by Judith Curry
The AAAS and affiliated professional societies just shot themselves in the foot with the letter to U.S. policy makers.
Last week, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) issued a press release entitled Thirty-One Top Scientific Societies Speak With One Voice on Global Climate Change. Punchline:
In a consensus letter to U.S. policymakers, a partnership of 31 leading nonpartisan scientific societies today reaffirmed the reality of human-caused climate change, noting that greenhouse gas emissions “must be substantially reduced” to minimize negative impacts on the global economy, natural resources, and human health.
The text of letter to Congress can be found here [link]. The main text of the letter:
Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research concludes that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. This conclusion is based on multiple independent lines of evidence and the vast body of peer-reviewed science.
There is strong evidence that ongoing climate change is having broad negative impacts on society, including the global economy, natural resources, and human health. For the United States, climate change impacts include greater threats of extreme weather events, sea level rise, and increased risk of regional water scarcity, heat waves, wildfires, and the disturbance of biological systems. The severity of climate change impacts is increasing and is expected to increase substantially in the coming decades.
To reduce the risk of the most severe impacts of climate change, greenhouse gas emissions must be substantially reduced. In addition, adaptation is necessary to address unavoidable consequences for human health and safety, food security, water availability, and national security, among others.
We, in the scientific community, are prepared to work with you on the scientific issues important to your deliberations as you seek to address the challenges of our changing climate.
The 28 June letter was signed by leaders of the following organizations: AAAS; American Chemical Society; American Geophysical Union; American Institute of Biological Sciences; American Meteorological Society; American Public Health Association; American Society of Agronomy; American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists; American Society of Naturalists; American Society of Plant Biologists; American Statistical Association; Association for the Sciences of Limnology and Oceanography; Association for Tropical Biology and Conservation; Association of Ecosystem Research Centers; BioQUEST Curriculum Consortium; Botanical Society of America; Consortium for Ocean Leadership; Crop Science Society of America; Ecological Society of America; Entomological Society of America; Geological Society of America; National Association of Marine Laboratories; Natural Science Collections Alliance; Organization of Biological Field Stations; Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics; Society for Mathematical Biology; Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles; Society of Nematologists; Society of Systematic Biologists; Soil Science Society of America; University Corporation for Atmospheric Research.
Whats wrong with this picture? Where to start is the main challenge.
This statement is a blatant misuse of scientific authority to advocate for specific socioeconomic policies. National security and economics (specifically called out in the letter) is well outside the wheelhouse of all of these organizations. Note the American Economics Association is not among the signatories; according to an email from Ross McKitrick, the constitution of the AEA forbids issuing such statements. In fact, climate science is well outside the wheelhouse of most of these organizations (what the heck is with the statisticians and mathematicians in signing this?)
The link between adverse impacts such as more wildfires, ecosystem changes, extreme weather events etc. and their mitigation by reducing greenhouse gas emissions hinges on detecting unusual events for at least the past century and then actually attributing them to human caused warming. This is highly uncertain territory – even within the overconfident world of the IPCC. And the majority of the signatories to this letter have no expertise in the detection and attribution of human caused climate change.
The signatories whose membership has some expertise on the detection and attribution of climate change are only a few: American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, Geological Society of America. The rest are professional societies who are not involved with the physics of climate but explicitly profit from the alarm.
Many professional societies have issued their own policy statements on climate change. One notable absence on the list of signatories is the American Physical Society. While I am not a fan of the APS statement on climate change (see my previous post here), their response as to why they did not sign the AAAS letter is interesting (see this WaPo article):
Of prominent U.S. scientific organizations, only the American Physical Society (APS) abstained from participating in both the 2009 and 2016 letter efforts.
“The American Physical Society did not sign the [2016] letter because it was presented as a fait accompli, and there are significant differences between the letter and the APS Statement on Earth’s Changing Climate,” it said in a statement. “The APS statement went through a two-year vetting process involving multiple committees, the society’s 53,000-plus membership and the board of directors.”
Though the APS statement about climate change is more nuanced than the AAAS letter, stating — for example — “scientific challenges remain in our abilities to observe, interpret, and project climate change,” it in no way disputes the scientific consensus on climate change or the risks it poses.
Well, score half a point for the APS. At least they are thinking for themselves, and not mindlessly joining in the overt advocacy of the AAAS.
‘Scientists speaking with one voice’ on an issue as complex and poorly understood as climate change, its impacts and solutions is something that I find rather frightening. Well, I am somewhat reassured that this is not the population of scientists speaking, but rather the leadership of the professional societies speaking. How many members of the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists have an educated opinion, or even care very much, about climate change? And many of these society leaders (who were responsible for signing on behalf of their organization) are not scientists themselves, e.g. Chris McEntee, Executive Director of the AGU, whose background is in nursing (Masters in Health Administration). She is quoted in the AAAS press release:
“Climate change is one of the most profound challenges facing our society. Consensus on this matter is evident in the diversity of organizations that have signed this letter. Science can be a powerful tool in our efforts to mitigate and adapt to the impacts of climate change, and we stand ready to work with policymakers as they deliberate various options for action.”
Impact?
So, is this letter going to change the minds of ~50% of Congressional members who do not support President Obama’s climate change plan, either because they don’t like the proposed solutions, or don’t think climate change is dangerous, or don’t think humans are the dominant cause of recent climate change?
Those in Congress that disagree with Obama’s plan have clearly shown themselves not to be susceptible to pressures from scientist/advocates and their consensus enforcement. Further, by broadening the list of signatories to include societies that have little or no expertise in the physics of climate, this whole exercise reinforces the public distrust of these scientific organizations.
It seems that the primary motivation of this is for the leaders of these professional societies to be called to the big table to engage in the Congressional policy deliberations about climate change. So, if you are Lamar Smith or Ted Cruz, would you be calling any of these people to participate in Congressional hearings?
The AAAS and the affiliated professional societies blew it with that letter. They claim the science is settled; in that case, they are no longer needed at the table. If they had written a letter instead that emphasized the complexities and uncertainties of both the problem and the solutions, they might have made a case for their participation in the deliberations.
Instead, by their dogmatic statements about climate change and their policy advocacy, they have become just another group of lobbyists, having ceded the privilege traditionally afforded to dispassionate scientific reasoning to political activists in the scientific professional societies. With a major side effect of damaging the process and institutions of science, along with the public trust in science.
The AAAS et al. have shot themselves in the foot with this one.
“The signatories whose membership has some expertise on the detection and attribution of climate change are only a few: American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, Geological Society of America.”
But they are the very ones that benefit most.
“The signatories whose membership has some expertise on the detection and attribution of climate change are only a few: American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, Geological Society of America.”
None of these organizations have shown any skill in forecasting temperature. They all have or reference models that run way too hot. That does not show expertise, it shows that they are ignorant of whatever causes natural climate cycles.
It will be interesting to see if membership in these organizations jumps up or down after this foot shooting. If I belonged to any of them, I would ask for a refund of my membership fees.
When the facts come out, these organizations can join the Catholic Church and line up behind the centuries late apology to Galileo Galilei. The Catholic Church will also be in this apology lineup. It is one thing to be stupid, in is another thing to declare it publicly.
Or, like the UK and Australia, they can vote out the bad leaders and policy’s
Whatever is happening today in climate change is a repeat of the climate cycles of the past ten thousand years. This time, we will collect more data. We have ice core data from Greenland and the Antarctic ice cores. Nothing different is showing up. Nothing is out of bounds. Temperatures have been higher and lower than now. Ocean levels have been higher and lower than now. Copy the past cycles and paste them forward, that is our future. This is another natural cycle and we did not cause it and we will not change it much because the earth regulates the cycles. I have updated the message on the backside of my Climate Business Card, it now reads:
About 2000 years ago, there was a Roman Warm Period and then it got cold. About 1000 years ago, there was a Medieval Warm Period and then it got cold. That was the Little Ice Age. When Oceans are warm, Polar Oceans thaw, snowfall increases and rebuilds ice on Greenland, Antarctic and Mountain Glaciers. Ice builds, spreads and makes earth cold again. Snowfall decreases and the Sun removes ice every year until it gets warm again. It is warm again now because it is supposed to be warm now. It is a natural cycle and we did not cause it. CO2 just makes green things grow better, while using less water. The alarmists scare us so they can tax and control us.
I deliver this message, almost every day, to people I meet, everywhere. It is very well received by most. If you believe this is right, please spread the message. If you disagree, explain what else could regulate temperature in such amazing tight bounds.
If man-made CO2 adds heat, it will thaw the polar oceans sooner and increase the cooling snowfall sooner. The upper bound is limited because it snows more when oceans are thawed. The lower bound is limited because it snows less when oceans are frozen. Climate Scientists, on the different sides, do not take this into account, it is not included in their models.
Pingback: Climate power play by the AAAS et al. – Enjeux énergies et environnement
One wonders who was the incenting party that pulled these entities together?
Reminiscent of the RICO 20 shenanigans with the AG’s, NGO’s and activists.
This reeks of desperation in an election year.
It’s going to make a good excuse to cut way back on funding. Especially for those “deniers” they’ve called out.
There are no organizations that has expertise that shows skill in forecasting anything. Historical Ice Core Data has cycles that have repeated and will repeat. Climate Model Output does not match historical cycles and cannot be expected to be correct for future cycles.
Whatever is happening today in climate change is a repeat of the climate cycles of the past ten thousand years. This time, we will collect more data. We have ice core data from Greenland and the Antarctic ice cores. Nothing different is showing up. Nothing is out of bounds. Temperatures have been higher and lower than now. Ocean levels have been higher and lower than now. Copy the past cycles and paste them forward, that is our future. This is another natural cycle and we did not cause it and we will not change it much because the earth regulates the cycles. I have updated the message on the backside of my Climate Business Card, it now reads:
About 2000 years ago, there was a Roman Warm Period and then it got cold. About 1000 years ago, there was a Medieval Warm Period and then it got cold. That was the Little Ice Age. When Oceans are warm, Polar Oceans thaw, snowfall increases and rebuilds ice on Greenland, Antarctic and Mountain Glaciers. Ice builds, spreads and makes earth cold again. Snowfall decreases and the Sun removes ice every year until it gets warm again. It is warm again now because it is supposed to be warm now. It is a natural cycle and we did not cause it. CO2 just makes green things grow better, while using less water. The alarmists scare us so they can tax and control us.
I deliver this message, almost every day, to people I meet, everywhere. It is very well received by most. If you believe this is right, please spread the message. If you disagree, explain what else could regulate temperature in such amazing tight bounds.
If man-made CO2 adds heat, it will thaw the polar oceans sooner and increase the cooling snowfall sooner. The upper bound is limited because it snows more when oceans are thawed. The lower bound is limited because it snows less when oceans are frozen. Climate Scientists, on the different sides, do not take this into account, it is not included in their models.
Popesclimatetheory
Why do you always miss out the Minoan warm period, known to be the warmest of the lot?
Tonyb
Tony’s, good question. When I say we are inside the bounds of the past ten thousand years, the Minoan is certainly included.
Most people are familiar with the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods, not many are familiar with the Minoan, Consider it included.
On my Climate Card, I don’t have more room.
I typed Tonyb. It got changed to “Tony’s,”.
Let me think about this for a moment . . . . politics or science? Hmmm . . .
I must admit, it’s a tough call because science is so darn constraining.
Seems to me that not only have these organizations “shot themselves in the foot” with this dutifully recycled recitation, but perhaps they have also contributed to the “whole new meaning” (e.g. “trick”, “fudge” etc.) lexicography derived from the wisdom of self-appointed “experts”.
These new additions appear to include such words as: “rigorous”, “primary” and – particularly – “independent”.
Perhaps, one of these days, the advocacy powers-that-be crowd will learn that the days of swaying by monotonous repetition of oh-so-stale buzz-phrases no longer cuts the mustard!
AAAS PR: nonpartisan scientific societies. False. Policy advocacy for renewables: ‘Reduce GHG’.
AAAS Letter: climate change is occurring. True in the long view. Warming from ~1920-1945, cooling from ~1945-~1975.
Anthropogenic GHG are primary driver. False, as those two periods prove. Plus no change this century despite about 1/4 of all anthropogenic CO2 emissions this century.
Severity of US climate change impacts is increasing. False. Tornados and hurricanes down. Crop yields up (greening). 2014 National Climate Assessment just Lysenko level misleading propaganda, exposed in essay Credibility Conundrums.
AAAS has severely damaged its credibility.
Between the AG’s backfired ‘Merchants of Doubt’ subpoena moves, and this new AAAS appeal to non-expert consensus, warmunist desperation becomes ever more evident. They are now failing in the court of public opinion, and they know it. Reality is setting in. Renewables reached sufficient penetration that their fatal cost and intermittency flaws are apparent (even Denmark just nixed more wind and wind subsidies). CPP likely unconstitutional; hence the SCOTUS stay. Failed climate model predictions like Christy’s model/observation temp divergence chart from 1979, which has Gavin upset because its easy to understand and irrefutable. Increasingly obvious data fiddling (Karl) resulting in a whistle blower motivated Congressional investigation and contempt of congress stonewalling by NOAA. Just wrong sciency stuff like guesstimated Antarctic GIA >4x actual observed using diff GPS, so GRACE does not show Antarctic ice loss after all, a finding independently confirmed by Zwally’s new IceSat analysis. Observational sensitivity about half of the failed hot running models. Polar bears thriving. SLR not accelerating. Tuvalu not disappearing. COP21/Paris accord a joke per Hansen himself.
A timely discussion of this issue is provided by someone with experience in briefing governmental officials on issues requiring choices. Michael Kelly writes in Standpoint Magazine:
“A well-briefed minister knows about the general area in which a decision is sought, and is given four scenarios before any recommendation. Those scenarios are the upsides and the downsides both of doing nothing and of doing something. Those who give only the upside of doing something and the downside of doing nothing are in fact lobbying.”
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/09/24/speaking-climate-truth-to-policymakers/
I would never have recognized Weizsacker’s mistake myself, if Kuroda had not explicitly pointed out the error in discussing Aston’s visit to the Imperial University of Japan on 13 June 1936 and the embarrassing question asked by a physicist who failed to understand Aston’s nuclear packing fraction. [See page 7 of Kuroda’s autobiography]:
http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2005/PKKAutobiography.pdf
How it’s seemingly not understood to have been removed from the world of science to predominately the world of politics is beyond me. How this is dealt with in the press will be interesting.
The letter starts that they write to remind Congress of the scientific consensus. It is clear that half of Congress is still completely in the dark about the dominant cause of the warming (or purport to be) and its effects and what three times more emissions will do to the climate by 2100, hence the need for a reminder especially about the connection to emissions. None of this should be new, but perhaps it is to some there.
Except there is no such consensus, so the authors are merely doing advocacy and ignoring highly visible controversy. In the same way, your saying there is a consensus does not make it so,except in your own mind. That they and you can say this with a straight face is the interesting part.
The consensus is on warming and its connection to emissions, where a lot more emissions leads to a lot more warming with its ensuing uncertainty in the climate. Half of Congress have dismissed that this is even a significant possibility, hence the letter.
Ironically if you capitalize Consensus then your statement is more or less correct, because the Consensus is a political movement and this letter reminds Congress of that. Not that they need reminding, because most Democrats are members of the Consensus while most Republicans are not. But basically it is just a press event.
JimD, ‘A lot more emissions leads to a lot more warming’ is your belief, not a scientifically verifiable general truth such as you believe. It may be so in pause falsified climate models with inherent parameterization and attribution problems, but not in reality. There has been a lot more CO2 emission since 2000. China, and all that. Except for the now rapidly cooling 2015 El Nino blip, there has been no warming at all unless one karlizes temperature data.
And that is just another reason the AAAS letter is blatant political advocacy, not science. And why their and your beliefs are increasingly detached from objective reality. Ma Nature can be cruel, that way.
Some people deny that the scientific consensus can be right, especially those in Congress who are paid to.
JimD: There is in fact no consensus on the attribution of warming, which you claim. You are making stuff up. The attribution problem is completely unsolved. Completely! The fact that the NSF denies the existence of this fundamental problem and so funds no work on it does not make it go away. We simply have no idea how much warming, if any, is due to human emissions. That is the real consensus, namely that there is no agreement.
This is where a picture is useful. This illustrates the probabilities according to the IPCC. “Skeptics” have yet to come up with their own version of this.
https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/figure-1-realclimate-attribution.jpg
This illustrates why the “probabilities according to the IPCC” are worthless pseudo-science.
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-i-K7ZBtVYtU/V2wLvEpju0I/AAAAAAAAAqQ/4TVBbTjgrwk8JKpqkKTyzeYg2nAwW3ZoACLcB/s1600/IPPC-pseudo.png
What about probabilities according to Lewis and Curry? Just seeing where your “pseudoscience” line is.
Let’s see…
Would those be the ones where they started with IPCC assumptions just to see what would happen?
Would they start with pseudoscience and do a lot of work to build pseudo-pseudoscience, or just ignore it? You tell me. Clearly that is not their opinion and nor have they stated it that way even on blogs because they participate in it.
From the introduction to L&C2014
I suppose we could ask Prof. Curry to expound on just how hypothetical this analysis was.
Did they call it pseudoscience anywhere? That is a strong term. Do you think it is pseudoscience and LC14 is just more of it? You will find most papers on sensitivity do start with a disclaimer that sensitivity is not, and can never be, exact and LC14 are not the only ones to do that. Science is never exact, but it can give useful approximations.
Not explicitly, AFAIK. And AFAIK any implications required a specific type of worldview to make that inference.
Of course, the suggestions that the IPCC be abolished could be taken that way…
It’s my term.
The IPCC stuff? Yes.
Nope. It strikes me as hypothetical, and thus more of a what-if about the matter.
What makes the IPCC stuff pseudo-science is that it builds in certain assumptions that have been proven unwarranted in other fields.
There’s a big difference between assuming that an exact number exists and saying that science can only approximate it, and admitting that the number may not exist at all.
My reading of the paper, and especially Prof. Curry’s introduction of it, suggests that at no time are they assuming the number actually does exist. The comment about framing is particularly telling, to me.
Although I’d have considerable work to come up with examples, IIRC several of the papers referenced by the IPCC are also careful in that regard.
But the IPCC is not, AFAIK. The chart you posted, if it actually comes from the IPCC without appropriate disclaimers, is pretty firm proof.
If LC14 attempted an attribution curve like the one I showed for the IPCC, the bulk of it would still be to the right of 50%, so what point do you think their paper is trying to make? It didn’t refute the >50% idea but rather backed it up, so what is left?
Why should we argue about what I think? Here’s from the horse’s mouth (page 2):
I would take that as an exercise in internal reconciliation.
It didn’t? It really backed it up? When it didn’t even provide an “attribution curve”?
I have a feeling you’re building some of your own assumptions into your statements. Granted, L&C14 may have also used such assumptions, but based on their wording, and the introduction, I’d take those as hypothetical.
Of course, I suppose it’s also possible they were trying to demonstrate that the IPCC AR5 was worthless pseudo-science, as its conclusions didn’t follow from its premises.
They provided their best estimate of TCR and its error bars, and that is all you need. A net TCR of 1 C per doubling would be needed for 50%. Theirs is higher even when you allow for their number being only the CO2 part, not the net TCR. They also made choices for aerosols and end dates to suit their desired result, for example considering today’s natural forcing to be something like 1940.
Nope.
You also need the assumption that a “TCR” exists as anything but a myth.
Based on the parts of the introduction I quoted, that assumption in L&C14 was entered into only hypothetically.
I don’t see how a similar assumption could be made about the IPCC pseudo-science, given its design to be used to support policy. Can you find me language in the Summary for Policymakers that admits that “TCR” and/or “ECS” might just be an artifact of their wishful thinking? (Or equivalent?)
I’ve got comments going into moderation. I’m going to stop until they’re out.
All TCRs are hypothetical in the sense that they have evidence but no proof. Only when you get a bunch of independent estimates do you start getting somewhere in science. This is why so many independent estimates and methods exist. LC14 is just another data point. Do we have record temperatures because of record CO2 levels? Most scientists would say of course because there is physics that says it should be that way. The forcing change is already ten times what you get in a solar 11-year cycle. It will leave a mark on the temperature about like what we see, and no one is surprised that these records are falling.
I think you know that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying the very idea of “TCRs” is hypothetical, based on an unwarranted assumption.
You might as well try to measure the heat content associated with phlogiston. There was “evidence” for that as well.
And did they also make an assumption that this “natural forcing” was more-or-less linearly additive with the anthropogenic forcing on a planetary scale?
If so, just because they used it in parallel to a process involved in the IPCC analysis doesn’t mean they believe it.
Who writes papers they don’t believe in? Anyone would consider it a waste of time to do that. Their time would be better spent doing an honest critique on why they don’t believe that forcing and temperature changes are related rather than this pretense that you assign to them.
Astonishing! You not only don’t know squat about science, you don’t even know enough to fake it.
Science isn’t about belief.
They even quote their own numbers as though they take them seriously, and skeptics do too. What they should do now is retract it to avoid further confusion like this.
Now you’re just being silly.
If they and others quote their numbers all the time, they are taking it seriously. However, their numbers do come from assuming 100% attribution. But, having said that, we have seen blog comments elsewhere that at least one of the authors disputes 100%, but not in a publishable way, more in a verbal way. We still await publications on that side of things.
The whole idea of “100% attribution” is obsolete science at best. Same goes for “50% attribution”, or “150% attribution”, or even a PDF estimating probabilities of different “% attribution”.
Of course, if they were duplicating somebody else’s methods (e.g. IPCC), they would have to make the same assumptions as the original.
But the unwarranted assumption that makes it obsolete science (or pseudo-science depending on intent) is the one I mentioned above.
Didn’t you say that L&C2014 didn’t do an attribution PDF?
They justify it by choosing end dates where they expect the other forcing cancels out. Maybe to you that is just digging a hole.
What “other forcing”? AFAIK unforced internal variability isn’t considered “forcing”
Exactly, and by choosing such long averaging periods they hope to eliminate things like the 60-year stadium wave too. Perhaps that also shoots themselves in the foot to your way of thinking.
What about multi-century and millennial-scale unforced variation? By analogy with other systems similar to “climate” we should be expecting self-similar variation on time-scales from annual up to geological.
How do you tease out the impact (if any) of greenhouse “forcing” from such long-scale variation? Especially when any assumption that they combine in a “linear” fashion is unwarranted?
