by Judith Curry
The smartest people on the planet want to oppose Trump & the best they can come up with is a march in support of themselves? – Roger Pielke Jr
A mega March for Science has been planned for Earth Day (April 22) in Washington DC. The web site states:
The March for Science demonstrates our passion for science and sounds a call to support and safeguard the scientific community. Recent policy changes have caused heightened worry among scientists.
The mischaracterization of science as a partisan issue, which has given policymakers permission to reject overwhelming evidence, is a critical and urgent matter. It is time for people who support scientific research and evidence-based policies to take a public stand and be counted.
Of course, the poster child for partisan ‘mischaracterization of facts’ is statements by members of the Trump administration regarding uncertainty surrounding the causes of climate change. President Obama and his Call Out the Climate Deniers campaign apparently elicited no concerns about partisan mischaracterization of facts from the science establishment.
Scientists fear what ‘might’ happen under the Trump administration — they are working from rumors, leaks and a few public statements by individuals connected with Trump’s transition teams. These are the same scientists pushing for ‘evidence based’ policies — go figure.
The American Geophysical Union (AGU) – which is joining the March – had a blog post describing the positions on climate change and science of important individuals in the Trump administration: Mick Mulvaney, Rick Perry, Wilbur Ross, Scott Pruitt, Ryan Zinke. Read the blog post. To me, Trump’s team looks like it has a healthier attitude to science than did Obama’s team, who sought to scientize policy debates and politicize science debates..
The scientists’ big concern is ‘silencing of facts’. This concern apparently derives from their desire to have their negotiated ‘facts’ — such as the ‘consensus’ on climate change — dictate public policy. The scientists who are marching seem not very interested in science as a process based on continually evaluating evidence and reassessing conclusions through reasoning and impartial habits of mind.
The scientists are not just out to defend ‘facts’ — they fear funding cuts and limits to immigration. They also seem very attached to safeguarding the academic scientific community and the elite institutions that support it.
Some sentiments from scientists supporting the March:
Caroline Weinberg: “[I]t is not possible to ignore policy when it affects not just your jobs but the future of your field.” [link]
Dr Jacquelyn Gill: “A lot of scientists are realizing that the institutions that fund and support and science in this country . . .are under direct attack.” Trump, she said, “not only doesn’t value our institutions, he doesn’t seem to value evidence-based decision making at all. That is alarming to us.” [link]
Other scientists are very concerned about the March:
Professor Jim Gates, former adviser to Barack Obama, told journalists that the march appeared to lack an end goal – a prerequisite for political action – and would simply be perceived as “science against Trump”. “At least as far as I can detect, there is no theory of action behind this,” he said. “This bothers me tremendously. “To have science represented as this political force I think is just extraordinarily dangerous.” [link]
Robert Young wrote that the march would be perceived as a protest of President Trump and “trivialize and politicize the science we care so much about.” “Trying to recreate the pointedly political Women’s March will serve only to reinforce the narrative from skeptical conservatives that scientists are an interest group and politicize their data, research and findings for their own ends.” [link]
Tactics in want of a strategy
So, exactly what do scientists expect to accomplish with this March, and how do they plan to go about it? Well, I am still at a loss to understand what they expect to accomplish, but there have been some interesting suggestions on how they might go about it.
Jonathan Foley in the Scientific American on how to defeat those who are waging war on science: portray an inclusive vision; get political; don’t fall into the culture war trap; balance facts with meaningful stories; be forceful.
Roger Pielke Jr in the Guardian: To counter Trump’s administration, scientists need counter-propaganda, evidence-based alternative policies and political representation. The scientific community needs to eschew old habits that have manifested themselves in the march: calling for more funding and waging political battles through science.
Kristy Henschel in Science: hold webinar viewing parties; host science policy seminars; design a science advocacy workshop; organize a State Hill day; invite your government representatives for a lab tour; host a science cafe; share your voice on twitter.
The most provocative suggestion comes from an editorial in Nature: Researchers should reach beyond the science bubble. Excerpt: Scientists in the United States and elsewhere ought to address the needs and employment prospects of taxpayers who have seen little benefit from scientific advances. As they ponder their next move in response to the election of Trump, science organizations — universities, funders, supporters and the rest — should look harder at social problems and opportunities, and seek ways for science to help.
So far, the March for Science seems to be shaping up as a self-serving navel gazing exercise for scientists — sort of a ‘we don’t like Trump’ tantrum. The impression that this will have on policy makers and the public will be to cement scientists as a politicized special interest group, just like any other lobbying group. In short, I very much fear that this March will do more harm than good.
It’s not too late to turn this around. We need to rethink the contract between scientists and government, and develop a new model for the the 21st century. Here are some recommendations:
- Embrace science as a process, not a collection of ‘facts’; invite the public to engage in the process of science.
- The institutions of science need to reform themselves, and scientists need to get out of the ivory tower and engage with the real world [link]
- Universities need a new business model and incentive structure for faculty members that doesn’t rely on massive federal research grants but rewards faculty for educating students at all levels and serving the needs of society
- Scientists need a much better understanding of the policy process, the role that science plays, and how complexity, pluralism and uncertainty in science is accommodated in the policy process. Evidence-based policy making is a good political slogan, but not a good description of the policy process [link]
- Scientists need to stop using science to support desired political outcomes.
- Scientists need to do more than push back against flawed arguments and bad policy. We need to engage the public, and, even more, invite the public, across the political spectrum, to engage with science. [link]
Reblogged this on Patti Kellar and commented:
“The smartest people on the planet want to oppose Trump & the best ”
Judith Curry can come up with is a remark by Roger Pielke Jr.?
I object to any description of climate “scientists” as “The smartest people on the planet”. This is plainly counter to facts.
Well, I took it that Pielke Jr was insulting scientists.
Trump supporters need to listen to what the man is proposing, and if you are still with him…
Other than lowering the corporate tax rate, the guy is completely unhinged.
“the guy is completely unhinged.”
Try to point out specific policy decisions that you disagree with and why. Writing “the guy is completely unhinged.” makes you appear to be emotional but not substantive.
How about increasing spending and cutting taxes?
When we already have a budget deficit.
How about claiming Obama ordered his phone tapped?
How about building a border wall with Mexico, when the illegal immigration that we are experiencing is predominantly visa overstays?
Making Mexico pay for it?
His comments about the strength of our Navy by counting the number of ships?
I could go on and on and on
Till it sounds like I am unhinged, but I’ll stop now.
“How about increasing spending and cutting taxes?
When we already have a budget deficit.”
I applaud your desire to cut the deficit, but until you have looked at his actual budget your comment shows you to be a bit unhinged. What will Trump’s actual policies do to grow the economy and bring back capital “trapped” offshore? Wait until you look at the actual numbers.
“How about claiming Obama ordered his phone tapped?”
Is it your belief that no tapping could have possibly occurred?
“How about building a border wall with Mexico, when the illegal immigration that we are experiencing is predominantly visa overstays?
Making Mexico pay for it?”
Is it your position that building a wall between Mexico and the US will not reduce illegal immigration and the import of illegal drugs? Is it bad to try to get Mexico to pay for at least a portion of the wall?
His comments about the strength of our Navy by counting the number of ships?”
The number of ships in the navy IS a key determinate in the strength of the Navy. Not the only one by any means, but it is important when comparing US capabilities to those they might confront.
You can and probably will go on and on. Many of the unhinged do…lol
You believe that it is possible for Trump to balance the budget by increasing spending, cutting taxes and providing all that by bringing back capitol trapped offshore. Clown car thinking.
Yes it is my position that building a wall on the border with Mexico will not reduce illegal immigration, it is like locking the barn door after all the cows have left. I believe there are more effective ways to reduce illegal immigration. And it is not ethical to make Mexico pay for what is definitely our problem, especially with the drugs.
Ex Navy here, and in context, one ship, say the USS Gerald Ford is equal to all the ships the US had during WWI which was the comparison our executive was making. Pay attention to what the Trump is saying.
Of course wire tapping Trump Tower could have been possible, but Obama did not have the authority to order it. And it didn’t happen according to those in the FBI and other agencies.
Trumps belief is that his policies will significantly increase the growth rate of the US economy based on his administrations policies. Up to approx. 4%. I am skeptical but see many of his proposed energy policies changes as very good economically
Yeah, but coal is dead, and it wasn’t the greens whut done it.
I didn’t add bringing back coal to the list of unhinged Trump policies, and I would rather we keep the coal waste out of our streams, but coal can’t compete with solar and wind anymore.
There are already ten times as many jobs in solar as in coal, and that is an industry that is still growing exponentially which had hardly anyone in it only a couple of decades ago. If you want to grow jobs, back that horse, and don’t flog the dead coal horse.
Yeah, It’s dead Jim!
And don’t try to lead it to water.
And never, ever, saddle the dead horse.
“There are already ten times as many jobs in solar as in coal, and that is an industry that is still growing exponentially which had hardly anyone in it only a couple of decades ago.”
To get the same product you have to employ ten times as many people? You are bragging about that?
And it still ends up cheaper. No fuel or shipping, I guess,
In evaluating Mr. Trump, it is always wise to keep in mind the observation attributed to Salena Zito: “The press [along with most other critics] takes him literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally”. And regarding wiretapping, you need only look at the NYT Headline of January 20 “Wiretap data used in inquiry of Trump Aides”. Perhaps they made that part up, perhaps not. But it hardly makes the suggestion/accusation by Trump ‘unhinged’.
Keep in mind that if you talk to the Russians, some one may be listening.
Legally, and you may not have the rights you think you have.
And keep in mind, that Trump said Obama ordered the wiretap.
So far, no evidence for that.
Remember the “No, You’re the puppet” in the debate.
Bob writes- “Yeah, but coal is dead, and it wasn’t the greens whut done it.”
LOL- The use of coal continues to rise worldwide. http://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/images/figure_4-1.png
No use letting reality get in the way of your beliefs.
You know Rob, that I was taking a US centric approach.
What company recently declared bankruptcy?
Who dunn it?
Looks like streams are somewhat safe no matter what the Unhinged Orange Marmalade signs.
Your comment – “What company recently declared bankruptcy?”
There were several but the jewel was Peabody Energy.
Leveraged to the hilt, defaulted on billions for land reclamation liabilities, Created shell companies subsidies like Patriot Coal to stuff with workers health care and pension dollars and let them go BK. Management got “emergency retention” bonuses while the common stock went through multiple reverse splits and finally BK.
Enter Peabody NewCo.
Same management but with new higher salaries, millions and millions $$ of new stock options, almost no debt, no EPA oversight and a extreamly supportive federal government.
Every thing done by management and the board of directors is legal. That’s just the way our system works… Or maybe they were just lucky.
“Looks like streams are somewhat safe no matter what the Unhinged Orange Marmalade signs.”
Orange was the color of that stream downslope of that mine outflow barrier the EPA decided to bulldoze.
Unhinged is the fact that nobody was punished. If they’d been private sector, the fines would have been in the millions. Instead the taxpayers pay for the cleanup and the idiots involved march (for science!)
Solar and wind cannot replace coal because they are intermittent. No fossil fuel can compete with coal on $/BTU. Coal is competitive with natural gas at $250 a ton, and Central Appalachian coal is selling for about $50 a ton. What Obama and the EPA did was to increase the cost of building and running a coal plant so that energy companies would switch to other sources even if coal was free.
Calling it a mine outflow barrier is a stretch.
The mine most likely would have leaked out eventually and the EPA was trying to treat the water, but it wasn’t their fault there was a hazardous situation there.
It has nothing to do with coal anyway.
George, all electrical sources are intermittent.
In theory yes, all electrical sources are intermittent, but in practice ‘conventional sources’ are able to provide power 24x7x365 and any outages are unexpected and treated as rare emergancies.
Solar and Wind are not like this.
Solar is known to be out of operation a large percentage of each day (and bad weather can cause even more problems), for residential use, this means that Solar is not providing power when you most need it.
Wind is less predictable.
neither can replace conventional power unless you have some storage mechansim (none of which are very efficient)
Add to this that Solar and Wind advocates like to talk about their installations in terms of the max power they can produce at any instant, rather than the average power they will produce over a year, and you end up with needing to have 3x or more in solar/wind capability than you would need in conventional power.
Planned and unplanned outages occur at fossil fuel facilities, so I think your 24x7x365 is an exaggeration.
All generation facilities require periodic maintenance say this former general repairman nuclear.
Hand me the 4 5/8 in hydraulic wrench, time to replace the seals.
maintinance is scheuled at non-peak times, good luck scheduling the wind to only die during non-peak times.
Texas is able to use long range wind and cloud cover forecasts to schedule the power generation mix and has been doing it for years.
They have never had a blackout due to a sudden loss of wind power but have a number of regional rolling blackout due to excessive heat in the water intake systems of thermal generators because of state wide heat waves. A few years back (2001) we had a really short deep cold snap and we lost several large thermal generators when their lake water intakes froze up. Even nuclear power plants are thermal generators and are subject to these disruptions.
Opps! That sudden cold spell happened in Feb. 2011. 2011 was also a year we had the worst drought since at least the 1930s and we had numerous blackouts caused by low water in reservoirs and excessive heat in the water intakes.
Just remember that all thermal generation has a Achilles heel, water.
“The 2003 heat wave in France caused many nuclear power plants to
curtail operations due to high cooling water inlet temperatures”
If you listen to much of the MSM.
You might try forming original opinions. Unless you believe in a bottomless bucket of Federal dollars. In that case you don’t belong in the conversation.
Trump campaigned on reducing government spending. In case you haven’t figured it out, that means reductions in budgets. What makes NOAA immune from this?
Yeah, I suppose you are right, wind can’t replace other methods of power generation.
Except when it does.
There is no such thing as a dollar and there is no limit to dollars.
> There is no such thing as a dollar and there is no limit to dollars.
go do your research to see what happens when governments took this attitude.
Even in the US, go back and look at what happened during the Civil War in the south where they just printed money
treating the dollar as having no limit because you can just create more doesn’t work
bobdroege: “The mine most likely would have leaked out eventually and the EPA was trying to treat the water,”
Yes – I’m sure that same excuse would have prevented any fines from the EPA had they not polluted the river in one fell swoop on their own.
“The EPA had considered drilling into the mine from above in order to measure the water level directly before beginning excavation at the entrance, as was done at nearby mines in 2011. Had they done so, they would have discovered the true water level, and changed their plan; the disaster would not have occurred. Operating mines have been required to perform such measurement of water level since a fatal mine flood in 1911.”
But rules are for the little people, which is probably why the EPA waited a full day to even tell the locals about the spill.
Reading your link I see that percentage occurred at 4 o clock in the morning. Generally wind seems to provide 13 percent of electricity generation in that area. Commendable as I am certainly not against renewables but let’s keep it in its proper perspective.
Harkin1, this wasn’t an operational mine, and that area is dotted with abandoned mines that slowly fill up with water, ie ticking time bombs.
Yeah, the EPA messed up trying to clean up someone else’s mess.
So defund the EPA and who will do the cleanup?
Yeah, Timg56, I listen to MSM, that’s who put’s the Orange Marmalade on the screen. I am listen to the horses mouth, if you will.
Tell me you haven’t noticed he has said one thing during the campaign and says something completely different now.
For one thing, he campaigned on repealing the ACA, not replacing it with something similar.
Coal can’t compete with solar.
Nothing to do with subsidies and/or other political privileges solar gets I suppose ?
The global warming alarmists believe they are in a battle between good versus evil, fighting on the side of God– a new age urban god. AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) is a belief that activities of us monkeys caused global warming over the last half of the 2oth century. They don’t believe they’re saving lives– saving the world from us is their mission.
“AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) is a belief that activities of us monkeys caused global warming over the last half of the 2oth century.”
What some “believe” is that AGW will almost certainly result in hugely negative overall changes in the climate. That is the “belief” that is not supported by any reasonable science.
What you’re saying sounds a lot like, the only living things on the planet — perhaps, the world — that are capable of forming, maintaining or acting upon, “belief,” also think their existence endangers the world. Such the conundrum.
What happened to the C in CAGW?
It got kicked around by reality i.e., NGW (Naturogenic Global Warming)
Except of course Wagathon the G and the W wheels have fallen off the wagon as well.
The communication changed from “global warming” (away from AGW) to “climate change”. Now some see any and all changes to the climate as being negative and human caused.
How far, as we 21st century moderns come together around our gas-fired hearths, are us sons and daughters of hominids to look into the future and plan ahead, one hundred years?
You ell us.
It was, after all *your* invention….
“CAGW”, for “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming”, is a snarl word (or snarl acronym) that global warming denialists use for the established science of climate change. A Google Scholar search indicates that the term is never used in the scientific literature on climate.
It’s not clear just when or how the denialists adopted CAGW over from the acronym AGW (anthropogenic global warming) used by normal folk. The term was used in blog comments at the New York Times and ScienceBlogs as early as 2008, and is likely to have been used earlier. By around 2011 CAGW had become commonplace in denialist blogs such as those of Anthony Watts or Judith Curry, and over the next year or two essentially replaced AGW in such esteemed venues. Despite the qualifier, denialists apply the term indiscriminately to anything approximating the mainstream scientific view on climate, regardless of whether or not “catastrophic” outcomes are implied.
As for motivation, it’s an attempt to move the goalposts. Denialists realized they had lost the argument over plain old “anthropogenic global warming” — the basic physics of the problem have been known since the 19th century, so that rejecting AGW outright paints oneself as a loon. Adding “catastrophic” gives plenty of wiggle room for denialism. Sea level rises a foot? Just a few Pacific Islanders losing everything; no catastrophe. Sea level rises a few more feet? The Philippines get flooded out and we lose coastal cities like London and New York. But with a few trillion dollars we can move them inland; no catastrophe. And so on.
Potholer54 has snarkily suggested renaming CAGW to EAGW, with the “E” standing for “Expensive.”
Whether or not the scientific community actually used the term CAGW is surely immaterial?
They were giving catastrophic forecasts to policymakers and the media of the likely effects of AGW such as drastic sea level rise, temperature increases of up to 7 degrees, more severe storms, greater rainfall or catastrophic drought.
Those receiving the scientific advice therefore can surely be excused for believing they needed to plan for a catastrophe?
Google the 2 degree limit for catastrophe. Anthropogenic warming is at most 0.124 degrees C/decade and IPCC oportunistic ensembles are theoretical nonsense. So what is a poor CAGW zealot to do? Lie.
