way to work car pool with a 43 mpg hybrid electric vehicle.
I built our home by cutting into a hillside with 3 sides and floor below ground where the ground temperature is a constant 72F all year round which nearly eliminates electricity used for heating and cooling despite the subtropical climate in south Texas. In the winter I use incandescent light bulbs for the heat they throw off killing two birds with one stone by getting indoor lighting and heating from the same source. In the summer I use compact fluorescent bulbs instead to avoid the heat which would have to be removed by the air conditioner.
I keep track of cost/performance of photo-voltaic home solar and when that becomes less expensive than buying electricity from the grid I’ll get that too.
It’s a free world of course and I don’t suggest everyone should do this but I have no problem calling out hypocrites who don’t make any personal sacrifices for a cause they ostensibly believe in. I do suggest practicing what one preaches.
And then There’s Physics writes, “Maybe you should read those quotes a little more carefully. If someone tells you what you could do to avoid something, or what would be required to avoid something, they’re not actually telling you to go ahead and do so.”
Yes, that is exactly what advocacy is. If I say, “If you want to avoid autism, then don’t give your children vaccinations”, then I am advocating. It’s a passive aggressive form of advocacy, but advocacy nonetheless.
If someone says, “Avoiding this future warming will require a large and rapid reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions”, then that is much stronger than the point you are making. In the AMS letter, this suggestion follows an entire litany of “harms” associated with climate change (many of which are not supported by data, but inferred by theory.) It is pretty clear what “they” expect “us” to do. In other words, they expect us to reduce emissions rapidly while they can continue to perform the vital work in climate science — flying to international conferences twice a year.
Because their goal is to fool us like a bunch of sociopaths who want to change the world based on what they know is a lie. Is that what you are trying to say? I am trying to figure out what “skeptics” really think is going on here.
Joseph writes — “Because their goal is to fool us like a bunch of sociopaths who want to change the world based on what they know is a lie. Is that what you are trying to say? I am trying to figure out what “skeptics” really think is going on here.”
That is your only two possibilities? A sociopathic conspiracy or gospel truth? You can’t think of any other possibilities?
No — I don’t believe either of those things. Since most of climate science is based on observation rather than experimentation, confirmation bias is a real risk.
The press feeds off of exaggeration. It is not hard to find. Phrases like “as much as” skew the perception of the predictions, and some scientists (especially the more quotable ones) are happy to confirm those worse case possibilities rather than correct them. There seems to be a hesitation to downplay worst case projections in order to maintain a consistent message.
I’m the type of person who chafes at exaggeration and inconsistency. During a cold snap, it is easy to find someone saying, “You can’t look at a cold snap as a predictive result. That is weather, not climate.” {I agree} Then, during the summer months, after each and every natural disaster, there seems to be a race as to who can cry “climate change” first. That’s inconsistency.
There is also exaggeration. The IPCC predicts a sea-level rise of ~0.75 +/- 0.25 meters by 2100 depending on the RCP. The uncertainty is an important part of that picture because we are so early in the process. A report will come out that the press goes nuts over that says something like, “A new report claims sea levels could rise as much as 2 meters.” Then they will quote some scientist who says, “I’ve seen reports that predict as much as a 4 meter rise.”
In my mind, that scientist has lost all credibility. It’s obvious (to me) that no scientist believes that sea levels will rise by 4 meters — which means that scientist has left the realm of science and become an advocate.
As near as I can see, climate science is in desperate need of legitimate skepticism. Instead, they dismiss skeptics rather than engage with them. The skeptics may be completely wrong, but they should force the scientists to consider their conclusions from a different perspective.
For leisure reading — http://nautil.us/issue/24/error/the-trouble-with-scientists
“But the problems of false findings often begin with researchers unwittingly fooling themselves: they fall prey to cognitive biases, common modes of thinking that lure us toward wrong but convenient or attractive conclusions.
…
“Oransky believes that, while all of the incentives in science reinforce confirmation biases, the exigencies of publication are among the most problematic. “To get tenure, grants, and recognition, scientists need to publish frequently in major journals,” he says. “That encourages positive and ‘breakthrough’ findings, since the latter are what earn citations and impact factor. So it’s not terribly surprising that scientists fool themselves into seeing perfect groundbreaking results among their experimental findings.”
So everyone involved in formulating these statements by scientific organizations is suffering from bias and none of them can see that their statements are really untrue. You expect me believe that? Do you have any evidence that this is really happening? Or are you speculating?