Long-time-scale non-random variation is from forcing, the sun, volcanoes, etc. Typically that accounts for +/-0.2 C. So far we have about a degree which is a five-standard-deviation departure over the last century or so, and counter to the Milankovitch millennial trend, also 20 times faster.
Utter rubbish.
It’s assertions like this that make the IPCC’s output nothing but worthless pseudo-science.
The millennial cooling trend has been detected. The LIA was at the end of it. The sun and volcanoes have an effect but only amounting to 0.2 C at most. Sure, you are free to find alternatives for a 1-degree warming, but what do you have on that front at this point? Remember it has to be a forcing because we have a positive imbalance even after that 1 C, meaning the forcing is outrunning the warming.
Another unfounded assertion. But let’s assume that’s true, just hypothetically. That would mean we’re in a “millennial warming trend” having nothing to do with CO2. And century-scale variation could be adding to that.
Unforced variation.
No it doesn’t.
Doesn’t mean anything of the sort. It could easily be just differences in cloud response to internal variation.
And anyway, IIRC there’s no evidence for that “positive imbalance”. Just question-begging.
The rise rate of the ocean heat content is the imbalance in effect. We have had these measurement long enough to know that OHC has a positive trend. You want to claim it is some new kind of internal forcing when we already have over 2 W/m2 from GHGs to account for it that you would want to remove somehow to replace with your unknown process. That is what pseudoscience looks like, replacement of a rational explanation with something unfounded in fact.
Nope.
The “rise rate of the ocean heat content” is much better explained by natural unforced variation. A plausible corollary would be that the “imbalance”, if any, is in response to that.
Or it might be that there is no imbalance, that the rate of heat flow into the oceans varies substantially on decadal/century/millennial scales, and that whatever effect CO2 has is pretty much balanced by increased albedo from more clouds.
Science doesn’t know. Science doesn’t even know why the two hemispheres have the same albedo.
Nope.
Thereby demonstrating you have no idea about the “science” of climate. What’s “internal forcing”? AFAIK there is no such thing.
Lacking a mechanism by which your “over 2 W/m2 from GHGs” could translate into increased heat flow into the ocean, the default assumption would be natural unforced variation, which is present in almost all systems similar to the climate.
Nope.
What pseudo-science looks like is using phrases like “internal forcing”. A contradiction in terms. “Forcing” is a myth, but to the extent it’s defined it’s always external to the system under study.
It’s not a “rational explanation” because it depends on “unicorns” to translate that supposed “over 2 W/m2 from GHGs” into increased heat flow into the ocean.
And the “over 2 W/m2 from GHGs” itself depends on question-begging.
And, of course, unforced variation is hardly “unfounded in fact.”
It is rational to say that increasing the forcing causes warming. The sun does it and volcanoes have effects too, and you don’t complain. CO2 does it to a larger extent and for a longer period, and suddenly you disconnect from reality.
Moreover the rate of change of OHC is the imbalance in effect. The fact that the OHC is rising decade on decade means we have an imbalance and all the warming so far has not been enough for the forcing change that is dominated by the GHG increase. This is just the reality you have to face. Looking for internal sources of OHC is where your unicorns are.
“Forcing” is a myth. How can a statement about a myth be “rational”?
By “myth” I don’t mean l1e, or that it doesn’t exist. But the word, even when used by “scientists”, doesn’t really have a rigorously defined meaning. It means different things in different scientific contexts, much less the casual and pseudo-scientific contexts you use it in.
I’m highly skeptical that solar and volcanic “forcing” is really as important is unforced internal variability. When and if somebody starts wasting large amounts of public money trying to “prove” that they’re the only thing involved, perhaps I’ll complain.
Certainly when somebody starts trying to “change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution” on the strength of it.
If Exxon wants to waste their (stockholders’) money, no problem.
Again, you prove you don’t understand science. The “do[ing] it to a larger extent and for a longer period” is an unproven theory. Mostly the “proof” offered consists of begging the question.
I’m just pointing that out.
Pure assertion.
Completely unproven, and highly unlikely.
If it is. We have barely a decade of good deep-sea info.
Pure question-begging.
I could say that the warming is much more than “enough for the forcing change that is dominated by the GHG increase.” The rest is well explained by natural unforced variability.
That would also be an assertion. And if I tried to give a number for “the forcing change that is dominated by the GHG increase” I would also be begging the question. Which is one reason I don’t.
Nope. This is just your opinion.
I don’t have to look. Unforced internal variation is the proper default assumption.
How do you think heat gets into the ocean, anyway?
I am tempted to take the same line with you as Mike Flynn given your denials about actual terms from the science (forcing, energy imbalance). Let’s start with what you do understand about climate change rather than trying to work backwards from you discounting any scientific statements. For example what is your best guess for the cause of 1 C warming we have had since CO2 emissions started? Use language from your own world where forcing and imbalance don’t exist. Use evidence where you have it. Say where IPCC AR5 WG1 is wrong.
Flynn’s just blathering. He’s copied so many terms I used while demonstrating complete lack of understanding of their meanings (or intended meanings) that I’ve speculated he couldn’t pass a Turing test. (But the comment got deleted.)
Let’s not. You’re not qualified to teach science to anybody.
What I understand about “climate change” is that it’s also a myth. It is a term with no rigorous semantic referent. It is a term that is usually used with a forked meaning: it means one thing in some contexts, another in others, and most users don’t distinguish, and are hoping their audience won’t notice.
Terms I often use for this are “semantic bait-and-switch”, “semantic sleight of hand”, and “dishonest rhetoric”. (Of course this tactic is only one of many that qualify as dishonest rhetoric.)
Before we can talk about defining “climate change” we need a definition of “climate”. (We also need a definition of “change”, but presumably that can be built into a good definition of “climate”)
“Cause and effect” is a myth.
The universe evolves from its state at one time to its state at a later time according to the “laws of physics” (not necessarily what we think they are, but let’s assume we’ve got a good enough approximation by now).
But remember that those “laws of physics” only apply to an infinitesimal parcel. The real evolution of a larger sample evolves according to the integral of how all the factors, of all the infinitesimal parcels, interact. Both among themselves and with all the relevant infinitesimal parcels of boundary.
The moment you introduce “averages” you create garbage. (In the sense of “garbage in: garbage out”.)
An important aspect of complex non-linear systems it that the size of the effect cannot be assumed to be proportional to the size of the “cause” (with appropriate caveats given that “cause and effect” is a myth).
Within that framework, and with the appropriate caveats, the “cause” of the supposed “1°C warming” is pseudo-random unforced variation within changing boundary conditions of which one change is an increase in pCO2.
Among the aspects of that variation that we can isolate are probably factors that have produced a general “global” warming trend since the deepest part of the “Little Ice Age”, long before any “mainstream” estimate of anthropogenic changes to pCO2 would have been significant.
It seems likely enough that a similar trend would have continued even without any anthropogenic changes to pCO2. But not certain.
Considering the differences between the trends, it’s likely enough that it’s “warmer” today than it would have been. (Say, looking at a 5-year average of “global average temperature”.)
It’s also not unlikely that it’s “cooler” today. The chance that it’s exactly the same is infinitesimal, of course, as is always true for one spot on a PDF.
But that hardly means it can be assumed that the effects of unforced variability and anthropogenic changes to a boundary condition like pCO2 can be combined in a linear fashion.
Oh, I’m perfectly willing to use your evidence. It’s the interpretation, and the interpretive system you’re using that I’m disputing.
It’s not even science. AFAIK the phrase is “not even wrong”.
OK, that looks like an opinion piece by someone with no understanding of anything that has ever happened in climate going back to paleoclimate. Is there nothing in climate change that you have an explanation for? Ice Ages? Eocene warmth? Weathering drawdown of CO2? Volcanic increases? P-T boundary, K-T boundary? PETM? Maunder Minimum? LIA? Have you really dismissed it all? I know accepting even one explanation from climate science is a slippery slope for you, but logically then you have to dismiss everything, and it looks like you have.
And that looks like an attempt at “whistling past the graveyard”. You clearly didn’t understand what I said, so you dismiss it by claiming I don’t understand.
Like I told somebody else recently: Denial: it ain’t just a river in Egypt.
Go read Kuhn. I understand why we’re talking past each other, but until you accept that there are assumptions built into your
sciencereligion that simply aren’t correct, or even might not be correct, you won’t understand.I have explanations for all of them. Indeed, I mostly don’t rule out the ones you’re thinking of. I just think there are others, many with a good chance of being more relevant than your favorite(s).
Of course, I recognize that pCO2 may have been involved in those. Excepting, of course, the drawdown, which is a mechanism rather than an effect.
IMO changes to continental configuration are probably more important than CO2, and for sub-geological timescales unforced variation in climate and vegetation interaction.
What I dismiss is your religion and its “ANSWERS”.
Since they’re all tied together into a paradigm full of false assumptions and question-begging.
I’ve dismissed all your certainties. I haven’t ruled them out as possibilities.
But seriously, I look at your use of terms like “forcing”, and“feedback”, and“equilibrium climate sensitivity”, and“CO2 control knob”, and I feel sorta like a modern redox chemist watching a bunch of biologists trying to study the cell by measuring its “phlogiston” characteristics.
Your favorite mechanism of continental drift occurs with a timescale of 400 million years and has little to no relevance to the last century. I think you dismiss the effect of quantitative things like forcing changes and imbalance, and even if I told you the much weaker 11-year solar forcing cycle is detectable in the temperature record, you would dismiss that on the same principle despite the observations showing it. You also dismiss that the OHC increase of the last few decades is observational evidence of the imbalance. You dismiss things that observations show us. This is where it doesn’t look like you are aware of all the evidence and you have some missing pieces of important observational knowledge there.
Actually, more like one million years. Certainly the nature of the Himalayan Orogeny/Tibetan Plateau has changed substantially since the beginning of the Pleistocene.
“Forcing” is a myth. There are probably no quantitative planetary scale changes with an effect. For CO2, and likely for solar as well, the regional effect at various points is probably more important.
Well, you can find all sorts of things with curve-fitting. If you go looking for them.
But I find it perfectly plausible that a small statistical artifact could be found that correlates with the solar cycle.
Yup.
It might make sense the other way around, but the OHC increase is much better explained (IMO) by unforced variation due to (pseudo-)random differences in West Pacific storm tracks.
I don’t dismiss the observations.
I do dismiss your interpretation of them. Just as I dismiss phlogiston.
It looks that way to you because you can’t see out of the tiny box of your paradigmatic assumptions.
What’s “missing” is your religious certainty that your paradigm is the “ONE TRUE WAY”.
Take the increasing OHC for example. Net energy in, right? Where is that energy coming from? The answer is forcing, but without that word in your lexicon, you have to explain it some other way.
It clearly comes from the top layer of the ocean, and the lower troposphere.
But you’re asking the wrong question. The question should be: why is net energy flowing into the ocean?
Given that the top (mixing) layer is in rough thermodynamic equilbrium with the lowest (mixing) layer of the troposphere (with appropriate caveats for evaporation), I see three major mechanisms for net heat flow into the ocean:
• surface upwelling (of cold/cool water) at/off western continental margins, driven by Coriolis effect on equatorward currents;
• deepening of the (mixing) layer above the thermocline; and
• vertical mixing all the way down driven by mesoscale eddies, in turn driven by synoptic and major tropical cyclonic systems.
So what can produce major changes to those mechanism? The tiny differences in “global average” surface temperature you’re invoking? Highly unlikely!
Certainly ENSO changes can drive major changes to the cold/cool upwelling in the Eastern Pacific. In fact, ENSO has an extremely complex relationship with efforts to understand “average” temperature, much more complex than most “consensus” alarmists (or for that matter most skeptics) realize.
AFAIK the most important source of both vertical heat transport, and pseudo-random unforced variation in vertical heat transport, is vertical mixing driven by mesoscale eddies in the West Pacific. I’ll grant that it’s mostly the result of my own studies of current research, which is highly immature at this point, so I could be wrong.
But since the “consensus” seems content (“contensus”?) to assume that a fraction of a degree of temperature difference is enough to drive such a net flow without actually considering mechanisms, I suppose there isn’t money for good research on the subject.
Nope.
Even within the assumptions of your paradigm, that isn’t the answer. You need a mechanism. The “skin effect” may work for the top (mixing) layer, but it doesn’t work for the deeper layers, which is where the “contensus science” claims the “missing heat” is hiding.
Nope. Net energy into the ocean either means somewhere else is cooling (where?) or more energy is trapped in the system instead of escaping (why?). The OHC rise is a decadal trend, so nothing to do with ENSO phases. CO2 forcing has steadily risen 0.3 W/m2 in the last decade alone. A forcing change leads to a combination of a surface warming and an OHC increase, which is what we are seeing. No surprise there, except to you perhaps.
You’ve still got it backwards. The answer to “(why?)” is (pseudo-)random unforced variation. Given that it’s trapped due to that, it’s not there to be lost via radiation.
Argument by assertion.
I can as easily assert that there has been no significant net surface warming in the last decade and a half, and the OHC increase was the result of (pseudo-)random unforced variation.
Both assertions are perfectly consistent with observations.
It’s not random, it’s a monotonic rise in OHC on a decadal scale. What else has a monotonic rise on a decadal scale? You ruled out 0.3 W/m2 of CO2 forcing, so it paints you into a corner on explanations.
Oh nonsense!
That’s just an artifact of very sparse data.
Check out Argo’s error bars over the last decade. The data is not sparse. The warming is significant by any statistical measure. When you start denying observations, you know you’re in trouble.
The warming may be “significant”, its “monotonic rise” is a different matter.
There you go again.
I’m not “denying” anything. I’m disputing your interpretation of the observations.
The earth system (mostly ocean) has been gaining energy at 0.6 W/m2 (the imbalance) for at least the last decade. Your task is to say where this comes from and what replenishes the imbalance. So far you have only said where you think it hasn’t come from, so I perceive a gap there.
Perhaps.
The “evidence” is badly contaminated by question-begging.
Nope.
Assuming hypothetically that that supposed imbalance actually exists, if I were to come up with an explanation, it would be why there is an imbalance.
And I’ve already answered that, with my best hypothesis: unforced internal variation in storm tracks in the West Pacific and the resulting variation in vertical heat flow driven by mesoscale eddies.
I could add the Caribbean to the West Pacific, although AFAIK the effect should be smaller there, especially given the small magnitude of the Atlantic Equatorial mode.
There you go again! You’re so stuck in your little paradigmatic box that you can’t even recognize an explanation outside of your paradigm.
You sound like those alarmists who think anybody who offers a solution other than their socialist stalking horse “wants to do nothing”. Come to think of it…
The ocean dominates the total heat capacity. Such large changes in it cannot come from other parts of the system. It would be like the tail wagging the dog. The change comes from the global energy balance, aka forcing changes. That is the only thing large enough to affect the ocean to that extent.
Total rubbish. We’re arguing in circles. I’m done for the evening. If you want to waste more of your 50/1000 comments on this repetition, feel free.
You need to consider the scale of the global imbalance needed to warm the ocean that much. Your half-baked idea makes absolutely no sense in this context. As you ask yourself, why now? What changed? There is one clear thing that did change on a global scale, but you count it out, so this is why you are left with your question on why. A rather large loose end.
Now you’re just being silly, again.
Are you claiming that variations in relative timing of onset, length, and lapse of El Niño couldn’t affect “a decadal trend”?
Besides, I pointed above to “vertical mixing driven by mesoscale eddies in the West Pacific.” I included ENSO just for completeness’ sake.
OHC is total energy. Rearranging the water does not increase the energy content. The atmosphere and land reservoirs are far too small to temporarily store this amount of energy. It is energy in the earth system that has increased. It is forcing that has also increased. These are related.
But it removes heat from the top (mixing) layer so it can’t return to the atmosphere via evaporation.
The OHC includes the top mixed layer and all the other layers.
Irrelevant.
Then your picture is wrong. The atmosphere has the heat capacity of only about the top 2.5 meters of water, so where is your energy coming from?
Nope.
I already answered that question. It isn’t a matter of where, it’s a matter of why.
Jim D:
In your comments to AK you made the statement “We already have over 2 W/m2 from GHG’s to account for it”
No, you don’t.
There has never been any warming from GHG’s. All of the warming since 1972 has been due to the removal of strongly dimming anthropogenic SO2 aerosol emissions from the atmosphere (more than 30 Megatonnes)
The more that is removed, the warmer it gets. .02 deg. C. of warming for each net Megatonne of reduction in SO2 emissions.
.
There hasn’t been a millennial warming trend since the one at the beginning of the Holocene that got us out of the last Ice Age. It has been cooling since the Holocene Optimum, slowly, but cooling is the millennial trend. The warming rate now far exceeds that one, but not surprisingly because the forcing has also risen sharply at the same time. You would call it just coincidence. Science says not.
I suppose that depends on what you mean by “millennial trend”. If you average so as to eliminate millennial-scale variation, I suppose you get that trend.
But comparing trends averaged that way with the recent record is blatant apples vs. oranges. Or lemons vs. watermelons.
Don’t you know this? If you do, you’re clearly indulging in pseudo-scientific sophistry. If you don’t, you’re no more qualified to argue the subject than Flynn.
The consensus is on warming…
Yes.
But the irrelevance of warming to global climate is very much a question.
What exactly changes with global average temperature?
Evidently not much of concern.
The fact that not even (US)heatwaves have increased is the last straw.
Who cares if averages rise some but extremes don’t?
AK
Great figure!
I’m for Lorenz and his butterfly.
Jim D: The IPCC does not speak for science, just for the UN. The IPCC is clearly a political entity, co-owned by UNEP and WHO. The members of the panel are countries. They produce advocacy reports written by advocacy scientists. Your graph merely summarizes the collective opinions of the IPCC advocates.
Not sure what you want skeptics to produce since there is no consensus, much less a bogus probability distribution.
Climate consensus ignores that it is not supported by any actual data.
Congress recognizes this. They do listen to the different sides of this because they represent people from the different sides. Science and Congress have no business having consensus. They must all be Skeptical. Those who are not skeptical, whatever side they are on, must be rooted out.
Consensus meets Congress
so many things about this subject are absolutely hysterical
Congress especially.
Observe foot. Take aim. Shoot. Report incident in form of a letter to Congress. Sincerely, AAAS et al.
One issue is policy advocacy from those we wish to be rational.
But what’s most dismaying to me is the false claims made in the statement which are actually refuted, not substantiated by the evidence.
For the United States, climate change impacts include
greater threats of extreme weather events,
The term extreme weather is rarely defined much less refined.
We know that intense tornadoes have decreased.
We know that we’re in the longest streak without a major hurricane.
We know that the Palmer Drought Severity Index shows no trend in the US.
sea level rise,
Yes, sea levels are rising at a slow rate.
Some of this is due to average temperature rise.
Some of it is due to global groundwater extraction.
The rate is not a calamity.
increased risk of regional water scarcity,
Precipitation in the US appears to have increased, so this is nonsense terms of climate change. There are more users of water in the US than before, to confusing water use and water availability is misleading.
Since models indicate and observations appear to also indicate an increase in precipitation, perhaps they should be arguing for more CO2 release in order to provide more freshwater to the continents.
heat waves,
Heatwaves in the US have decreased. Perhaps this is in spite of CO2. Perhaps it is because of CO2. But either way, increase in heat waves is not supported.
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/high-temperature-trend.png
wildfires,
Long-lived tree scar data indicate much greater numbers of fires a millenia ago. Ash sediments in lakes tend to corroborate this.
and the disturbance of biological systems
Disturbance? Sounds remarkably unscientific, certainly not defined. Biological specimens endure and thrive in a broad range of conditions and fluctuations ( including diurnal, seasonal, and short term climatological ) all of which are much larger than the slow average annual temperature rise.
This statement is wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong.
Well said. If my comment ever comes out of mysterious moderation, you will find more to add to your list.
TE
Thanks for the observation based science discussion.
Hard to understand what the AAAS societies are reasoning on the evidence. No basis for a faith discussion based on non observation based general assertions.
Scott
heat waves are not defined by temperature.
temperature plays a role, but there are other equally important factors.
For example 100 degrees in illinois during may is far worse
that 110 in Las vegas in July.
1) the time of the year matters ( people acclimate)
2. the region of the country matters
3. Wet blub matters
4. Wind matters
5. The synoptic conditions matter
6. the night time temperature is critical
7. the consequtive days matter.
here a while back I did a little study with these guys
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-85-12-1931
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/07/31/science/heat-is-more-lethal-when-it-is-unusual-researchers-find.html
“Fatal Temperatures Vary
In New York, for instance, the threshold is 92 degrees; in St. Louis, 96; in Dallas, 103; and in Los Angeles, 81. (The Los Angeles figure is low because the weather station where it was taken is at the airport, which is cooled by the nearby ocean; temperatures downtown and in the valleys are higher.) In many southern and southwestern cities that are normally hot and whose residents have become acclimated, no threshold can be detected and excess deaths generally do not occur. Phoenix has been one such city. The big question now, Dr. Kalkstein said, is whether the 120-degree-plus temperatures recorded in Phoenix earlier this year – by far the highest ever – were such a big departure from the norm that heat-related deaths soared for the first time.
heat waves are not defined by temperature.
temperature plays a role, but there are other equally important factors.
For example 100 degrees in illinois during may is far worse
that 110 in Las vegas in July.
1) the time of the year matters ( people acclimate)
2. the region of the country matters
3. Wet blub matters
4. Wind matters
5. The synoptic conditions matter
6. the night time temperature is critical
7. the consequtive days matter.
Yes. Fortunately, the absolute maximums have not repeated the levels of the past, nor have the relative maximums. Claiming otherwise is one of the numerous false aspects of the statement pertaining to US climate.
You do raise a number of nuances, though.
Acclimatization is one – Army research puts heat stress acclimatization at 14 days. That means the longer a heatwave lasts, the less harmful ( to humans ) they become. So paradoxically, intense but brief heat waves may be worse than strong long lived heat waves.
Steve Mosher
Heat waves are not defined by temperature”
No, they are clearly defined by politics.
Time Matters! Region Matters! Sun Wind Oceans Clouds and Rain Matters!
And all this time i thought climate was about Global Average Temperature.
Welcome back to our favorite troll. Your comment is timestaped 8.17pm while the first in this thread is 3.21pm. What took you so long?
Steven Mosher,
What is your point about heat waves? I see you have redefined a heat wave so that it is not defined by temperature. Heat and temperature are generally associated as going together, by ordinary people.
Heat waves don’t kill people, any more than electricity kills people. Obviously, people with insufficient resources can die as a result of weather conditions. I believe more people die from hypothermia than hyperthermia.