Tony Banton, my recollection is that the term abbreviated as CAGW goes back to the 1980s and that the phrase was introduced by those raising concerns about warming, not those who are not convinced that we need to take drastic action to cut emissions. FYI, I was briefed on the issue (in a small group – ?<10) by the IPCC's Chief Scientist in '89 or '90, almost all material in those days was coming from the global warming proponents. The term was definitely not first coined by those of a sceptical bent.
Greetings great Cunn. MIT professor Richard Lindzen
re yr provenance herewith. )
Agree with Climatereason that it is not the term used to define the concept and it’s associated narrative that is important. It exists, so we have to call it something. However, you imply that this concept exists in the first place because climate skeptics introduced it. So do you think that all the highly influential leaders below who are clearly expressing the CAGW narrative (inclusive of direst consequences and a minimal time in which to act, both framed in highly emotive terms) are climate skeptics? It is these folks and many other authority figures, along with associated governments and orgs, who have been or are driving policy. Hence do you disagree with the policies that result from this narrative? Do you straight disagree with these leaders regarding their characterization of AGW as CAGW?
[GRO HARLEM BRUNDTLAND] to 15th session of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development : “So what is it that is new today? What is new is that doubt has been eliminated. The report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is clear. And so is the Stern report. It is irresponsible, reckless and deeply immoral to question the seriousness of the situation. The time for diagnosis is over. Now it is time to act.” [OBAMA] Energy Independence and the Safety of Our Planet (2006) : “All across the world, in every kind of environment and region known to man, increasingly dangerous weather patterns and devastating storms are abruptly putting an end to the long-running debate over whether or not climate change is real. Not only is it real, it’s here, and its effects are giving rise to a frighteningly new global phenomenon: the man-made natural disaster.” Speech in Berlin (2008) : “This is the moment when we must come together to save this planet. Let us resolve that we will not leave our children a world where the oceans rise and famine spreads and terrible storms devastate our lands.” George town speech (2013) : “Sticking your head in the sand might make you feel safer, but it’s not going to protect you from the coming storm.” State of the Union (2015) : “The best scientists in the world are all telling us that our activities are changing the climate, and if we do not act forcefully, we’ll continue to see rising oceans, longer, hotter heat waves, dangerous droughts and floods, and massive disruptions that can trigger greater migration, conflict, and hunger around the globe.” [FRANCOIS HOLLANDE] Paris climate summit Nov 2015 : “To resolve the climate crisis, good will, statements of intent are not enough. We are at breaking point.” [GORDON BROWN] Copenhagen climate plan (2009) : “If we miss this opportunity, there will be no second chance sometime in the future, no later way to undo the catastrophic damage to the environment we will cause…As scientists spell out the mounting evidence both of the climate change already occurring and of the threat it poses in the future, we cannot allow the negotiations to run out of time simply for lack of attention. Failure would be unforgivable.” [ANGELA MERKEL] to UN summit on Climate Change (2009) : “After all, scientific findings leave us in no doubt that climate change is accelerating. It threatens our well being, our security, and our economic development. It will lead to uncontrollable risks and dramatic damage if we do not take resolute countermeasures.” Same speech : “we will need to reach an understanding on central issues in the weeks ahead before Copenhagen, ensuring, among other things, that global emissions reach their peak in the year 2020 at the latest.” And while president of the EU, on German TV in a wake-up call for climate action prior to 26 leader EU climate meeting (2007) : “It is not five minutes to midnight. It’s five minutes after midnight.” [POPE FRANCIS] Asked if the U.N. climate summit in Paris (2015) would mark a turning point in the fight against global warming, the pope said: “I am not sure, but I can say to you ‘now or never’. Every year the problems are getting worse. We are at the limits. If I may use a strong word I would say that we are at the limits of suicide.” [MARK CARNEY] governor of the bank of England, speech ‘Resolving the Climate Paradox’, September 2016: “…climate change is a tragedy of the horizon which imposes a cost on future generations that the current one has no direct incentive to fix. The catastrophic impacts of climate change will be felt beyond the traditional horizons of most actors including businesses and central banks. Once climate change becomes a clear and present danger to financial stability it may already be too late to stabilise the atmosphere at two degrees.”
P.S. sorry I didn’t make clear above is addressed to Tony Banton.
> Whether or not the scientific community actually used the term CAGW is surely immaterial?
It is material to the fact that “but CAGW” is a contrarian meme.
To be filed under “question, begging the” if we take Mr. T srsly.
‘Dangerous climate change’ is one catastrophe after another.
And perhaps the worst is wee willies filing system.
If Chief needs a few catastrophes to start contemplating dangerosity, he can start sprinting with scissors.
Maybe it’s a vocabulary thing. Alarmism presumes lack of warrant. How can one establish a lack of warrant without stating beforehand an acceptable threshold for one’s epistemic claims?
Denizens should never forget that the opposite of alarmism is denial. Anyone who uses the A word cautions the D word. Please, do continue to use it.
No Willard. The opposite of alarm is calm. However the opposite of sceptical is gullible.
re wee willies filing system – it is semantic quibbling all the way down
None of the authority figures in my comment up-thread are contrarians. And I presume that you disagree with their narrative framing of AGW as CAGW? Ditto regarding a few more below:
[PRINCE CHARLES] speech to business leaders in Brazil (2009): “The best projections tell us that we have less than 100 months to alter our behaviour before we risk catastrophic climate change.” [AL GORE] speech to NY University School of Law (Sept 2006): “Each passing day brings yet more evidence that we are now facing a planetary emergency — a climate crisis that demands immediate action to sharply reduce carbon dioxide emissions worldwide in order to turn down the earth’s thermostat and avert catastrophe.” [JOHN KERRY] as US Secretary of State, responding to UN report (2014): “Unless we act dramatically and quickly, science tells us our climate and our way of life are literally in jeopardy… …There are those who say we can’t afford to act. But waiting is truly unaffordable. The costs of inaction are catastrophic.” [HILLARY CLINTON] time.com (Nov 2015): “I won’t let anyone to take us backward, deny our economy the benefits of harnessing a clean energy future, or force our children to endure the catastrophe that would result from unchecked climate change.” [BERNIE SANDERS] US presidential candidate (2016), feelthebern.com : Bernie Sanders strongly believes climate change is real, catastrophic, and largely caused by human activities.
> The opposite of alarm is calm.
“Alarmist,” Forrest. Since you’re new here:
Being able to claim that the alarm is excessive or exagerrated begs to be warranted by evidence.
Also note two other mentions:
(1) The alarmist person is subject to the cognitive distortion of catastrophizing – of always expecting the worst of possible futures.
(2) The charge of alarmism can of course be used to discredit a legitimate warning, as when Churchill was widely dismissed as an alarmist in the 1930s.
The second meaning might be relevant considering teh Donald.
Now, compare to denialism:
Minimizing the dangerosity of AGW (say by crying “but CAGW” over and over again on blogs) can indeed lead to denialism. Contrary to what has been said earlier here in a previous editorial, this kind of minimization is far from being new. Crying “but CAGW” in a way to minimize the risks that AGW incurs can indeed be seen as denialism.
A cursory glance suffices to see that alarmism is indeed the opposite of denialism, and that if you use the A word, you caution the D word.
So please, very please with sugar on it, do continue.
Hope this helps,
Willard, astute readers will note that you changed from “denialist” to “denialism” and then objected to me referring to a different part of speech.
I’ll leave working through the various parts of speech as an exercise for you.
Try not to be so obnoxious.
> astute readers
I thought you were frowning upon talking for others, Forrester.
Willard, you are wandering off into the rhetorical weeds.
It is a fact that astute readers will note what I wrote even if you don’t.
Ad hom attacks don’t imply arguments, PhilJ. Why this sock puppet?
It is at best a counterfactual, PhilJ. Unless you define “astute reader” as someone who shares your affinity for gaslighting.
Simply pathetic Willard.
Oops. Of course Willard you changed from “alarmism” to “alarmist”.
The remainder of my point remains as stated.
Further to Faustino’s comment to TB, James Hansen – the reputed father of climate change alarmism – argued that global warming would be catastrophic. He argues in his book the that the oceans would boil off and we’d get an atmosphere like Venus if humans don’t stop their evil ways. He chained himself to the gates of coal fired power stations and called coal trains “death trains”.
Willard and Tony Banton:
So let me understand your position. There has been for about two decades a huge volume of calamitous climate narrative from world leaders and governments and local councils and NGOs and businesses and even religion, indeed also from many claiming to represent science (i.e. some do or at least are scientists themselves, while some are more in the way of advocacy orgs / individuals), of which a small slice from the top of the authority food-chain is exampled above. Chief features are the certainty of calamity, the urgency of deadlines, and the emotive pitch. And you are saying, no, when the contrarians refer to ‘CAGW’, they are *not* referring to this huge long-standing narrative, which calamitous narrative is not justified by mainstream science (e.g. the IPCC technical papers). No, they are inventing their very own concept of calamitous, purely in order create a false comparison that will therefore perceptually ‘minimize the dangerosity’ of mainstream AGW. And somehow, they have not only done this completely independently of influence by the huge narrative above, which is expressed in pretty much the strongest and most emotive terms imaginable and has poured out of the media from practically all authority sources in the West for many years, but also their comparatively miniscule efforts on a few climate blogs are what has ended up defining this catastrohpic concept associated with climate change, as shorthanded by ‘CAGW’, and it is *not* the aforementioned huge effort by leaders and orgs worldwide that has caused the association. Is that right?
The examples above, and more below, were clipped for their mention of the calamitous and / or urgent expiry deadlines, not for mentions of science. Yet look how often they do mention the science or scientists or scientific projections as their legitimization. Who but these leaders and the thousands and thousands more advocating similar narrative in a big pyramid of orthodoxy below them, including a subset of scientists, and overall representing the majority of authorities in Western society, have painted mainstream climate science as (with certainty) underwriting catastrophe? And when contrarians merely refer to this deep, long-standing and globally understood association in the public’s mind, via their shorthand, you think it is *they* that have created it??
[M. LAURENT FABIUS] French Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Development, in the National Assembly (May 2014): “We have 500 days – not a day more – to avoid a climate disaster. People often talk about climate change or global warming. I attach great importance to words, and as far as the French language is concerned I don’t think those words are very appropriate, because – without alluding to this or that political programme – change is seen as rather a positive thing, but in the case of climate, it isn’t at all. Some French people say: why not, since they might think Lille, for example, is going to join the Côte d’Azur? That’s absolutely not it. We must face up to climate disruption, climate chaos. The scientists, several of whom are present here, have said it: ‘you’d have to be blind not to see it’.” [FRANCOIS HOLLANDE] as French President, at 150 nation climate summit in Le Bourget, France (Nov 2015): “Never have the stakes of an international meeting been so high, because it concerns the future of the planet, the future of life.” [MERKEL] as German chancellor, at the Lowy Institute in Sydney (Nov 2014): “If we do not put a brake on climate change, it will have devastating consequences for all of us – there will be more storms, there will be more heat and catastrophes more droughts, there will be a rising sea levels an increasing floods.” [TONY BLAIR] when UK Prime Minister, speech to HRH Business and the Environment Programme (Sept 2004): “The situation therefore can be summarised in this way: 1 If what the science tells us about climate change is correct, then unabated it will result in catastrophic consequences for our world. 2 The science, almost certainly, is correct.”
> So let me understand your position.
Sure. That explains the very same quotes already copy-pasted. I could pull the same stupid trick by searching for the CAGW meme on that thread, but really, that’
My points were quite simple, Andy. One is that if contrarians claim that the established viewpoint is alarmist, the onus is on them to show that it is. Problem is they can’t, because they have yet to establish once and for all a standard of proof that would not be ad hoc or impossible to meet. So they rely on the CAGW meme to beg a question they can’t solve.
All contrarians have are concerns. They all fit into one small matrix:
It’s hard to deny how small it is.
> And I presume that you disagree with their narrative framing of AGW as CAGW?
We’ve been there already a few times, Andy. Asking rhetorical questions is silly. “But CAGW” is a contrarian meme. Deal with it.
Willard, your point was plainly false and proven false by the evidence presented above of the catastrophic messaging that alarmists have been running for decades now.
Rational people can understand why alarmists such as yourself now want to walk back from the CAGW meme. After all the C, the G and the W wheels have all fallen off the gravy train.
You just don’t need to invert reality or be so obnoxious.
> your point was plainly false and proven false by the evidence presented above of the catastrophic messaging that alarmists have been running for decades now.
You have yet to prove that this “messaging” is alarmist, Forrester.
I’m gonna tell you a secret – you can’t.
But show me.
So no, my point hasn’t been refuted
There are risks. These risks are serious. You can’t dismiss these risks by crying “but CAGW” over and over again.
That meme’s on contrarians.
Oh Willard. Your logical skills are even less convincing than your rhetorical skills.
My point is that the C, G and W wheels have all fallen off the gravy train. That just leaves you with A and the hate for mankind among alarmists is clear for all to see except for those who suffer from wilful blindness such as yourself.
You support the case against you each time you post.
If you’re already into ad hom mode, dear Forrester, you’ll have to run and hide in no time.
There is AGW, which refers to a scientific hypothesis, and there C, which is just something contrarians added for lulz.
Thanks for playing.
No ad hom in what I wrote Willard.
Once again, for your own sake, have a cup of tea and a nice lie down. Then try again. Your comedic approach is great stuff.
> No ad hom
Which part of “wilful blindness” you do not get, dear Forrester?
Or is it PhilJ?
Willard, I don’t think that ad hom means what you appear to think it does.
This all appears to be well beyond you. Why not leave it to those who can cope.
That, for your education, is condescension and insult but not ad hom because you have no argument on foot.
Ad hom attacks are not ad hom arguments, dear PhilJ. Hence “ad hom mode”.
Why are you using this new sock puppet – for greenwashing?
Ad hom attacks do not require arguments, PhilJ. They may imply insults, however.
Utter gibberish Willard.
Go forth and multiply!
Good night, PhilJ. Or good morning in your case.
You are delusional Willard.
Forgot to end that sentence:
> but really, that’ll have to wait for another, more relevant thread.
Whining about the D word while victim bullying with the A word has to stop.
Hey Willard. I’m quite happy to consider any accusation of denial just as soon as somebody tells me exactly what it is that I am alleged to be denying.
Have at it!
I do not think you can deny that your own concept of CAGW is stronger than AndyW’s tepid construct, dear Forrester.
Willard, have a cup of tea and a nice lie down. Then try again.
Try again what, PhilJ – to tell you that one does not simply decompose A, G, and W the way you just did?
That’d be silly.
I might try to pay due diligence to your concept of alarmism, however.
But it can wait.
‘Dangerous climate change’ is one catastrophe after the another. In the minds of global warming zealots of course. With wee willie it is a case of zilch technical capacity but an unwavering allegiance to the group memes. In the end it is a millenialist belief system no different to any other through the ages. The global warming zealot rejects information at odds with the group mediated memes, is incapable of reviewing assumptions, disparages outsiders and assumes an overwhelming moral and intellectual superiority. It is classic groupthink of course. They don’t even know they’ve got it. That’s the insidious nature of groupthink.
They need outsiders to focus a group unity on. The difference is that alarmists declare themselves such and deniers are identified as outsiders by the grouping. A necessary asymmetry. Anyone can be a denier if you try hard enough. You just have to say nay to the pink unicorn science and politics.
Wee accused me recently of neglecting to address energy in the politics of pie in the sky. Not true – it is the world that has moved on. I occasionally mention the IEA projections on COP21 commitments – and it is apparent that economic growth came first. Not my fault I assure you Weeee.
As an example – Obama took a fracked gas emissions windfall to Paris and declared a victory over the evil naysayers. This is of course grand hypocrisy. In the meantime he was heavily invested in a transition to advanced nuclear. Yes we agree. There is plenty of free fuel available. Hundreds of thousands of tonnes of high level conventional waste. Not my fault either. I marched in the 1970’s
As for unicorn science. The world of modelling is an obvious and blatant fabrication of science. Below is a perturbed physics ensemble (PPE) from a single model using a mid-range no mitigation emissions scenario. It shows thousands of diverging solutions that is the defining property of these chaotic models – that have at their core nonlinear equations of fluid transport. The thick black line is temperature observations. The thick blue lines are the one standard deviation limits. The red lines are the IPCC range derived by an entirely different method. The range of the perturbed physics ensemble (PPE) is even greater than the IPCC range.
The IPPC opportunistic ensemble uses a single solution from 50 odd models – a solution arbitrarily chosen from 1000’s of plausible solutions, graphed together and a fake statistics fabricated over the top. They have known this (e.g, IPCC TAR 2001, McWilliams 2007, Slingo and Palmer 2011) since Lorenz in the 1960’s. It is as crude as that. The use of this method is at core a scientific fraud.
So let’s go with the PPE that has an even broader range – and a complete absence of a way to calculate a probability density function over the range. There is no way of telling a priori the solution that is most likely. The other problems are that there is no way to model chaotic shifts in the Earth system and that actual emissions are overwhelmingly likely to diverge from IPCC emission scenarios. Climate will continue to diverge from models – almost certainly cooler. If only half the warming of the 20th century was natural – that energy will be lost this century.
We are left with a maximum warming rate _ and quite likely less -from CAGW of exactly 0.087 degrees C/decade .
I have moved well beyond denial to contemptuous dismissal. No rational discussion with global warming zealots is possible. They are capable only of wielding pitchforks fabricated in collective workshops. Their gatekeepers are self-confessed liars and cheats. They have rigged the science game from the IPCC to science journals to career paths – and left a paper trail. They have systematically closed down broad scientific discourse, undermined the objectivity of science and diminished the regard in which it is held.
> ‘Dangerous climate change’ is one catastrophe after the another.
Chief can’t even grasp that danger does not imply any catastrophe.
You just can’t make this up.
He’s yours, Denizens.
Please, do let him spam your threads.
Just wait until Chief rediscovers Elinor Ostrom.
Willard, now you pretend to speak for others, know what people can grasp and predict the future.
Too funny. Please continue!
Not sure where I’m speaking for others, dear Forrester, but speaking of otherness, your voice and your commenting pattern does seem familiar.
Are you sure you never commented here under a different name?
Willard, just look for the words “grasp” and “just wait” in your post above.
Danger wee willie – danger.