“If there is the possibility of severe negative consequences, and these do materialise, it’s not going to be the fault of climate scientists who decided to still fly. They’re not highlighting the risks associated with climate change for their benefit, they’re doing it for the benefit of all.”
Do as I say, not as I do.
It’s hypocrites all the way down.
ATTP
“I think this falls into the category of “just can’t win”. From what I’ve seen, if climate scientists were to promote a reduction in flying so as to “walk the talk” they’d be accussed of being advocates, lacking in objectivity and biased. If they don’t actively avoid flying, they’re accussed of being hypocrites.”
The way to think of this is as follows.
Suppose a skeptic in the UK argued that by diminishing their footprint
the overall effect would be small. Therefore, do nothing.
We would rightly criticize that approach. We would argue that the UK or US needs to set an example so others will follow. Lead by example. Show you are serious. Others may follow or not.
As for the advocate charge. Most folks are Pissed off at advocates who want to demand that others change their behavior while they themselves do not.
People are watching the US and judging our seriousness by our actions.
That judgement looks like a charge of hypocrisy, but it’s not. It’s a proven method of judging whether or not someone is serious.
The c02 you put up today will be here for thousands of years.
Its cumulative effect is what matters..
Sure, but I don’t think your analogy is quite right. If a bunch of politicians claim to be about to do something and then don’t, that does speak to their credibility. A group of scientists presenting information about a system is not really the same.
Well, yes, but I’m not sure why this requires that scientists do more than simply present the results of their research.
I’m, however, not arguing against scientists flying less, I’m simply suggesting that requiring this is essentially passing the buck. The information is available, it’s not that hard to understand, if we choose to ignore it, that’s not going to be anyone’s fault but out own.
moshe, can you promise us that the benefits of increased CO2 will be around for thousands of years? Carbon sinks seem to be expanding.
Ken, much blame will accrue to those who used sloppy and uncertain science for destructive political purposes. Look to your laurels.
=======================
“I think this falls into the category of “just can’t win”. From what I’ve seen, if climate scientists were to promote a reduction in flying so as to “walk the talk” they’d be accussed of being advocates, lacking in objectivity and biased. If they don’t actively avoid flying, they’re accused of being hypocrites.”
_____________
What about the accusers? What kind of people say C02 from flying is OK and then criticize people for flying?
A. Climate contrarians
B. Hypocrites
C. Climate contrarians who are hypocrites
D. Confused people
The best answer is C. No, it’s D. It could be both.
There’s one step more, though. The warm want to have their cake and eat it too- they argue that CO2 emissions must be drastically reduced immediately but… you can still fly anywhere you want. Why? ’cause it’s just too hard to stop and, frankly, if people were really asked to sacrifice- really saw what it would mean to reduce emissions 50-80% – they would ask a whole lot more questions than they are now at best and, at worst, tell you to take a hike.
So we keep it vague. You MUST reduce emissions to almost zero! No, not you. Not now. People who say you won’t be able to fly to Paris are just exaggerating to prevent action. How serious is the problem? 20,000 people just flew to Paris to chat, again, about how we “discovered” 30 years ago that we can’t fly anymore. So, not serious.
JNSeightfifty, what you miss is the tremendous value derived from all who attended @ Paris: Complete liberty to say anything and do nothing. Who could ask for anything more?
===============
+1 what jeffnelsonsails850 says.
To Steven, who says:
From what I’ve seen, if climate scientists were to promote a reduction in flying so as to “walk the talk” they’d be accussed of being advocates, lacking in objectivity and biased.
Why would they be advocates if they reduced flying in their personal and professional lives? That is not advocating. That is changing their own lives according their convictions. Now if they broadcast “join us!” or “look at me!” in interviews, blog posts and such, then it would be advocating.
To Max, who says:
“What kind of people say C02 from flying is OK and then criticize people for flying?
Indeed, what kind of people would say that? Not anybody I have seen hanging around here. Nobody here criticized flying.
They criticize the hypocrisy involved. They criticize people for believing and advocating that drastic CO2 emission reductions are the only way to stave off catastrophe, while getting on a plane to Paris together with 20K of their likeminded friends.
Attp,
Which do YOU prefer?
“I think this falls into the category of “just can’t win”. From what I’ve seen, if climate scientists were to promote a reduction in flying so as to “walk the talk” they’d be accussed of being advocates, lacking in objectivity and biased. If they don’t actively avoid flying, they’re accussed of being hypocrites.”