Warmists get all excited about weather variations, and promote all sorts of scary nonsense supposedly related to CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.
If you could bring yourself to become involved in some field of real scientific endeavour, rather than Climatological Cargo Cult Science, you might be able to help humanity, rather than hinder it.
Trying to stop climate change? Complete delusion! I wouldn’t be surprised if you perform the Warmist Wiggle, and say that Warmists aren’t really trying to stop the climate from changing. Warmists seem to be incapable of clearly stating what they stand for, let alone how they intend to achieve it.
At the bottom of all this nonsense could be James Hansen’s conviction that continuing to burn coal will result in the extermination of the human race. Boiling seas, continents being covered by those same boiling seas, and all the rest of the Venusian tipping point fantasy.
So what is it that you are concerned about? If it’s too hot, keep well hydrated, get out of the sun, and don’t over exert yourself. I can afford air conditioning, so I’m OK. Don’t panic, you’ll probably survive!
Cheers.
” Don’t panic”
In the immortal words of Basil Fawlty: “What else is there to do?”
;-)
Mike Flynn:
It may end up spoiling much of your fun, but you really need to read and comment upon my long post of earlier today (after the image of Crazy Prophets-Monty Python Style).
Problem. When they replace our coal power with with junk wind and solar there is a really good chance our ACs won’t work, unless we all put in fossil fuel powered generators. That is what they do in other countries where we prevent them from having fossil fuel power plants. The greens are the least green of all people.
Unfortunately, our hurricane situation is likely to take a turn for the worse this coming season, with the east coast a likely impact zone. I was around in the 50s and remember Hurricane Carol very well. Were that to happen again….and it almost certainly will…the gales of propaganda will be as impressive as the storm’s.
pg
Interesting statement – “Consensus on this matter is evident in the diversity of organizations that have signed this letter.”
If a diversity of approaches using different methods supports a single theory/explanation the above statement may be somewhat reasonable. I.e. for evolution Paleontology, geology, molecular biology, biogeography… work together to support a basic conclusion “modification over time”. I.e. For example the fossil record of divergence of species can be supported (or contradicted) by the current DNA of resulting species.m this is convergent evidence.
That’s not the same at all as having diverse fields taking a “given” (warming) and then projecting what that warming would mean within their fields. The diverse fields in this case give no support to the proposition that warming will happen. That warming would have adverse impacts is in no way is evidence for or against the likelihood of warming. Similarly a bunch of diverse fields each finding separate adverse impacts from warming does serve to verify the findings within each area. That is not a convergent body evidence but just a chain of interconnected what ifs.
Off topic-why in so many different and independent fields have we been hearing that increases in temperature are disadvantageous while at the same time their have been so few examples of where temperature increases are benign or beneficial? Are we at optimal temperature through happenstance? Or is there a systemic reason, such as a better market for reporting of negative impacts?
Indeed, those in favor of “hope and change”, even “fundamental” change, are the ones objecting most strongly to any potential climate change from increasing carbon dioxide.
“Consensus on this matter is evident in the diversity of organizations that have signed this letter.”
Wasn’t this the argument against the Oregon Petition?
Some might think organisms and the eco-system have adapted to the current climate conditions.
I personally suspect organisms quickly adapt to a range of conditions, and same for eco-systems.
Should we call it “neo-Lysenkoism”, or “Lysenkoism 2.0”, or “Lysenkoist hooliganism”?
Lysenko was about Lamarkian evolution. This is about warmunism. So neo-Lysenkoism would appear an appropriate moniker.
I have decided not to renew my AAAS membership because of this farce.
Looks like Western academic jesters of the Left are doing their evil best to trump reason– on our dime… and, we’re going to bled dry like ritual oxen if we don’t begin the process of downsizing the Government-Education Complex before it’s too late.
Do your feet sweat and scale? do you have bad breath? does your stomach growl at night? It is a scientific fact that climate change is happening to you right now; a changing climate in the air, in the water, and in your body. That’s right, folks, the climate of your body is changing as I speak. You can feel it in your bones and joints and in your back. Just reach behind you and touch your back. Do you feel some bumps? BUMPS, or worse, LUMPS, and we all know what lumps mean: CANCER.
Now let me tell you about my scientifically proven secret formula, a formula submitted to the peer reviewed scientific literature. A formula so revolutionary and amazing that scientific organizations and professional societies like GISS, APPA, DDS, PARC, AAON, ASAN and many others endorse its authenticity.
And I, I alone have this patented proven formula that doctors don’t want you to know about. My formula will restore order to your changing body climate. You will feel stronger, FAST! Just one ounce will restore your body’s climate to that time when your health was so much better so long ago.
Hurry! Just send $19.95 plus shipping and handling to: Hellofaride PO Box 101010 Bennington Vermont, 71638 and we will rush you a full bottle of Hellofaride for you to try in the comfort and safety of your own home. Your complete satisfaction guaranteed or double your money back! Credit cards accepted. Hurry now, operators standing by.
You’re going to be a billionaire.
They want to keep confusing bubbling the false ‘greenhouse analogy’ when, the only relevance to a greenhouse is that CO2 isn’t scary, it’s plant food:
Smart people tend to overestimate their “smartness.” I think that is partly what’s happening (hubris) and of course there is that task being they have to keep the dollars flowing to themselves. This article illustrates the sort of hubris I’m talking about, this article drips of it. The smarty pants that wrote it believes we can anticipate the effects of X before we use or do X. The comment about car makers and gasoline makes the writer look especially lame. As if early inventors gave a damn about the environment as they were trying to make a usable car. From the article:
…
But it’s important to note that it took us a while to get back to this point. Generations, in fact. A lot of the reason why it came back up as an issue in the first place is because of the need to fix some of the problems the original solution caused—particularly, the waste of energy and the fact that running an AC all the time costs a lot of money.
Considering that, I’d like to ponder an idea—what if we attempted to solve these larger problems created by new a new form of technology before it went into wide use? What if we thought these damn problems through?
…
So it’s hard to even get mad at architects who chose simple efficiency over complexity, or (to highlight a contemporary example) early carmakers that went with gasoline instead of something better for the environment.
…
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/what-air-conditioning-can-teach-us-about-innovation-and-laziness
“Smart people tend to overestimate their “smartness.”
pretty smart of you to figure that out…. opps.
Here’s a good one, Steve, one of our Embers Burning Bright from University, top of the class no doubt. From the article:
…
Hunting HUMANS will become big business for the super wealthy within 100 years according to a leading tourism expert.
It may sound like an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie but the dystopian vision could become even become an attraction for stag parties, team building exercise and sightseers, a report claims.
And by 2200 it could even become a televised public spectacle, like Arnie’s sci fi classic The Running Man or, more recently, The Hunger Games , it added.
The nightmare prediction comes from Daniel Wright, senior lecturer in tourism at the University of Central Lancashire in a paper for the scientific journal Futures.
…
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/hunting-humans-set-become-big-8244649
More from the Master:
…
Ecological disasters mean not enough food or land to support the population and megarich tourists hunting the poor to keep the numbers down but as sport too.
Wright, outlining his future vision, added: “During these activities the oppressive mega-rich carry out vacations to purposely slaughter humans, with the ‘claimed’ aim to reduce population size, but an element of perverse thrill and excitement was said to be fuelling the demand.
“Due to the strain on resources for human survival the practice gradually became more recognisable and acceptable on the part of the wider population who form part of the wealthy-elite.
…
Ironically, dumb people also tend to overestimate their ‘smartness’.
On the gripping hand, maybe the reverse is true. So assume you’re a dumbass, and if you’re lucky, you might be wrong.
^¿^
Scientists just seem incapable of doing any sort of cost-benefit analysis. ‘A few more forest fires might happen – we should spent $50 trillion to prevent that’.
Fire is a part of the natural cycle for forests.
I stopped at “Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring”. This stops it from being a scientific statement. Do they expect climate stasis, do they know how to make it static or is this the climate they wish to retain forever? This is either a political statement or they are lining up for budget requests.
Yes to both. It is a political statement and these associations’ primary job is to lobby for more research money for their field. Note that most are in biology and speculative climate impact analysis is big bucks.
“I stopped at “Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring”. This stops it from being a scientific statement.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity
‘In philosophy and rhetoric, the principle of charity requires interpreting a speaker’s statements to be rational and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation.[1] In its narrowest sense, the goal of this methodological principle is to avoid attributing irrationality, logical fallacies or falsehoods to the others’ statements, when a coherent, rational interpretation of the statements is available. ”
“Do they expect climate stasis, do they know how to make it static or is this the climate they wish to retain forever? ”
1. Spot the fallacies in your question. never argue using questions.
2. You think you know what they mean by “climate change” but you are wrong.
3. by climate change they MEAN “Change in the climate due to human influence” They used to call it global warming.
4. “Observations throughout the world make it clear that human caused climate change ( AGW) is occurring.
“This is either a political statement or they are lining up for budget requests”
Spot your fallacy! let me help
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/false-dilemma/
Why did you end up with a logical fallacy? Simple. You failed to excercise “charity” in interpreting the text. You failed as a reader.
read harder!!.
What good does it do us today…
http://www.smh.com.au/sport/tennis/tempers-flare-at-wimbledon-as-players-threaten-to-sue-over-rain-20160704-gpyjcm.html
you knew that already but was weather modification involved?
Mosher says
“never argue using questions”
“Why did you end up with a logical fallacy?”
Mr. Mosher, thank you for the analysis of my response. However, in my scientific training it was impressed on me that scientific terms that may have multiple meanings require immediate definition. Interpretation of those terms couldn’t be left to the reader, reading harder, it behooved the author to immediately ensure the readers immediately understood the definition being used. My career in science, industry and regulatory affairs required me to use specific definitions for words and any ambiguous words required immediate and early definition. Since the “scientists”used an ambiguous term “climate change” I applied charity and gave it the broadest meaning possible since it was not clear if they meant warming, cooling, man made or natural. I suppose, if I made the assumption that these fine minds meant man made climate change, the term still begs whether they mean warming or cooling. Maybe it’s just one of those terms that everyone knows the meaning.
I made the error, I suppose, of questioning what they meant by climate change. Perhaps they should have adequately defined the term and to left it up to the reader to work hard and devine their meaning.
My second, apparently grievous logical error, bifurcation, was correct. However, since the term climate change was not defined, then questions would have to encompass the universe and I was much too tire, and bored, to to that. Since “scientists” seem to believe they have the knowledge and expertise to control global temperature rise from 1.5°C to 2.0°C, I could have encompassed the universe of questions with “What demonstrations have these scientists given us that they can actually control the climate?”
Ambiguous terms may be perfectly acceptable for soft, liberal arts areas, it is not, and never should be used by scientists, unless their pronouncements are solely political and devoid of science. You might tell me about the AAAS statement and Appeal to Authority.
too funny geoff.
I answered the question I asked.
you cant be that dense
“Mr. Mosher, thank you for the analysis of my response. However, in my scientific training it was impressed on me that scientific terms that may have multiple meanings require immediate definition. ”
Then go get more training. reading texts is different than doing science.
Second, if you want to play dumb and pretend that they didnt mean human caused climate change then go ahead and play dumb.
4. “Observations throughout the world make it clear that human caused climate change ( AGW) is occurring.
And what equations does global mean temperature go into?
Certainly none of the equations of motion.
Perhaps OHC ( and subsequent SLR ) are functions of GMAT. Perhaps.
But then again, buoyancy declines strongly as sea surface temperature rises.
Most everything else ( stated but unobserved climate harms ) are made up, and these people should be ashamed of themselves. They have access to the data. Anyone with an ISP does. They know these claims are unsubstantiated, but because of a political agenda, they toe the party line.
correction: buoyancy increases strongly as SST increases.
No, what he means (charity) is that they are actually pulling a semantic bait-and-switch.
By leaving off the “anthropogenic” (sometimes), they build into their statement the assumption that all observed (recent) climate change is anthropogenic. Without making it explicit where it can be challenged.
They don’t ‘MEAN “Change in the climate due to human influence” ’ They don’t mean all “climate change”. What they mean to to do is deceive their audience by using the term in a way that means both, in different, simultaneous, contexts.
It’s not about logic, it’s about rhetoric. Sophistry. Dishonest rhetoric. Something “scientific societies” should not be engaging in. Especially as many of their audience will be assuming that because they’re “scientists”, they won’t engage in such dishonest rhetoric.
Worse yet, it won’t be hard for people to point that out. Which will tend to discredit science in general.
AK,
It’s not unlike what Machiavelli said in the 15th century of the Catholic Church, which proved to be most prophetic:
read harder!!.
==========
the onus is on the author, not the reader, to make the meaning clear.
I’m still waiting for a precise scientific definition of natural climate change. How much can the climate change naturally over a period of X years? Where has that been established?
Because unless and until we have a rigorous mathematical definition of natural climate change, how can anyone determine that what we are observing is anything more than natural?
and i the end that seems to be pretty much what is the root cause of the discussion and arguments. the lack of mathematical precision in defining the difference between natural and human caused climate effects.
“1. Spot the fallacies in your question. never argue using questions.”
Poor old Socrates, just had his ass handed to him by S. Mosher. And after more than two thousand years.
You are quite right, Bob. the deliberate use of slob terms is to exploit their gradually acquired emotive charge. “Record” is another slob term the climatariat likes to leave unqualified.
It is simply impossible to observe the narrowest cranny of the world without observing climate change. It would have been impossible at any time. So the statement you quote is not merely padding, but a softening-up for the activist “message”. It’s the usual reliable valium which precedes the usual big injection.
When challenged about this hijacking of language the empy response is usually that we “know what they mean”.
And if anyone finds fault with what I have just said, I meant something else…or maybe not…if you know what I mean.
Wink, wink.
Nudge, nudge. Say no more. Say no more.
Cheers.
Bob Greene,
Agreed. It’s boilerplate, what George Orwell called “political language,” — “designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”
And then these so-called “experts” are shocked and outraged that the world has turned a deaf ear to their tripe.
“designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”
So, are you saying the Clintons had a hand in this?
Climate change is occurring, climate changes in cycles, we are well inside the bounds of the past ten thousand years. We are warm now because we are in the warm phase of the cycle and we did not cause it and we cannot push temperature beyond the limits of the past cycles. When polar oceans thaw, increased snowfall limits the upper bound. When polar oceans freeze, decreased snowfall limits the lower bound, The bounding is this simple. Occam’s Razor at work.
+1
It hurts to read ‘climate change’. It’s so stupid.
At least they do not include water colorists as evidence yet.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/art/artist-captures-climate-change-in-7-stunning-watercolors/
NCAR is an odd member here. They are basically a national lab funded primarily by NSF, not a scientific trade association like the others.
Far too rational, DW. AAAS just wanted the longest list of signatories they could wrangle. National Science Collections Alliance (museum curators) is just as odd as UCAR.
UCAR is different from NCAR. UCAR is a nonprofit consortium of about 100 universities, that manages NCAR among other things. The full time employees of UCAR are mostly not research scientists (although the new Director Tony Busalaacchi is a research scientist). Assuming that Tony Busalacchi signed for UCAR, he probably knows more climate science than anyone else that might have signed this.
UCAR is different NCAR?
UCAR ,NCAR ,AAAS, NSF … good Gaia
I think I see the problem here.
Only 26 letters in the alphabet.
Soon we will run out.
I know. UCAR was signatory per the post citation. Was gently and subtly trying to correct DW.
> Only 26 letters in the alphabet. Soon we will run out.
26^4 = 456,976
26^7 = 8,031,810,176
Willard, your posted haphazard combinatorial math is so wrong it is laughable.
The correct formulation involves N=26 factorial. Look it up. N! =N*(N-1)…
Assuming all are distinguishable. Else even less.
hard to imagine willard being right, but there are 456976 four letter words in the english alphabet
They’ve already had to battle it out in court for the rights to WWF. And most of the good TLA’s (Three Letter Acronym) have already been claimed. We’re going to increasingly see 4, 5, or more letters used as the more common letters get used up, although we might be able to gain some breathing room by allowing numbers (MST3K) and other symbols (&#@%*$) to be used as well.
I’m staking out ZZZZ for myself right now. No idea what it stands for yet, I’m still working on it. Oh, and for extra trendyness I’m further shortening it to Z^4 (pronounced ‘Z cubed’)
^¿^
> The correct formulation involves N=26 factorial.
Is it a secret formulation that only quasi-graduates from Harvard University can access?
If not, a link would be nice.
I believe common core has struck again.
I suspect Willard is assuming that you can use the same letter more than once. In which case, I think 26^4 is correct for the maximum number of 4 letter acronyms, given an alphabet of 26 letters.
Acronyms? Americans don’t have a clue! Three or four letters, all big, no Umlauts. What sissies!
Now these are man sized AcroNyMS: (just to start with A)
https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/Teilliste_A.html
You’re not ready for the EU yet are you!
Thank you for that farage of actronyms, KenW.
***
> [A]ssuming that you can use the same letter more than once.
What’s the title of Judy’s editorial, again?
***
Any Scrabble players could tell you that there are 4,030 4-letter English words. Even players who barely speak English. The current World Champion is an African, BTW:
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/nov/09/nigerias-wellington-jighere-almost-lost-for-words-after-scrabble-world-title-triumph
Rustvan. Not true, the N factorial would only be true if a letter could not be repeated.
I typed Ristvan. It got changed to Rustvan. This IPad keeps doing that I should proofread more. Sorry
Any Scrabble players could tell you that there are 4,030 4-letter English words. Organizations do not limit themselves to just words.
They refused to correct an error in their model – two years ago. But they keep running it again and again. I don’t bother checking any more. They have my email address after all.
https://judithcurry.com/2013/06/28/open-thread-weekend-23/
In February 1616, a Papal inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism (the planets revolving around the sun) to be “foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture.” The Inquisition found that the idea of the Earth’s movement “receives the same judgment in philosophy and… in regard to theological truth it is at least erroneous in faith”. Pope Paul V ordered Galileo to abandon his opinion that heliocentrism was physically true and to completely abandon the opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing.
Galileo had alienated one of his biggest and most powerful supporters, the Pope, and was called to Rome to defend his ideas and writings. Galileo was found “vehemently suspect of heresy” of having held the opinions:
– that the Sun lies motionless at the centre of the universe
– that the Earth is not at its centre and moves
– that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture.
He was required to “abjure, curse and detest” his opinions and was sentenced to formal imprisonment where he remained under for the rest of his life. After Galileo died he was buried in a small room next to the novices’ chapel at the end of a corridor from the southern transept of the basilica to the sacristy. He was later reburied in the main body of the basilica in 1737 after a monument had been erected there in his honor. During this move, three fingers and a tooth were removed from his remains (reasons unknown?). The middle finger of the right hand remains and is proudly on exhibition at the Museo Galileo in Florence, Italy. http://catalogue.museogalileo.it/object/MiddleFingerGalileosRightHand.html Galileo was (eternally) right, and the consensus was wrong!
The middle finger of the right hand remains and is proudly on exhibition at the Museo Galileo in Florence, Italy.
=========
even in death Galileo is giving the Pope the finger.
A lot of fish scientists are doing climate change research. Google Scholar lists about 550,000 items the include both the terms fish and climate change. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=fish+%22climate+change%22&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=any&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C49
Big bucks here for sure.
Research on climate change and turtles or snakes is much smaller, with about 57,000 GS hits but still big bucks.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=&as_epq=climate+change&as_oq=turtle+turtles+snake+snakes&as_eq=&as_occt=any&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C49
I am absolutely gobsmacked that the Geological Society of America has signed this letter.
Neo-Lemming-ism.
http://media.cagle.com/56/2007/03/16/36065_600.jpg
Plus many. Terrific a propos cartoon.
Rud, members of the above Sci-Societies not party to the
signing of the letter, might like to send it to their leaders. )
The American Chemical Society signed this as well, unfortunately. Chemists, particularly physical chemists, have a great deal to add to this topic. Physical chemists are well versed in thermodynamics and should be contributing greatly to this debate. I can not imagine that any physical chemist looking at the available poor, extremely poor data, could be convinced of CAGW. They should also be contributing to the ocean acidification question. A buffer capacity calculation should show that its impossible to acidify the ocean unless CO2 became the dominate atmospheric gas; surely someone has done such a calculation.
The AAAS letter is so insipid that it is predictable that congressional staffers will hit the delete button or, if a hard copy was sent, relegate it to the roud file.
George Devries Klein , PhD, PG, FGSA
I see little evidence that skeptics have much power in politics.
What grand climate saving program has been halted by non-believers?
What wind farm has been halted by skeptics chained to a half constructed pylon?
Where are the marching skeptics demanding a new coal fired power plant?
Where the streets of Paris filled with deniers disrupting COP21?
Does Elon Musk go begging for government money?
Perhaps Exxon funded George Carlin’s skewering of environmentalism.
The democrats barely mentioned climate until the second term of Barack Obama.
The ‘consensus’ is naked politics.
And not even good naked politics.
.
I disagree. Absent skepticism things would be much worse, but skeptics do not use mass movement tactics, which the Greens do. Among specific cases skeptics stopped cap and trade in the US and contributed significantly to Brexit on the UK. Congress is presently skeptical and that is a great political achievement. Skepticism caused the Paris Agreement to be empty. There are many more examples.
I don’t think I agree, tho I don’t have time to dig up links. I think the Byrd-Hagel resolution, and similar decisions, represent a relative priority: that the US should not allow its economy, or economic growth, to be impacted. I doubt skepticism about the science had that much to do with it.
But while doing the limited search for links I had time for, I did find this: Kyoto Anniversary: What it Means Today from 2007:
[…]
[…]
[…]
A piece well worth reading now, IMO. It’s just over a year until the 20th anniversary of the Byrd-Hagel resolution.
Perhaps “begging” is too stong since governments willingly throw billions at his feet.
“Elon Musk’s growing empire is fueled by $4.9 billion in government subsidies”
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html
Gavin just tweeted this, can anyone decipher this one for me?
In which @curryja advocates that prof socs pretend they don’t know anything in order to get invited to Congress. (link to current post)
Guess he prefers that prof socs pretend they know more than they do in order to get invited to congress.
curryja,
It seems to be written in an obscure Warmese dialect. It translates roughly as follows –
“I jealous. I also being bitter, twisted, and paranoid.”
I hope this assists.
Cheers.