But of course there is no actual catastrophe – merely narratives of catastrophe based on imagined dangers.
> He argues in his book the that the oceans would boil off and we’d get an atmosphere like Venus if humans don’t stop their evil ways.
Is PeterL’s claim alarmist or mere hyperbole, AndyW?
At least Hansen would look more like what TonyB had in mind as an example of the kind of guy to present “forecasts to policymakers” than the politicians you mentioned, don’t you think?
Suppose someone told you: “Humans will use 3,000 Quads by 2075. If they all come from coal we’re ruined.” Would you find it alarmist?
Willard, if you ever had the plot you lost it quite a while ago.
Do yourself a favour and step away from your keyboard for a while. Go see a movie or something.
You have changed the point. While it’s a valid discussion as to what may or may not be provable regarding the science, this is chasing a different point (which is indeed the core of the whole CC dispute). Your claim (and Tony Banton’s too), was that the concept of AGW being calamitous, as encapsulated by the short-form term ‘CAGW’ where the ‘C’ stands for ‘catastrophic’, is an invention of contrarians. Yet the view that is messaged by the majority of Western authorities and has over 20+ years entered the public consciousness, text as exampled above by a range of Western leaders, is by definition ‘the mainstream view’. And it is also manifestly by its form a narrative of certainty that AGW is catastrophic, expressed in the strongest emotive terms and not infrequently including the actual word ‘catastrophe’, or otherwise equivalent intimations of disaster / calamity associated with extreme urgency. So whether this narrative is barking mad and bears no relationship whatsoever to the science that is constantly invoked to underpin it, or whether it is perfectly and utterly justified, or whether there is some intermediate position, it *is* nevertheless a narrative of catastrophe. Hence it is legitimate to have a term which describes this narrative frame, and given that none of the Western authorities promoting this calamitous narrative are contrarian, the fact that contrarians may well have coined the term now in usage, is clearly nothing to do with the origin of the narrative and hence also the concept which it expresses.
If you believe that ‘the mainstream view’ should not refer to the above dominating calamitous narrative, but instead are interpreting this to be the ‘mainstream *scientific* view’, then that is a valid distinction which you need to be clear about. Is this the case? You can reasonably argue that CAGW does *not* reflect the mainstream *scientific* view, despite some who purport to represent the science do message the above calamitous narrative. However, this raises the question of why those adhering to mainstream science (as represented by the IPCC technical papers say), don’t object to the above dominant calamitous narrative.
The only other possibility I can think of for misunderstanding, is that despite its highly emphatic terms and deadlines and emotive descriptors, you don’t actually feel that the above dominant narrative in the public sphere, as exampled by Western leaders, is describable as calamitous or catastrophic. If that is the case, how would you personally describe this narrative? As noted this narrative represents a particular framing, which legitimately needs a representative descriptor therefore, and which descriptor is not a function of its veracity (anywhere from zero to 100%) or hence what is / isn’t provable w.r.t. that potential veracity.
“Is PeterL’s claim alarmist or mere hyperbole, AndyW?”
I don’t know for sure because I have not read Hansen’s book, hence I’m relying on second hand evidence. However, National Geographic says:
‘In his book Storms of my Grandchildren, noted climate scientist James Hansen issued the following warning: “[I]f we burn all reserves of oil, gas, and coal, there is a substantial chance we will initiate the runaway greenhouse. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale, I believe the Venus syndrome is a dead certainty”.’
Further, Geoengineeringwatch defines ‘Venus Syndrome’ thusly:
‘Venus syndrome is a scenario in which climate and atmospheric feedback loops are triggered that can’t be switched off. Under this scenario, as greenhouse gasses build up, and cause planetary warming, yet more greenhouse gasses are released which causes still more warming. This trajectory does not end in a balmy tropical resort Earth, but rather a planet that is closer to hell. Like Venus, Earth would become a pressure cooking inferno with virtually no life’
So it would seem that PL’s comment correctly reflects Hansen’s basic premise. But I’m not aware of any quote of Hansen’s which explicitly uses the word ‘evil’. Unless, PL can produce one then, it is an exaggeration, but not a complete invention imho, because quotes like Hansen’s below are clearly intended to invoke Holocaust imagery plus association, and most folks consider the Holocaust an act of evil.
‘The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death.’
So the comment is not alarmist because for that, in raising alarm about Hansen’s claim, it would have to substantially misrepresent him, which it appears not to. It may qualify for hyperbole, i.e. an exaggeration (regarding ‘evil’), but this is a stretch because hyperbole normally means a big exaggeration (which the ‘death trains’ quote precludes). Hyperbole also covers something that is not meant to be taken literally, though I assume you are not meaning it in this sense,
> You have changed the point.
Actually, AndyW, TonyB (climatereason) was talking about the “scientific community” while Tony Banton was responding to PhilJ (the one with the new Forrest sock puppet) rhetorical about CAGW. PhilJ’s question “What happened to the C in CAGW?” does seem to refer to something a tad stronger than your pet topic.
And your own pet topic has been built by presuming alarmism. This is why I am making it explicit. This is why I am making the point about the D word.
So your accusation has no merit and your walls of words, once again, are barely relevant.
I can provide quotes if you need to show that your pet topic, just as the CAGW meme peddled by contrarians, is built on alarmism. It may not be to your advantage to ask for them. At least we should wait until PhilJ stops poisoning Denizens’ well.
Willard you are delusional.
Yes I saw how the thread arose. Yet your and TBs replies appear to be shaped by the assumption that not just the term ‘CAGW’ is a creation of contrarians, but that the concept behind it (i.e. a catastrophic angle to climate change) is likewise. However, if you are distinguishing between ‘a mainstream view’ that is from the ‘scientific community’ and is therefore ‘a *scientific* mainstream view’, then this is fine and that is exactly why I asked about this distinction above. They are not necessarily the same.
However it remains a question as to how you would characterize the dominant authority narrative as exampled by the Western leaders above? And given those leaders simultaneously claim science is underwriting their message, do you think that the mainstream scientific community backs this narrative, or per above its view is different and they do not?
Alarmism is not mentioned in my comment. Alarmism is the inverse of the veracity of the narrative. So if the veracity tends to zero, one can say it is alarmist, if the veracity tends to 100 one can say it is not. But as I point out, the narrative framing has a specific characterization set by its words and phrases, which legitimately needs a descriptor, and this descriptor is independent of veracity, so likewise independent of who thinks the narrative is alarmist or who thinks it isn’t or whichever of those people will eventually be proved right or wrong.
damn: zero % and 100%, in same context as my comment further up.
> What accusation?
That I changed my point, AndyW. I quoted you.
Alarmism is the main component of the CAGW meme. How many times will PhilJ and otger Denizens have to whinge about “alarmists” for you to acknowledge it?
Furthermore, we can document many facets of contrarian alarmism: black helicopters, elderly blood of the hands of one-world government, jobless countries devoid of GRRRROWTH, you name it. Good ol’ hippie punching.
The established viewpoint is based on *risks*. You could call it RAGW, as BartR used to do before he has been ostracized from here. Or more precisely AGW => R, as AGW is a thing, not CAGW or RAGW.
You’ve been told many times already. Playing fetch only helps you that this is irrelevant to PhilJ’s CAGW meme. Your quest to justify the contrarians’ favorite meme doesn’t warrant its underlying alarmism.
Willard, your inversion of reality is not good for you. Make an effort to say something worth saying.
P.S. further to above, if you are saying (you seem to make an implication along these lines), that in the absence of proof that can ascertain the veracity of a long-term socially contested narrative, and even in some circumstances where there is proof (due for instance to cultural inertia), one side’s calls of ‘denialism’ and the other side’s calls of ‘alarmism’ do not in either case denote a pathological condition or systemic lying in those being so labelled, I would agree. In this respect even if a narrative is proved one day to be wrong, veracity 0%, then alarmist is the wrong word really if it is intended to imply these conditions; the narrative is just ‘wrong’. Ditto for denialism. However, a characterization of the narrative frame is still independent of the veracity anyhow.
Sorry, I thought that the onus on what one side could prove (or not) was a different point, given no-one can prove enough to be definitive anyhow. However I’m happy to stand corrected if this is essentially just a part of your emphasis on the issue of alarmism, which in turn you believe is the big issue related to the ‘C’, and indeed your above text seems back on territory anyhow.
So I’d agree that in a socially conflicted domain that has also been long running (so time for positions to evolve) many terms pick up (sometimes strong) meta-meanings that are also perceived differently by different folks in the spectrum of the dispute. Even a simple word like ‘pause’ has found itself in this territory, according to Lewandowsky one of the memes of seepage that has significantly changed the mainstream science, and at any rate is often now hedged by people saying ‘or slow-down or whatever you want to call it’ to offset interpretations that otherwise may be too rigid and strong yet perceived in quite different ways for different people (even within orthodoxy now, let alone across the divide).
I think RAGW is a perfectly valid short-form for a particular framing (and, I presume, one you support). But what is the community that expresses this framing? Maybe it is indeed the mainstream scientific community, or at least a case could be mounted. Hence my questions above about distinguishing that community from say, a different community who express the framing exampled by the quotes from Western leaders above, which given the influence of those leaders and their subordinate orgs singing the same tune, is a highly influential framing. So let’s say we could magically erase any ‘alarmist’ connotations of ‘CAGW’, or go back in time to before the moment when you think these occurred. In this context, with more freedom of expression, how would you describe the exampled Western authority framing? This framing is highly emphatic to say the least not to mention emotive, so stretching the same RAGW descriptor to cover it surely undermines the whole accuracy and usefulness and objectivity of this short-form. So what would you call it instead? And then, given that we haven’t got a wand after all, do you think there’s a way to mitigate or alter that description, if such should still be deemed necessary, so that in the real world it carries a minimum pejorative weight that may carry over from ‘CAGW’?
Alternatively, if you think the RAGW descriptor *is* sufficiently wide to cover the exampled Western authority framing, as well as other framings you have in mind (like presumably the scientific community position), what are the upper bounds of ‘R’ in the context of the highly emphatic terms appearing in the exampled narrative, which indeed include: catastrophe / catastrophic, climate chaos, 5 minutes past midnight (reference to doomsday clock), limit of suicide, X days to save the planet etc. etc.
Given this framing has been and is expressed by many of the most influential people in the world for the last decade and more, we have to call it something. What do you suggest?
> Sorry, I thought that the onus on what one side could prove (or not) was a different point, given no-one can prove enough to be definitive anyhow.
The reason why alarmism is alarmist is that it’s unwarranted, AndyW. If you presume that nothing can really be warranted, then everything becomes alarmist. Somehow, I don’t think Denizens ought to peddle that kind of thing. Using Po-Mo crap to bash hippies ain’t funny.
Actually, it’s more than unfunny. It’d be easy to show that many contrarian concerns are alarmist, in the sense that they could be justified, but happen to be tempests in teapots. The latest John Bates episode comes to mind.
It’d also easy to show that there are serious risks associated with AGW. That you rebrand the CAGW meme as a “narrative” reveals that you can’t dispute that. So you go for the tone, the wording, the “it’s not science but it’s important” ringtone. No need to write ten-lines sentences to get that.
But this “narrative” angle has nothing to do with PhilJ’s rhetorical question.
Well I don’t believe alarmism is warranted, on any side. But as a widespread social phenomena, nor is it generally indicative of a pathological condition or systemic lying, rather it is a cultural response, which puts a different context on ‘warranted / unwarranted’.
All information is memes, so this most certainly includes the term CAGW. I presume that you mean an emotive meme, as these ones are more interesting for their high selective value. And by no means would I count ‘CAGW’ as neutral in this regard, though nevertheless it is still a descriptor for a narrative frame; hence ‘CAGW’ represents this narrative too, though per below some other term could be chosen. Please do.
So what else would you call the exampled Western authority framing? I have invited you to choose whatever name you think best, and pointed out that an RAGW or other more bounded descriptor may well apply to other positions, such as that of the mainstream scientific community, or at least you could certainly mount a case for such. But the exampled framing has been expressed by the most influential leaders and their subordinate orgs for many years, and as such it is the most influential frame in the public domain worldwide. We cannot leave this dominant frame nameless. What would you call it? If you stretch RAGW to cover it, how do you resolve the issue of the exampled frame’s highly emphatic and emotive language with the more objective and bounded meaning of ‘R’?
How can I refer to this exampled framing? Tell me what term I should use which you believe to be suitably free of alarmism?
Oh, and I just noticed that you commented on PeterL’s claim. I hope we can agree that “if humans don’t stop their evil ways” is not exactly the same as “if we burn all reserves of oil, gas, coal, the tar sands and tar shale.”
Jim’s PDF can be found online. Jim defines the Venus Syndrom in one of his chapter. You’ll never guess its title. The quote you found ends it.
You should read that chapter. It’s a good one, full of caveats about modulz and such. In other words, the “dead certainty” with which he speaks is conditional upon his modulz.
>>I hope we can agree that “if humans don’t stop their evil ways” is not exactly the same as “if we burn all reserves of oil, gas, coal, the tar sands and tar shale.”
We can. However, I caveated the agreement with this: ‘…quotes like Hansen’s below are clearly intended to invoke Holocaust imagery plus association, and most folks consider the Holocaust an act of evil.’ While Hansen did not use the word ‘evil’ in his mention of Venus Syndrome and the tar sands, he does make strong associations for instance via the ‘death trains’ metaphor, which invoke the concept of evil without saying it out loud, so to speak. I think this is a disingenuous tactic that miscues audiences and pundits alike, e.g. Kate Sheppard in the Guardian: ‘And in those 20 years, Hansen has dealt with the Bush administration’s attempts to muzzle his calls for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, and used his public platform to draw attention to the *evils* of coal-fired power plants and to chastise the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for not making strong enough statements on sea-level rise.’ (emphasis mine). I note he also uses the word ‘apocalyptic’ w.r.t. fossil fuel use, another highly emphatic and emotive word borrowed from religious heritage (e.g. 2012 in the NYT: “If this sounds apocalyptic, it is. This is why we need to reduce emissions dramatically.”)
You haven’t made a suggestion of how to term the exampled Western authority framing, which is the dominant framing in the public domain regarding CC. Perhaps many in climate science or ‘science aware’ express the ‘RAGW’ framing as you imply. But RAGW will not achieve wide recognition unless the over-emphatic and emotive nature of the dominant framing is more explicitly acknowledged by mainstream science folks, hence also the proper distance of RAGW from that framing. So ‘own it’, you say regarding ‘CAGW’. If neither you nor anyone else can provide an alternative descriptor for the dominant Western authority framing as exampled above, I have to, whatever its accumulated baggage. And so does everyone else who wishes to describe the dominant CC framing. For more objective framings within orthodoxy to be widely recognized, they have to advertise their distance from this dominant framing. Hence they must also be much more explicit that it is OTT; yet there appears to be an unwillingness to do that.
> You haven’t made a suggestion of how to term the exampled Western authority framing,
Indeed, AndyW, and I won’t. It’s not relevant for PhilJ’s rhetorical question. It’s not a commitment I have. The thread is dead, and it should be done elsewhere.
Here’s an idea. Why don’t we try to write something together for Denizens? It’s an important topic. I’m not sure I can answer your question, but I’m not a bad conversationalist. Here’s a recent try:
We can do this on Twitter. PM me. There’s an email on my website.
Willard you are delusional.
Wow, that’s a long conversation. I’ll read through it.
I’m sure you’re an excellent conversationalist, but I am not (you may have noticed). Slow thinker, takes me a lot of time and background processing to get my act together (hence I’m not on Twitter and possibly never will be). As well as time demands, part of why I’m infrequent here and will also pick just 1 sub-thread to comment on. Not that I think this should matter for offline exchange, but also I’m up to my ears and more for a long time, with coincidentally a committed co-operative project being the thing at the top of the pile (I know from experience that these things usually take a lot of time and many exchanges to achieve something mutually agreeable). However I appreciate the offer, and may ping you when the pile goes down to see if you have a starter for ten.
99,000 hits. Oh my.
Indeed David. It does rather point to who put the C into CAGW. That is despite the assertions to the contrary by the resident alarmists on these pages.
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
C. S. Lewis
Perfect fit to AGW.
Imagine a world order where the highest executive in America is awarded a Nobel for, “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples,” when the real reason was a reward for scuttling GW’s principled opposition to the Left’s global warming agenda.
re wee willies filing system – it is semantic quibbling all the way down
Well I don’t believe alarmism is warranted, on any side. But as a widespread social phenomena, nor is it generally indicative of a pathological condition or systemic lying, rather it is a cultural response, which puts a different context on ‘warranted / unwarranted’.
All information is memes, so this most certainly includes the term CAGW. I presume that you mean an emotive meme, as these ones are more interesting for their high selective value. And by no means would I count ‘CAGW’ as neutral in this regard, though nevertheless it is still a descriptor for a narrative frame; hence ‘CAGW’ represents this narrative too, though per below some other term could be chosen. Please do.
So what else would you call the exampled Western authority framing? I have invited you to choose whatever name you think best, and pointed out that an RAGW or other more bounded descriptor may well apply to other positions, such as that of the mainstream scientific community, or at least you could certainly mount a case for such. But the exampled framing has been expressed by the most influential leaders and their subordinate orgs for many years, and as such it is the most influential frame in the public domain worldwide. We cannot leave this dominant frame nameless. What would you call it? If you stretch RAGW to cover it, how do you resolve the issue of the exampled frame’s highly emphatic and emotive language with the more objective and bounded meaning of ‘R’?
How can I refer to this exampled framing? Tell me what term I should use which you believe to be suitably free of alarmism?
Can we all at least agree that the pause has been catastrophic?
Pigs at the trough.
If the government pulls back funding for climate science research, would the large private foundations shift their climate spending from advocacy to research? This might be putting the horse in front of the cart.
Impossible that Green funders will put money into R&D. If anything, they have an anti-R&D mentality. These private foundations, like the Rockefellers, seem to fund no research beneficial to humanity. Where are the cancer treatments, new antibiotics, anti-Malarial drugs, … they could’ve funded? At best they give us so-called “appropriate technology” such as wind-up radios.
Obama’s attitude to science can be summed up by his science & technology advisor: John Holdren – a luddite, Malthus follower.
“…would the large private foundations shift their climate spending from advocacy to research?”
Who needs research when the science is settled? Do people still research gravity? Only in the most esoteric ways (and even that is very controversial – dark matter or revised Newtonian)
The first mistake is to allow science to be used as a political weapon.