Hypocrite or advocates?
That was my point, or did you not get that?
They are Hypocates.
The insignificant effect of CO2 on climate is quantified at http://globalclimatedrivers.blogspot.com with a near-perfect explanation of average global temperature since before 1900; R^2 = 0.97+
Thank you Dan.
Taking a cloaer look at those Cheshire sunspots and clouds.
A convincing study of natural variation in Global Warming for
a change.
http://globalclimatedrivers.blogspot.com.au/
Thanks, Dan. I have been waiting for this follow-up for a long time. You’ve done a great job.
Peter Kalmus, walking the talk
Peter, when you stopped flying, someone heavier, with more luggage, took your place. You messed up, you have inceassed the emissions even again.
The primary oil industry geophysics professional society holds its annual convention in Houston every other year, in order to minimize travel requirements for the largest concentration of its membership.
In the aftermath of the foi2009.pdf email disclosures and the more current examples of political stratego paranoia demonstrated by HillaryGate, requests that climate scientists give up air travel and expense budgets and simply email their comrades — instead of feeling they have to meet face-to-face — is doomed to failure. Who among hot climatists will want to commit to writing a desire to collaborate in figuring out a way to discredit the more accurate satellite data that shows no global warming going on 2 decades in preference to greater reliance on the use of massaged land-based temperature records that support the global warming alarmists’ meme that free enterprise capitalism is destroying the Earth?
POLL: Majority of Canadians don’t believe ‘climate change’ caused by humans…
A new study co-authored by University of Montreal researchers indicates 56 per cent of Canadians don’t believe climate change is caused by human activity.
http://i.cbc.ca/1.3363569.1450089142!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/16x9_620/climatechange-summit-fabius.jpg
Yale Project:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/climate-change-yale-project-montreal-study-1.3458142
Heh, co-author Erick thinks it’s because Canadians are less knowledgeable.
He couldn’t show his bare bias any more flagrantly than if he were a monkey in a zoo.
=============
Is the overall climate getting worse doe to human released CO2?
What are the metrics?
Good question. I suppose it depends on what one thinks ‘worse’ is.
Of course not. The higher the sensitivity, the colder we would now be without man’s efforts.
CAGW is an extraordinary popular delusion. It’s completely backwards.
==================
” POLL: Majority of Canadians don’t believe ‘climate change’ caused by humans…”
__________
“EDITOR’S NOTE: CBC has made changes to this story following clarification by the researchers. An earlier version said that a majority of Canadians surveyed didn’t believe that climate change was caused by humans. In fact, the study found that 61 per cent of respondents believed the earth is getting warmer partly or mostly because of human activities.”
sea level rise
JCH
You accept as truth any study which supports your existing beliefs. The basis of the study is simply an statistical analysis which is inconsistent with historical records.
No, it’s you who does that.
And there are no historical records which indicate the amount of sea level rise in the 20th century. There are records which require scientists like Mitrovica. The guy who solved the Munk enigma.
JCH–the study was from the same group that had previously predicted that sea level would rise by between 2.5 – 6 feet by 2100.
The best data is the satellite data that shows a trend for a rise of 1 foot between 2000 and 2100. All you have is bad statistical studies and claims that the current trend will show a vast increase….sometime……..in the future. Unless or until it happens all you have are empty claims.
“and might even have fallen.”
They know not whereof they speak.
=============
You see the madness? They present sea level drop as if it were a good.
Stark, raving, desperate alarmist research.
===============
Sea level will be dropping in lots of places. Like Greenland.
Sea level rise again, “Sigh”.
Now that they aren’t getting many nibbles on warming, they have moved to sea level rise, and are warming up “neutralification” of the ocean for the next claim after sea level rise gets debunked.
We present the first, to our knowledge, estimate of global sea-level (GSL) change over the last ∼3,000 years that is based upon statistical synthesis of a global database of regional sea-level reconstructions.
This doesn’t mean much. The historic reconstructions as I understand it are so smoothed that this kind of analysis is meaningless. They might be right. They might be wrong.
I’m sympathetic to the claim that natural+manmade sea level rise is faster than natural sea level rise. But sympathy and proof are two different things.
The interesting thing is they claim the 20th century sea level rise was only 14 cm. Given the shorter LOD in the 21st than was typical in the 20th century the current sea level rise should be pretty minimal.