“I don’t know” is the most important thing a scientist can say, however, some are too arrogant to utter the words.
https://twitter.com/nevaudit/status/750142323443531777
prof socs pretend they don’t know anything
==========
what makes Gavin think they are pretending?
analysis requires that you fairly present both sides of the story, the costs and the benefits. to argue that there are only costs without benefits is a nonsense. even the most effective remedy has side effects.
where are the benefits of fossil fuels included in the analysis? look at the world around you. without fossil fuels our cities, technologies and our forests would not exist. we would have long ago cut down the last tree to keep warm.
My guess is that Gavin’s being a d1ck, implying your invites to Congress were predicated on you not knowing anything. This might be Gavin’s greatest gift.
JC, you have simply and now obviously (for the second time in a couple of months) gotten under GS skin. You do not need rational explanations. As there are none and he is not. Just is, like with all other thin skinned warmunists. Kudos. And revisit Steve McIntyre’s evisceration of Gavin’s whines about your possible use of Dr. Christy’s models v. obs charts.
gotten under GS skin
============
facts penetrate where fallacies bounce off.
Judith Curry,
Your statement:
“It seems that the primary motivation of this is for the leaders of these professional societies to be called to the big table to engage in the Congressional policy deliberations about climate change.”
and then:
“They claim the science is settled; in that case, they are no longer needed at the table.”
It seems that a tweet is insufficient to communicate Gavin’s confusion as to what was stated.
The futility of AAAS’s letter reflects the signatories are agreeing to the settled science which makes them ineligible to speak to Congress, for they have nothing else to say: the Science is Settled. Only if they say the Science is Not Settled would they have a place at the table. They have defeated their own purpose straight off. Settled Science means no waiting chair.
Now Gavin, for whom also the science is settled, indeed draws salary and pension for such thinking, would also be ineligible to speak to Congress. So the only logical position for Gavin to lobby his alarmism to Congress is the Know Nothing Party stance, whereby he states he knows nothing, which gets him to the Big Table. For the AAAS and for Gavin, he/they have to conceal their stance and motivation, to make himself/themselves presentable to Congress.
Essentially, the science is settled, but it isn’t, because, we say so, whichever and whenever it fits our purpose.
Have I got that right Gavin?
RiHo08,
I think you may have written too fast for Gavin to understand.
Please ensure that you write v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y next time.
Warmists have difficulty in accepting reality. Talking baby talk, very loudly, accompanied by vigorous chest poking, sometimes works.
Cheers.
I think Gavin is referring to this
Hence the suggestion Gavin prefers that they suggest they know more than they do. If they don’t acknowledge the uncertainties might there not be a problem?
No, I think Gavin’s point is that emphasizing the complexities and uncertainties would incorrectly imply that we know/understand less than we do. It does work both ways.
And ignoring or downplaying them? Seems if a ‘dialogue’ were to take place then all the information should be in play. Starting out with a criticism of a criticism seems like more game play and not a real discussion. Gavin seems to need to grow up a bit IMO. As what I am aware of is contained here (I wasn’t in the Twitter link) I don’t recall Dr. Curry tossing anything Gavin’s way to initiate.
If so, he’s engaging in very dishonest rhetoric. There’s a huge difference between
…And:
But then, perhaps he’s not being dishonest, perhaps he doesn’t know the difference. And perhaps you don’t.
You certainly know much less than you think you do.
attp, “No, I think Gavin’s point is that emphasizing the complexities and uncertainties would incorrectly imply that we know/understand less than we do. It does work both ways.”
“To reduce the risk of the most severe impacts of climate change, greenhouse gas emissions must be substantially reduced. In addition, adaptation is necessary to address unavoidable consequences for human health and safety, food security, water availability, and national security, among others.
We, in the scientific community, are prepared to work with you on the scientific issues important to your deliberations as you seek to address the challenges of our changing climate.”
So you think it is a “let us in on the research gravy train” letter? I would think if they had “solutions” they would reference a few and offer open source use since it is for the good of all gaia kind doncha know. Personally, I don’t think 3200 plus square foot private homes planning on making an income off selling electricity at 3 to 4 times retail to the unwashed masses is all that altruistic.
No.
AK,
The problem is the cost of CO2 mitigation: $35 billion in Germany this year: $438 for every man, woman and child, a little bit more than $1300 for a family of three.
You don’t get people to make that kind of sacrifice with science that’s doddering along on one wing and a prayer.
Politically, there’s a need for certainty, and the scientific community is doing what’s politically expedient.
attp, ” So you think it is a “let us in on the research gravy train” letter?
No.”
So what exactly is this prestigious group of 28 professional societies offering? I don’t see anything new and original enough to justify publication :)
Yup. Perhaps I should have put a /sarc tag after “perhaps he doesn’t know the difference.”
@Glenn Stehle…
But, IMO, “that kind of sacrifice” isn’t needed to fix the fossil CO2 problem.
It’s needed because they insist the solution needs to be a stalking horse for implementing an EU-style bureaucratic world-state on top of it.
IMO the problem could be fixed in the same time-frame they’re talking about, for the same sort of cost (~$20/ton) that several polities have already implemented (as a carbon tax). One that would add only a tiny fraction to things like fuel and energy costs, smaller than month-to-month variation from market forces.
It could be done without significant harm to national economies, without any real need to force surrender of “national sovereignty”, and with a smaller bureaucracy than is already in place for the various nit-picking regulations.
Such solution(s) could almost certainly be justified on the basis of an uncertain, unquantified, risk.
But these people have another agenda besides just “climate change”.
There’s a huge difference between “Here’s what we know, here’s what we guess/suspect, and here’s what we don’t know” and “we deserve a seat at the table because there are things we don’t know.”
It’s not complex. Yet Judy has been banging Mr. T’s drum for more than five years now.
Mr. T’s far from being the Denizens’ designated hitter.
“You need us at the table to help provide real-time input regarding what we do and don’t know, and our best guesses about relative probabilities.”
Rather than waiting for the next 5-year report.
There’s a big difference “You need us at the table to help provide real-time input regarding what we do and don’t know, and our best guesses about relative probabilities” and “Sure, Senator Inhofe, I’ll gladly rubberstamp your FUD.”
Nobody who’s both honest and sensible is suggesting that scientists will “rubberstamp […] FUD”. But if fear, uncertainty, and doubt are an appropriate response to even “known unknowns”, much less “unknown unknowns”, then it would be quite appropriate for an honest scientist to confirm that fact.
There’s not that much of a difference between appealing to any unknown and appealing to ignorance.
Any scientist with INTEGRITY ™ should know that unknowns increase risks, which in turn increase costs.
That doesn’t justify pretending the unknowns don’t exist.
Moreover, unknowns don’t always increase risk. For instance, if you claim to know there’s certain disaster if you don’t take action x, then
introducingexposing existing uncertainty about that disaster may reduce both risk and cost. When action x is both risky and costly in itself.ATTP,
It’s very encouraging that the people employed by the Government are prepared to work with the Government.
Maybe the Government should just sack the scientists who aren’t prepared to do what they are paid for. Government-paid scientists are not volunteering their services. If they are not prepared to support their employer, they should tender their resignations forthwith.
Cheers.
There is a difference between brandishing a strawman who pretends unknowns don’t exist and opposing to that strawman a distortion of Mr. T, whom by some lukewarm magic would make ignorance more appealing, but only a difference in degree with which we explore the limits of justified disingenuousness.
willard,
You wrote –
“You need us at the table to help provide real-time input regarding what we do and don’t know . . . “
That’s a wee bit presumptuous, wouldn’t you say? Even if you think politicians are as dumb as a box of hair, they are the elected representatives of the people. They determine whom they think they need, not a pack of non elected bumblers, with pretensions of grandeur!
Scientists are paid employees at best. If politicians want advice, they’ll ask for it, no doubt.
Scientists are quite free to stand for election, if they think their advice would be so beneficial. Or, start their own firm, go private, and make billions, if they have the ability, and they’re so knowledgable.
I’d sack ’em all. Let them reapply for real jobs, doing something worthwhile – flipping burgers – and get a feel for reality.
All part of the rich tapestry of life.
Cheers.
I wouldn’t. Nor have various senior management types thought so when I expressed such a thought. Although I might have phrased it slightly differently. But that’s basically how I described it to my own management.
> You wrote – “You need us at the table to help provide real-time input regarding what we do and don’t know . . . “
Actually, MikeF, AK wrote it.
Wouldn’t it be less presumptuous now that you know AK wrote it?
It is standard behavior. Every communication from someone outside the consensus (someone who has any degree of standing) will get a nastygram response–if not from Gavin, then ATTP. If not Ken Rice, then Eli. Or Greg Laden. It’s just putting a footnote in the record book and has no relationship to the content of your post.
it says that their conclusions are based on evidence but the only empirical evidence that relates warming to fossil fuel emissions is a spurious correlation between cumulative values.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2725743
It;s a peas and thimbles thing – they simply redefine their terms to suit.
For example, where I live, we are bombarded with advertising that “speed kills” (on the road) Yet upon asking for the data, it seems that:
1) “speeding” is either i) exceeding the speed limit; or ii) driving too fast for the conditions;
2) “driving too fast for the conditions” is 7 times a bigger contributor to deaths than exceeding the speed limit.
But we have a “speeding blitz” regularly. Law and policy has been changed to try and make exceeding the speed limit unacceptable and it is heavily punished. It would make greater sense to suggest people drive to the conditions, but that means all the plebs have to THINK, and that’s unacceptable – better to have a simple motto that everyone can remember, even if it does 1/7th the good!
That’s what you’re up against – sound-bites and slogans. Facts are irrelevant. If the facts got out, why people might realize that “the answer” is not going to help and they might even stop caring! Can’t have that. Much better to attack what we can easily measure (and fine you for!) than find a better solution.
Those most vocal about climate change just do not believe in climate change – except as a politically spun artefact. There’s your prob.
From the depths of the Younger Dryas to the peaks of the Optimum (and the Storegga Slides!)…now THAT was climate change. And it all happened when there were human settlements and even towns. Not that long ago at all.
http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/w4937/Readings/Weninger_2008.pdf
Past, but by no means remote past, Holocene climate is the brontosaurus in the crowded phone booth. You have to have your head stuck in the armpit of a fellow alarmist with your eyes and ears completely blocked and only your gob open in order to not notice that brontosaurus. Somehow they manage it.
“In fact, climate science is well outside the wheelhouse of most of these organizations” – JA Curry
Is Prof. Curry stillconfused about ‘most’, “more than half’ and ‘>50%’?
Or does she actually so blinkered as to think that botanists, entomologists, biologists, agronomists, ecologists… oh, wait, there’s more. “The rest are professional societies who are not involved with the physics of climate but explicitly profit from the alarm.”
Explicitly profit??? What a sad, fizzled end of a mediocre scientific career Curry will have to look back on.
Magma,
You sound like someone who knows a thing or two.
Climate seems to be defined as the average of weather over an arbitrary period. A reasonably competent 12 year old can do averages.
You must have another secret definition of climate, to go with the term “climate science”. All sorts of second rate odds and sods claim to be climatologists. Astrophysicists, mathematicians, geologists – all appear capable of performing the averaging of weather which is called climate.
No theory, no repeatable scientific experiments. Lots of sciencey words, which don’t exist in any field of real science.
Lots of toy computer models, which have different outputs, meanin that at the very best, only one can be right. What’s the climatological solution? Average all the wrong answers! That’ll fix it!
When the models prove to completely useless to man or beast, the pretend scientists claim that more funds are needed to refine the settled science. What a joke!
You might guess I’m a bit of a non believer in the heating powers of CO2. I don’t believe Uri Geller bends spoons with the power of his mind, either!
If you’re really worried about the future, feel free to worry on my behalf. That way, you can wallow in a double load of guilt, and allow me to go along my merry way, untroubled by thoughts of boiling seas etc.
Cheers.
Maggie
You must be suffering from the most common cognitive disorder affecting the warmist lot , the cornerstone of their every thought process: inductive inference syndrome.
Or, you might be willfully ignoring little clues that sort of show up everywhere you look, that is if someone is really looking for anything resembling a factual foundation.
Magma,
Do you really believe private industry funds CAGW research?
It’s the same thing as with $37 screws, $7,622 coffee makers, and $640 toilet seats. Somebody’s got to pay for them, and If the government didn’t do it, who else would?
http://articles.latimes.com/1986-07-30/news/vw-18804_1_nut
http://i.imgur.com/tmhtvns.png
The Climate Change Gravy Train
“Federal funding for climate change research, technology, international assistance, and adaptation has increased from $2.4 billion in 1993 to $11.6 billion in 2014, with an additional $26.1 billion for climate change programs and activities provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009. As shown in figure 1, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has reported federal climate change funding in three main categories since 1993:”
http://www.gao.gov/key_issues/climate_change_funding_management/issue_summary
Not bad for a trace gas.
Ken W,
Scientist kings rule!
Here’s the graph from the report you linked:
http://i.imgur.com/vNrHLHA.png
The sky’s the limit!
Then there’s this from yesterday’s post, and mind you this is just wind:
But Clinton’s come up with the best scam yet: manandate that CO2 emissions be eliminated, and then the private sector has to spend whatever sums are necessary to produce energy from renewables.
Clinton’s going to put Obama’s EPA on steroids:
Hillary Clinton’s Ambitious Climate Change Plan Avoids Carbon Tax
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/03/us/politics/hillary-clintons-ambitious-climate-change-plan-avoids-carbon-tax.html?_r=1
y’know Glenn, That graph looks to me like a Hockey Stick! I think there’s positive feedbacks kicking in, or as Willard would say GRRRROWTH!
You call that GRRROWTH, KenW? Here’s GRRROWTH:
https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/files/2016/03/SELF-Fig-1.jpg
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/04/08/when-does-populism-actually-win-elections/
If Dr Curry can be described as having a “mediocre scientific career”, how would we describe the career of Magma? Non-descript pond algae?
What a jack-off.
Isn’t it amazing that so many of these myopic mini-mavens, such as Magma, appear to be incapable of original thought – or critical thinking of any kind for that matter!
I suspect they hang out at the slandering suid’s.
“There is strong evidence that ongoing climate change is having broad negative impacts on society, including the global economy, natural resources, and human health.”
How is this measured, what units are used to describe society, during what time periods of the pre-industrial world was society better than it is today? At what moment in history was the global economy better than it is now? And how is that measured? What about natural resources, what does this even mean, what resource is lacking today that was readily available in the past? And the most obviously wrong one, human health, which is at its all time high right now and will continue to increase for the foreseeable future. This whole sentence is nonsense.
It’s quite an abberation to do a cost-benefit analysis, and then omit all the benefits.
Glenn,
It looks like standard procedure for Witless Woeful Wayward Warmists. If it doesn’t work, they’ll threaten to hold their breath until they turn blue.
The dim leading the dumb, in many cases.
Cheers.
Glenn,
It seems that they are calculating the cost of living in their imagined future dystopia vs. the benefit if living their imagined future utopia.
It’s an easy calculation that anyone can do, but it’s not science.
“For the United States, climate change impacts include greater threats of extreme weather events, sea level rise, and increased risk of regional water scarcity, heat waves, wildfires, and the disturbance of biological systems. The severity of climate change impacts is increasing and is expected to increase substantially in the coming decades.”
Extreme weather events are mostly exaggerated by 24 hour constant news coverage, In the past everyone headed down in the storm cellar to ride the storm out, now every network sends out a crew to get video of a guy standing out in the storm warning everyone except the camera man to take cover.
Sea level has been rising since the end of the last ice age and will continue to rise until the beginning of the next ice age. Gavin once claimed that the reason we built cities near the sea is because we didn’t expect the sea level to rise, which is wrong and makes absolutely no sense at all.
Water scarcity, first of all, we have better access to safe clean water than ever before. Mostly due to things like chlorine and the relatively new field of microbiology. If there are problems with water scarcity, it is due to our overuse of water resources, not because of climate change, but because we can.
Heat waves, again, there have always been heat waves and we are better equipped to deal with then than ever before. Now we have AC and refrigerators. I’ll take a 2016 heat wave over a 1930’s heatwave any day, even if the 2016 heat wave is a degree hotter.
Wildfires and biological systems, perhaps some climate change impact, but that pales in comparison to land use changes and forest management choices.
The AAAS letter contains falsehoods in every sentence. Here is a slightly improved version:
“Observations throughout the world together with basic understanding of chaotic dissipative systems such as climate make it clear that the fact that climate change is occurring, is utterly trivial, since climate has always been changing due to its fundamental nature (indeed “climate change” is a redundant, tautological and scientifically cacophonous statement).
Rigorous scientific research concludes that the CO2 emitted by human activities is the primary driver of a profoundly beneficial greening of our planet from its boost to life giving photosynthesis. The conclusion that timely anthropogenic CO2 emissions have rescued the biosphere from a long term glacial slide down to dangerously low photosynthesis-stopping CO2 levels (that were approached during the recent Wisconsin glaciation) is based on multiple independent lines of evidence and the vast body of peer-reviewed science.
while in the context of the ongoing climate debate we continue – albeit with some embarrassment – to employ the scientifically meaningless phrase “climate change”, we recognise that, in principle, a planetary warming to fend off otherwise imminent glacial inception, together with CO2 greening (the latter offsetting loss of vegetation footprint, the only real environmental concern) is having broad positive impacts on society, including the global economy, natural resources, and human health. For the United States, observations clearly show a declining frequency of extreme weather events, that sea level changes are indistinguishable from geological uplift or sinking processes, and decreased risk of regional water scarcity (due to more frequent winter polar vortices replenishing the water table), heat waves, wildfires, and the disturbance of biological systems. In summary, senators, environmentally speaking, ‘we’ve never had it so good’.”
“The AAAS and the affiliated professional societies blew it with that letter. They claim the science is settled; in that case, they are no longer needed at the table. If they had written a letter instead that emphasized the complexities and uncertainties of both the problem and the solutions, they might have made a case for their participation in the deliberations.”
Not so sure whether politicians actually want to talk with experts they don’t understand anyway about stuff that’s not policy ready.
Politicians want big name followers and stuff they can use in policy speeches. That’s what some got with the letter.
And when they got those followers they want to keep them….
Pingback: Climate Power Play By The AAAS et al. | The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
The legs of the climate change argument are three: causation, the greenhouse effect (the only settled science part) and predictions of dire catastrophe.
In turn, one of the building blocks of the prediction leg is the attribution industry, the most prolific too, in which everything from floods to zika is blamed on global warming. No matter how often these claims are shown to be dishonest, they resurrect themselves in a way that suggests alarmists delight in their use. And they also help to get your name and picture in the news.
If I were a climate scientist on the warm side of the debate, I’d find it excruciatingly embarrassing to be associated with this kind of nonsensical fear-mongering. Yet almost no warmists have spoken out, Bjørn Lomborg being the obvious exception.
I’m one of those rarities, an atheist climate skeptic. I find it excruciatingly embarrassing to be associated with supposed rational thinkers who disbelieve in a fictional character that lives somewhere in the sky, yet fervently follow the CAGW religion. And I do speak out.
Mr. oldfossil, Skeptic thought suggests that our ratio of those who believe God to Atheists would be close to 50:50, Deniers are still running at 97%… no worries.
Bjørn Lomborg being the obvious exception.
Thank you for highlighting this fact, that he represents the top 3% of Deniers.
Oldfossil:
You state “The legs of the climate change argument are three::causation, the greenhouse effect (the only settled science part), and predictions of dire catastrophe”
Actually, the greenhouse effect does NOT exist. There is another explanation for climate change, which I just posted, but it is in moderation..
I wonder why.
Burl wrote: “Actually, the greenhouse effect does NOT exist. There is another explanation for climate change, which I just posted, but it is in moderation.”
From a scientific and logical perspective, the existence of other possible explanations for warming in the second half of the 20th century (the only warming attributed to rising GHGs) does not invalidate the GHE! Given the vast pool of very cold water in the deep ocean, even modest changes in the rate it exchanges heat with the surface can produce large changes in temperature without any change in the planetary radiative balance. The physics of such heat exchange by fluid flow is chaotic. We just witnessed the results of one form of chaotic heat flow between the surface and the deep ocean – the 2015/6 El Nino.
FWIW, a GHE exists: a 150 W/m2 difference between thermal emission by the surface of the planet (390 W/m2) and the TOA (240 W/m2). No serious scientist doubts that this difference is caused by the presence of GHGs in our atmosphere. Nor do they doubt that this difference will increase as GHGs increase. (There is debate about the appropriate way to convert these changes in radiation into changes in temperature).
oldfossil, so many religions are based on a belief that humans are inherently evil, based on our knowledge of good and evil, and our ability to think in complex ways. In addition, there is a belief in the idea of the noble savage, a mythical human who lives in peace and harmony with nature.
The religion of environmentalism is no different.
Almost two thousand years ago a guy that fished with nets out of a sail boat on a small inland sea…
2Pe 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
was talking with his friends and relatives about just what it is going to take to melt the atom. They even discuss events that mimic a nuclear explosion, weird. What is your best guess?
Well then, there you go. Don’t shoot me, I am just giving you a book report.
Oldfossil, :
I had replied to you earlier, stating that the greenhouse effect does NOT exist, and that there is another explanation for climate change. Then, in a separate posting, I gave the explanation.. It never showed up, and I thought that it was in moderation, but I now believe that something went awry in the posting process–I never received a “Confirm Follow” email.
So, here it is again:
ALL of the global warming, 1975 – present has been due to the removal of anthroprogenic SO2 aerosol emissions from the troposphere.due to Clean Air efforts. Thus, the EPA (and similar agencies abroad) are (unwittingly) CAUSING climate change.
The 1991 volcanic eruptions (Pinatubo, Hudson) injected 23 Megatonnes of SO2 into the stratosphere, leaving a sulfurous cloud that circled the globe for about 2 years before finally settling out (together with a large quantity of fine particulate matter which rapidly settled out) The sulfurous cloud caused average global temperatures to drop by 0.55 deg. C. As the SO2 aerosols gradually settled out, temperatures rose to pre-eruption levels because of the cleaner air.
A. Climate Sensitivity factor for the removal of SO2 aerosols from the atmosphere: was derived from the eruptions: 0.55/23 = .02 deg. C. of warming for each Megatonne of SOI2 aerosols removed.
This factor, when multiplied times the amount of reduction in tropospheric aerosol emissions, between 1975 and another later year will give the average global temperature for that year (per NASA’s J-D land-ocean temperature index values) to within less than a tenth of a degree C. of actuality (when temporary natural variations due to El Nino’s, La Nina’s, and volcanic eruptions are accounted for).