The second mistake is to allow scientists to be identified with one party support group.
If their intent is to drive science into irrelevancy it is going to work. Politicians are self-serving by definition. They will use science for their own gain giving nothing in return.
To function properly, science has to be neutral and seek only the increase in knowledge, leaving policies to the politicians. By getting into the political arena compromising science neutrality these scientists are going to inflict a long lasting damage to science.
You wrote “To function properly, science has to be neutral and seek only the increase in knowledge”.
What if science is just a tool of the underlying trends in the exponential expansion of technology. Science is a thought process but technology actually alters our reality.
BTW Science has no nationality but I have noticed there is world wide solidarity with this movement.
In theory scientific progress can be accomplished independently of technological progress, and that appears to have been the case in Ancient Greece when science advanced enormously with little technological advance. Technology acts as a powerful lever that enables us to do a lot more.
It took over a thousand years for the knowledge of the ancient Greeks to be discovered by western civilization thanks to it being written down on durable media in the greek language and preserved by the Muslims. And while the Greek civilization and democracy disappeared technology (and it’s servant, science) just kept growing faster and more wide spread around the world. I think Kevin Kelly’s book, “What Technology Wants” did a good job explaining the concept.
It boils down to their jobs, the 1000’s of scientists working on Global Warming are quite happy, so its no different than any other Govt group who were concerned about their job, whether(weather:) it makes sense or not.
Its all about the money not the science…
Pingback: Exactly what are scientists marching ‘for’? – Enjeux énergies et environnement
The entire march concept is nothing more than a publicity stunt. End of story.
George Devries Klein, PhD, PG, FGSA
Another name for a publicity stunt is a “pseudo event.” But there is a benefit to that sort of thing: it is a “news peg” that the media might cover with softball interviews of participants. That, I think, is what participants anticipate, correctly. So there’s method in their madness.
I agree that this march is a bad idea. It will be seen by the public as a continuation of the trivial “pussyhats” women’s march with all its vacuous and emotionally overwrought rhetoric. Also appearances by some of the stupidest people ever to show their faces in public, like Madonna.
The serious and progressive idea here that needs defending is the idea of a professional class that is non partisan and defends the interest of science and the public. In the 19th century Federal government employees were little better than partisan hacks serving the nakedly partisan interests of the party in power. Civil service reform was a huge step forward.
Allowing the civil service to become overtly political again will return us to all the evils of the terrible 19th century system. It makes me think that those advocating this march are just completely ignorant of history. Not too surprising given the current focus of history education of victim studies. Or perhaps they are too emotionally immature to actually think through the longer term consequences of their emotional reactions.
What Judith should march for is continued funding for satellite observational programs that will help her often stated goal of reducing the uncertainty in ongoing climate change and its projections. Trump’s budget proposes to drastically cut satellite programs both at NOAA and NASA. This could mean in some cases discontinuing even looking after these satellites and letting them de-orbit themselves before their projected lifetime wasting millions of dollars of their value. Spencer and Christy depend on these programs to name two others who should surely join Judith on the march. Remember when Republicans like Cruz said the satellite data was the best they had? What about that now that they will defund it? That didn’t last long. Defend it, don’t defund it. Observations are the essence of science. You should be able to get some of these congressmen to see that.
I expect that sanity will eventually prevail regarding earth observing satellites, but it is not clear which agencies will be funded to do this (hopefully NASA) and how the DOD needs for satellite data will be interfaced with civilian needs
Sanity is not something I would count on here. Advocating is needed, otherwise it is gone.
@ Jim D
NASA is no longer the only way into space. In fact NASA no longer has any way into space. They purchase launches from private companies (or foreign governments)
They don’t build any of the satellites that people are concerned about. Those are built by private companies as well..
saying that NASA has lost its way and deserves a budget cut is not saying that America should turn its back on space
Maybe the satellites will get funded if somebody tells Trump they are part of the defense network, protecting the USA first and foremost, plus they create jobs in America, make America grrreat, and eventually the Europeans will pay for it, somehow.
JimD, We will see what the outcome is. Better data may still be a priority. I must say, most people will be happy to see budget cuts at EPA and NOAA and NASA GISS. These agencies need to prioritize their expenditures. My priority would be better data over GCM development and vastly bigger running GCM’s to get data of questionable quality.
Join the march and ask for that then because data is something this gubmint is not going to protect or even gather automatically. Data is very much a part of science, and many scientists are devoted to that.
That we need $2 billion a year in new NOAA satellites is highly questionable. If they are based on AGW, as they no doubt are, then the data might be of little value.
NOAA does mostly weather satellites. They just had a major upgrade that will help weather monitoring and forecasts. Such upgrades are likely to continue with technology advances. These amounts are peanuts compared to the hundred billion estimated to be wasted within the defense budget that Trump wants to enhance by $54 billion.
Why do weather satellites need to be managed by NOAA? Why can’t one or more companies be formed to launch private weather satellites? We already have private companies launching communications satellites, and camera satellites.
Then they would sell their data for your forecasts and the government would pay not only for the satellite data but extra for their profits which comes from your taxes, and they could hold valuable data for ransom to the highest bidder. There are some arenas where the private sector is not a solution, and one is public safety which they can hold to ransom.
> government would pay not only for the satellite data but extra for their profits
Yes, but if private industry can do it cheaper, it still ends up being a better deal for the government.
And it’s been repeatedly shown that private industry can do it cheaper
No, it ends up being a race to the bottom. Cheapest may not be best available.
you are eight, cheapest may not be the best available. But the most expensive is not the best available either (most of the time)
Competition between different companies also leads to better quality than was avaialble before there was competition.
When private contractors charge the government, they tend to inflate their rates. We see this in the defense and medical areas. If the government does the work itself, it can’t make profits and tends to have regulated wages, so that makes it more efficient costwise to do everything themselves.
“If the government does the work itself, it can’t make profits and tends to have regulated wages, so that makes it more efficient costwise to”
Thanks Jim D, needed a good laugh. Government…. Efficient…. Costwise…
The space program was efficient. It’s only when you start getting private contractors you have issues with $100 hammers, and $500 ambulance rides, $600 drug doses, and countless other examples.
Purely government services like police forces, social services and schools and actual soldiers, are efficient partly because of low pay, but that is another issue.
$500 ambulance ride. Cheap. I took one last summer. $1100. Private contractors don’t just up their prices because it’s the government. The government issue PO’s that come with a long list of special requirements that typical private buyers don’t have, so a $10 hammer becomes $100 due to administrative red tape. It’s not the cost of making the hammer that’s the problem, it’s the cost of working with our so ‘efficient’ government.
“Purely government services like police forces, social services and schools and actual soldiers, are efficient partly because of low pay, but that is another issue.”
The highest paid individuals in my town, in order, are; School administrators, Police, school administrators and police. They start around $300K and work down to $120K or thereabouts. The governments where I live pay, not the lowest pay, but competitive pay to the surrounding towns. It’s not cheap. Surrounding towns school administrators go as high as $350K. School teachers in CT probably average around $90K. The school budget in my town is on the order of $99.9M for this year. It accounts for 60% of the towns $165M budget. School administrators take nearly 25 of the top 50 salaries with Police taking about the other 23, with only the finance director and the public works director being the only two in the top 50 not in the BOE or Police dept.
In normal places, the police median salary is $60k and teachers are at less than $50k. The government does not overpay its workers for the jobs they do, and in many cases it underpays them.
Then why do teachers at Private schools typically get paid less than teachers at Public schools?
To make more profit? I don’t know.
The facts about public school teacher compensation are disturbing. It’s not so much the salaries but the benefits such as several months of paid vacation and lavish pension plans. Adding insult to injury educational outcomes in the US are among the poorest of OECD countries while spending per student is among the highest.
The average teacher in the state of Illinois makes $61,402. Illinois teachers work around 176 days, 300 minutes, or 5 hours, per day. That’s just over 35 weeks per year. On average, they make $348.88 per day, $1.16 per minute, or $69.60 per hour guaranteed. Teachers in Illinois work an average of 12 years. They can retire at age 55.
Is it any wonder that private school vouchers are so alarming to the public school system? If every parent who educated a child elsewhere were given a voucher equal to the cost per student in public schools the public school system as it exists today would collapse. And well it should as spending on it is out of control. I wish Betsy DeVos godspeed in bringing about that collapse.
“Trump’s budget proposes to drastically cut satellite programs both at NOAA and NASA. “— An untrue statement since the Trump budget has not been released. You fear this will occur.
Must be a leak then.
“…continued funding for satellite observational programs that will help her often stated goal of reducing the uncertainty in ongoing climate change and its projections. ”
Why should anyone expect that, “climate science” insists the last 30 years of observations haven’t changed the range of projected warming.
The issue isn’t that we don’t have observations that raise (a whole lot more) than uncertainty. It’s the manipulation/interpretation of those observations by the warm into absolute certainty that they don’t really show what they show. This is the group that spent billions on ARGO and then went with the bucket/thermometer as the gold standard to adjust to.
By-the-by, why do the warm want to spend more money on observations at this point? Shouldn’t they be interested by now in funding research on which alternatives to coal and oil are the most effective at reducing emissions now and which are potentially better in the future? My bet- this question is what politicized AGW “science” most fears. Me, I’d love to see a blue ribbon panel of credentialed scientists and engineers evaluate the warm’s big idea- rooftop solar in the woods in Maine and hundreds of thousands of windmills in the Hudson River entrance – vs the realists: natural gas bridging to nuclear. That would be a pretty short study.
I was echoing what the skeptics keep saying, which is that it is too uncertain to do anything. We need more evidence. Personally I don’t think any evidence will be enough because of where the Republicans get their money, but just playing along, we need more science and more observations. It is not settled yet.
Of course, these “smartest people on the planet,” publicly supporting the fraudulent A.G.W. premise, aren’t conscientiously implementing scientific method in their consideration of “carbon pollution.”
Jeez, how “smart” they are….
Very well put.
Even stranger are the concurrent marches being held in other countries. March for Science Australia have stated that they are protesting “a succession of conservative governments” that have “cut funding fo climate science.”
All climate scientists in the room who believe that manmade greenhouse gases are the sole cause of climate change, and are worried about your future jobs and careers with Donald Trump as president, hold up your hands.
Notice that nobody is raising their hands!
I’ll have a box of hammers, since you seem to have plenty to spare.
I wonder how many of them will be actually scientists ? My perception of them is a bunch of ” fist pumping” radical has been communists turned green who still hate capitalism and democracy but don’t have anywhere else to go. I think there is dog that is registered, Kenji.
Maybe you should go to the march and actually talk to some scientists, it seems from your screed that you haven’t met any.
Not worth the effort if they provide responses like the ones you did to Rob and the others. Truly pathetic.
I wonder, do you watch Bill Maher?
You Whiney Little B****
The deconstruction of your responses up thread didn’t make it through moderation. To summarize Bob, whether it is your understanding of economics, illegal immigration or naval power, your comments indicate you are up there in Jim D territory when it comes to discussing topics outside your understanding.
There are more than one way to stimulate an economy. One of them is to lower regulatory burden and taxes. Allow people and companies to retain more of what they earn and make it easier to produce and output increases. Those 300,000 jobs added in February? That is 300,000 new tax payers. Corporations pursuing inverted acquisitions do so for one reason – to escape US tax burden. Even non-scientists understand the math behind this or the flip side of keeping those companies here. 15% of something is better than 100% of nothing. Grow the economy and you grow tax receipts.
Your comment about more illegal residents being those overstaying visas also misses the point. Citizens along the southern border are not worried about people overstaying their visas. Instead they are worried about the minority of those entering the country who commit criminal acts. When you are discussing millions, a couple of percentage points represent significant numbers. And one of the key functions of a government is to ensure secure borders. (BTW – you do realize the wall already exists, don’t you Bob?) If you don’t like Trump’s position on illegal immigrants then start working your Congressman and Senators. That is where the real problem lies. (I suspect you find it easier to whine about Trump.)
And nice comment about naval strength. Over the past 60+ years the Navy has learned that it takes a 3 – 1 ratio in hull numbers to keep major combatants deployed. For every forward deployed carrier battle group or attack submarine, there is the equivalent number of ships undergoing refit and another equivalent group working up for their next deployment. Add in Service Life Extensions and the ratio is more like 3.3 to 1. So yes Bob, numbers count. Your USS Bush example illustrates your lake of understanding. That she is more powerful than the entire US Navy afloat during WW1 is irrelevant. We no longer live in 1918. What is relevant is the fact the Bush can’t be in two places at the same time. And half the time she will be in port.
As for the phone tapping, seems that may be true. Whether Obama personally ordered it isn’t relevant either. It was his Justice Dept.
But keep claiming the President is “unhinged”. You have lots of company. Just as you will have plenty when it comes to losing all credibility. When the Rolling Stone (a well known bastion of conservative thought) points out how the media and Democrats are heavily overplaying their hand on the Russian storyline, you know the writing is already on the wall.
It is a march for science, not scientists. It is in support of science as a process and scientists as people who advance knowledge with that process. I expect most of the marchers will not actually be scientists. This occurs on Earth Day, a day for the environment.
You might find a few scientists there, after all I met quite a few at the pussy march, due to the sign I was carrying and the t-shirt I was wearing.
It’s a March for useful idiots. Anybody can sign up with a credit card. Even a dog named Kenji.
Well, there they go again … latching onto an overworked buzzword which completely robs it of meaning. Just as they have done with UN-speak’s inter alia “transformative”.
If these snowflakey “scientists” knew what they really should be protesting against, it would be the decline of Western educational systems which have chipped away at so many basics for so many years.
Consequently, with relatively few exceptions, nowadays it seems that all its products and proponents know how to do … uh … successfully is wave placards and whine.
“Universities need a new business model and incentive structure for faculty members that doesn’t rely on massive federal research grants but rewards faculty for educating students at all levels and serving the needs of society”
Are you out of your $$$$$$$ mind? The enter tenure system is based upon professors who sequester themselves in their lab and let the grad students teach the undergraduates. No points for teaching, administrative committees, Department committees including the Raise, Promotion and Tenure Committee. Asking an Assistant Professor to teach when they are under the duress of a 6 year time constraint to make it to Associate Prof, is well, unconscionable. Travel, especially to the seats of funding power and resources, national committees, chairing large meeting sessions all require time away from the University and the time crunch to be back at the ranch grinding out papers and grants. If you want to teach, try a small private college like Hillsdale or some such, not a large public/private research university like…say Georgia Tech. Raise, Promotion and Tenure are predicated upon publications and grants. That is all. One doesn’t even have to get along with the central administration as long as the grants keep coming.
As for the Assistant Professor who has exceeded their 6 year grace period? well…out the door. That is how it is at Penn State, Columbia, etc. Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt certainly know how to play the game. Their science…ah…being what it is, well, to the folks down the hall who are on the Raise, Promotion and Tenure Committee, playing the game is what it is all about, and…Science be Damned.
Are you really asking the Trump administration to find a science advisor from a small liberal arts college? even a very very good one? Oberlin? Hiram? etc?
Science is political, at least in the political seats of power. Political types want to have large political guns on their side, a Wyatt Earp type, fast on the draw who isn’t afraid to shoot to kill.
Maybe there is a lass at Wood’s Hole, a maiden sort, studying bore hole cores who might have something to say while looking over her spectacles, able to comment on some nonsense brought up by another naive cub reporter. “Now there there young man/lady, it’s not what it appears to be…”
Every time I read about how US structures, organises and funds its universities I thank God I was born in the UK, and in particular for The Open University. Perfect it isn’t, but seems a lot more focused on educating its students.
It all depends on what you want students to do when they enter real life after graduation. USA universities do out out trainable types by the bushel, and it really doesn’t matter if they are public or private, or whether they do great research or not. I never met a graduate from this Open University, but we usually hire in well known schools because we spend so much training professionals after they graduate.
Fernandolean the Open University is fairly unique, it’s probably one of the largest in the world. Well its students span the world. It’s students quite often have been in full time permanent employment for a number of years and enjoy one of the highest ratings by both student and employers: it also has no entrants requirements other than its fees.
“Scientists fear what ‘might’ happen under the Trump
administration – they are working from rumors, leaks
and a few public statements by individuals connected
with Trump’s transition teams. These are the same
scientists pushing for evidence based’ policies – go figure!”
Ironic ain’t it? As Hilary Ostrov says, ‘they really should be
protesting against the decline of Western educational systems.’
Solicitor Robin Eubanks, ‘Invisible Serfs Collar,’ has written
a series of studies of K-12 education in the US. internalized
learning at an unconscious level, emotions to steer learning,
giving a new (sinister) meaning to competency – based education.
a student make-over for socio-political ends.
Unfortunately, this sort march is damaging to the impartiality that is necessarw science in general. Please refer to the Innate Skepticism blog. We clearly have a case of group deception being represented by “concerned scientists” participating in a march that clearly places those participants in the roll of advocates rather than honest brokers. They have suspended their SSk in favor of refusing to suspend judgement (if I understand innate skepticism as presented previously) and in the process have actively joined in the process of group deception.
Unfortunately, more research using the same tools, methodology, scientific basis, and scientists is not likely to produce new, unbiased results. We have a situation where AGW has become dogma, and the adherents practice group deception. This situation requires a knowledge based paradigm shift to overcome the dogma. To accomplish a paradigm shift, different research, different scientists, and different concepts are usually mandated. Research that might lead to a paradigm shift would be aaggressively opposed by the scientists with a deep vested interest in the AGW dogma. That means that self interested advocacy, and group deception overrides SSk. Very troubling indeed. We need open and creative minds, not group think.
Perfect thread for people who only want to sneer at scientists.
At marching scientists.
Maybe you can go out and throw eggs at them.
I never thought of that. I’ll never be in your class.
Scientists who shape their findings to promote their personal beliefs deserve ridicule. It seems to have been a common practice by climate scientists who claim to know that AGW will result in only disastrous changes to the climate
Got any evidence they do that, or run the risk of sounding emotional?
“Scientists who shape their findings to promote their personal beliefs”
Any scientists who believes more C02 makes it warmer and then produces a squiggly line that allegedly indicates “warming” does this.
Read Hansen’s comments on sea level rise associated with AGW as an example
Luckily there are other reasons to move to clean energy and we don’t have to wait for the permission of the climate skeptics, so the process has already started. Fossil fuels are no longer a good investment for the long term.