If this study is correct, and I’m doubtful, though I’ve a soft spot in my heart for geologists, among the least corruptible by this alarmist farce, the implication is Anthropocenic.
Barely keeping our thermometer heads above water and they want us to stop? Possibly end-stage Holocenic cooling and they want us to stop?
Please, some science, not this cracked and shattered looking glass.
=================
Oops, fogaht, in that rahnt, the rahm who doesn’t give a dahm.
=====================
kim
It is one of those issues. Scientists don’t know how to measure sea level for some reason.
http://www.geo.hunter.cuny.edu/~fbuon/PGEOG_334/BnC/Lecture_pdfs/jcr_dean_gauge.pdf
The decelerations that we obtain are opposite in sign and one to two orders of magnitude less than the +0.07 to +0.28 mm/y2 accelerations that are required to reach sea levels predicted for 2100 by Vermeer and Rahmsdorf (2009), Jevrejeva, Moore, and Grinsted (2010), and Grinsted,
Moore, and Jevrejeva (2010). Bindoff et al. (2007)
LOD says it is less than 1.2 mm/y in the 21st century. Other research (see above) says it is slowing. CU Sea Level Research Group says it is 3.3 mm/Y and accelerating
All the estimates of sea level can’t be right. Some people in Colorado can’t count and the satellite data interpretation should be turned over to a group with better math skills.
It’s not just Colorado; it’s everybody. There are no sea level groups who are reporting abything under 3.2mm pyr.
And then there is this: over 4mm per year since 2008, and it cannot do anything except grow bigger as thermal expansion is bulging with each new monthly record, and this graph is still not through the end of 2015:
http://www.aviso.altimetry.fr/fileadmin/images/data/Products/indic/msl/MSL_Serie_J2_Global_IB_RWT_GIA_Adjust.png
Clowns to the left, jokers to the right;
Here I am stuck in the middle of the sea.
Can’t you level with me?
================
‘They cannot look out far,
They cannot look in deep.
But whenever was that a bar
To any karlian watch they keep?’
H/t Frost.
‘
“When one fib becomes due, as it were, you must forge another to take up the old acceptance, and so the stock of your lies in circulation inevitably multiplies, and the danger of detection increases every day.”
That’s from Thackery’s ‘Vanity Fair’, ch. LXVI.
H/t to a note found in another book. For me, VF is still in the glorious future.
====================
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/what-glacial-isostatic-adjustment-gia-and-why-do-you-correct-it
“The correction for glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA) accounts for the fact that the ocean basins are getting slightly larger since the end of the last glacial cycle. GIA is not caused by current glacier melt, but by the rebound of the Earth from the several kilometer thick ice sheets that covered much of North America and Europe around 20,000 years ago.
…
Averaged over the global ocean surface, the mean rate of sea level change due to GIA is independently estimated from models at -0.3 mm/yr (Peltier, 2001, 2002, 2009; Peltier & Luthcke, 2009). “
This is an indication that there is some seriously disturbed thinking in computing the satellite sea level trend. The GIA change was added in 2011 when the sea level was in the process of dropping 6 mm and the global warmers were desperate for some good news. The addition of a hocus-pocus GIA correction shows how desperate they were.
GIA converts what was a badly interpreted sea level measurement to an estimated change in average ocean depth. What is reported as the satellite sea level has an addition for the estimated subsidence of the ocean floor. They aren’t even measuring sea level any more, they are guessing at the change in ocean depth.
Lol. They said sea level along the NE would go up if the AMOC went down. Book it.
JCH
On my march thru Dixie inspecting the Southern beaches for non-SLR, I can tell you there is nothing different from any of the other annual jaunts that I’ve taken for the last 50 years.
When I read the study “used a new statistical approach” it triggered something in my memory. Sure enough there were previous studies that “employed novel methods” and “developed a new way” to look the issue.
Of course I immediately wondered if they went to the dart board methodology. Under this protocol the target has concentric circles with 2″ SLR as the outer ring and in increments of 2″ toward the bullseye the rings get smaller until hitting the center with 3 feet SLR.
But the clincher to this scheme is to train a chimpanzee to throw those darts. He gets rewarded for hitting bullseye. If really good he gets an internship.
Supposedly the efficacy is superior to all methods tried to date.
Perhaps Peter Kalmus should now consider eliminating the next biggest sector in his carbon footprint. Oh, that’s food!