This accuracy spans the years 1975 – 2011 (the years for which SO2 data is available), and is so precise that there can NEVER have been any additional warming due to greenhouse gasses.
As a check, the Climate Sensitivity factor for the reduction in tropospheric aerosol emissions was also calculated: Global totals of SO2 emissions in 1975 were 131 Megatonnes. By 2011 they had dropped to 101 Megatonnes, a decrease of 30 Megatonnes. The anomalous temp. rise in 2011 was 0.59 deg. C. Dividing 0.59 by 30 gives a sensitivity factor of .02 deg. C.of temp. rise for each net Megatonne of reduction in global So2 aerosol emissions, the SAME as for stratospheric aerosols.
This proves that the climatic effect of the removal of stratospheric and tropospheric SO2 aerosol emissions is identical. It also proves that there is no climatic difference between stratospheric and tropospheric SO2 aerosols. :
The “.02″ factor also applies to increases in SO2 emissions. Between 2000 and 2005, SO2 aerosol emissions increased by approx. 6 Megatonnes due to increasing pollution from the East. This caused a drop in average global temperatures, between 2003 and 2004, of .07 deg. C. (6 x .02= 0.12 deg. C, within less than .05 deg. C. of actuality, when adjustment for the 2004 El Nino is made).
However, the .”02” factor cannot be directly applied to the mid-1955 -1970 increases in global SO2 emissions because of the off-setting warming caused by the installation of SO2 scrubbers to combat acid rain, and the commissioning of hundreds of atomic power plants, many of which replaced polluting fossil-fuel plants.
The factor can be used to estimate future temperatures increases by multiplying it times planned future reduction in SO2 levels.
It is critically important that the correct cause of climate change be recognized!
Consider the following: In January of 2016 the world was withing 0.86 deg. C. of reaching the established 2.0 degree C. temp. threshold. Between 2011 and 2015, SO2 emissions decreased by approx. 12 Megatonnes, an average of 2.4 Megatonnes per year. Should this continue, the 2.0 deg. C. threshold will be reached within only 36 years, far before the end of the of the century. And even sooner, if the EPA is successful in shutting down more fossil-fuel power plants, and if China continues its efforts to reduce pollution..
Now, I would welcome any factual comments as to where I might have gone astray. Hopefully, I can answer any objections.
Burl Henry,
I agree, for the time frame you specified, to a greater or lesser degree. I’m only being pedantic because heat affects thermometers, and you have rightly pointed out one factor that affects the amount of heat to which thermometers are exposed.
There may be an “amplifying factor” beloved of Warmists, inasmuch as the formation of clouds (using aerosols, such as you have mentioned, as cloud condensation nuclei, either directly, or as a precursor), may have decreased, allowing even more sunlight to reach the surface.
At this stage, my crystal ball is getting quite hazy – my ability to peer into the future is fast fading away. Have fun.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn:
Thank you for your comments. My takeaway is that you also see no evidence for any warming due to greenhouse gasses.
Something is rotten in the academia.
We all gotta….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOK0v2QYy9Y
no rush yesterday.
Ah, you mean the AAAS whose past presidents include John Holdren, Jane Lubchenco, and Sherry Rowland? Your boat sailed twenty years ago
Ah, you mean the AAAS whose past presidents include John Holdren,
How embarrassing.
But it explains the erroneous falsehoods in the statement.
Sad for science.
Holdren being a past president says a lot. Nothing of which is good. Remember this is the same guy who believes we need to drastically reduce world population, a goal so important he advocates for forced sterilization.
Holdren being a past president says a lot. Nothing of which is good. Remember this is the same guy who believes we need to drastically reduce world population, a goal so important he advocates for forced sterilization.
The Holdrens and Erlichs of the world weren’t wrong that population growth was unsustainable, but rather were wrong that:
1. They utterly failed to recognize that population decline was already baked in the cake even before they started their hysterias ( ecoscience, population bomb ):
http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/images/articles/migrated/CFB000_0.gif
2. That it is precisely economic development that fosters population decline. ( see the striking inverse correlation between fertility and economic development ). Calling for de-development was the embarrassingly wrong answer.
These are pretty simple concepts.
And Holdren is a good example of the evils of advocacy. Education and knowledge appear useless to prevent irrationality when one is crusading.
They’re also not wrong that there is serious risk there too. But their religion doesn’t help. We should be working on a real soft landing from fossil fuels. Nonsense like CCS and driving up the price of fuel aren’t particularly helpful. Shadey accounting makes it harder to make good decisions. And on an individual level, so do poverty and excessive rewards and punishments.
Population growth is not unsustainable at current numbers. With proper technology the planet could easily hold ten times as many humans as it does today, with a much lighter footprint on the planet.
Of course, “proper technology” doesn’t just appear by waving a magic wand. But denying that certain technological goals are possible, or feasible with proper policies and time, is tantamount to defeatism.
Not that I can think of any good reason why the planet should support ten times as many humans as it does today.
timg56,
Why worry about forced sterilisation? Just get the CO2 level down far enough, and bingo! Job done!
It probably doesn’t even count as a weapon of mass destruction – even the EPA can’t find much to whinge about.
A lot of these people seem about as thick as two short planks.
Cheers.
International models have weakened in their outlook for La Niña compared to last month. While all models still indicate more cooling in the tropical Pacific Ocean is likely, only five of eight models suggest La Niña could form in the second half of 2016. The other three models remain neutral. If La Niña does form, models do not suggest it will be as strong as the near-record event of 2010-12. …
Slip sliding away…
You probably had no idea that bats are immune to the Zika virus…
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/05/nyregion/devouring-1000-mosquitoes-an-hour-bats-are-now-welcome-guests-as-zika-fears-rise.html?_r=0
I just learned about it too.
They actually are immune to ebola.
We both learned something new today, can’t wait until tomorrow.
Bats are not bush meat in Africa?
Re discussion of intent, the beginning of the letter states the intent:
‘We, as leaders of major scientific organizations, write to remind you of the consensus scientific view of climate change.’
Notwithstanding the consensus view is expressed in its normal context of urgency and calamity, considering this context has also been the case for a mass of similar messaging over many years, why is a ‘reminder’ required right now? And why to those particular recipients?
It’s possible that there are mixed motives, and not all of them conscious.
Maybe in a time of great political uncertainty, with a presidential election in four months and very asymmetrical political support for CAGW, plus even a possibility that a skeptic may grab the ultimate reigns, then maybe getting to the policy table isn’t the only motive. Maybe insecurity is driving a strong need to reaffirm the consensus to congress and to the world. Perhaps too a preemptive strike is also part of the equation; maybe the full authority of as many US scientific bodies as can be mustered, concentrated into just a few paragraphs about danger specifically to the US, really could influence the great contest about to begin before it truly even gets off the ground. And maybe the reminder is not reminding about what it seems to, but is more of a tribal reminder, about whose side the science elite are on in the coming fight.
Big list of maybes; very low confidence. But potent public statements issued in support of a socially enforced consensus, are typically about consensus prosperity and not about what the seem to say. In this case, the first line is more explicit.
Listen up! Yer Philosopher King is speaking!
‘We, as average punters who can read and hear as well as speak, write to remind the AAAS of the consensus punter view that cheap stunts, cunning omissions, clumsy evasions, slob terminology and tricky language are blatant signs or incompetence, dishonesty or both.”
–
Mosomoso.
O/T. I’ve just been looking at this web site: https://mosomoso.wordpress.com/page/2/
The videos are America, Is it all American or are the photos of your plantations?
Can I suggest you add something on the About page to save confusion. Can you say something about who you are, how long you’ve been doing this, where is the property, how much climate damage have you saved :) etc.
Hi Peter.
O/T All of the photos are of my place – hence the St George cap atop the moso shoot. One can see my actual hand!
The few videos are from elsewhere.
Moso bamboo is said by some to be the world champion carbon muncher. Not that I’d give a hoot.
Being something of a Greta Garbo I don’t say much about myself.
I would like my moso ultimately to cover some forty acres and to become a forestry reserve named after my father, Lieut-Commander Noel Townshend RAN RANVR. That way I won’t have to work it very hard, and work is something best left to serfs, obviously.
My main goal in blogging right now year is to obliterate the climatariat, the Australian Greens, Greenpeace, WWF, the European Union, the ABC and the Queensland Rugby League Team. That’s not as easy as it sounds.
Thanks Mosomoso.
I am with you on all that. plus some:
– ACF
– FOE
– GetUp!
– Anti-nukes
– irrational alarmists
– catastrophists
– Renewable energy zealots
– Deniers – i.e the real deniers – those who deny relevant facts)
– The current US administration
– IPCC
– East Anglia
– Michael Mann
That’ll do for now.
I still reckon you should add something on the ‘About’ page about where your plantations are
Peter, I’d also like to cancel all ladies’ weekday tennis afternoons so that Malcolm Turnbull loses his critical support base.
As to my About page…I’m such a shy little thing deep down.
Mosomoso,
I realise your shy. I noticed this: https://withtwist.wordpress.com/
Can you tell me how many shy papers/articles have you written?
I’d also suggest cancelling book groups, and doctor’s wives’ meetings.
Can’t say. Shy.
Oh, and I think we need to ditch the Argie anti-pope and prosecute Hillary for offences involving pantsuits.
There is strong evidence…
…but, the dog ate it.
Pingback: The climate change bubble | budbromley
There is irrefutable evidence in . . .
precise rest mass data of the 3,000 types of atoms that compromise ALL MATTER: Publicly funded scientists have deceived the public for the past seventy years about the source of energy that powers the cosmos and sustains our lives!
Unfortunately for the scientific community, the dog also refused to ingest the garbage disguised as “consensus science.”
The “fallout” from Climategate emails has united crooked politicians and consensus scientists into a real world drama beyond Hollywood horror.
KenW: ZZZZ is the RICE MACT, or 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart ZZZZ (Emissions standards for Reciprocal Internal Combustion Engines Maximum Achievable Control Technology) for some of us. It’s one of those very badly written regulations that obviously for people like Mosher, the stupid reader needs more training to understand.
Steven Mosher, so, as I understand it, the term climate change which has been used to describe hotter, colder,drier, wetter, stormier, less stormy and so on as the author needs to explain his research. All it takes is more study to understand it? No, “climate change” is a meaningless pseudo scientific propagandist term to mean anything they want it to mean, with often opposite meanings. It is NOT up to the stupid reader to work harder to divine the meaning. It should be up to the author to ensure the meaning is well understood. It’s not a matter of working harder reading or more training, I learned about a half century ago to separate scientists from BS artists.
+ many
I agree 100%. Mosher has drifted into becoming a denier of relevant facts.
Not like he’s known for that eh. Very disingenuous that one, very bitter. He’s not suited to debating science or scientific philosophy
In the literature climate change is always, almost always poorly defined and pre assumed without strong evidence and requires a complete disregard for all the anecdotal evidence for more common and severe weather extremes, like say the recent Paris floods, which were in fact more severe, significantly more in 1910 but that doesn’t stop the foolish enterprise of trying to link GHGs with weather trends, they always fail.
The mantra now is any warmth is Man made and any cooling is aerosols and natural variability, apparently any warming is all now man made, which is the most ludicrous thing ever
“the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) issued a press release entitled Thirty-One Top Scientific Societies Speak With One Voice on Global Climate Change.”
There’s a typo error here. It should read: Thirty-One Top Idiotic Societies Speak With One Voice on Global Climate Change
“In a consensus letter to U.S. policymakers, a partnership of 31 leading nonpartisan scientific societies today reaffirmed the reality of human-caused climate change”
Only idiots need to reaffirm the sun rises in the morning. But they forget to add it’s indistinguishable from natural climate change thus hardly detectable. Urban heat island effect is easily detectable. They should refer to that in particular.
“noting that greenhouse gas emissions “must be substantially reduced” to minimize negative impacts on the global economy, natural resources, and human health.”
Since water vapor is 10x more abundant than CO2 in the atmosphere, they should substantially reduce evaporation. However we should maximize the positive impacts of CO2 on global economy (energy production), natural resources (plant growth) and human health (plant food)
Isn’t “Recent Climate change” technically.. an oxymoron JC?
JC “Recent climate change” is an oxymoron is it not? Every year Gavin Schmidt goes wow, as if one single year is anything when dealing with climate trends..
This is part of the problem, every bit of weather is scrutinized, every multi yearly weather anomaly, like Paris flooding has 10% of the manifested effects as “man made”.
After years of stating climate is not weather, all they talk of now is weather and 100 years from now.
In the next 10 years it will slowly become clear that AGW has been over stated considerably. The likes of these committees will in the end seek to pass the buck of responsibility, they will claim ignorance in that they believed the 97% quoted so often in popular press. Politicians will do the same, claiming they knew of no alternative opinions in climate science & seek to not let it happen again. Media will take a harder hit, because they have given no time to the so called “Denialists” who have only been seeking to restore balance to a debate so over compensated by political forces and media forces with an agenda. Even Obama (not at this time if office) will claim ignorance, his science advisors did not keep him informed. The buck will stop with a small group of scientists, politicians and other high level interests running this shell game. It may take a while but as their predictions get worst and the ice grows, slowly this will start to happen. I advise climate scientists to follow the example of Judith Curry & get out in front of this train wreck because when the penny drops, and the realisation comes that $trillions has been spent in an effort to stop a natural cycle, people will want “blood”.
I agree with all that, especially this bit:
Pingback: Judith Curry Slams AAAS – “Blatant Misuse Of Scientific Authority” | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
This post is now famous:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/6/science-groups-blasted-crossing-line-activism-clim/.
Congratulations!
“Thirty-One Top Scientific Societies Speak With One Voice on Global Climate Change.”
Mass hysteria is a phenomenon that transmits collective delusions of threats, whether real or imaginary, through a population in society as a result of rumors and fear.
http://80c2c58297745c19d00b-3ef697e5597e4211b9a782820054083a.r58.cf2.rackcdn.com/AB898F81-4833-41A1-9D69-A4322EC90789.jpg
The only policy relevant bit in the letter seems to be this, so I assume that this is the bit that people regard as stepping over the line:
So, what is wrong with the above? It seems obvious that some form of adaptation will be necessary (unless you think climate change isn’t happening) and it seems clear that reducing the risk of the most severe impacts will require reductions in GHG emissions (unless you think GHGs don’t produce warming, or you think that the higher climate sensitivity values are simply impossible). Hence, it seems to me that the above is entirely defensible.
You are kidding, right? None of these policies can be justified by our present understanding, so these claims are not defensible. In particular, when it comes to specific severe impacts we do not know that the climate is changing, such that they are increasing significantly. The existence of severe weather is not evidence of climate change.
As for the higher sensitivity values, the evidence against them is now very strong. Nor is sensitivity a prediction; it is merely a possibility and a remote one at that.
Scary hand waving does not justify dangerous policies and that is precisely what this letter is about.
No, I’m not kidding. If you think that they’re not defensible, then it’s hard not to conclude that you think that anthropogenically-driven climate change is not happening and that it won’t continue to happen if we continue to emit GHGs into the atmosphere.
No, it’s not. If anything, the evidence for the lower values is getting weaker.
“dangerous policies” – sounds a bit alarmist? This letter is not about that. It is about the evidence suggesting that continuing to emit GHGs into the atmosphere carries the risk of potentially severe outcomes, and to avoid these outcomes will require reducing emissions (we can choose not to do so, but that just means that we then run the risk of these outcomes materialising). It also makes the entirely defensible suggestion that we will have to adapt to some of the anthropogenically-driven changes.
ATTP,
Neither you nor anybody else can predict the output of a chaotic system in any useful way.
Silly. Silly. Silly.
As far as weather (and hence climate) predictions are concerned, it is difficult to achieve better results than the persistence prediction in the short term
In the long term, astrology will perform equally as well as climatology, pointless and irrelevant toy computer models notwithstanding.
No climate prediction, projection, or forecast has been of the slightest use to humanity to date.
Maybe you could devise a model that works, unlike your last attempt. I wish you the best of luck. It seems like you’ll need it!
Cheers.
ATTP: The Lukewarmers say AGW is happening but it is benign, possibly even beneficial. You are therefore conflating AGW with CAGW, two very different things. AGW per se does not justify government action. The dangers of the proposed decarbonization policies are well documented. Have you missed this? So is the evidence for low sensitivity, much of it discussed here. Have you missed this?
Nope. It is about that.
Just consider that people who have accepted the science, but advocate a different cost/benefit approach to solving the problem have also been denigrated as deniers. By pretty much the same crowd.
ATTP: here is a useful introduction to lukewarming, since you seem not to be familiar with the concept:
https://store.cato.org/book/lukewarming
Accepting the hypothesis of human induced climate change in no way implies accepting the need for GHG reduction policies. Far from it.
It is about the evidence suggesting that continuing to emit GHGs into the atmosphere carries the risk of potentially severe outcomes
The problem is, the severe outcomes they try to invoke, for the US at least, are falsified by observational data.
Either the authors are ignorant of the data ( which would be bad ).
Or the authors are aware of the data, but willfully mislead ( which would be much worse for an ostensibly scientific organization ).
Of course, societies and aggregations of societies such as this are political organizations, not scientific. Science is an activity best performed by individuals, not groups.
TE,
Have you considered the possibility that you are simply wrong?
@…aTTP…
Have you ever considered the possibility that the people who say the mitigation policies would be disastrous might be right?
“Have you considered the possibility that you are simply wrong?”
I must come off as an a hole.
However, this is about the data, not me.
I had nothing to do with the drought measurements in the US which don’t indicate any significant trend.
I had nothing to do with the global satellite drought measurements which don’t indicate any significant trend.
I had nothing ( well not much ) to do with US temperature measurements which indicate a decrease in extremely high maximum temperatures of the past.
I had nothing to do with the accumulated cyclone energy which indicate no significant trend.
I had nothing to do with the tree-scar measurements which indicate that intense fires were more prevalent in the past. Or the ash sediment studies which indicate the same.
I had nothing to do with the strong tornado counts which have declined in the US.
TE
Keep calm and keep providing observation data and graphs. Encourage ATTP to provide observation data and illistrations to make his point instead of generalized conclusions that one can just ignore as opinions not based on facts.
You are not any kind of hole. Some appreciate your contributions.
Scott
+1
It is about the evidence suggesting that continuing to emit GHGs into the atmosphere carries the risk of potentially severe outcomes
That doesn’t seem defensible.
You’re saying that because the US has had relatively minor changes thus far, therefore future changes will be minor as well? That we can expect the same ol’ same ol’ from 3-5 degrees of global warming as we can from the ~1 degree we’ve experienced thus far?
And you also conflate “no statistically-significant anthropogenic drought” with “no anthropogenic drought”. It’s the conflation of absence of evidence with evidence of absence.
Basically, the problem is that “not statistically significant” just means “we don’t know if this is happening”. It doesn’t mean “this isn’t happening”. You can’t use uncertainty about droughts to claim that droughts aren’t a risk. That’s kinda obvious if you think about it.
You’re saying that because the US has had relatively minor changes thus far, therefore future changes will be minor as well?
I’m saying more than that.
The changes of the identified risks are not just minor – they’re of the opposite sign to that claimed.
extreme weather events is undefined here, but strong tornadoes, a proxy for intense thunderstorms, have declined
water scarcity is a difficult case to make when what trend there is in the US is of less drought, not more.
heat waves have also decreased.
wildfires are fewer now than they were a millenia ago.
and the disturbance of biological systems is so nebulous not to warrant a response.
Global mean surface temperature might well induce sea level rise but even there, it is not a singular factor and SLR is not rising a a calamitous rate as seen in the movies.
Because radiative forcing, while it does vary somewhat with vertical profile, is relatively immune to changes of the atmosphere due to circulation, so models can do a reasonable job of predicting that the global mean temperatures increase.
Weather, on the other hand, is not predictable in the long run. Even if it were, weather does not depend on global mean temperature. No physical equation describing weather uses global mean temperature as an input.
That we can expect the same ol’ same ol’ from 3-5 degrees of global warming as we can from the ~1 degree we’ve experienced thus far?
I chastised Holdren ( and Erlich ) for making wild claims about population, just when it was obvious that population was going to fall. Well, we’re getting close to that day, and demand for everything, including fossil energy, will decline with it. So I don’t think you can make up numbers for future warming much different than the recent past, because we’re already coming down from peak rates of radiative forcing.
And you also conflate “no statistically-significant anthropogenic drought” with “no anthropogenic drought”. It’s the conflation of absence of evidence with evidence of absence.
There’s no physical basis to believe that warming would increase drought.
It certainly doesn’t in the seasonal variation – just the opposite – precipitation increases from winter to summer in most extra-tropical locales. Global temperature doesn’t cause precipitation or the lack of it. Discrete dynamical events ( tropical and extra-tropical cyclones, et. al. ) cause precipitation, and these events are both unpredictable and not determined by global mean temperature.
Basically, the problem is that “not statistically significant” just means “we don’t know if this is happening”. It doesn’t mean “this isn’t happening”. You can’t use uncertainty about droughts to claim that droughts aren’t a risk. That’s kinda obvious if you think about it.
Yes – this puts your strongest case as “global warming is less significant than natural variation”.
Weather certainly depends on temperature.
We could probably just stop there. You threw in a lot of red herrings about “global temperature”, as if there were no connection between global temp and local temps.
Global warming raises local temperatures in most places, and that changes the weather.
Huh? Yeah there is. You’d expect an expansion of the Hadley cells with warming, and an expansion of the arid areas in the subtropics.
At a simpler level: note that warmer air can hold more moisture. If you’re like many skeptics and think that the water vapor feedback is spurious, then you’re saying that the air will be drier. Ergo, more drought.
If the air maintains the same relative humidity, you’d expect greater extremes of both droughts and floods. Wet areas will get wetter; dry areas will get drier.
This^^ ignores the effects of “blocking highs”; it comes simply from the physics of air and water vapor.
Even state Attorney Generals, are refusing to release their own version of AGW science stuff because it is proprietary and besides all skeptics will want to do is poke holes in it.
http://freebeacon.com/issues/dem-ags-accused-flouting-public-records-laws/
Hillary has proved herself by leading the march, providing us with
her version of post modern AGW science, that will be good for the little people for a change.
Benjamin Winchester,
You wrote –
“At a simpler level: note that warmer air can hold more moisture. If you’re like many skeptics and think that the water vapor feedback is spurious, then you’re saying that the air will be drier. Ergo, more drought.”
Warmist Waffle. True, as far as it goes, but maybe irrelevant.
The arid tropical deserts have the hottest air in the world over them.