I don’t believe increasing CO2 warms the planet, the evidence supports that conclusion.
And I have read Hansen’s work regarding sea level rise associated with increasing CO2 and find it to be credible.
You can find sources other than Hansen on what sea levels were the last time CO2 was at 400 ppm, a bit higher than now.
CO2 does warm the planet over the long term if other conditions remain unchanged.
The key issues are:
1. What will be the rate of warming associated with increased CO2.
This is the 1st key issue since it is frequently believed that the climate will actually see a net improvement if it warms, but at a fairly slow rate.
2. How and when will the climate change in different areas around the globe.
I am not aware of any models that appear better than looking at history to predict rainfall patterns.
Hansen claimed there would be a drastic increase in the rate of sea level rise as a result of higher levels of CO2.
In fact there has been virtually no long term increase in the rate of sea level rise since there has been a reasonably reliable means of measurement. (1992)
“CO2 does warm the planet over the long term if other conditions remain unchanged.”
This is an outright falsehood, you seem to understand the basics at least, so why make this comment? CO2 warms the planet, no matter what other effects attributable to other possible causes are observed.
Hansen was talking about sea level rise rates we will see later this century.
“I don’t believe increasing CO2 warms the planet…”
Huh. Nether do I.
There really is only one reason to “move” to clean energy, or more specifically, renewable energy. It’s called government mandate. Fracking is about to make the US energy independent. And the rest of the world should be very worried. We created the global marketplace after WWII, and since then have guaranteed its security. But the US doesn’t really depend on it. Something like 11% of our GDP depends on exports. Meanwhile we are the planet’s largest market, and its largest source of capital. And unlike Europe, China, Russia, Japan or Korea, we are not looking at a demographic time bomb.
> There really is only one reason to “move” to clean energy, or more specifically, renewable energy. It’s called government mandate.
renewable energy tends to have very high up-front costs, but in many cases the ongoing maintinance costs can be lower.
If you then add to that a situation where getting the power to where it needs to be is expensive, or where getting fuel to the generating stations is expensive, then it can easily be far cheaper to use renewable sources.
Hydro and geothermal power sources are examples that have been in use for a long time, the up-front investment to build a dam is huge, but the resulting power is far cheaper.
There was an article I saw today about Hawaii having Tesla install a very large Solar/Battery setup to provide power to replace diesel generators that require fuel be shipped in.
Houses out in the boonies have the option of using solar, or trucking in propane and running their own generators.
Residential Solar is at the point where even without Government subsidies, it can be worth the up-front cost to lower your power bills going forward
Yes, it has taken large investments (that involved government encouragement) to get to this point with Solar, and we can debate the question of if it’s been worth it, but given all the odd cases where Solar is an advantage, I tend to lean to the idea that it probably is.
Now, Solyndra (or whatever it was), is not a good example how how the government should have provided encouragement/assistance.
Energy independence is helped by not importing gunk from Canada and also increasing fuel efficiency standards or expanding the electric car market while also investing in energy storage methods for wind and solar.
You are hopeless Jim.
I said fracking. Has nothing to do with tar sands. Except to keep them in the ground. Mileage standards is toying at the fringes. And your understanding about energy storage technology – i. e . Batteries – is on par with your knowledge on pretty much everything. One word. Samsung Galaxy 7. Ok two words and a number. The point stands. Barring some truly significant breakthrough, we have hit the limit on battery technology. Flow batteries might push the boundaries, but there isn’t anything else I’ve read about. (And my company has built one of the first utility battery storage facilities.)
But go ahead and misdirect. It’s what we expect from you.
well, the current state of the art in battery capacity would have been considered ‘breakthrough’ levels a decade or two ago when Lead-Acid and NiCad were the state of the art. I wouldn’t be in such a hurry to proclaim that new technologies aren’t going to happen.
On the battery storage front, there is more than just hope.
Your hydro example isn’t really applicable. Almost every state with renewable mandates has excluded hydro from being counted.
Your Hawaii example isn’t all that applicable either. Hawaii is unlike most of the US. (As I just came back from there, I can attest it is gloriously different.)
From Jim D:
“Energy independence is helped by not importing gunk from Canada and also increasing fuel efficiency standards or expanding the electric car market while also investing in energy storage methods for wind and solar.”
You are simply wrong on the first point and living in fantasy land with the other two. Want to know what is going to reduce US demand for energy more than your suggestions? The retirement and then passing of the Baby Boomer generation.
And all this misses the key point. That fracking is turning the US into a net exporter of energy. And there are very few countries with exploitable shales that have the capital to do so. In fact, the US is so well positioned when it comes to demographics, food, energy and capital creation, that the rest of the world should be very worried. Not that we will enforce a world hegemony, but the exact opposite. The simple truth is the rest of the world needs the US far, far more than we need the rest of the world. Doubt it? Then tell me what percentage of US GDP is dependent on imports and exports. I believe energy accounted for about a quarter of import related GDP. That’s been cut in half due to the fracking revolution and will soon disappear completely.
The Japanese get it. That is why they were one of the first to come knocking at Trump’s door.
I can see it now…
Labcoattery, slide rules brandished, with upside-down bowl hats catching rainwater to combat all the permanent droughts.
Your step 5 nailed
Meant to go below as a response to Forrest
Jim, it is not scientists who are being sneered at. It is those who hold themselves out to be scientists but disregard the scientific method. Those are the very enemies of science and deserve what they get.
Monckton? Watts? Salby? Name some.
Jim, I’ll set you an easier task. Name somebody on gang green who you believe is worthy of the title of scientist. Just one will do for starters.
To respond to your nominations, Monckton is regard as a mathematician, Watts has published scientific works in the proper usage of the word science, and I’m not familiar with Salby’s work.
Manabe, Hansen, Lacis, Trenberth, Arrhenius, Callendar, Revelle, Tyndall, Broecker, Milankovitch, Ramanathan, Solomon, Crutzen, Jones, Pierrehumbert, Alley… I could go on. Take your pick.
Jim, you’ve flicked the switch to vaudeville. Comedy gold!
But which one are you alleging is deserving of the name scientist?
You can name one and discredit them based on their publications if you want. Let’s start with Tyndall and work forwards.
Jim, he who asserts must prove. You’ve made a bit of a rod for you back my friend. Start with any one of your names and provide your evidence that they are worthy to be called a scientist.
Tyndall discovered the greenhouse effect. Arrhenius applied it to earth. Milankovitch explained ice age cycles with a theory. Solomon and Crutzen explained the ozone hole. Why do these people not qualify in your mind? How do you define a scientist?
Jim, a scientist is a person who applies the scientific method (and produces falsifiable predictions from their work). I’m still waiting for your evidence that one of your gang green heroes did that.
You don’t seem to recognize a person as a scientist even if their work, job description and biography say they are. Your definition is something of your own invention if these people don’t count, and you still haven’t said why they don’t or even whether they don’t count as scientists in your way of thinking. People, as I listed, who discover or explain scientific things are scientists, and you may not like that definition but that is not my problem.
Jim, you are of course quite wrong. I do indeed recognise people as scientists if their work is science. That requires that they use they use the scientific method.
I could not care less what their job description is. I care even less what their biography says. Those are both appeals to authority which is the very antithesis of science.
It’s not my fault that you can’t provide even a skerrick of evidence that any of your gang green heroes have ever used the scientific method.
Oh and your rhetoric is hopelessly unconvincing. It remains the case that he who asserts must prove. That is the case no matter how desperately you wish it was otherwise.
Better luck next time.
You seem to be an angry type. I gave you several examples and you haven’t said why they are not scientists, probably because you don’t know the first thing about their work, and need me to tell you. Take it easy. Keep calm and carry on.
Jim, your rhetoric gets weaker and weaker by the post.
Just because you seem to be a nice fellow I’ll number the relevant points:
1. He who asserts (that’s you) must prove; and
2. It’s not my fault that you can’t provide even a single piece of evidence that any of your gang green heroes has ever used the scientific method.
Delete your account.
You don’t seem to count discovering new properties of gases or explaining observed things for the first time as science. What am I to do then? I will not redefine science for you.
Jim, your mind reading is even more lame than your rhetoric.
What are you to do? Suit yourself.
You don’t count explaining things for the first time as science, so maybe you would discount Newton and Einstein too. Usually explanations are falsifiable hypotheses. In Newton’s case his gravity idea was falsified to some extent by Einstein, but he is still considered a scientist despite that.
Jim, now you want to speak for me. Talk about wandering off into the rhetorical weeds.
Pick one of your gang green heroes and provide some evidence that they ever used the scientific method.
Or delete your account. I don’t care.
Discovery is not science to you, so there is no point. Can you prove Niels Bohr used the scientific method? What about Marie Curie, Copernicus or Feynman? Maybe Archimedes or Galileo meet your criteria. I can’t even guess what you need. Which ones of these count and how?
Jim, those are you words not mine. And still you put forward the weakest rhetoric trying to distract from your problem.
If you want to assert that any of your gang green heros are scientists then you need to provide some evidence that one of them have used the scientific method.
Have at it or delete your account. It is all the same to me.
Your definition of science seems not to include those that are described as scientists historically, like Tyndall (of the Tyndall effect), Milankovitch and Arrhenius, so I think it is not worth my time trying to find someone that fits your personal peculiar definition. If Tyndall didn’t use the scientific method to find his eponymous effect, what did he use? Luck? Read more here where it says John Tyndall, scientist.
‘The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:
1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.’
Climate science is well short of step 5 – but Jimmy has not the slightest clue. We are really not talking about science as such for the overwhelming part but the manufacturing of a collective delusion.
Sounds right to me Robert.
What a shame alarmists who proclaim that the science is settled simply have no concept of what science is.
I am currently working on a paper exploring the relationship between prevailing winds and CET. This is based on Lamb’s work (another scientist but rather sceptical) whereby he reconstructed winds back to 1340 and up to 1972.
I am trying to fill in the gap between that date and today to see if it explains the decline in CET during the whole of this century. The Met Office-stuffed full of good scientists- have been very helpful and yesterday I received a very long and helpful email from Phil Jones-who worked with Lamb. Also a good scientist and in your list. .
The past being warmer than today is difficult to explain as is our winter just finished which was milder and drier than normal. This latter being unexpected. Both the warmer past, the decline in CET and the unexpected dryness of a mild winter need explanation as they are against hypothesis and models.
Scientists-no matter how good- do not yet know everything.
Few, if any, would ever claim that they did.
Forrest, you are making up your own definitions of “Scientist”
this is better
“a person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences.”
No Bob. You need to do more than be a student. Knowledge requires application of the scientific method. Even Wikipedia is more demanding than the definition YOU made up.
This is particularly important when so many of gang green use the good name of science to falsely give themselves authority.
I am glad that you appear to agree that there is a large ‘I don’t know’ monster, as well as the ‘uncertainty’ monster. Climate science gives the impression that neither exist or are very small and unimportant when in fact they are the elephant in the room. (are Elephants monsters??)
A very odd conclusion. I suggest you read IPCC AR5, at least the summary for policymakers. It has a very clear set of definitions for uncertainty and uses them throughout. All figures used show uncertainty ranges where appropriate.
Not entirely correct Forrest
When one is studying, it does not necessarily mean one is a student taking classes.
Read this and tell me again that Hansen and Lacis are not following the scientific method as you define it.
Bob, googling the term brings up all manner of definitions. Which one did you have in mind?
Secondly, he who asserts must prove. If you assert that Hansen and Lacis have followed the scientific method then it is up to you to provide the evidence and argument.
For example, which bit sets out the null hypothesis? Which bit sets out their method of data collection and analysis?
No Forrest, the ball is in your court, you made the assertion that scientist are disregarding the scientific method, it is up to you to show that Hansen and Lacis did not follow the scientific method.
Oh dear. Two things Bob. First someone from gang green asserted that scientists were being sneered at. The onus is to prove that the target is a scientist. Second even beginners know that negatives cannot be proved.
Better luck next time. Next?
Do scientist change data to fit their models ? Do scientists destroy original data ? Do scientists alter original data before destroying it ? Do scientists hide how they get the results ? Do scientists collude with one another to hide information that contradicts their theory ? Do scientists make alarming predictions after alarming predictions in order to influence political process then not one prediction happens ?
You can call them scientists Bobdroege if that what fits your definition of scam artists. ” If I have to explain it to you, you won’t understand it ” Bernie Madoff.
tonyb, science is an ever evolving process. It is never complete. There are always frontiers, and while there are frontiers, there will be scientists trying to push them further out.
You have been given a paper where Hansen and Lacis and others use the scientific method, but I am not going to cut and paste the null hypothesis from that paper for you. You need to do your own work, no spoon feeding babies today.
Yes, beginners know that you can not prove a negative, but you are the one asserting the negative, so its up to you to drop that canard.
Why don’t we discuss how Monckton uses the scientific method, he seems to be your hero.
Dear Bob, the subject of this little thread is the claim by a member of gang green that “scientists” were being sneered at.
Your rhetoric is pathetic. You can’t even back up what you say by doing what you say is a cut and paste.
And then as gang green always does you turn to the insults when you claim to have proof.
Delete your account.
Scientific process ? Please. You must be a new crop of true believers that has been turned out somewhere. Or you were a blogger and have changed your handle. Skeptics go through about once a year. You regurgitation of old and out of date information is annoying at the least. Just another case of round Robin arguments . AGW is dead, and soon will be. It’s just a matter of time. You focus on certain things, Bob, but the entire scope of AGW is wrong and has been from the start. You are ignoring the in convient fact that Al Gore left off the part, and most warming fanatics, co2 follows temperature by 800 years.
”Monckton is considered a mathematician…” – you having a laugh?! By who exactly? He’s neither a Lord nor a mathematician.
Steve, his substantive efforts are characterised by deductive solutions using mathematical methods.
My point of course is that like alarmists he does not use the scientific method and as such should not be called a scientist.
Interesting how this little issue has stung the alarmist faithful.
I’m a scientist, and I’m not smearing scientists as a whole. I’ve seen dogma in other scientific disciplines, and I’ve seen dogma overturned.
Here’s an example from a sector of science I’ve participated in, and we can all relate to that has had at least one set of dogma overturned:
Consider the big bang theory of the creation of the universe. This is now the most accepted concept of cosmology. It was not always that way. In the early 1900s there were two competing concepts of how the universe was created. In fact, the big bang theory was strongly ridiculed by those scientists who were adherent to the steady state theory of cosmology (a dogmatic concept held by the scientific leaders of that theory). In 1929, Edwin Hubble discovered galactic red shifts, but this was not entirely sufficient to close the book on steady state cosmology, it was not until the cosmic microwave background was discovered in 1964 that the big bang theory became dominant, and the paradigm shifted to a single dominant cosmological concept.
However, there are still a few adherents to other cosmological models, and those scientists are generally thought to not be supportive of the dominant cosmological theory. This means that the big bang theory has become the dogma. I personally think that the big bang theory is supported by overwhelming empirical evidence, but there is still much that is unknown (things we know we don’t know, and then there are the unknown unknowns). This leaves room for another paradigm shift by creative scientists with new concepts and knowledge generating capability.
This astronomy example has some similarity to the AGW scenario. There is much that is unknown (again, things we know we don’t know, and then there are the unknown unknowns). This leaves room for a paradigm shift by creative scientists with new concepts and knowledge generating capability. The climate change dogma needs a paradigm shift that brings new insight into climatology.
Unfortunately, AGW dogma mandates that climate science is settled. This means that all adherents to other concepts should be ridiculed, dismissed, and (most recently) threatened with loss of freedom (either censured, or imprisoned). This is not the science I have been trained to perform.
The imbalance plays the role of the cosmic background radiation. It shows that the net forcing is not only dominant, but we haven’t yet even experienced it all as warming. It means it would continue to warm a while even if we kept CO2 fixed from now on.
Perhaps a better analogy for the imbalance would be dark energy. We only recently have nailed down its measurement with better ocean heat content observations, but it gives us some better predictive power too.
Talking about Dark Energy, I read the Permutter et al Nobel may have been premature? Shocking!
Don’t know about that, but Richard Muller was Perlmutter’s doctoral advisor at Berkeley. As far as I know, many independent studies have confirmed the accelerating expansion and none have refuted it.
Astronomy has constructed it’s entire theory of the origin of the universe by collecting and analyzing photons and sub atomic particles and applying the laws of physics as they appear in our local space-time slice of reality. I agree that Big Bang is the current best guess but until we understand how and why super massive black holds exist or can define dark matter I’m a luke-warmer. Climate science on the other hand has a multitude of observable physical phenomenon (laws of thermodynamics, chemical reactions and fluid dynamics) to underpin our current understanding of AGW. I’m in the 97% group that thinks AGW explains what we can expect the future to become.
There’s no 97 % group that knows what’s going to happen. I don’t think you can get 70 % for those who think they know but don’t know they don’t know much about how the RCP’s are prepared.
The 97% do not believe that “AGW explains what we can expect the future to become”. This is of course the famous Cook, et. al. study http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article
The 97% consensus cannot be said to support the idea that human kind is the primary cause of global warming or that its effects are potentially devastating. While it is true that some in the consensus may believe those contentions to be true, they do not make up 97%. They may even be a minority, even a relatively small minority. The authors – who did have that figure – choose not to publish it.
> I’m not smearing scientists as a whole.
What percentage of scientists are you smearing, then?
> I’m a scientist
You mean, you have a PhD in geophysics (2013), if your tweet is correct.
And I’m a ninja (2009).
When will you share with Denizens your new concept of SST influences?
I only want to sneer at global warming zealots and urban doofus hipsters.
What percentage of scientists are urban doofus hipsters?
Argo is the Godzilla of climate science. Stomp, crush, roar, eat global warming. Ate your careers boys and girls? Have a rat’s arse.
I think you analogy is rather simplistic. Within cosmology there are many people working on trying to understand the things that we don’t yet understand, and many also trying to test the bits that we think that we do. Of course there is a general paradigm that is mostly accepted, but that doesn’t mean that there is an aversion to it being overthrown. The same, as far as I can tell, is true of climate science. There are many trying to understand the aspects that are not yet understood and many trying to better constrain the aspects that we think are almost understood. However, in both cosmology and climate science, there are people who think they have already overthrown the paradigm (ask any astronomer about how many emails they get from people claiming to have shown that Einstein was wrong). They tend to mocked, although sometimes people are polite enough to mostly do that in private.