At least Congress are now walking the talk. Wait, what?? as they say.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/congress-climate-change_us_56cb841be4b0ec6725e39571
Jim D.
Try reading a bit deeper than the headline. The Huffington Post promoted a study that assumes that natural gas prices will continuing rising at the rate they had for the last 10 years.
Woops, world events seems to have messed up that studies conclusions?
And about a year ago, the righteous, tighteous, hypocritical-beyond-satire HuffPuff editor attended a European conference in her private jet to help plan how to convince the hoi-polloi to reduce their air travel use
The depth of this hypocrisy is simply beyond parody. The entitlement claimed by noble cause corruption is absolutely monstrous
I don’t know how you get that as the main item in the article. Surely it is that Congress has approved extending tax-breaks for wind and solar for five years that will encourage their expansion even with the low gas price scenario that they specifically have included despite what you say.
Pour outrer les encouragements. Wind and solar are inherently challenged by intermittency and power undensity. They will remain so until storage technology evolves. There are niches for each even now, but those niches cannot be revealed by central ham-handling, only by natural market. Mandates and subsidies, apparently constructive, lay a wasteland of lost opportunity costs, which do compound.
=======================
You can also save gas by using it as a backup for these, but I realize that you may be against saving gas due to an inherent dislike of any kind of clean energy, and not seeing any need to save a depletable resource behind renewables.
You needn’t be bitter or presume. I’ve long said those hydrocarbon bonds were much too lovingly formed to be broken merely for the energy within them. We need them for structure, to house and clothe us. And for storage to keep all our stuff in.
=====================
The greenie subsidies were extended for political expediency, yimmy. It’s called getting past an election. Wait till you see the budget next year, little dude.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_dxgSOjBD3ug/TTbohhLwaHI/AAAAAAAAADk/3pR-d1M6QpY/s1600/walk_the_talk_main_logo.gif
This excellent essay by Richard Lindzen is relevant (also relevant to some of the nonsense comments by the usual alarmist trolls posting here).
Global Warming and the Irrelevance of Science
Excerpt:
I’d add, and the gullible, educated elites in the rich countries who swallow the “catastrophe/dangerous” crap – including Obama and Australia’s current Prime Minister.
The essay is here: http://euanmearns.com/global-warming-and-the-irrelevance-of-science/
Well here is a new twist on walking the talk:
https://news.vice.com/article/the-uk-could-send-a-group-of-climate-change-activists-to-jail-today-for-the-first-time-in-20-years
People being arrested in the UK for protesting expansion of Heathrow airport over climate impacts. Arrestees includes one of Phil Jones’ students
You only need to see the company the protestors keep to realise the left wing indignation over the UK govt cooling of the love affair with green issues.
The Shadow Chancellor is little more than a scoundrel, it is said Matrix Chambers was set up by Cherie Blair to promote human rights (for a huge fee) immediately after her husband wrote the Human rights act into UK law.
The young lady protégé of Phil Jones might have a lot of time on her hands so why not invite her to write an article explaining her activism and what she believes is happening in the world as regards Climate?
Incidentally I deal with another of Phil Jones ex phd students at the Met office, so they are well embedded. I must say though that she is very helpful
tonyb
Walk on…
http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/04/un-makes-5-million-more-africans-homeless-to-fight-global-warming/#masthead
to the UNHRC, it’s just down the hall.
In the 1960s protesters were out against facts. There was a war. There were civil rights abuses. Here they are against polar bears being affected. Looks like they are not. They are protesting the 30% loss of Arctic Sea Ice. AGW role is debatable.
The 68 year old said when he read the news he had to get involved. I hope the MSM is not his only source.
How many exaggerations of current impacts are motivating this group.
If given a test on confirmed effects of warming, would they flunk?
I don’t see any problem in college student protests. Most students who care are going to test the waters of civil disobedience. At the end of the day, they will learn a lot more than a student who tests the waters of alcohol dependency.
At least they are walking the talk — they are not acting inappropriately with respect to the issue they are protesting. Their actions are not at all like arranging to meet thousands of other students from around the world in an exotic location so that you can all discuss strategies to protest high carbon dioxide emissions.
It is easy to argue that they are protesting a symptom of the modern world rather than creating solutions. The students aren’t really sacrificing by being arrested. They ear three months of government lodging and food production. I wonder how they will act in five or ten years when they have a job and family to support.
It is an interesting exercise to juxtapose these “protesters” next to the civil rights protesters of the 1960s.