Water vapour feedback? Not hardly!
In fact, the less GHG in the atmosphere, the hotter the surface – other conditions, such as insolation, being much the same.
Simpler, sure. Obviously not simple enough for Warmists. They seem to achieve a level of simplicity that can only be marvelled at, by sane and rational people.
Cheers.
“TTP: The Lukewarmers say AGW is happening but it is benign, possibly even beneficial.
No we dont say that.
At least smart Lukewarmers dont say it.
Mike Flynn
Nope. On average, the subtropical deserts are about the same temperature as the tropics. They just have bigger swings of temperature from high to low, as moisture mitigates the daily temperature swings.
I’m pretty sure I’ve seen people telling you this before, but you just seem to ignore it.
On top of that, the subtropical deserts are heated adiabatically by the winds flowing out of the tropics. It’s not like you can separate the tropics and subtropics, not when there are constant winds flowing between them that carry heat. In the Earth’s climate, everything is connected.
There’s no point in simplifying something so much that it becomes wrong. Particularly not when that requires tossing out physics or ignoring things like the heat flow between the tropics and subtropics.
I’m actually a weak warmer.
That is, I can’t see the point in getting excited by a bit of warming typical of our geological epoch. Nor will I get excited, as people did in the 70s, by some absolutely garden-variety cooling when it occurs.
And a bit of a dawdle where we might not be warming for a couple of decades is even more trivial. Is there a pause? Too slight a matter.
The idea of the Holocene as a dropped spaghetti rather than a straight line was never challenged, never controversial, till climate became political. We are supposed to pretend that what is old and dead common is new and threatening. Only someone lazy or manipulative enough to use a slob expression like “climate change” could hope to get away with it. (Is a change in climate due to climate change? Golly. Have to think about that one.)
A sluggish three horse race, warming, pausing, cooling, where it doesn’t matter who is winning. And for this we are flushing trillions?
If we get a fair dinkum cooling like 2200BC or even an LIA get back to me. As to warming…I prefer the cool, but humanity does all its best work when the temp is up. Pity our Holocene is on the home stretch. That last big dip in temps just a few hundred years ago looked grim. Uh-oh.
Yeah, I’m a solid warmer. I’ve looked at the physics a fair bit, and it’s solid.
And nearly all of the skeptical arguments I hear are really, really bad, either rejecting physics or math at some level. 99% of the time, they’re based on misconceptions that would get you a flunking grade in a college science or math class. I can count on one hand the number of skeptics who I’ve talked with who have actually sat down with a textbook on the subject and put in any kind of serious study. And, it usually shows. =\
You can also go Curry’s route, and talk a lot about the uncertainty in what we know. Which is valid!
But the uncertainty cuts both ways – it might warm more than we expect, just as much as it might warm less. Those natural cycles might be cooling us, not warming us. (Hell, very recently, they were aligned for cooling, and all we got for it was a short-term decrease in the rate of warming).
So I think that Curry does sometimes point out areas that legitimately need more study. But “needs more study” doesn’t mean “we’re safe” — it just means that we don’t know as much about some aspect of climate change as we’d like. Flip a coin to figure out if a given one will turn out for good or bad.
But really, it comes down to this: the basic physics tells us we should warm. And the observations say that we’re warming, right in line with the basic physics.
So the naive expectation becomes that it’s gonna warm, and the climate scientists are roughly right. At that point, you have to give me evidence that warming will be small… and you have to do it without throwing out known physics or math. So far, skeptics have failed on that point.
Benjamin Winchester,
You haven’t actually challenged anything I said. Your silly attempt to bring in averages reminds me of the British SAS members who died because some genius like yourself used an average desert temperature to decide what kit was necessary.
Averages, so beloved of foolish Warmists, are of little solace if you’re freezing, boiling, drowning or dying of thirst.
Just as a matter of interest, you say that you cannot separate the sub-tropical and tropical deserts. It seems that you just did. Sorry, but the temptation to throw in a little “gotcha” was overwhelming!
I wouldn’t be surprised if you say that you really meant something else, and blame me for your lack of clarity.
The point is that lack of your wondrous GHGs results in higher daytime temperatures, and lower nighttime temperatures, in accordance with normal, rather than Warmist, physics.
An extreme example is noticed on the Moon. No GHGs at all. Over 100 C during the day. Far higher than Earth. And vice versa for low temperatures.
Cheers.
Just as I accept basic natural history I accept basic physics. In fact, whenever I reside in glass receptacles I am always conscious of CO2 and Arrhenius.
When things got really warm around 8000 BC and Test cricket was forever cancelled in Doggerland (they still play hit-and-giggle cricket on a sandbank out there on Goodwin Sands) the worst part of it was the Storegga Slides. No doubt setting up civilisations became easier as things settled down a bit after that…not that they ever settled down.
From the Younger Dryas to the Optimum just eight thousand years back…now that really was climate change. Fortunately it was a warming.
Awkward having to ignore all that or fudge it away. Must be easier hobbies.
“Yeah there is. You’d expect an expansion of the Hadley cells with warming, and an expansion of the arid areas in the subtropics.”
Really?
It’s almost as if you could point to an equation that included temperature and the Hadley cells. But you can’t. Mostly because there’s no such thing as a Hadley Cell. It is a conceptual model. What do exist are waves invoked by the meridional temperature gradients. What you will find is that the subsidence associated these waves is most pronounced in the sub-tropics due to the slope of isentropes of potential temperature. The resulting subsidence is not due to absolute temperature but the gradient of temperature. And the intensity of that subsidence, though due to the gradients, is greatest during winter in contradiction to the misguided attempts to invoke the Hadley Cells as a source of drought.
If the air maintains the same relative humidity, you’d expect greater extremes of both droughts and floods. Wet areas will get wetter; dry areas will get drier.
Nonsense. You expect rain where cyclones pass and give lift.
Precipitation occurs ( or fails to occur ) because of fluctuation in the circulation. Those fluctuations are necessary for precipitation because, with very few exceptions, upward motion is necessary for precipitation. The same circulation ( cyclones ) that brings such vertical motion also tend to advect water vapor with them. It does rain in Phoenix and Las Vegas, just not as much as elsewhere because of the path of cyclones largely influence by the mountains.
Benjamin Winchester
99% of the time, they’re based on misconceptions that would get you a flunking grade in a college science or math class.
Do you remember what grade you got in nonlinear thermodynamics?
and Then There’s Physics: “TTP: The Lukewarmers say AGW is happening but it is benign, possibly even beneficial.
That’s the quick summary of the evidence to date, is it not? The increase in vegetation growth was published by Nature, despite their general editorial stance claiming that AGW is bad. The thriving of the coccolithophore population was published by Science Magazine, despite their editorial stance that AGW is bad. Where is the evidence that the combination of increased global mean temp, increased global rainfall, and increased CO2 has produced changes for the worse? Another of the frequent bleaching of corals (with a simulation that it could be worse in the future)? Even malaria incidence is down, despite the prediction that it would rise. Seaweed populations have grown.
Matthew,
What you quoted isn’t from me. You seem to be suggesting that maybe the outcome could be good. However, this doesn’t really change the point. If we continue to emit CO2 into the atmosphere, we will continue to change our climate. Doing so carries risks. There is a chance that these changes could be severely negative. To reduce the risk of such an outcome requires reducing emissions. We don’t have to reduce emissions, but then we won’t reduce the risk of those possible severe negative outcomes. We might, however, be lucky and the changes will be benign, or even positive, but that doesn’t change that there is a risk that this will not be the case (to be clear, most who work on this think that it unlikely that the changes will be benign, or positive, if we continue to increase our emissions).
and Then There’s Physics: We don’t have to reduce emissions, but then we won’t reduce the risk of those possible severe negative outcomes.
You don’t dispute my assertion that changes since 1880 are beneficial. Is that correct? Then you assert that the future holds only potentially bad outcomes to be avoided, and no potentially good outcomes to be welcomed. Thus you are counterposing imagined bad outcomes against experienced good outcomes.
In the meantime, while scientific research continues, you do not (or at least have not here) supported my idea that we’d be better off investing in flood control, reforestation and afforestation, and irrigation. Is that right?
No. I find that addressing things that people have asserted is typically a waste of time. If they were open to the possibility that they might be wrong, they wouldn’t have asserted it in the first place.
No, try reading it again.
No, see above.
I have said nothing one way or the other. I don’t even remember seeing you present this argument.
and Then There’s Physics: (to be clear, most who work on this think that it unlikely that the changes will be benign, or positive, if we continue to increase our emissions
that might be a fair statement of what most people who work in the field believe, but I think that the evidence accumulated shows them to have been wrong for a little over 3 decades now. Recall that the coccolithophore study was conducted because of the hypothesis that accumulating CO2 would be harming the little critters (they are a “canary in the coal mine”); that part of the CO2 theory has been shown false. It’s only one of the “liabilities” of which I wrote.
and then there’s idiots: If they were open to the possibility that they might be wrong, they wouldn’t have asserted it in the first place.
Of course I might be wrong. That’s why I read the literature and solicit new information.
aThenThere’sPhysics: it seems clear that reducing the risk of the most severe impacts will require reductions in GHG emissions (unless you think GHGs don’t produce warming, or you think that the higher climate sensitivity values are simply impossible). Hence, it seems to me that the above is entirely defensible.
“Seems” is in the mind of the writer. The accumulating evidence is that GHGs have much smaller effects than we were warned of by Hansen et al in the 80s, and that reducing GHGs will produce little benefit. The GHGs have no effect on “natural resources”, and the combination of warming, increased CO2 and increased rainfall have (according to recent surveys) increased vegetation.
“Defensible”? maybe. “Entirely defensible”? Are you entirely ignorant? The defense is riddle with liabilities.
> The accumulating evidence is that GHGs have much smaller effects than we were warned of by Hansen et al in the 80s, and that reducing GHGs will produce little benefit.
“Accumulating evidence” weasels away the point.
That’s how Willard argues – claiming evidence is a “weasel” tactic. How dare someone point to evidence.
> [C]laiming evidence is a “weasel” tactic.
Claiming that mattstat’s “accumulating evidence” is a weasel tactic, timmy boy.
Words. Things. The difference between them.
Proper words (hint: “accumulating”) too can help.
Willard: Claiming that mattstat’s “accumulating evidence” is a weasel tactic,
What I wrote was not and is not a false statement.
note well that the global warming alarmism began when there was no evidence at all of anything bad happening.
Would it be that those were the only words used.
Indications of certainty or uncertainties here?:
“There is strong evidence that ongoing climate change is having broad negative impacts on society, including the global economy, natural resources, and human health. For the United States, climate change impacts include greater threats of extreme weather events, sea level rise, and increased risk of regional water scarcity, heat waves, wildfires, and the disturbance of biological systems. The severity of climate change impacts is increasing and is expected to increase substantially in the coming decades.”
And how about here:
“We, in the scientific community, are prepared to work with you on the scientific issues important to your deliberations as you seek to address the challenges of our changing climate.”
Seems to be speaking for the entire scientific community.
Well Ken Rice is back to his usual lack of engaging in honest discussion.
Like creating strawman arguments: “then it’s hard not to conclude that you think that anthropogenically-driven climate change is not happening”
There is a big difference between saying the impacts from climate change are very poorly substantiated and saying it is not happening.
Or making assertions without any evidentiary basis: “It seems obvious that some form of adaptation will be necessary” – obvious based on what? Your assertion?
or
“it seems clear that reducing the risk of the most severe impacts will require reductions in GHG emissions ” – it is clear only if there is clear evidence, let alone likelihood, of those severe impacts occurring.
The one thing upon which ATTP can always be relied is his self-anointed superiority. Notwithstanding his lack of expertise and/or knowledge of the issue(s) under discussion. Clearly in his mind (and/or facsimile thereof) supercilious bandwidth-wasting nonsense is the name of his game. Consider, for example, his recent proclamation:
By his very own ‘standard’, I can’t help wondering how many of his assertions are even worth addressing ;-)
YMMV, but it seems to me that the climateering proclamations of ATTP – aka astronomer, Ken Rice – are nothing more than the effusions, delusions and affectations of an ineffective, but oh-so-dutiful, third-rate little lemming!
ATTP,
You lack knowledge, or at least feign ignorance, of the details of what the argument is all about.
For those interested in getting up to speed about what the debate is about, I highly recommend taking a look at this presentation Dr. Curry gave a few months back:
The empirical evidence that scientists base their apocalyptic speculations upon is minimal at best, and nonexistent at worst:
http://i.imgur.com/gUpynJD.png
http://i.imgur.com/CFOv3rv.png
That’s not really supported by the evidence you presented, unless you’re saying that the US’ regional climates won’t change as the Earth’s global temperature changes.
It’s kinda like saying “well, the doctor says that I run a higher risk of cancer if I keep smoking, but hey, I don’t have cancer so far, so I’m fine!”
There are some statistically significant changes in US weather so far. Drought in the southwest, for instance. But yeah, overall it’s not a big surprise that regional climate hasn’t changed much, while the Earth has only warmed ~1 degree so far.
Benajmin Winchester,
I didn’t present any evidence, Dr. Curry did. And I believe people can look at her presentation and judge for themselves, looking at the empirical evidence she presents, whether “the patient has cancer” or not.
If you believe that the southwest has had worse droughts of late than it did during the 1930s or 1950s, you are severely misinformed, or attempting to misinform others.
And sure, the patient might, in some futre date, get cancer. But I’ll leave it up to the prophesiers and soothsayers in the AAAS to divine climate Apocalypse.
Glenn, I’m looking right at the charts you posted here. I mean.. ???
Indeed! And hopefully they won’t just take her word for it, but they’ll look at the evidence from mainstream scientists, too.
For instance, when Curry says that the sensitivity from the observational estimates is low, I hope people will practice skepticism, and go out and read the many, many papers from other scientists that come to very different conclusions. And they’ll look at the paleoclimate data. And they’ll look at the models and the physics behind them. And then, with a broad, deep and nuanced perspective, they’ll decide for themselves.
As with smoking, we don’t need a guarantee of cancer to change our course of action. We only need to demonstrate a sufficiently high risk. Which, honestly, has long since been done.
I would consider Judith a mainstream scientist. Under what criteria have you determined that she isn’t?
Benjamin Winchester,
You wrote –
“As with smoking, . . . “
When lacking facts, talk about smoking. Warmists. Loveable little rascals. Gotta love ’em!
Cheers.
Benjamin Winchester,
There’s a difference between asking people to stop smoking, and asking them to stop burning fossil fuels.
What is the cost to stop smoking? What is the cost to stop burning fossil fuels?
What are the benefits of stopping smoking? What are the benefits of stopping burning fossil fuels?
It requires an enormous poverty of intellect to not see that there is a vast difference between the costs and benefits of stopping smoking, and the costs and benefits of stopping burning fossil fuels.
http://i.imgur.com/6NTw2TL.png
http://i.imgur.com/fDpBX3Z.png
The last time AAAS wrote a letter to congress urging climate action, we got the Climategate emails.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/07/06/climategate-redux/
ATTP, I think don’t you understand that your kind of talk is similar in style to the hard core climate activists that go after the throats of anyone asking any questions about the science in order to drive policy (or is policy driving the science). That is – demonize and demagogue; argue black vs. white “I’m right and your wrong” and you’re not allowed to ask any questions (period); and use rhetorical props like a the phony “97% of scientists agree” – many of the 97% know nothing about climate science or the critical issues on projecting long term global climate / temperature although they are experts on, e.g., the mating characteristics of the black tailed Rocky Mountain Marmot, which would be an outcome but contributes nothing to our understanding of the critical issues on the long-term climate trajectory – which are uncertainty, attribution of cause and climate sensitivity (recent and projected).
At this point there’s been nigh a dozen polls of scientists and the scientific literature. Most of ’em show about 90-95% agreement, for climate scientists, on whether mankind is causing significant climate change.
Secondary polls show similar numbers when you ask chemists and physicists and other non-climate-scientists.
97% is a bit high though, I agree. You only get those numbers if you just focus on the people who’ve spent the most time working in climate science.
Benjamin Winchester,
Climate science? Really? You consider the averaging of weather a science?
From Wikipedia (I know, I know) –
” . . climate science is the study of climate, scientifically defined as weather conditions averaged over a period of time.”
The study of an average? Climate Cult Science, at its finest!
Cheers.
I haven’t seen a poll based on the amount of time working in climate science. There are a couple based upon number of publications. I haven’t seen a study that compared the number of studies based upon actual observations as compared to model studies and sensitivity beliefs either come to think of it. I wonder if people that do model studies might find it easier to collect data thus making it easier to create more studies and if those that work with model studies have a tendency towards higher sensitivity beliefs.
The AAAS et al. have shot themselves in the foot with this one.
It will be a long time before any of them suffer any negative consequences, imho. By forging such a strong consensus, they have made it harder for any researchers disagreeing with them to receive any federal funding. The Journal of the American Statistical Association still publishes good papers supporting a skeptical/lukewarmist position (as does the AAAS’s Science Magazine), but I expect that the board of the ASA has just raised the bar for accepting studies not supportive of the consensus.
There is strong evidence that ongoing climate change is having broad negative impacts on society, including the global economy, natural resources, and human health. For the United States, climate change impacts include greater threats of extreme weather events, sea level rise, and increased risk of regional water scarcity, heat waves, wildfires, and the disturbance of biological systems.
What is the evidence that either warming or CO2 is having adverse effects on natural resources? Has either increased CO2 or warming cut down the supply of salmon, lumber, carbon, or copper? Of silicon, iron, aluminum, nitrogen, lithium, phosphorus, sulfur, or transition metals?
Have those organizations called upon their members to purchase their own offsets of their own carbon footprints? I have done that. It is one of many things that individuals can decide to do that don’t require government action yet can collectively have measurable impact.
“Instead, by their dogmatic statements about climate change and their policy advocacy, they have become just another group of lobbyists…”
Pot, kettle, black.
So I take it that Dr Curry wants scientists to say nothing, while fossil fuel lobby groups get to say whatever they please.
There is one “scientist” I want to hear less of, and that is Dr Curry.
Harry Twintotter said:
Well maybe if the Alarmists/Warmists — the 20 attorneys general and 20 prominet climate “scientists” who signed letters calling for criminalizing any dissent to their “science” — get their way, maybe you will get what you want.
Indeed Harry and to boot, I may have missed it but try as I may – I cannot find any advocacy for “socio-economic policies”
All I read was the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the need to adapt to climate change.
A statement of the “bleeding” obvious IMO.
“So, if you are Lamar Smith or Ted Cruz, would you be calling any of these people to participate in Congressional hearings?”
Nah, they wont be doing that Judith, God forbid the Tea-party driven GOPists get both sides of the story.
I think you’re safe on your seat there.
Tony Benton said:
Well you must be blind then.
From the notorious letter:
Clinton’s entire environmental policy platform evolves around reducing greenhouse emissions.
What Clinton proposes is a continuation of Obama’s EPA — of his imperial presidency — but on steroids:
The obvious question is “then why are you reading her blog?”
You really don’t know the answer to that?
This blog is famous. Most posts here are pointed to from WUWT, and many are linked from a variety of other places. There’s a huge boatload of casual surfers, with various ideas and understanding about climate, that come here.
Lots of the warmists who hang out here are clearly just playing to that casual surfer crowd: they fill the comments with “sciency” blather, as well as all sorts of other stuff intended to portray the skeptical crowd badly.
Not that there aren’t plenty on the “skeptical” side who manage that without help.
Many of them (warmists) work hard to defend the (indefensible) IPCC-sponsored “consensus science”. Some with reasonable science, some with a variety of sophistry and dishonest rhetoric, some with a mixture of mis-understood “science”, blather, and nasty rhetorical junk.
There are even a few I suspect are false-flaggers. Both ways.
opluso.
I do not make a habit of reading this blog. Too many climate change deniers, too many trolls, not enough science discussion.
Harry Twinotter,
I support your absolute right not to read any blog you wish, and also to refuse to post comments on any blog you wish.
Obviously, you choose not to exercise these rights. Have you a particular reason, or is it some strange Warmist compulsion to obscure your real thinking?
Cheers.
Are you the same Harry who could not remember on June 30, 10:43 pm a claim he made on June 29, 3:59 am?
Curious George.
Read my reply to opluso concerning trolls.
Harry’s twit feed …
https://twitter.com/harrytwinotter
jim2.
Oh well done – advertising my public Twitter account. And who says trolls lack imagination?
You’re welcomed!
Like anyone cares what a swimming rodent wants.
The AAAS letter is nothing more than watching Western academia grind sausage to feed the beast.
If there is one thing I trust professional politicians to do, then it is recognizing politics when they see it.
Reblogged this on Climate Collections.
In a field where rigorous standards of compelling scientific evidence have never been entrenched, the operative standard of veracity becomes the “consensus” of imaginative attribution. This places “climate science” but a step away from becoming theater, with all sorts of voices vying for a leading role on stage.
This may be one motivation for the notorious letter: the climate scientists merely want to try to get their issue placed on the political agenda, where its absence is now quite conspicuous:
The year 1896 deserves to be notorious not just for the mirror heatwaves of Eastern US and Eastern Australia, and for being part of colossal droughts/monsoon failures in the sub-continent and Australia (Indian Famine, Federation Drought). The heat and drought of the latter 1890s (a bit like the late 1870s) were tending global, with serious drought affecting Northern China, much of Africa and the Western US…even England! (Although the late 1870s conditions also took in Brazil, in the worst way.)
Mind you, humanity’s worst droughts/famines probably came in periods of cooling (Old Kingdom Egypt, Ming China)…so be careful what you wish for.
The tricksters who pretend that there is a “new” climate requiring “action” and “tackling” in the form of hyper-expensive white elephants can only be relying on ignorance and what gets called the shock of the new. Why are they not called out for their stunts? If there is a theory about CO2 and AGW, that is one thing. But shamelessly fitting history to that theory, or ignoring it to fit the theory, is quite another.
I wish we could send these jugglers for a few days without a water bag to Northern Brazil – or even New Zealand! – in a time machine dialled for 1878.
‘I had nothing to do with the drought measurements in the US which don’t indicate any significant trend.
I had nothing to do with the global satellite drought measurements which don’t indicate any significant trend.
I had nothing ( well not much ) to do with US temperature measurements which indicate a decrease in extremely high maximum temperatures of the past.
I had nothing to do with the accumulated cyclone energy which indicate no significant trend.
I had nothing to do with the tree-scar measurements which indicate that intense fires were more prevalent in the past. Or the ash sediment studies which indicate the same.