I’m pretty sure the knob paradigm was replaced with something more realistic some time ago – of course there are still knobs hanging around and I like to mock them in public. Not behind closed doors at attp.
The US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) no less defined abrupt climate change as a new climate paradigm as long ago as 2002. A paradigm in the scientific sense is a theory that explains observations. A new science paradigm is one that better explains data – in this case climate data – than the old theory. The new theory says that climate change occurs as discrete jumps in the system. Climate is more like a kaleidoscope – shake it up and a new pattern emerges – than a control knob with a linear gain…
A cooling Sun and associated resurgent negative IPO – off a 1000 year positive IPO high – activity suggesting a cooling influence this century. Starting with the next global climate shift – due in a 2018 to 2028 window. If you have not heard of this – I guess it will come as a surprise.
The cooling sun… hilarious.
“However, in both cosmology and climate science, there are people who think they have already overthrown the paradigm (ask any astronomer about how many emails they get from people claiming to have shown that Einstein was wrong).”
Imo you miss a significant difference.
Climate science that promotes AGW being an undeniable pending disaster is directly resulting in huge financial waste.
The climate change dogma needs a paradigm shift that brings new insight into climatology.
It does not.
You’ve created a nice, 100% straw man.
NASA’s Earth Mission is the key to demolishing the global warming evil empire – as is international co-operation on Argo. It as well provide key in formation on water resources, rainfall, vegetation, ice and tropospheric temperature. .
Much of the rest is archaic nonsense and should be rapidly phased out and records archived – the averaged surface record (the beginning of year circus on annual average temperatures), almost all of the climate modelling capability, support for the astonishing quantity of 4th and 5th rate climate science, the plethora of institutional hangers on and support for the UNFCCC.
Science needs room to breath – and climate science has sucked up too much oxygen for far too long.
I’ll give you an example. Anastasios Tsonis, of the Atmospheric Sciences Group at University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, and colleagues used a mathematical network approach to analyse abrupt climate change on decadal timescales. Ocean and atmospheric indices – in this case the El Niño Southern Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation and the North Pacific Oscillation – can be thought of as chaotic oscillators that capture the major modes of climate variability in the Northern Hemisphere. Tsonis and colleagues calculated the ‘distance’ between the indices. It was found that they would synchronise at certain times and then shift into a new state.
It is no coincidence that shifts in ocean and atmospheric indices occur at the same time as changes in the trajectory of global surface temperature. Our ‘interest is to understand – first the natural variability of climate – and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural,’ Tsonis said.
I like to quote Anastasios – he is such a smart boy. The instrumentation to capture the next global climate shift – due in a 2018-2028 window is in place and it would be a tragedy to see it lost. The last global climate shift was in 1998-2001. It is not even a controversial idea. Except with global warming zealots – who learn their memes in the online temples of global warming doom – and urban doofus hipsters who lead the litany and hand around the plate.
What Argo says is that imbalances are negative and positive at different times. What the satellites tell us is that the Sun and top of atmosphere changes in radiant flux cased by solar modulated shifts in ocean and atmosphere circulation – are mostly responsible. We had an inkling it was that complex.
Tsonis also says these shifts are occurring on top of the forced CO2 driven climate change.
It’s not one or the other, it’s both.
Between 1944 and 1998 there was a temperature increase of some 0.4 degrees C. There was a cool regime (1944-1976) and a warm one (1977-1998). It is known that it countered warming in the cold regime and added to it in the warm one. But it is not a wobble on a rising curve – there is centennial to milllennial variability.
The next century is likely to see much more in the way of cooler regimes. With its own cloud feedbacks.
The mechanism involves solar UV/Ozone chemistry. “A number of studies have indicated that the decreases in global mean temperature associated with a future decline in solar activity are likely to be relatively small3,4,5,6,7. However, variability in ultraviolet solar irradiance has been linked to changes in surface pressure that resemble the Arctic and North Atlantic Oscillations (AO/NAO)8,9,10 and studies of both the 11-year solar cycle11,12 and centennial timescales13 suggest the potential for larger regional effects. The mechanism for these changes is via a stratospheric pathway, a so-called ‘top-down’ mechanism, and involves altered heating of the stratosphere by solar ultraviolet irradiance.”http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8535
It happens in the south as well of course and seems to be the long suspected solar amplifier;
“It happens in the south as well of course and seems to be the long suspected solar amplifier;”
No it doesn’t and it isn’t.
A long suspected regional climate amplifier, yes.
But not global.
There were statospheric aerosols aplenty during the LIA.
First off your nature paper says…
“However, there is UNCERTAINTY IN THE SIGN OF THE AMOC RESPONSE to declining solar activity, with two recent studies suggesting a relative strengthening, associated with weaker radiative forcing and a possible change in stratosphere–troposphere coupling6 or increased evaporation and densification in the North Atlantic”
“…. In the coupled system, BOTH EFFECTS COUNTERACT AND WEAKEN THE RESPONSE OF THE AMOC to the solar forcing reduction. Neglecting chemistry–climate interactions in model simulations may therefore lead to an overestimation of the AMOC response to solar forcing.”
A top-down response weakens the AMOC (greater E’lies in the NA and therefore less advection north of warm/salty waters)
A cooling of SST’s during blocked events (above E’lies are cold) in Boreal winters strengthens the AMOC (sinking of surface waters).
“The solar‐blocking signal identified in these studies consists of an increase in Euro‐Atlantic blocking during solar minimum, with the precise magnitude of the changes being somewhat sensitive to the metric used to define solar activity (e.g., F10.7 cm radio flux or open solar flux), but is typically around ∼8–10% of total blocked days.”
8-10% – so the 90%+ of blocking duratin is caused by non low-solar induced -AO/-NAO events.
Hardly the primary causal path then.
As I said an influence not a driver.
Low solar induced (top down) SSW events do NOT occur in the Antarctic PV.
It is far to strong to be disrupted via that method.
Occasionally a tropospherically (bottom up) induced SSW event occurs there however, chiefly early and late in the Austral winter when the PV is weakest.
Tony imagines I am saying something other than what I actually say and so is totally irrelevant and usually insulting and abusive. He is one of those zealots common sense dictates one should ignore.
The evidence suggests that AMOC is correlated with the AMO and the accumulated AO index. I don’t really want to labour it as aspects of this fairly new top-down UV/ozone chemistry mechanism are highly uncertain. There are much longer term correlations of solar activity, the state of the Pacific and global climate.
What I am talking about is the Southern (SAM) and Northern (NAM – otherwise AO) Annular Modes – which are surface phenomenon with changes in surface pressures modulating storm tracks, wind and ocean currents in both hemispheres. Really not directly concerned with polar vortices (PV) or sudden stratospheric warming (SSW) at all.
And it certainly does happen in the Southern Hemisphere.
If you look carefully – it’s the penguins wot dun it.
What we are looking for are chaotic triggers for abrupt 20 to 30 years regime shifts to more or less upwelling in the central and northern Pacific. These most certainly exist and result in coherent changes in global temperature trajectories, hydrology and biology.
“The evidence suggests that AMOC is correlated with the AMO and the accumulated AO index. I don’t really want to labour it as aspects of this fairly new top-down UV/ozone chemistry mechanism are highly uncertain. There are much longer term correlations of solar activity, the state of the Pacific and global climate.”
Ah, so not it seems then ..
“….. seems to be the long suspected solar amplifier;”
The study you link/quote is a modelled (and therefore not correlated – as that requires observation).
Your OP (which is what my responses have been entirely concerned with) was about a UV/O3/AMOC link and the very study you rely on for it being a driver does in fact NOT say that.
It says that the low solar/AMOC ling accounts for just 8-10% of all blocking events.
Like I said …
There is a link.
Just a link.
As in all things meteorology there are multiple cause/effects where subtle changes in such as solar TSI occur.
You are changing the goalposts my friend.
I strongly disagree with the original position of said goalposts and have shown that you evidence has no clothes my friend.
Oh, and there you go again….
“Tony imagines I am saying something other than what I actually say and so is totally irrelevant and usually insulting and abusive. He is one of those zealots common sense dictates one should ignore.”
No you imagine it.
The UV/O3/AO link is as I have described (your quote “seems to be the long suspected solar amplifier”).
“and so is totally irrelevant and usually insulting and abusive.”
Therefore totally relevant (to your OP) and certainly not insulting.
Daring to question you, my friend, is not in my world, nor in the world of science “insulting”.
You rage against consensus science – yet all those scientists have had their science questioned, have they not – via per-review.
Yet another example of naysayers holding other to higher standards than themselves.
Pot calling the kettle back.
After all I have a master here to learn “insult” from, and I have not come anywhere close to your expertise in that.
It actually seems to be your main weapon with me and I see with Jim, JCH and ATTP.
Like I said “Not big and not clever”.
Oh, and your oft-posted graph.
Yes, yes we meteorologists do know that the NAO is a sig driver of the northern arm of tha AMOC.
It adrives warm salty waters into the NA and Arctic.
So it will correlate with the AMOC and consequently the AMO FFS.
That does not show the link with UV.
“And it certainly does happen in the Southern Hemisphere.”
Rossby wave development does yes – just without a UV/O3 link (except as an added casual factor in a line of causes, when the PV is weak – more especially for a final warming).
– What you were asserting (“….. seems to be the long suspected solar amplifier;”) and to which the answer is as I gave.
However RW development there is much less that in the NH.
There is not the topographic barriers, nor contrasting zonal land/ocean deltaT, sufficent to drive planetary wave development to break a very intense winter vortex to anything like that degree.
It is not called the “roaring forties” for nothing.
Robert, do try to learn that battering posters over the head with reams of posts and being an arrogant bully when challenged, whilst then denying that that is not what you meant, will very soon loose you any credibility you have here with your fellow naysayers.
I already note a distinct lack of “support” from what is an overwhelming majority of contrarians on here.
Banton is angry, hyper-opinionated, tosses around words like denier, accuses me of being a Trump acolyte with no morality and a bully with a great, swinging dick complex. He berates incessantly, attacks on both a persona level and with snide misrepresentations of quotes taken out of context. Quintessentially the bad faith of the global warming zealot with far too much ego invested in a science of global warming that excludes far too much science. My credibility with these people is precisely zilch. Once you are labelled an outsider – the die is cast.
His so-called science is based almost entirely on his own ‘authority’ as a weather guy – as bare assertions about irrelevant phenomenon. Except for a selective quote from a modelling link I introduced to the discussion – and which he routinely disparages as a modelling study. From the study.
“However, variability in ultraviolet solar irradiance has been linked to changes in surface pressure that resemble the Arctic and North Atlantic Oscillations (AO/NAO)8,9,10 and studies of both the 11-year solar cycle11,12 and centennial timescales13 suggest the potential for larger regional effects. The mechanism for these changes is via a stratospheric pathway, a so-called ‘top-down’ mechanism, and involves altered heating of the stratosphere by solar ultraviolet irradiance.” http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8535
So there is a link from solar UV to surface pressure – and three further references to start from. The link to AMOC was provided both in a modelling study and in an observational study – Smeed et al (2014) with a graph and a link above. But it was just an aside – I am much more interested in the Pacific Ocean.
“ENSO causes climate extremes across and beyond the Pacific basin; however, evidence of ENSO at high southern latitudes is generally restricted to the South Pacific and West Antarctica. Here, the authors report a statistically significant link between ENSO and sea salt deposition during summer from the Law Dome (LD) ice core in East Antarctica. ENSO-related atmospheric anomalies from the central-western equatorial Pacific (CWEP) propagate to the South Pacific and the circumpolar high latitudes. These anomalies modulate high-latitude zonal winds, with El Niño (La Niña) conditions causing reduced (enhanced) zonal wind speeds and subsequent reduced (enhanced) summer sea salt deposition at LD. Over the last 1010 yr, the LD summer sea salt (LDSSS) record has exhibited two below-average (El Niño–like) epochs, 1000–1260 ad and 1920–2009 ad, and a longer above-average (La Niña–like) epoch from 1260 to 1860 ad. Spectral analysis shows the below-average epochs are associated with enhanced ENSO-like variability around 2–5 yr, while the above-average epoch is associated more with variability around 6–7 yr. The LDSSS record is also significantly correlated with annual rainfall in eastern mainland Australia. While the correlation displays decadal-scale variability similar to changes in the interdecadal Pacific oscillation (IPO), the LDSSS record suggests rainfall in the modern instrumental era (1910–2009 ad) is below the long-term average. In addition, recent rainfall declines in some regions of eastern and southeastern Australia appear to be mirrored by a downward trend in the LDSSS record, suggesting current rainfall regimes are unusual though not unknown over the last millennium.” Vance etal (2013), A Millennial Proxy Record of ENSO and Eastern Australian Rainfall from the Law Dome Ice Core, East Antarctica
My interest in this commenced around 1990 with drought and flood dominated regimes in eastern Australia. Over time it became clear that abrupt and persistent shifts in the Pacific state were the cause – but what caused those? The state varies – over 20 to 30 year regimes, over the past 100 years, over the last 1000 years. A Holocene spanning proxy by Moy et al (2002) shows extreme variation at all scales as well as an intriguing mid-Holocene transition from La Niña to El Niño dominance. Longer term changes in the Pacific state are associated with solar activity through the cosmogenic isotope record. It suggests that we are looking for an external cause rather than internal resonance.
The essential fact of changes in the Pacific state is changes in upwelling in the north-east and central zones. Upwelling sets up complex wind, current and cloud feedbacks that have global significance – and which change the global energy budget. It is a complex and dynamic system and abrupt change suggests a chaotic trigger. A perhaps small change that switches the system to more or less upwelling.
A positive (negative) Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO) is associated with high El Niño (La Niña) activity. The proximate cause of more or less upwelling is wind driven currents in the north and south Pacific. The Law Dome ice record shows the involvement of surface pressure in the south polar region. The solar UV/ozone chemistry influence on surface pressure provides the final link. It is a mechanism that links simultaneous upwelling changes in both hemispheres through solar modulated pressure fields.
This is a broad science that I have been following for nearly 30 years – and it is easily enough to get me labeled as a global warming science denier and worse. The global warming zealot rejects information at odds with the group mediated memes, disparages outsiders and assumes an overwhelming moral and intellectual superiority. It is classic groupthink of course. I guess that’s why they are marching.
Pingback: Exactly what are scientists marching ‘for’? | Climate Etc. – Noscibilis et Amabilis
A march is profoundly a political act., I consulted with Captain Obvious and have already made my sign:
“This Is What Politicization Looks Like”.
Exactly what are scientists entertaining award-winning journalists for?
Dr. Curry, I’ve been reading a lot of Richard Feynman lately and came across a gem I really love. Feynman said of science,
Of all its many values, the greatest must be the freedom to doubt.
I’m not sure if you’ve read this speech he gave as a public address at the 1955 autumn meeting of the National Academy of Sciences. This should be required reading for every scientist planning to march. It should also be required reading for every scientist endorsing the CAGW narrative who denigrate other scientists as deniers or any of the other epithets used in their crusade.
The Value of Science – Richard Feynman
I grew up in the 70’s a great fan of Feynman’s, esteeming his view of science as a tool to help us “learn things” or “make things” or “do things”. But when scientists try to use science to “make other people do things”, they can and do encroach on other peoples’ values. They ought to EXPECT pushback instead of esteem – and plenty of it, if the difference in values is great.
If I recall, Feynman used science to tell people how far apart to put their uranium stockpiles. People pay attention when scientists point out dangers.
You are correct. One scientist points out the danger of a runaway nuclear reaction occurring “now”, while another points out the danger of the earth getting perhaps a few tenths of a degree Celsius warmer over a time span of ten years. My only point is that it’s values, not science, that makes people pay more attention to the first scientist than the other, even if both are equally competent and honest.
Yes it’s values, and as someone pointed out to me, that most people value a cheeseburger today, and promise to pay next Tuesday.
A pertinent question being when will it get 5 C warmer in the summer in West Antarctica?
I would forgo the cheeseburger today, so that I don’t have to pay the bill next Tuesday.
This scientific march could leave the scientific community with an awful lot of egg on its face.
The public already sick and tired of ‘experts’ who rarely get anything right. Those experts usually cite science as their source of ‘fact’ and the public is wise enough to know that computer projections, relative to climate change in particular, are little more than educated guesswork.
The public have seen all the scare stories come and go, with no meaningful negative impact on their lives.
So when the public see scientists demonstrating to support science that has never successfully predicted anything meaningful, correctly, they will laugh at a bunch of white coats defending their right to be continually wrong, but nevertheless get paid shedloads.
They may fire the first shot, but Trump is likely to use their impotence against them. And once again, science will suffer.
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
Deplorables could line the route with placards re cli-sci failed
# Paul Ehrlich & John Holdren predicted ‘New Ice Age’ by 2000.
# UK a small group of impoverished islands by 2000. – Same duo.
# Greenhouse effect will desolate heartland of US by 1998. Dr
# IPCC model projections of global warming significantly higher
# Arctic could be ice free by 2012. Jay Zwally NASA scientist.
#Children just aren’t going to know what snow is. David Viner.
#New York under water in 20 years, James Hansen 1986.
# Polar Bears will die in droves. Scientists of the International
Union for Conservation of Nature.
Although some of those ring pretty true.
Chicago had no snow in January and February of 2017.
Chicago, no snow, who would have predicted that!
Sandy put a significant amount of NYC under water as I recall.
Arctic will still be ice free pretty soon, sooner than predicted by most models, which has it ice free something mid century.
“Chicago, no snow, who would have predicted that!”
They had snow. Just not very much.
“who would have predicted that!”
Doggone crazy weather, huh.
You are on a roll Bob.
You do know that one winter is weather, right? By your logic the PNW is headed into an ice age as we are experiencing some record cold and unusual snow falls.
Tell me again Timg56,
I get confused, which sea ice extent is now in record low territory?
Antarctic or Arctic?
Never mentioned sea ice extent Bob.
Or just a little tap dancing on your part.
In what way do these rent-seeking leftard marchers representive “science”?
Is my profession – as a family physician – genuinely represented by the politicians of the American Medical Association?
List of protest marches on Washington, D.C.
The sheer stupidity of whoever is behind this is mind-boggling. As you point out, they say on their website that “The mischaracterization of science as a partisan issue, which has given policymakers permission to reject overwhelming evidence, is a critical and urgent matter”.