PBS did an excellent documentary about the latter:
The fact is that the sort of protesting that environmentalists engage in requires not a jot of courage.
These are the sanctioned activities of the establishment, the gestures and idioms that gain approval and lead to good opportunities, to jobs, to prizes, to book contracts, to prominence.
It takes no bravery to be an environmentalist. There is no risk. There are millions of dollars in foundation and government grants available for these people.
Indeed, courage is now needed to trangress their dictatorship of virtue.
But in the end the immoderation and mindlessness of the environmentalists and the fact they do not fulfill basic needs will get the better of them. The pendulum will swing eventually in the other direction.
Much of that will depend, however, on the courage of the bearers of the sometimes unspectacular but, in the end, always precious liberal tradition.
Those operating in the liberal tradition know that there is oftentimes a price to be paid for liberty:
Another relevant article
http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/the-madness-of-airline-elite-status
Another relevant article – Lamar Smith is going after the EPA for huge number of flights
http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/23/congress-top-epa-official-racked-up-huge-co2-footrpint-pushing-global-warming-rules/
Does he think the airlines would have cancelled the flights if the EPA’s employees had not travelled??? Ongoing stupidity
What you said is stupid. Read the article. It points out that Obama is telling the agencies to watch the freaking CO2. Do you get that part? Then they are flying about on the taxpayers dime as if they can’t get enough air time. Don’t you see anything incongruous/hypocritical there, when they are hollering that CAGW is the greatest threat faced by mankind?
What is it that you people don’t get about this: If large numbers of folks reduced their air travel by ten percent, there would be fewer flights and less CO2 emitted by aircraft.
Buffy — you’re being fairly unreasonable. Do you want to reduce emissions or not? I know it is easy to pick a fight with Lamar Smith (or any politician), but you can think for yourself. If you want to reduce emissions, then you should agree with him.
Without actions, words are pretty useless.
Rob Starkey is right. Flights would not have been cancelled if the EPA’s employees had not traveled. Obviously, it would be hypocritical for the climate science community to fly while calling for everyone else to avoid flying, but I see no evidence the community is doing that. I’m not sure any climate scientists who fly are telling the public to not fly.
max10k — “Rob Starkey is right. Flights would not have been cancelled if the EPA’s employees had not traveled. Obviously, it would be hypocritical for the climate science community to fly while calling for everyone else to avoid flying, but I see no evidence the community is doing that. I’m not sure any climate scientists who fly are telling the public to not fly.”
That attitude strikes me as borderline silly. It is difficult to take it seriously. It is taking every decision in isolation and missing the contribution to the whole. It is basically arguing that carbon dioxide emissions are unimportant. We can talk about, but don’t plan on doing something about it.
Let’s be clear, “global aviation is the fastest-growing major source of greenhouse gas emissions on the planet.” {https://www.worldwildlife.org/press-releases/nobel-prize-winners-to-icao-carbon-emissions-have-a-cost}
I understand when oil company executives and airline executives feel that it is too important to cut back, but I can’t imagine environmentalists believing in such a strategy.
Will airplanes cancel a flight because of one empty seat? No. But airlines will change their flight strategies with an overall reduction in air traffic. At the very least, a reduction in air transportation would reduce the growth of air travel.
But this goes directly to the heart of the hypocrisy described in this article. The IPCC and climate change conferences want us to make significant and dramatic reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. The UN (goal 13) is to “Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts” — this is not your normal everyday action (like riding bike one day a week), but urgent action. “We need all countries and all sectors of society to act now—it is in the interests of everyone.”
I think they missed the airline traffic exception clause for environmentalists in that statement.
Everybody knows that airlines don’t cancel flights because a few seats are not filled. You people are just plain foolish to keep repeating that trivial crap.
Don — it has nothing to do with one cancelled flight. Is total economic ignorance part of the “climatocracy”? — because that would make sense.
It’s like saying that Ford will not reduce production because of one lost car sale. But if enough people delay buying cars, Ford will cut back production.
More importantly, if you are a post-adolescent bicycle-advocate protesting the over-harvesting of rubber plants to support four-wheeled vehicles, then you would probably lose a lot of credibility by driving a car everywhere. People probably wouldn’t listen to you despite the cool sciency-looking graphs.
It is like every country, even the smallest as Denmark, is fighting the CO2, and if it is important, it is equally important that everybody make the fight, especially the climateers.