I had nothing to do with the strong tornado counts which have declined in the US.’
Ah, but you’re missing the point TE. What if all the charts and data you posted are wrong?
What if the data showing a decline in extinctions is also wrong? There could be billions upon billions of species going extinct, like, every second – and it could be all our fault. Do you deny that it could?
What if the numbers showing a decline in heatwave mortality are also wrong? It could be that mortality would have declined even more without CO2, and that the evil gas has led to four hundred million ‘excess deaths’.
What if the ice-core records showing Greenland withstood a 6,000-year period of hotter temperatures are wrong?
What if the paleo records showing hotter temperatures correlated with more and bigger life forms are wrong? Anyway, it’s not clear bigger life forms are an advantage – imagine if high CO2 brings back the dinosaurs.
What if the papers showing massive greening and improvements in agricultural productivity are wrong?
What if the measurements of subsidence in cities around the world, sometimes exceeding 100mm/year, are wrong? I can’t believe a city could survive while sinking at 30 times the rate the seas are rising – it must a denier plot.
What if the measurements of atoll islands, which show they aren’t losing area after all, are wrong?
What if the charts showing a decline in weather catastrophes as a percentage of GDP are wrong? They are tweeted by one Pielke Jr and that’s, like, reason for dismissing them right away,
I mean, there’s so much risk out there. Basically the entire literature on weather and climate impacts could be wrong, along with our measurements of almost everything. What then?
> What if the charts showing a decline in weather catastrophes as a percentage of GDP are wrong? They are tweeted by one Pielke Jr and that’s, like, reason for dismissing them right away.
The problem with Junior’s brokering business has more to do with relevance: even if true, the whole idea of using GDP to evaluate weather impacts is a bit silly.
Besides, here’s some Munich Re, courtesy of Eli:
“Besides, here’s some Munich Re, courtesy of Eli:”
Where is the part where they say how much urgent emissions cuts will reduce insurance rates?
Right next where you are showing that your rhetorical question is of any relevance, Cap’n.
Most vulnerable places are uninsured, BTW:
http://www.canadianunderwriter.ca/insurance/reinsurers-face-real-severe-soft-market-but-significant-amount-of-risk-still-uninsured-1003264903/
The population bomb, again. The UN numbers are inaccurate but what difference does that make you may ask.
Pingback: Climate power play by the AAAS et al. | Vince Werber's Rants!
I’m not a climate scientist but I do know computers by degree and these models they point to so often are clearly in error. Simply put, we do not know all of the variables about climate to create a proper computer model. As we say in the trade; “garbage in, garbage out”. As an example, we can’t even predict the weather very far into the future with any real accuracy. When these persons talk about ‘consensus’, well that sounds very much absolute to me. There is nothing ‘absolute’ about any of this…
This information the Climate Change folks dish out is nothing more than statistics and I suspect all of these persons have read Huff’s book; “How to Lie With Statistics”. It’s was a first year requirement for me for how NOT to do statistical information.
Thank you for your time.
vgw
Yeah, but we’re not trying to predict the weather; we’re trying to predict the climate under a given set of forcings.
How good is your understanding of the climate models, the numerics behind them, how they work, etc.?
Ironically, I see cringeworthy statistics much more often from the skeptics than from the scientists. For example, see the whole “global warming pause” meme, which said that global warming had paused because the linear trend was statistically insignificant over some time period.
Which, as I’m sure you know, is absolute rubbish. You can’t use a lack of statistical significance to make a claim of no warming.
To put it another way, that’s saying “well, the math says there’s a greater than 5% chance that there is no surface warming distinguishable from the noise. And 5% is good enough for me! Ergo there’s no warming, and we can say that for certain.”
“Which, as I’m sure you know, is absolute rubbish. You can’t use a lack of statistical significance to make a claim of no warming. ”
really? When someone projects warming of 0.3 C over a period pf 15 years and then there is no “statistically” significant warming after 15 years you would say their projection was wrong. Think of it like a wager.
.
I think you’re still making the same mistake.
Say that the actual warming is 0.25 C, +/- 0.3C. So, somewhere between -0.05 and +0.45 C of warming.
Because the lower bound of certainty is at/below zero, we’d say that there isn’t statistically significant warming. That is, we can’t say with 95% certainty that it warmed.
But the warming range is between -0.05 and 0.45C. So you also can’t say that no warming has occurred, either. And in fact, it’s pretty obvious that warming probably occurred, after all, the median estimate is 0.25C… but we can’t guarantee the warming with 95% certainty.
That’s the problem with the meme, in a nutshell. It conflates a lack of ability to pin down warming with 95% certainty with “it didn’t happen”.
If you have faith in the climate models and have any knowledge of what they do with reduced poleward ocean heat transport, then you are expecting cooling unless the AMOC should speed back up.
“I think you’re still making the same mistake. ”
I’m shocked. Warming was predicted to be 0.30 C and ended up being 0.045C with an uncertainty of about 0.05C. Since then there are a number of papers published on why the warming was statistically insignificant including a recent one by Richardson et al. 2016 which tries to explain that the models were projecting a global tas (temperature air surface) but the actual observations are a combination of tas(land) and SST oceans, meaning projected warming shouldn’t be as much as projected. This all started with the UK met’s decadal forecasting of barbecue summers and children never knowing snow again among other things. I believe the UK met has abandoned their decadal forecasting promotions.
Summary
During 2015 our decadal prediction system was upgraded to use the latest high resolution version of our coupled climate model, consistent with our seasonal forecasts. This is in line with our aim to produce seamless forecasts as outlined in the Met Office Science Strategy.
Averaged over the five-year period 2016-2020, forecast patterns suggest enhanced warming over land, and at high northern latitudes. There is some indication of continued cool conditions in the Southern Ocean, and of relatively cool conditions in the North Atlantic sub-polar gyre. The latter is potentially important for climate impacts over Europe, America and Africa.
During the five-year period 2016-2020, global average temperature is expected to remain high and is likely to be between 0.28°C and 0.77°C above the long-term (1981-2010) average. This compares with an anomaly of +0.44 ± 0.1 °C observed in 2015, currently the warmest year on record. These high global temperatures are consistent with continued high levels of greenhouse gases and big changes that are currently underway in the climate system and were highlighted in a recent Met Office research news article.
Something to note: the climate models aren’t being used to predict weather, that is the state of the system at some future time.
What they’re supposed to predict is the shape of the attractor, or more precisely a very simplistic measure of the shape of the “basin of attraction” in terms of some artifact called “global average temperature”.
When you talk about predicting the actual state of the system at some future point (e.g. by analogy with weather prediction), you’re just pitching the other side an easy slow ball. If they brought it up it would be a blatant straw-man argument. When a skeptic brings it up…
AK,
Maybe I’m being a little picky, but one might think that “climate models” were supposed to model “climate”, and possibly predict “climate”.
If the models are really not supposed to predict climate, why call them climate models?
Or is this yet another example of Warmist Weaselwords?
It’s all nonsense anyway. The climatological computer games provide entertainment for some. They have no practical use.
Cheers.
Is “2 degrees C in 2100” a shape of the attractor?
Not really. Which is why I keep saying that “global average temperature” is a myth.
But the models actually provide a statistical measure of an attractor (or rather, a basin of attraction), which can be simplified to a single “average temperature”. Thing is, there are so many different “climates” that would demonstrate the same “average temperature” that the whole thing is an exercise in futility. Or and exercise in self-deception, depending on how it’s approached.
As for the actual attractors demonstrated by coupled GCM’s, I don’t know of any reason beyond intellectual laziness to assume that such attractors will be similar to those of a real planetary system. The latter has dozens of orders of magnitude more degrees of freedom.
At least.
@Curious George…
My response dropped into moderation. Maybe tomorrow…
AK, thank you. I am a little unhappy regarding your use of the term “actual attractor”. You seem to use it to represent the attractor of the model; why don’t we call it a “model’s attractor”. We seem to agree that it has little or nothing to do with the attractor of the real climate around us. I wonder why we burn megawatts to map a model’s attractor; what good does it do to anybody except to generate papers concerned about penguins and polar bears? I sincerely believe that an ability to predict weather for an additional day in advance would be much more valuable.
Used in opposition to “global average temperatures” from those same models, as discussed in the previous paragraph.
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-i-K7ZBtVYtU/V2wLvEpju0I/AAAAAAAAAqQ/4TVBbTjgrwk8JKpqkKTyzeYg2nAwW3ZoACLcB/s1600/IPPC-pseudo.png
Speaking of easy slow pitches.
Benjamin Winchester,
You wrote –
“Yeah, but we’re not trying to predict the weather; we’re trying to predict the climate under a given set of forcings.”
But, but . . .
Climate is the average of weather, no more, no less. Apart from that, you cannot even define “the climate” to which you refer, in any useful way. Can you describe “the climate” of California, or Outer Bald Tuskett, in any way that makes sense?
Silliness, pure and simple. Just like Warmism, although without so much pure. Just simply silly!
As to “forcings”, this is a pointless Warmist Weaselword, meaningless in any field of real science, but sounding very sciencey indeed.
You may try as hard as you wish to predict the future any better than I. Care to try?
Cheers.
Ben starts with some simplifying assumptions. The most frequent one is a flat nonrotating Earth, always lit with a 1/4 of the spherical Earth’s insolation. Then they add an atmosphere to the best of a 97% consensus. Then they apply forcings as God dictated them.
Of course, any simplification comes at a price – your result is no longer 100% reliable. Don’t ask about error bounds of the model! That would be tactless and it could bring a RICO suit on you.
Hahaha, no. I mean, that’s where you start if you want to gain a conceptual understanding, sure. But obviously you don’t stop there.
The flat, non-rotating no-atmophere Earth model for climate science is kinda like your frictionless vacuums in physics class. It’s good for understanding the basics, but it’s generally too simple to be very useful in the real world. (Unless you want to live on the Moon, I guess?)
Yeah, don’t take the simplest model, mostly used for pedagogical purposes, and get hung up on that so much that you never advance to the more interesting models.
Ben, thanks. I’ll disregard my own advice. Where can I find error bounds of your model?
Benjamin Winchester,
You wrote –
“The flat, non-rotating no-atmophere Earth model for climate science is kinda like your frictionless vacuums in physics class.”
A vacuum has no friction. It has nothing at all, as a matter of fact. It actually exists – in a bizarre way. This might be why Einstein mentions the speed of light in a vacuum. No friction, you see. Actually quite useful in the real world, used in things things like radio tubes (thermionic valves), incandescent lamps, fluorescent tubes and so on.
There’s no “kinda”. “Kinda” is a Warmist Weaselword. Science is about repeatable experiments. The heating ability of GHGs is theoretically impossible, which is no doubt why it can’t be demonstrated by experiment.
Things like fluorescent tubes are repeatable experiments. The theories behind the fluorescent tube are validated every time you turn one on.
Unlike the heating ability of CO2. Doesn’t exist, and therefore cannot be demonstrated by experiment.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn,
Climate is really the statistics of weather, not just the average. For instance, it’s not just the mean temperature, but how far from the mean the temperature goes, how wide the extremes are and how often they come.
This stuff is in any introductory textbook on the subject. I get that you want to insult me; I mean it feels great to talk yourself up, right? But I really just care about the facts here, rather than competing.
So… if you want to learn about this subject — or at least learn what the scientists are actually saying, instead of arguing strawmen — I’ll recommend that you crack open a textbook. There are some great introductory ones out there for free, fun and relatively easy to read. Ray Pierrehumbert’s book “The Principles of Planetary Climate” is one you can find with minimal googling.
Have you read other fields of science?
A forcing in climate science is analogous to a forcing in materials science, too (my field), and has analogues in thermodynamics as well. It’s not unusual at all.
Why don’t you explain what you think is incorrect about the climate science concept of “forcing”?
Benjamin Winchester,
I see in the best Warmist tradition, you have provided a more convenient definition, than that provided by the WMO.
“Climate, sometimes understood as the “average weather,” is defined as the measurement of the mean and variability of relevant quantities of certain variables (such as temperature, precipitation or wind) over a period of time, ranging from months to thousands or millions of years.”
Firstly, one must prepare a mean to measure. This is an average. To establish variability, one merely compares one number with another.
Not much scientific knowledge needed here. Even Steven Mosher could calculate an average – again, and again, and again.
Ray Pierrrehumbert’s book contains a statement that the atmosphere has the insulating properties of one seventh of an inch of polystyrene, but correct me if I’m wrong. No heating there, obviously.
However, once again from memory, the book does not contain any theory relating to the planet heating properties of CO2. You’re dodging the issue, I feel.
With regard to forcing, in the climatological context, from Wikipedia –
“Radiative forcing or climate forcing is defined as the difference of insolation (sunlight) absorbed by the Earth and energy radiated back to space. Typically, radiative forcing is quantified at the tropopause in units of watts per square meter of the Earth’s surface.”
Of course, this definition does not appear in any field of real science. Self proclaimed climatologists appropriate words that seem sciencey, and assign new, and usually flexible, meanings to them.
The Earth has managed to cool over the last four and a half billion years, so the climatological forcing is negative, obviously.
So what’s your theory of CO2 heating? Maybe you could just copy and paste it from one of those introductory climate science textbooks, if it’s not too much trouble.
Cheers.
Mike F – …correct me if I’m wrong.
How about we just mention when you’re right? Saves time.
Pat Cassen,
All mouth and no trousers. Have you thought of practicing what you preach? Or are you just another Waffling Warmist – pretending to hide the arcane secrets of the Warmist Church of Latter Day Scientism from unbelievers?
Maybe you can provide the hypothesis of CO2 heating a planet? Maybe a repeatable experiment? Or not?
You appear as clueless as other Witless Warmists, but I may be wrong. I’m sure you’ll let me know if I’m right about being wrong, as you promised.
Cheers.
It’s about time they spoke up, loudly and aggressively, directly to a Congress whose majority has sought to silence science that conflicts with their ideology.
I love it…! This discussion is great but it puts forward more obvious holes in the pro than the con. IMHO anyway.
So climate change is bad? Am I correct? Well if it wasn’t for climate change we wouldn’t even be here to discuss this. Think before you say these things! This place we call home was really hot once upon a time. Think!
When we humans make a ‘model’ to explain something that we don’t have all of the variables to come to a right and proper conclusion what do you get? GIGO! Garbage in garbage out.
Of course there are those that cherry pick, massage, and stick in tricks in the computer code to get the outcome that will win them the next Governmental award to do a more ‘in depth study’. If the models says ‘there is nothing to see here’ then guess what, no more money and no more job for you.
Complexity does not mean correctness and that goes more so for computer models. I can see that many climate scientist are not computer programmers or mathematicians and they really don’t understand physics…
Use the KISS method; Keep it simple stupid!
And if those State AG’s want to come for me… I’m right here and I don’t run from persons of power that abuse that same power. I fight and fight hard for Freedom of speech and those AG’s need to deal with that fact. Have they not read the U.S. Constitution?
This RICO move shows that the Climate Change folks are on their last legs! They are losing it because they know they have lost it.
Have a good day and a better tomorrow.
vgw
Reblogged this on I Didn't Ask To Be a Blog and commented:
“…a blatant misuse of scientific authority to advocate for specific socioeconomic policies.”
dynmo01: Excellent quote!
BTW: What ever happened to the ‘Scientific Method’ ? The climate change or global warming hypothesis is just that… a hypothesis and not a theory, it can never be lifted above a hypothesis because it can’t be shown in any type of true lab experiment as repeatable, not once and surely not twice. Maybe sometime in the future but not today or even tomorrow for that matter.
So the people are suppose to take this all on faith? That sounds too much like another cult religion to me. How can the people take this as presented when some of the major players refuse to make their data available to other scientist for continued testing? What are they hiding?
Any data that has been collected by Universities or individuals using the public’s tax dollars should be available to others for testing. This include computer source code. If you collect data, write computer code etc on the people’s tab then that material belongs to the people and not you the collector or writer. Why? Because you are an employee of the people (the employer), nothing more and nothing less.
Any Scientist that does not like this fact should find another job in the private sector. That PHD. or whatever means nothing when working for the taxpayer, you are just another public worker producing public domain material.
If Climate change (or global warming) folks want to make their cause more saleable then they need to stop using has been Rock or movie stars, tired burned out politicos, and most of all persons that have invested great amounts of money in ‘green projects’, ‘carbon credits’ and other money making scams… errr sorry schemes.
What is going on right now, on both sides, looks to the common person as so much foolishness. Like a meeting of competing clowns at a clown camp. The whole thing is causing the term ‘scientist’ to be synonymous with the phrase; ‘educated idiots’, acting like a bunch of unruly children.
Start acting like proper Ladies and gentlemen might help but I think it is way too late for this issue… Now fold up your tents and go home, don’t come back until you can act properly in public.
Oh yeah, and when you have your big meetings, don’t fly half way around the would wasting petroleum products creating needless air pollution etc… use computer video links. Practice what you preach! The UN is one of the world’s fair size polluters I suspect because of travel alone. You folks all cry that you don’t get enough money for research, well save a few dollars or whatever and use the internet… that’s what it is there for.
Hypocrites all… A bunch of political hacks and hypocrites.
Jim D,
You wrote-
“The atmosphere has the heat capacity of only about the top 2.5 meters of water, so where is your energy coming from?”
I’m glad to answer your question, even though I think you are not really seeking knowledge.
You may not accept that the Earth is a large, mostly molten, body. The temperature of the inner core is estimated at between 5000K and 6500 K, by reputable scientists.
Assigning a nominal “temperature” of 4 K to surrounding space, the crust has a temperature somewhere between the two extremes. The oceans (or other bodies of water in contact with the crust) are well above 4 K due to relatively hot crust beneath them.
In addition, there are a completely unknown number of thermal vents directly warming the bottoms of the oceans, and some lakes, emitting a completely unknown amount of heat into the deep water.
I suppose I should also mention the mid-ocean ridge, which circles the globe. As it continuously spreads, an unknown amount of heat is released into the oceans, as the molten magma cools and becomes solid.
As water has the property of reaching maximum density above its freezing point, the heat is transported towards the surface, eventually to be radiated away to outer space. It is interesting to note that water 10 km deep may have a temperature of 4C, whereas the land crustal temperature at 10 km might be 250 C, or even higher under deep ocean, where the solid crust is much thinner.
No, Jim D, heat does not enter the depths from the surface. This is a demented Warmist assertion, based on fantasy. Something like Al Gore’s bizarre belief that the interior of the Earth has a temperature of “millions of degrees”. Redefined Warmist degrees no doubt. He also – like many deluded Warmists – seemed to think that object exposed to the Sun will just get hotter and hotter as it traps more and more heat. In the case of the Earth, apparently reaching millions of degrees. Obviously delusional.
I hope I have explained why the oceans are neither frozen right through, nor boiling. If you have any serious questions, please feel free to,ask.
Cheers.
There’s probably some skeptics that still don’t realize you are just mickytaking with them.
Flat earth Flynn 4 the Wynn
His parents bore a whack-a-mole. Maybe someday the Flynns will evolve a slot for quarters and the line will become a dynasty.
He’s doing a parody of a skeptic. Very artful. The “Cheers” gives it away.
If you really believed that, you wouldn’t give it away.
Oops, sorry. Do you think he is serious?
Of course not. I think he’s probably false-flagging. Or couldn’t pass the Turing test. Or both.
I also think you would be unwilling to give up a false-flagging ally. I suppose I could be wrong. Giving him up would be the honest thing to do, and I suppose it’s possible you consider honesty more important than an ally of questionable value.
Sometimes it is hard to tell the skeptics with flimsy ideas from the ones who are pretending to have flimsy ideas. It comes down to whether they actually believe what they are saying, doesn’t it.
It also depends on whether you’re capable of distinguishing “flimsy ideas”.
Usually they look like shallow half-baked ideas just thrown up here as a trial balloon. We see a lot of that here. No two skeptics seem to agree with or understand each other either, which is interesting.
Perhaps because you can’t understand anything outside the tiny little box of your paradigm?
There’s no symmetry between skepticism and blind faith.
Only with blind faith would you expect everybody to “agree with [and] understand each other”. Or at least pretend to.
The skeptics have done a poor job of having any coherence. This is how they lost.
Jim D, they passed a cap and trade when I wasn’t looking? If they didn’t the skeptics are still winning. You guys aren’t very good at keeping score. In fact, the CO2 centrists show poor judgement continuously regarding politics, public relations, using legal intimidation, and even keeping score. Showing poor judgement as a practice, an art form almost, isn’t a very good start at convincing people of anything you may wish to convince them of.
The free market solution of choice by the fossil fuel companies would be a carbon tax. See WSJ climate ads.
Since when did CO2 centrists start taking the desires of oil companies as meaningful? They must have an ulterior motive. I know, they want to make it more obvious to the consumer who is paying what. That would kill the idea in a heartbeat. Much better to have a cap and trade system where you could lie to the consumer and tell them the oil companies would be paying for it. Sort of like the way Obamacare was handled.
That article was aimed at WSJ readers who probably like free trade solutions most times.
Each day the sun drills energy into the oceans to varying depths. Each day essentially the same amount of energy has to exit the oceans or there will be a change in ocean heat content. The energy that leaves may be from that day, or it may have been stored ages ago. Doesn’t really matter. Each day various mechanisms move the energy that is stored in the oceans around the oceans. This is nothing new. Add GHGs, one thing changes: OHC goes up, though weakling natural variability could take it back down. Add some more GHGs each day, OHC goes up each day and weakling natural variability becomes helpless. And you earth folks get this:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n4/images_article/nclimate2915-f4.jpg
Do you think the sun is drilling more energy into the oceans than in 1950?
I suspect it is less.
JCH,
One very minor problem. When the temperature of the water, heated by the Sun rises, it expands. Being less dense, it rises. It cannot be made to fall or descend through denser, cooler water.
Trenberth said it was a travesty. A travesty of physics, only Warmists imagining it’s possible.
Foolish Warmists. Believing the impossible. Denying reality.
Maybe you can figure out a way to heat a house by surrounding it with CO2. How about a CO2 powered coffee heater? Or convincing sealed gas filled window makers that they should use CO2 rather than Argon?
Here’s your chance for fame and fortune – in your Warmist fantasy world, of course. The CO2 warming effect doesn’t actually exist in the real world.
Cheers.
You are monumentally confused by both Trenberth’s travesty and reality. A roughly equivalent amount of energy has to leave. If we had a monitoring system that could tell us the date it arrived, there would be no travesty.
JCH,
You wrote –
“A roughly equivalent amount of energy has to leave.”