Yet this is precisely what these people are doing, presenting science a partisan issue. Back in January they tweeted (since deleted): “colonization, racism, immigration, native rights, sexism, ableism, queer-, trans-, intersex-phobia, & econ justice are scientific issues”.
Trying to align science with the activist left. It’s not just stupid, it’s dangerous and damaging.
“reject overwhelming evidence” – we live in in a post truth era. Whatever it is I believe that is the truth, and evidence becomes inconvenient.
Jerry Coyne: Is the March for Science a bad idea?
“What does make me worry is the increasing politicization of the March, which is fast changing from a pro-science march to a pro-social justice march.”
I’m going to distribute signs saying “Save Inés Gonzalez Arraga” at the Scientists protest, she has a PhD in chemistry and needs help to escape from Venezuela before she dies from a curable cancer she can’t get treatment for in Venezuela. The government won’t let her have a passport, possibly because she was jailed in 2015 for using Twitter to criticize Maduro.
This comment is an example of how to politize a science discussion. .
The study of climate and “climate change” would be a quiet and possibly interesting backwater in the world of science except for the trumped-up (in the classic sense and capital T Trump modern twitter sense) predictions of doom and gloom for civilization as we know it. A march on Washington is meant to feed and otherwise support the capital T version.
Interesting list of publications by the ACSH:
Alex Berezow: Why This Scientist Won’t Be Attending The ‘Science March’.
“I wrote previously of my concern that the Science March would be hijacked by the kind of political partisanship it should instead be concerned about – and that has indeed come true.”
Reblogged this on ClimateTheTruth.com.
In addition to budget cuts we need to refocus climate research. Here is my proposal for NOAA global and regional temperature estimates:
A needed NOAA temperature research program
NOAA’s global and US temperature estimates have become highly controversial. The core issue is accuracy. These estimates are sensitive to a number of factors, but the magnitude of sensitivity for each factor is unknown. NOAA’s present practice of stating temperatures to a hundredth of a degree is clearly untenable, because it ignores these significant uncertainties.
Thus we need a focused research program to try to determine the accuracy range of these temperature estimates. Here is a brief outline of the factors to be explored. The goal is to attempt to estimate the uncertainty each contributes to the temperature estimates.
Research question: How much uncertainty does any of the following factors contribute to specific global and regional temperature estimates. Each can be explored independently.
1. The urban heat island effect (UHI). This is known to exist but its specific effect on the temperature recording stations at any given time and place is uncertain.
2. Local heat contamination or cooling of temperature readings. Extensive investigation has shown that this is a widespread problem. Its overall extent and effect is highly uncertain.
3. Other temperature recording station factors, to be identified and explored.
4. Adjustments to temperature data, to be identified and explored. There are numerous adjustments made to the raw temperature data. These need to be cataloged, then analyzed for uncertainty.
5. Homogenization, which assumes that temperature change is uniform over large areas, is a particularly troubling adjustment deserving of special attention.
6. The use of sea surface temperature (SST) proxies in global temperature estimates. Proxies always add significant uncertainty. In the global case the majority of the surface is oceanic.
7. The use of an availability sample rather than a random sample. It is a canon of statistical sampling theory that availability samples are unreliable. How much uncertainty this creates in the temperature estimates is a major issue.
8. Area averaging. This is the basic method used in the surface temperature estimating model and it is a nonstandard statistical method, which creates its own uncertainties.
9. Interpolation or in-fill. Many of the area averaging grid cells do not have good temperature data, so interpolation is used to fill them in. This can be done in many different ways, which creates another major uncertainty.
10. Other factors, to be identified and explored.
To the extent that the uncertainty range contributed by each factor can be quantified, these ranges can then be combined and added into the statistical temperature model. How to do this is itself a research need.
Note that it is not a matter of adjusting the estimate, which is what is presently done. One cannot adjust away an uncertainty. The resulting temperature estimates will at best be in the form of a likely range, not a specific value as is now done.
Note that most of this research will also be applicable to other surface temperature estimation models.
Surface records are useful for the TV weather report – but are not 21st century climate data.
Earth Day is telling, and may tell against them. This is not about science; it is about the political power of the Environmental movement.
I was thinking the same thing (though phrased differently).
The predictions of the “scientists” on the original Earth Day are ridiculous and very telling. We must get broad coverage of the history of calamity that never happened. This alone would totally discredit the march. They are very vulnerable to their history.
What a field-day for the heat
A thousand people in the street
Singing songs and carrying signs
Mostly say, hooray for our side
Winos do not March
Thank you for quoting “For What It’s Worth” .
I really appreciate FWIW.
It became an anthem of protest ( but the story is, it was a protest of restrictions on music clubs in LA, before the social causes of the ’60s ).
But there’s a healthy does of skepticism in that one line:
Mostly say, hooray for our side
Protests tend to be about group identity and self congratulation, not reason.
I was a university radio journalist during the late 60s, UCSB, covering the anti-war protests, marches, bank burnings, Black Power campus take-overs, etc. Also had a once a week midnight til 0600 disc jockey slot…. great exciting times.
Exactly why are scientists writing energy think tanks reports for?
Pingback: Exactly what are scientists marching ‘for’? | privateclientweb
“Exactly what are scientists marching ‘for’?”
Marching in defence of an irrational model of the climate system, while blocking alternate views to maintain its Mannopoly. It’s no use to man or beast, the Sun drives ENSO and the AMO, they are not internal.
I wonder if scientists and policy makers could agree on a “Team B” approach. Even if, or precisely if, there is a consensus among a field’s leaders, there’s something to be said for delegating some of the best and brightest to question the consensus–to work actively on evidence that might undermine it. I believe the term “Team B” came from the CIA, or generally from the intelligence world. If someone claims to be a defector from enemy camps, how do you figure out whether they are for real? If their information is good, is it actually too good, i.e. somewhat falsified in order to tell a good story?
I was impressed by David Middleton’s piece on oil reserves at WUWT: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/18/oil-where-did-it-come-from/. I will paraphrase: he doesn’t think, and he suspects that no knowledgable people think, that oil reserves that are relevant to human beings come from abiogenic sources. Might there be some abiogenic oil somewhere? Yes. Will it in any way affect the way the search for oil, or oil production, take place? No. For one thing, wherever exactly oil “begins,” it generally or always moves to get to the place where human beings discover it. It’s finding that place, and then getting the oil, that are tricky, and these problems have little to do with the ultimate or original source of the oil. Similarly, we are harvesting oil much faster than it is being produced, wherever and however that happens. If there is some abiogenic source somewhere that has never been identified, it would probably not be economically recoverable.
Despite all this, Middleton makes clear that there have been major conferences of oil geologists and engineers where top people have tried to identify: 1)existing or known reserves that might have abiogenic sources; 2) evidence of abiogenic oil that might be harvested, but has not been. I would say that without a Team B approach, there is always the danger of getting caught up in a bubble of group think.
This might fit with Dr. Curry’s suggestion that certain budget lines of federal research into computer models be reduced to zero, thereby creating opportunities for physicists and chemists (and biologists?) to work on understanding the actual climate of the world.
The March for Science sounds like what is happening with the women’s movement. where marches and now an upcoming “strike” are done supposedly in the name of promoting the welfare of women, but are just a cover for promoting a far left agenda. There are some very dark forces involved as the ring leaders and I’m wondering if the same thing is happening on the science side.
And you’re so right, it all boils down to a “temper tantrum against Trump”.
When you turn every issue into a Martin Luther King moment, you reduce the value of them all.
These folks are marching because they have “heightened worry”??
They are reacting to something that hasn’t even happened.
That doesn’t make them seem rational and scientific to me, a trained scientist.
I’ll wager the general public recognizes a temper tantrum when they see it – and they won’t be the least bit impressed by this stunt.
More harm than good, I agree. Frankly, I am appalled.
That doesn’t make them seem rational and scientific to me, a trained scientist.
As far as I’m aware, many of those marching are also trained scientists. Why should your authority as a trained scientist trump theirs?
I suspect that the urban doofus hipster quotient will be higher in the subset of marchers than in the general population of scientists.
I also suspect that the 1000’s of respected scientists on lists for future denier pogroms will not be marching.
I know there’s lots of folk with PhD’s in science.
I suspect precious few are ‘trained scientists’.
I believe you are correct Dr Crockford. Early research into the impact of “fake” news on the election determined that it was zero. The reason? Most voters are intelligent enough to recognize real from fake news. Shocking news to the left and the MSM, who seem to believe only they are qualified to distinguish what is right and what isn’t.
Mike “pizzagate” Flynn would tell you different. He milked that one as hard as he could, probably with some radio hosts. Some were fooled, possibly including Flynn himself.
You got Trump, who claims AGW is a Chinese conspiracy.
It seems we need to engage some politicians in the science.
US cut emissions now to destroy our industrial capacity and China will cut in 30 years after fusion or advanced nuclear also cut emissions.
Or as popeye character said,
“I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a Hmburger today.”
Problem is we can increase power supplies while still cutting emissions and providing the necessary power for industry.
Obama’s energy transition strategy – in excruciating bureaucratese – was essentially gas to nuclear. He took the emissions cuts from cheap gas to Paris and declared a triumph. Utter hypocrisy.
Verses the guy he replaced, who thought he had just negotiated a history deal with the Chinese on climate change. It seems we need to enage some businessmen in negotiating treaties.
Lots of marches march in place. Their point is not progress but staying in control.
I can explain how a gyroscope works without using angular momentum.
No march was involved in this discovery.
“Trying to recreate the pointedly political Women’s March will serve only to reinforce the narrative from skeptical conservatives that scientists are an interest group and politicize their data, research and findings for their own ends.”
Marching is political.
Science is not.
It doesn’t get any simpler than that.
Exactly why are scientists promoting energy policy recommendations for the Donald administration for?
Just another Trump tantrum.
I asked Gaia for DJT victory for the pleasure of watching the precious elite go mad.
I can now see that they were in fact already mad.
Gaia again reveals.
Going mad in herds.
I don’t think a March for Science will help. These people are building a wall around themselves and outside are the mainstream media, the scientists, academics, foreigners, non-Christians, etc. who they automatically distrust. That wall is very effective because they have their own media inside it along with the usual conspiracy theory radio hosts, and now the President himself is inside that wall and tweeting out to the world what it looks like from inside there. He wanted to build a wall. There it is. Mission accomplished. Self-enclosed – check.
Happily a great many Americans are in there with them. Maybe the liberals will move to Iran and Iraq. That would be fun to watch.
A very self-contained bunch, but you’ve got each other in there for moral support in these tough times. You against the world, and with Trump as your leader what could possibly go wrong? He had tens of people in his marches this weekend.
I would be pretty cautious attending any of these anti Trump rallies.
It is clear that the color revolution apparatus, which has overturned so many governments throughout the world, is now focused on the US.
When the demonstrations get large enough, your organizers will orchestrate conflict, a police response, and then they will take some of you out (shoot) to create martyrs, blaming the police. The goal is to fuel the frenzy and eventually call for the overthrow of the government.
If you want to understand how it all goes down I suggest watching Oliver Stone’s documentary on the Ukraine coup:
Destabilization campaigns follow a simple pattern and only really work where speech has been systematically suppressed.
‘Colored revolutions’ generally require a government unsure as to their popular support that feel it necessary to suppress any hint that support might be substantially weaker then generally believed.
You pretty much just need:
1) Social destabilization (check)
2) Agitprop (Full American media support-check)
3) Contested election (hence the Russia hacking lies)
4) Mass organization and funding of protests (Soros, others)
Gene Sharp laid out the basic theory for these, the CIA militarized it.
Harry, have you ever lived under an oppressive regime? You may feel oppressed by the Wall Street or by the U.S. Constitution, but you can at least publicly disagree with the freshly elected President. I did not vote for him, but he is my President. Oh, Hillary lost – let’s resist. Resist what? Resist the will of voters? You prefer democracy only as long as you stay on the winning side.
Wikipedia defines the coup as “the illegal and overt seizure of a state by the military or other elites within the state apparatus.” Which elite was behind the Ukrainian coup? What makes it a coup? I don’t like people who misuse words. I don’t like liars.
“social destabilization (check)” – unbelievable, how much social destabilization Trump wrought in just 40 days. Are you sure that there was no social destabilization under Obama?
“social destabilization (check)”
I would say the major source of social destabilization is coming from the Oligarch/Corpro Facist/Deep state owned agitprop press.
Yes, Obama and his Cultural Marxist crew (around long before him) are the main source of the long term instability.
Trump has nothing to do with it. He’s just a target.
“Which elite was behind the Ukrainian coup?”
Mostly the CIA. America refused to accept that Ukraine was going to make a (much better) deal with Russia instead of allowing themselves to be exploited and destroyed by the shoddy deal with NATO and the EU.
nickels – I have no first-hand information from Maidan, so maybe the CIA caused it. Then they caused a revolution, not a coup. A master stroke. The CIA rises in my eyes.
Yeah, Ukraine is doing so well.
nickels – please learn German. You are way behind your masters.
Germans never managed a coup against Hitler.
A rather good discussion of what you are supporting if you join in the anti-Trump marches, and the architecture of the color revolution within the US.
The end of the 30 years war introduced the notion of state sovereignty, and independence in the sense that each state was supposed to stay out of other’s affairs. This was called the Westphalian system.
Fast forward to 2017. We now are in the situation where out of the most wealthy, say, 50 global institutions, some 20 or so are not states at all.
Well, these institutions have a ton of cash and want a piece of the action. But they have no sovereignty, no army. Nation states have pesky things like laws, social customs, religion, courts and other complications that defeat their power.
So enter the notion of ‘soft power’, i.e. the ability to control people via money, of which there is plenty for these groups. The mass media, NGO’s, organizations, causes…. All these can be used to destroy the institutions of nationhood which work against the moneyed interests. Fuel protests, fuel ‘controlled chaos’, buy off violent groups like BLM or anarchists.
In addition, the push for globalization, trade pacts that abdicated national sovereignty to corporate boards, environmental pacts– all these do the same…
THIS is the force behind the color revolution that looks to overthrow Trump. If you are marching against him and participating in the push to reverse the results of the democratically elected president, you are basically supporting one of these institutions that has more money than nation states.
You might want to think about that.
Actually Nichols demographics and geography hold far more sway than the 50 most powerful institutions.
“Actually Nichols demographics and geography hold far more sway than the 50 most powerful institutions.”
Yes, demographics is big. Also a big weapon than can be used against a nation.
Here is a good example of how the left is not as smart as they think they are. Who do you think is more likely to be a gun owner? A Trump voter or a Hillary/Bernie /Obama voter?
Exactly what are scientists retweeting Lamar Smith’s Communication Director ‘for’?
Maybe a little out of topic:
These people can’t be trusted with either science or policy. There is a very simple science.
It is known that there was natural cooling between 1944 and 1976 – and natural warming from 1977 to 1998. These are 20 to 30 odd year shifts in ocean and atmospheric dynamics that add up to variability over millennia. It is solar modulated and warming from this source seems very likely to come off a 1000 year high this century. The next global climate shift is due in a 2018-2028 window and is likely to be to yet cooler conditions.
The net temperature increase between 1944 and 1998 was some 0.5 degrees C. The trend increase was 0.087 degrees C/decade. If we assume it is all anthropogenic – we all all part of the 97% consensus – and project it forward the increase is not especially concerning. Especially as superimposed on natural centennial cooling.
The IPCC model opportunistic ensemble is a scientific nonsense.
‘Lorenz was able to show that even for a simple set of nonlinear equations (1.1), the evolution of the solution could be changed by minute perturbations to the initial conditions, in other words, beyond a certain forecast lead time, there is no longer a single, deterministic solution and hence all forecasts must be treated as probabilistic. The fractionally dimensioned space occupied by the trajectories of the solutions of these nonlinear equations became known as the Lorenz attractor (figure 1), which suggests that nonlinear systems, such as the atmosphere, may exhibit regime-like structures that are, although fully deterministic, subject to abrupt and seemingly random change.’ http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1956/4751
There are in fact 1000’s of feasible solutions for any model – and no way of determining a priori if any are the correct solution. One ‘solution’ is arbitrarily chosen and sent it to the IPCC who graph it alongside other ‘solutions’, pretend it is deterministic and construct a sham statistics over it. As I said – scientific nonsense of the highest order.
The incompetent science is used by intellectual pygmies in internet ghettos where they plot, malign, and plan denier pogroms for anyone who departs from their absurd orthodoxy. The underlying ambition is to engineer a societal and economic transformation that would be unbelievably disastrous for the world and it’s people if anyone much was prepared to go along with it.
Dateline 3 February 2015 – The Top UN Climate Change Official is optimistic that a new international treaty will be adopted at Paris Climate Change conference at the end of the year. However, the official, Christiana Figueres, the Executive Secretary of UNFCCC, warns that the fight against climate change is a process and that the necessary transformation of the world economy will not be decided at one conference or in one agreement.
This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history”, Ms Figueres stated at a press conference in Brussels.
This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution. That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change, be it COP 15, 21, 40 – you choose the number. It just does not occur like that. It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation. UNRIC
The insanity of this modern day millennialist movement is palpable. Meanwhile real responses to population, health, education, development, food security, energy and environmental conservation and restoration are elsewhere.
What “natural cooling between 1944 and 1976”?
There was anthropogenic cooling, caused by sulfates and other aerosols emitted by human industry.
Ditto with your supposed “natural warming” – the period in question was warming due to reduced aerosols and increased CO2.
Your model, predicting a linear increased based on short trends you yourself admit are all over the place is one of the worst climate models I’ve ever seen.
Also, I am pretty sure that the current warming trend is currently attributed to be 110% due to CO2 – as a sum of all forcings.
Is it too much to want to read informed comment on these issues every now and then?
No there wasn’t – the positive forcing far outweighed sulfates. And black carbon is warming.
Here’s something simple for you.
Something a little more complex – but your simplistic narrative suggests you will have problems.
Craig do you believe in the existence of ocean oscillations PDO and AMDO?
Do you believe these are anthropogenic in origin?
Do you believe in other shorter and longer term oscillations that result in climate changes like sunspot cycles and Milankovich cycles?
Do you believe that science knows about every cyclic occurrence and its impact on regional and global climates?
Your confidence that global average temperature is constant if it weren’t for human activity is uninformed and ignorant. Get a clue.