Is “roughly” the flexible Warmist term for “I haven’t got the faintest idea what I’m talking about”, or is it a scientific measurement?
What are you trying to say? Why not just say it? Or are you realising the Sun can’t and doesn’t warm the abyssal depths?
If somebody accused you of dim-witted obfuscation, I would find it hard to disagree. Maybe you’re speaking some obscure Warmese dialect.
If you could actually provide a falsifiable hypothesis relating to the planet heating abilities of CO2, it might help to delineate the bounds of your delusion. If you can’t, just repeat over and over that CO2 heats the planet.
Cheers.
“It’s a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham!”
JCH:
Perhaps you could help me understand how it works. CO2 density is higher than before above the oceans. The ocean emits a photon that hits CO2 a higher percentage of the time. Half the time when the CO2 emits the same photon it ends up back on the surface of the ocean. If it misses the ocean it may later still end up back there after some more jumps. I suppose that assuming a random direction the photon migrate to places with less GHGs. Upwards I suppose. They can make longer jumps on average into less dense areas. So it seems that the additional CO2 can swat the photons more effectively back into the ocean. The more CO2, the more the oceans are slowed with their LW photon emissions. The oceans are a very important source of warmth. As others have said, primary energy flow: Sun, oceans, atmosphere, TOA. Looking at this some more, on the other hand since the surface is warmer it can emit more than before, perhaps canceling CO2s swat back enhancement. And on one more hand, I suppose the photons can travel downwards through the water. I am assuming photons on the ocean surface radiate in all directions. It’s quite the mystery to me. How CO2 causes the oceans to warm. Anyone know if I have this photon thing right? No, I am not going down the path of photons traveling at the speed of light and only gracing us with their presence for a nanosecond.
It’s not really to do with photons emitted by the surface at first, it is just more photons emitted by the atmosphere with more GHGs, making a larger downward IR flux changing the energy balance at the surface until it warms up enough to emit more and balance it again.
You need to flip to the other side. You’ve just arrived in an ocean, a little baby bundle of energy. Your assignment is to get out. Good luck.
Peter Minnett at RealClimate has an article that has a diagram that says more heat remains in the upper oceans. There is a new temperature gradient across the skin layer. So the balance needs to be restored by emitting less LW photons to the atmosphere. On average and all other things being equal, atmospheric CO2 insulates the atmosphere from ocean warmth. However, sea ice gains or losses are not considered.
JCH:
Jim D:
I just checked out RealClimate on the question. It is now more difficult for photons to escape the ocean on average. The oceans are storing heat they receive as short and long wave. However shortwave has been pretty flat. So we are looking at primarily the change in longwave IR. Most of it attributed to GHGs. Assuming for long periods of time 90% of the warming is going into the oceans what is going to reverse that? We could assume in 1950 0% of the warming was going into the oceans, or if not, go back to 1850. This thing as explained at RealClimate, why would it stop? The CO2 will be around keeping more heat in the oceans. Yes it is possible and ocean circulations do change and that could change things. Jim D you said something about reaching a balance. So the oceans need to gain heat to restore the balance, and then we’ll be at equilibrium. In doing so they are going to have to save some heat for themselves. Which leaves me thinking they will do that. Taking the same watts as they did in 1950 and releasing less of them to the atmosphere. How is my accounting?
Your accounting doesn’t sound right. If you increase the downward flux, the surface warms until it balances with an upward flux. The same happens when the sun increases in strength in the morning (or spring). It is a response to increased forcing to just warm up.
Jim D. et al
None of you appear capable or willing to accept the obvious: global warming .is caused by the continued reduction in SO2 aerosol emissions. from the atmosphere. This is provable.
Recovery from the 1991 Pinatubo eruption injected 23 Megatonnes of SO2 into the stratosphere, resulting in 0.55 deg. C. of warming (.02 deg. C. of warming for each Megatonne of SO2 removed.
The 30 Megatonnes of reduction in SO2 emissions between 1975 and 2011
resulted in 0.59 deg. C. of warming (.02 deg. C. of warming for each net
Megatonne of reduction in SO2 aerosol emissions)
Unlike the greenhouse gas hypothesis, this model is falsifiable.
The areas with the fastest warming are northern interior continents (Russia and Canada) and the Arctic Ocean. This has no match with aerosol abundances or population centers. CO2, on the other hand, is global, and these are exactly the areas that would be the most sensitive to that type of forcing.
Jim D.
SO2 ALSO spreads globally
.
NASA’s Land-Ocean temperature index values are for average global temperatures, and their changes exactly match reductions in SO2 emissions ( when temporary natural .variations (El Nino’s, La Nina’s, and volcanic eruptions are accounted for).
The cooling is localized to industrial areas. The warming is everywhere and especially areas that did not cool so much. Among the skeptics, the trend is to dismiss sulfates even more than the mainstream does. The IPCC view is that sulfates only offset a fraction of the GHG forcing.
“The IPCC view is that sulfates only offset a fraction of the GHG forcing”
The warming due to the reduction in the amount of sulfate aerosols so closely matches the rise in anomalous global temperatures that there is simply no room for any additional warming due to greenhouse gasses.
As an example, anthropogenic SO2 aerosol emissions totaled 131 Megatonnes in 1975, and by 2011 they had dropped to 101 Megatonnes, a drop of 30 Megatonnes.. The expected amount of anomalous warming would be 30 x .02 = 0.60 deg. C. NASA reports 0.59 deg. C.
This accuracy is true for any year 1975-2011 for which SO2 emission totals are reported.
The IPCC diagram of radiative forcings is seriously in error, since it does not include any positive forcing for the removal of sulfate aerosols
(Actually, they do, but they attributate it to CO2)
.
The temperature has warmed 1 C since preindustrial times. Compared to preindustrial times, the sulfate net effect is negative, so we are left with GHGs as the cause of 1 degree plus.
Jim D.
The focus has to be on the global warming era, 1972-present. which is most relevant to us. .
In that period, all of the warming has been due to SO2 removal, and its continued removal is what is driving the current higher temperature increases.
At current SO2 removal rates, we will reach 2 deg. C. of warming in less that 40 years. If removal rates increase (as they will), it will be even sooner.!
The longer history suggests your numbers are a tad off.
Jim D.
You are correct. My numbers were a “tad off”.
In Jan. of 2016, the current 12 month average was 1.14 deg. C., 0.86 deg. below the 2.0 degree “threshold”, per skepticalscience.com .”Tracking the 2 deg. C. Limit”,
To reach an additional .0.86 deg. C. of warming, a net reduction of 0.86/.02 = 43 Megatonnes of SO2 would suffice. .
For the past 5 years, SO2 levels have decreased by approx. 2.4 Megatonnes per year.. 43/2.4 = 18 years until the threshold is reached, at current average rates of SO2 removal (I had said less than 40 years). ..
However, the 12 month average, May 2015 thru April 2016 is 0.98 deg. C (due to the El Nino waning). Thus we are a bit farther from the “threshold”, at about 1.0 deg. C. (as you stated).
This would require a reduction of 50 Megaatonnes, or about 21 years.–if reduction rates don’t increase–but they will, because of the EPA and China cleaning up its air.
.
You still haven’t stated how we are 1 C warmer than preindustrial times, that is before any large-scale sulfate emissions. It doesn’t add up unless sulfates are a lot less effective than you suggest. This is what it looks like in AR5.
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig8-18.jpg
Jim D:
In 1972, we were at .01 deg. C, of anomalous warming, with respect to the 1951-1980 .base period. Since then we have added enough anomalous warming from the reduction of SO2 aerosols to reach 1.0 degree C.
The aerosol forcing change has been fairly flat over the last few decades according to the AR5 figure.
Jim D.
If you simply plot the average global temperatures, 1975-present, you will see a continuing upward trend that slowed down around 1995 (due to Eastern SO2 Emissions offsetting Western SO2 reductions), but it has never been flat.
The upward trend began increasing again at a higher in 2014, due to increased reductions in SO2 emissions
Compared to the GHG forcing it is flat.
Jim D:
You state “compared to the GHG forcing it is flat”
As I had pointed out earlier, GHG forcing does NOT exist.
The projected anomalous temperatures obtained by multiplying the climate sensitivity factor for the removal of sulfate aerosols (.02) times the net amount of reduction in SO2 aerosols between one year and another later year will give the anomalous temperature for the later year to within less than a tenth of a percent of actuality. This agreement is so close that there is simply no room for ANY warming due to greenhouse gasses. They have NO climatic effect.
Did you miss this point?
The total effect of aerosols since the industrial revolution has been negative. There has been warming. Do you see how your idea doesn’t fit the facts? Of course it is GHGs. What are you talking about?
Jim D..
Your comment that the total effect of aerosols since the industrial revolution has been negative is largely true only up to 1972. At that time, due to clean air efforts, their response became positive, causing climate change.
Again GHG warming does not exist.
Read my recent response to Vince Weber–and review my earlier responses to yourself.
..
So was the clean air effort so effective that the global air now is even one-degree’s worth of cleaner than before there was any industry?
Jim D.
It can be said with certainty that there has been one degree of anomalous warming between 1972 and 2015, a rise from 14.01 deg. C.to 14.98 deg. C. (this is with respect to the 1951-1980 base period)
To determine whether it is now 1 deg. C. warmer than it was with respect to the start of the industrial revolution, I believe that it would be necessary to use actual average global land-ocean surface temperature data (which would be imperfectly known that far back).
It could be that we are now even more than 1 deg. C. warmer.than we were back then.
However, it really doesn’t matter what the temperature was then, It has no relevance to what is happening now, when SO2 emissions are intentionally being reduced–the first time in human history..
.
75% of the GHG forcing has been since 1950, and that is the period with 75% of the warming too. I know you said you are in complete denial about GHGs, but I am trying to tell you before you spend too much time on your dead end.
Jim D.
Thank you for your concern about my “misguided” efforts.
However, I would point out that my model:
(1) precisely matches the warming that has occurred, essentially year-by-year, over the past 40 years.
There is no model based upon greenhouse gas warming that I am aware of which can match that claim.
(2) Is falsifiable, and has been proven to be correct multiple times..
Warming due to greenhouse gasses is still only a hypothesis, never having been empirically tested.in the environment
(3) Is supported by the period of ” global brightening” which occurred roughly simultaneously with significant reductions in aerosol emissions (around 1985), and which ended when Eastern emissions began to increase.(mid 1990’s)
The cleaner air due to SO2 removal (as after volcanic emissions fall out), allowed sunshine to strike the earth with greater intensity, causing global warming..
Greenhouse gasses, being transparent, could not have caused the brightening.
(4) explains the consequences of removing 30 Million tonnes of SO2 aerosols from the atmosphere. Simple physics dictates that there should be a climatic effect. Recall that the Mount Pinatubo injection of 23 Megatonnes caused.55 deg. C. of cooling–and 0.55 deg. C. of warming as they settled out.
(5) explains the cause of the slowdown in global warming after around 2000– cooling from increased Eastern SO2 emissions offset the warming caused by Western Clean Air efforts, resulting in a net slowdown in the rate of decreasing global SO2 emissions.
This near balance no longer exists, and reductions in SO2 emissions now exceed increases in emissions, causing the higher temperatures since 2014
(6) The IPCC Diagram of Radiative Forcings has no component for the warming caused by the removal of SO2 aerosols from the atmosphere, and is therefore essentially useless,since the warming due to SO2 aerosol removal is so large.
(7) explains the warming which occurred in the 1930’s, which was caused by the approx. 29 Megatonne decrease in SO2 emissions, primarily due to decreased industrial activity.
I have given 7 points which support my model.
Can you provide ANY which clearly support the greenhouse gas hypothesis?
I can show you greenhouse gases matching for 60 years. The rate is 1 C per 100 ppm.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1950/mean:12/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.01/offset:-3.25
Jim D.
Thank you for the reference to the graph with the CO2lAGW comparison.
The CO2 curve does show a nearly identical upward slope with respect to the rise in anomalous global temperatures, but the increases and decreases about the CO2 curve are inconsistent with greenhouse gas warming,.which should be a steady-state condition in the short term, with no variances– just a gradually increasing upward slope.
How do you explain the variances? Most of them are NOT associated with an El Nino, a La Nina, or a volcanic eruption. This is a crucial question which needs to be answered for the greenhouse gas hypothesis to have any validity.
On the other hand, my model predicts the actual temperatures for each variance with an accuracy within less than a tenth of a degree C. of actuality.
It is well known that the Mauna Loa CO2 measurement also shows the annual effect of vegetation on CO2. The peak value is in May before the NH growth season that depletes it. The site at the South Pole shows a smoother variation upwards which is accounted for quantitatively by annual emissions and that site has much less vegetation impact as well as SH sites. Look into the annual CO2 cycle. Much has been written on it.
Jim D.
I am well aware of the seasonal fluctuations in CO2 levels
I had given 7 reasons as to why I believe that they prove that my model is correct.
I had asked for any proof that you could offer that the greenhouse gas hypothesis is correct.
Perhaps you can offer some facts which will convince me that I am wrong
I think you don’t understand the physics of the greenhouse effect, so it is difficult to know where to start.
Jim D.
I didn’t think that you would be able to provide any actual proof that warming due to greenhouse gasses actually exists.
What we have are two explanations for climate change:
1. That the accumulation of “greenhouse” gasses is responsible for the on-going increase in average global temperatures. It is true that the curve of the rise in CO2 levels closely matches the curve of the rise in temperatures, but “correlation is not causation”.
There are no models which correctly predicted the slowdown in global warming after around 1995, or the sudden increase in the rate of warming since 2014–or the actual expected temperature for any year. And the hypothesis has never been falsified.in the real world.
As Karl Popper wrote “scientific theories must be falsifiable (that is, empirically testable), and that prediction was the gold standard for their validation” The greenhouse gas hypothesis meets neither requirement.
2. That the warming is simply due to the removal of dimming sulfur dioxide aerosols from the atmosphere due to Clean Air efforts.
This model is essentially 100% accurate in projecting average global temperatures for any year circa 1975 – present, based solely upon the net amount of reduction in global sulfur dioxide emissions.
The model meets both of the requirements .for validation: Exact predictions of rises in global temperatures, and multiple falsifications (every time a large volcanic eruption occurs).
Warming due to cleansing of the air is truly an unfortunate situation, but one which MUST be dealt with.
It projects much more warming than anticipated for greenhouse gasses, with the “2 deg. C. limit” being reached in less than 20 years, if SO2 reductions continue at current rates..
There were natural variations on top of the warming trend. For example the warming rate in the 15 years up to 2000 was twice the 30-year average rate, while the slow-down after was much lower, but the 30 year rate itself has been the same since 1980. So, it is not all CO2 when you look at shorter windows, and nobody says it is, but the 30-year trend is very steady in the way that the emissions have been.
Jim D.
I have been studying your graph of average global temperatures and CO2 levels, and have discovered that there is a 100% correlation between temporary temperature peaks and business recessions. This is true of all ten of the recessions since 1950 (and probably all prior recessions)
The few remaining peaks are due to El Nino’s, or reductions in tropospheric SO2 levels.
Now, the only way that a business recession could cause a temporary rise in average global temperatures is for the reduced industrial activity to result in a reduction in the amount of SO2 aerosol emissions into the troposphere.
It also follows that the reduction in SO2 emissions due to Clean Air efforts will have the same climatic effect. (that is, increased temperatures)
This is further proof that there can never have been any warming due to greenhouse gasses (warming due to the reduction in SO2 emissions so closely matches actual temperature increases that there is simply no room for any additional warming due to greenhouse gasses).
To avoid “roasting” ourselves, it is essential that ALL further reductions in SO2 emissions be halted as quickly as possible, or effective mitigation strategies be devised and implemented..
In your atmosphere, what inhibits SW from exiting the oceans in the same efficient way it did in 1975?
Again, how does your clean atmosphere slow down the loss of heat from the oceans.
I haven’t seen a paper on sea level rise attribution that uses that paper yet. Have you? It looks like it might be difficult to reconcile to me.
Which paper?
The paper that graph came from. I made the comment the first time I saw it that I would like to see an attribution of sea level rise using it, I haven’t yet.
I believe Trenberth’s OHC estimate, which came later, was headlined to be larger. There is a paper that claims the steric component is way underestimated, which is what I have always thought.
JCH, I’d be primarily interested in the attribution of the SLR in the first half of the 20th century without it having much of a steric component. Where did all the mass come from?
“Climate Power Play by the AAAS…” has been a very interesting blog string; however, like some others, it degraded into a bantering between a small number of individuals, with volumes of hot air exchanged, often personal insults, and of zero interest to the well intended general followership. This seems largely driven by egos and some kind of need by certain parties to provoke others and see their bantering on a device display. That’s really too bad. Climate etc. is an outstanding blog dealing with climate science and related policy issues, providing substantial thoughtful quality information … and mostly exchanges of thoughtful informative comments and opinions. I am concerned this will cause Dr Curry to do a serious rethink on the future format, and even whether or not to run the blog at all. It would be a real shame to see Climate etc. close down. Are there any options: one is to cut off a blog topic to accept comments for a limited time, say 5 days; another, more difficult to do, would be to track participants comments either manually or perhaps using a simple algorithm to block off topic bantering / rants. I don’t like the idea of censoring but there is a point at which this “goes way over the line.” There are plenty of “rant” / advocacy sites where this behavior is better suited and more appropriate. It is disturbing to see a few individuals mess up a widely-acknowledged excellent climate blog.
Climate Change is real and it has happened since the beginning of the earth/time… It is a cycle that plays by the theory of Chaos and no one will understand what it is or what it means. You cannot change it, it is reality.
All of the models are wrong because there are variables that are missing from the equation. Many things that play into the equation, like the effects of the Sun, are being ignored, not to mention the unknowns totally missing from the equation.
Have fun gentlemen and gentle-ladies, argue your points until doomsday but we, yes ‘we’, have all got it wrong. In fact more damage is being done then there are answers to the problem. ie: toxic solar panel production, wind power plants that kill off near extinct birds etc We are not approaching the problem clearly, because everyone seem to be firmly set in their personal biases. A much clear voice needs to be heard but whom may that be?
Have a wonderful day and a much better tomorrow to all.
Vince Werber:
You should review the recent posts between Jim D and myself.
The model that I have described, warming due to the removal of anthropogenic SO2 aerosols, largely due to clean air efforts, perfectly matches the behavior of climate change over the past 40 years.
We, indeed, have been doing it all wrong, blaming the warming on greenhouse gasses..
Mr. Burl Henry,
I must admit I have not read these papers and forgive me for this but there are so many papers about these issues that it is hard for an individual, like myself, to read all of them. Forgive me on my oversight.
From the beginning of this debate I have argued that the Sun has a much more powerful effect on the climate than anything we humans have or will have on our environment. Fact is, it is the most powerful and life giving thing to we humans.
That being said, to ignore the Sun in the matter of climate change is more than just an oversight it is a serious violation of the physical world. The Sun produces more than just light but the issues of Cosmic rays need to be addressed.
Right now the Sun is going into a deep and serious minima in my opinion. The reason I say this is from my personal studies in RF propagation over the past 50 years. I have seen a few Sun maxima but what I see today is one of the deepest Solar minima I have ever seen.
If my guesses (hypothesises) are correct then we are about to go into a very long ‘Global Cooling’ effect that will cause a major issue in our environment and the current ideas and computer models will lead us into a very wrong direction and cause serious damage to both agricultural and human development.
As for the above refer to the CLOUD experiments at CERN.
Serious Physicists haven’t entered into the Climate Science debate (IMHO) because they don’t want to get involved in the back stabbing foolishness (they have more productive things to do). And they know all too well that real physical laws will crush most of the climate science bilge.
I don’t have a PHD after my name but I have seen things that many of the current PHD’s have never seen because they weren’t even born. I don’t receive money from anyone, oil company big wigs or carbon credit scammers. I am a individual just trying to pass on what I have seen over the years. Take it for what it is worth.
Some comments on this board I have taken personally, perhaps wrongly but still. I will admit that most of the comments here are a bit over my head but I do have a common understanding of what is being said.
Folks that do comment here must understand that there are common folks drawn to this place because of internet searches and they will be turned off by the constant arguments and personal attacks, back and forth, that they will see.
These bickering’s are not scientific, consensus is a political term and not a scientific one and the IPCC is a serious corruption of science as is the CRU and many others.
Climate Science needs to clean up it’s act or become the laughing stock of the world of science.
Have a wonderful day and a much better tomorrow!
vgw
Vince Weber:
In climate change, the sun is the constant, and the amount of sulfur dioxide aerosols in the atmosphere is the control knob..
Following a large volcanic eruption, such as Mt. Pinatubo in 1991, average global temperatures initially drop , due to the sulfurous gasses (which quickly convert to SO2) that are injected into the stratosphere. Then, as they settle out, temperatures recover to pre-eruption levels.
Likewise, anthropogenic SO2 emissions into the .troposphere can cause cooling, as they did in the mid-1955 to 1972 time frame, peaking at 131 Megatonnes, Recall, that at the time, there were fears of another ice age developing because of the cooling.
Then, due to Clean Air efforts, these emissions began to decrease, dropping to 101 Megatonnes by 2011. As with volcanos, the removal of the dimming SO2 aerosols caused the climate to warm up, the expected physical response–and the sole cause of global climate change.
The climate sensitivity factor for their removal is .02 degrees C. of warming for each net Megatonne of reduction in the global amounts of SO2 emissions. (This sensitivity factor is identical for both volcanic and anthropogenic SO2 emissions, as can be proven).
Alarmingly, at current rates of reductions in SO2 aerosol emissions, the “2 degree C limit” will be reached in less than 20 years..
If your suspicions are correct that that the sun’s output is going to weaken, it would be a welcome event, with respect to our current situation.
Should it cool too much, we can simply keep removing more SO2 aerosols to counteract the cooling.
If it doesn’t cool, we MUST stop all Clean Air efforts at once–which will not happen. Earth’s future does not look bright–for which we can thank the warmists!
Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #232 | Watts Up With That?
Pingback: AMS: Weather, Water and Climate Priorities | Climate Etc.
Pingback: AMS: Weather, Water and Climate Priorities – Enjeux énergies et environnement
I’m waiting for AAAS to endorse a Jim Jones doomsday cult to “motivate” people to “climate action.”
I really think this would work.
Pingback: American Association for the Advancement of Science forgets the Science | wryheat
Pingback: Kidnappningen av vetenskapen - Stockholmsinitiativet - Klimatupplysningen