“Embrace science as a process, not a collection of ‘facts’; invite the public to engage in the process of science.”
Implies the public do not understand and are not interested in Science which is a mischaracterisation. People use science every day and are quite aware of it. Like Bridge or chess it is not a passion for everyone but this does not mean that they do not engage with it. Most of us have other issues, called having a life, to get on with though.
Reminds me I must go and do some shopping, need a new computer board, something to do with having long fingernails.
Trump will be absolutely bad for science in the short term in terms of funding and jobs, guess more spots will open in the army etc. Longterm our society and progress depends on science and it can only keep growing.
Oh dear, President Trump has certainly set the Moonbats to barking, it’s marvellous to behold!
Surely they don’t believe marching like a lot of silly students are going to make the slightest difference to anything, other than lower their approval coefficient wu=ith the general public?
AGW = It’s All Gone Wrong!
What prompted “grass-roots organizers” to call for a “March for Science?” How was a “March for Science” determined to be an appropriate way to address an alleged problem facing scientists? What is the problem, and where are the facts? So far, all that I read about is simply speculation.
The “March for Science appears to be an exercise in groupthink or, possibly, twitterthink. Did outside pressure from politicians or others have a role in the decision to march? If some scientists see a threat to science, then back it up with facts. I have not the foggiest notion of what the “March for Science” is about. A petulant, knee-jerk reaction to perceived threats? God help America if a “March on Science” (in lockstep?} somehow represents the best face that scientists can put forth to make a point. What am I missing? Whatever happened to the concept of meritocracy? It seems to have been replaced by “the squeaking wheel gets the grease.”
“The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 °C per decade in the last 30 years.
There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities”, in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.
If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100.[A] Accompanying this temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise. The balance of impacts of global warming become significantly negative at larger values of warming.”
Here’s my list of climate scientists Jimmy D. Not questioning this ‘consensus’ seems really
Hmmm… didn’t quite finish…. questioning this consensus seems really quite sensible…
The other social pressures around enforcing a standardised view though career threats, limiting publication, public opprobium and letting loose the global warming peasantry with torches and pitchforks.
It is an utter disgrace.
You list less than 100, and there is at least 10000 in the field, so that would back up the 97% claim even if you found 200 more.
Not questioning this consensus is insane. So you have 10,000 insane scientists? I’d fire them all. Lucky Trump has had a lot of practice.
You listed a few crackpots in your 100, so calling them all scientists is a bit generous, but you believe them all and that is what counts.
That’s the crackpot calling the kettle black. The Wikepedia list is just a sampling of lists for future denier pogroms.
Yes, of course it is.
“In the wake of Al Gore’s recent speech to the South by Southwest Festival in Austin, Texas, attention is being focused on the increasing trend among global warming activists to want to punish those who disagree with the concept of a manmade climate change.
“We need to put a price on carbon to accelerate these market trends,” Gore told the attendees, referring to a proposed federal cap-and-trade system that would penalize companies which exceed their carbon-emission limits. “And in order to do that, we need to put a price on denial in politics.”
Gore was merely echoing a growing worldwide movement to not merely dismiss, but to actively seek out and penalize, those with opposing opinions on the issue.
Environmental activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. lamented that there were no current laws on the books to punish global-warming skeptics.
“I wish there were a law you could punish them with. I don’t think there is a law that you can punish those politicians under,” he said in a September 2014 interview with Climate Depot.
Nor is Kennedy the first to want to prosecute those who argue against the “consensus” of manmade climate change.
“Those denialists should face jail. They should face fines,” wrote Adam Weinstein, staff writer with Gawker.com. “They should face lawsuits from the classes of people whose lives and livelihoods are most threatened by denialist tactics. … [I]f you are actively trying to deny people the tools they need to inform themselves, to protect themselves against a scientifically proven threat to life and limb, you shouldn’t be part of the debate. You should be punished for your self-serving malice.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/new-inquisition-punish-climate-change-deniers/#LiZLkKlBSYhpgvqQ.99
It is really just part and parcel global warming zealot insanity. Pick up your torch and pitchfork on the way out Jimmy.
Now they’re talking.
… as if they are seriously insane… oh wait.
“So, exactly what do scientists expect to accomplish with this March, and how do they plan to go about it?”
A few will get their faces on TV. More will get quoted in newspaper reports. And all of them will get the chance to prove to their peers that they are one with the Borg.
Progressives are progressives first and everything else, including scientists, second.
Trump certainly has his faults, but he has done this country a great service (unintentionally), by dragging the progressives and the establishments of both parties out of their closets.
There has been a war between the permanent bureaucracy, the progressive media, and the Democrat Party on one side, and the voters on the other for decades. Because of Trump, that warfare is now finally out in the open.
Democrat voters now know their primaries were rigged against Bernie Sanders by both their party and media elitists. Trump voters now have unassailable evidence that the progressive “intelligence community”, MSM and Democrat Party are colluding against the duly elected president of the United States, which means against those who voted for Trump.
The central question of our day is not globalclimatewarmingchange. The real question is who gets to decide who runs this country, the voters or the elitists?
The NY Times and other progressive media had screaming headlines for months about how wiretaps showed connections and probably collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Now that Trump has pointed out the exact same thing, the Times is suddenly all about “What wiretaps? We don’t see no stinkin’ wire taps”.
And not a single politician or talking head on the left is concerned with the fact that at least 7 government agencies were investigating the opposition candidate up to and through the election. (For that matter, there are almost no establishment Republicans who give a damn.)
FISA warrants and wiretaps and surveillance, oh my!
Credibility is dead on the left, even among tweed jacket, leather patch wearing “scientists” who think that marching now makes up for them missing out on the 60s.
In this war, my money is on the voters.
Eloquote appreciation of the man-made climate change racket..
In my opinion, they are marching for the right to control our thoughts.
They are marching because that’s what they do best.
I thought C02 was the control knob of the thermostat.
The idea of “mischaracterization of facts” issue is the same as the “Alternative Facts” issue. It is the selective use of facts – the “only my facts matter” – the insistence that policy makers only consider the set of facts carefully selected by policy advocates — facts which as presented support the policy of their choice,.
The majority of young scientists have been raised – cradle to PhD – as [knee-jerk] liberal- progressives, politically and socially. The March for Science represents the ascendancy of their politics – not their science.
It is becoming increasingly apparent that the “march” will be hijacked by the truly nut-case left — the same groups that hijacked the Women’s March.
Mainstream America was turned off by what actually happened at the Women’s March — the content of the speeches given by anachronistic revolutionaries — weirdly mirroring the worst of the 1960s — was an embarrassment and a real political black eye for the centrist women’s rights movement. It will take years for them to regain public trust.
I fear the same will happen to Science on Earth Day.
I caught the start of a radio program – from the government broadcaster – comparing the marches to the beginning of the 1917 Russian revolution. Before switching to the local community station for some rock and roll.
I’m afraid the current state of marches consist of middle and upper classes centrist pseudo-elites making up the bulk of the marchers, while far-left extremists hijack the stages and microphones.
Women won’t be marching again any time soon after the nuttiness seen on the main stage ….
> Women won’t be marching again any time soon after the nuttiness seen on the main stage ….
It might not be the best blog to pontificate on what will or won’t do women:
Whether they belong to the top 5% or not.
Thanks Kip for expressing in written form what I have been thinking for some time
The bizzarro world imposed on us is beyond comprehension most of the time.
I marched in the 1960s but I never felt like I was surrounded by walk always from the local state hospital. This has evolved from self absorption on steroids in our culture over the last couple of generations that started with a shared ethos that life should meet one’s expectations rather than the vice versa.
In some ways this stuff is worse than the worst of the 1960s.
We march for what we love, the thrill of discovery the joy of understanding and the benefits we gain
So you’re marching for a science-themed greeting card?
Eli only wishes for a simple life, a few lasers, a leak free vacuum system and the absence of idiots. Be gone.
Eli only wishes for… the absence of idiots.
Good luck with that.
eli might get a better vacuum and a few lasers – assuming he has a solid research proposal – if the manufactured science of global warming wasn’t sucking up all the oxygen. The lack of oxygen has got to eli’s brain.
“assuming he has a solid research proposal”
You’re kidding right.
8.2 in large carrots plus an annual carrot allotment
You should try reading one of his papers
Of course there is alway a Feynman quote for anything.
“Some people think Wheeler’s gotten crazy in his later years, but he’s always been crazy.”
I am sure that laser deposition of nanowires is a heck of a lot of fun and potentially useful technology.
eli is proof that a chemist talking about climate is just as dumb as the next urban doofus hipster.
Oh lord, save Eli from the science denialists who use semiconductors.
What he needs saving from are cutesy poses and false equivalencies.
We march for what we love, the thrill of discovery the joy of understanding and the benefits we gain
That’s what you may tell yourself, but that’s not why one marches.
One marches because one’s genes predispose one to group identification.
Evolution eliminated most of the true free spirits from the gene pool.
Unless one hewed to the clan line, being an outcast meant more likely starvation, predation, murder, and no chance of reproduction.
So it’s in our genes to adhere to groups and endorse their dogmas.
I doubt any sociobiologists are marching.
But that’s a bit of a problem. Reason can only take place within an individual brain, not a group dogma. Hume, again: “Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions.”
Perhaps that’s OK, it is what it is. But people use some reason to satisfy the dogma of the group and deny reason that subverts their dogma or supports another. Marching is an expression of group identification. So ( and I write this from personal experience ) if one is marching, one may question how one is sacrificing individual reason for group dogma.
“Singing songs and carrying signs, mostly say, ‘hooray for our side'”.
And somewhat telling, you wrote the response in the third person. ( Group, not individual ).
But you should march – it’s America, after all – maybe somebody will write a funny sign or make a good costume.
Anybody that makes a donation are considered scientists and allowed to march. And then probably anybody that shows up will be allowed to march. Wonder if George will kick in a few thousand extra marchers. As I understand it, they are so tolerant that they even include a dog as a valued member of their group of outraged scientists.
CAGW is pathetic.
“Unless one hewed to the clan line, being an outcast meant more likely starvation, predation, murder, and no chance of reproduction.” Looking back on my life 2-3 years ago, I summarised “I’ve always been different.” Not because I sought to be, but people perceived me as different. Some responded positively to it, others felt threatened. The latter tended to have the power to sanction, alas, causing me pain and difficulty at times; but I’m happy that I stuck to my guns (strictly metaphorically!) and standards rather thancaving in to the conformists. Happily, I’m not starving, I haven’t been murdered and I have off-spring. Vive la difference!
Yes, “Don’t shoot your mavericks” and “It takes all kinds”.
“…the benefits we gain…”
For the windmills and grid stability.
For the efficient allocation of money.
For the bountiful harvests.
For lifting the poor out of poverty.
Yeah, right wabbit.
On more Honesty in Government– Hear, hear!
Twitter link– https://science.house.gov/news/press-releases/sst-committee-members-introduce-honest-and-open-new-epa-science-treatment-act-0
From the March For Science twitter feed (@ScienceMarchDC):
“colonization, racism, immigration, native rights, sexism, ableism, queer-trans-, intersex phobia, [sic] & econ justice are scientific issues”.
Good thing this isn’t purely political…../sarc
Yeah, the ‘debate’ is over– government science has nothing to do with real science.
Exactly what scientists ask that we kill the IPCC ‘for’?
Reblogged this on 4timesayear's Blog.
Reblogged this on I Didn't Ask To Be a Blog.
For years sceptics have been labeled idiots, criminally insane, right-wing demagogues, intellectually and morally stunted… It is a pattern repeated endlessly in the climate wars. They come here to disparage denies and then go off to insular global warming ghettos like attp to kibbutz, whine and insult contrarians. Turnabout – in terms that don’t get me moderated – would seem fair play.
‘After all I have a master here to learn “insult” from, and I have not come anywhere close to your expertise in that.
It actually seems to be your main weapon with me and I see with Jim, JCH and ATTP.’
I am humbled Tony – thanks sincerely. I guess the insults are global warming zealot or urban doofus hipster. Banton was highly incensed when I called him a 10 minute internet expert for cutting and pasting – without attribution I might add – great reams of irrelevant verbiage. It was quite obviously not the incoherent rants of a Tony Banton. Banton in particular seems offended at not being taken at his own estimation. Jim repeats simple memes word perfect and imagines it’s physics. JCH has an exceedingly eccentric take on ENSO. Ken Rice (attp – ?) made a dodgy analogy above between cosmology and climate science, compared sceptics to deniers of relativity and referred to his own practices of mocking sceptics on his site. In the company of wee willie and JCH on the occasion of my visit. That I wasn’t allowed to comment on comments referring to me goes without saying.
It is of course complete hypocrisy to complain – about an imagined slight – when someone identifies rejection of information not in accordance with group memes, the refusal to examine assumptions, the disparagement of outsiders and the assumption of moral and intellectual superiority as quintessentially groupthink.
The sociological imperative is to politically isolate this grouping – who have not only a climate meme but a wider social and economic agenda. This distinct class I am accused of insulting – laugh out loud – I call urban doofus hipsters. The march will be full of them. The strategy they hate the most is not to take them seriously.
Robert, I prefer to call them useful idiots. Not that I’ve ever been accused of being mentally ill,.. much. Just the other day, once again, of ” not being a scientist” . I need to go hang with them because, fifty cent word usage, my scientific ‘ screed ‘ wasn’t up to par. Do you think using a golf term ‘ par’ might confuse them ?
The useful idiots in a communist party are generally the first ones executed when they seize power. Everybody else goes for re education.
“Banton is angry, hyper-opinionated, tosses around words like denier, accuses me of being a Trump acolyte with no morality and a bully with a great, swinging dick complex. He berates incessantly, attacks on both a persona level and with snide misrepresentations of quotes taken out of context. ”
More bad manners from Robert:
Yes Robert, you could say I am angry with bad manners, and arrogance and people who are “hyper-opinionated”.
But that’s just a cross I have to bear.
Yet more hypocrisy and holding of others to higher standards than they do of themselves, eh?
Who is the “hyper-opinionated” person of the two?
Someone who talks of meteorology – which was his proffession.
Or someone who comes at the whole of climate science as though it is incompetent/fraudulent?
And is incapable of taking criticism without resorting to Ad Hom.
Again your English comprehension fails.
Re the *member*….
I merely used a comparisim of your appeal to YOUR false authority – to that of mine.
AS a question, hence the QUESTION mark.
That is NOT an “accusation”.
It is/was an open question of who has the most authority when talking of Meteorology.
I still dont expect that you have twigged.
It seems that – as I said, you are an arrogant intellectual bully, who defends his “position” and never admits to being wrong (or just shuts up).
I even used the exact same paper that you did to show your ….
“It happens in the south as well of course and seems to be the long suspected solar amplifier;”
Is not so.
As I explained “No it doesn’t and it isn’t”.
Try explaining why that is wrong. With Meteorology.
So like a bully you retaliate with base response.
Like I said – not big and not clever.
“quotes taken out of context. ”
Where is that quote taken out of context Robert?
“attacks on both a persona level”
Merely responding (quite moderately but pointedly) to that that leads Robert.
“I guess the insults are global warming zealot or urban doofus hipster. Banton was highly incensed when I called him a 10 minute internet expert for cutting and pasting – without attribution I might add – great reams of irrelevant verbiage. It was quite obviously not the incoherent rants of a Tony Banton. ”
I keep telling you Robert.
You mistake (willfully of course) anyone with knowledge of climate/weather as being “global warming zealot or urban doofus hipster”.
You display the oft met contempt that Naysayer “Zealots” have for the expertise of climate scientists.
Oh, only “incoherent” if you are ignorant of the subject about which you pontificate my friend.
“I called him a 10 minute internet expert for cutting and pasting – without attribution I might add”
OK I’ll give you the attribution …..
“great reams of irrelevant verbiage.”
As I said – entirely relevant.
As you were asserting ….
““It happens in the south as well of course and seems to be the long suspected solar amplifier;”
Robert: Did you, or did you not say that at in this post?
Justified (in your eyes) by using quotes from….
Which I then pointed out was actually not saying that at all
As I said quite, quite relevant.
Tony – When you’ve finished with Robert perhaps you wouldn’t mind reminding him that he has unfinished business to attend to over here?
But not everyone who supports scientific research and evidence-based policymaking is on board. Some fear that a scientists’ march will reinforce the sceptical conservative narrative that scientists have become an interest group whose findings are politicised. Others are concerned that the march is more about identity politics than science.
From my perspective, the march – which is being planned by the Earth Day Network, League of Extraordinary Scientists and Engineers and the Natural History Museum, among other partner organisations – is a distraction from the existential problems facing the field.
League of extraordinary dickheads more likely. In a way that seems unique – climate science is culturally framed around flawed propositions.
Atmospheric and oceanic computational simulation models often successfully depict chaotic space–time patterns, flow phenomena, dynamical balances, and equilibrium distributions that mimic nature. This success is accomplished through necessary but nonunique choices for discrete algorithms, parameterizations, and coupled contributing processes that introduce structural instability into the model. Therefore, we should expect a degree of irreducible imprecision in quantitative correspondences with nature, even with plausibly formulated models and careful calibration (tuning) to several empirical measures. Where precision is an issue (e.g., in a climate forecast), only simulation ensembles made across systematically designed model families allow an estimate of the level of relevant irreducible imprecision. http://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709.full
There are no model statistics defining probabilities in ‘simulation ensembles made across systematically designed model families’. The IPCC opportunistic ensembles are at their theoretical core invalid. There is no question about this – it is the inevitable result of nonlinear math.
We are left with more or less accurate data that is immensely inadequate for the purpose of monitoring climate change – anthropogenic atmospheric warming from 1944 to date is at most 0.124 degrees C/decade.
There is a whole other science of natural variability that is routinely denied in the discourse. As is the wider relevance of biological and soil sciences and of rapid advancements in technology.
The denial answers to a broader agenda. The progressive vision involves narratives of moribund western economies governed by corrupt corporations collapsing under the weight of internal contradictions – leading to less growth, less material consumption, less CO2 emissions, less habitat destruction and a last late chance to stay within the safe limits of global ecosystems. And this is just in the ‘scholarly’ journals.
The ‘conservative skeptical’ position favours economic growth. Economic growth provides resources for solving problems – restoring organic carbon in agricultural soils, conserving and restoring ecosystems, better sanitation and safer water, better health and education, updating the diesel fleet and other productive assets to emit less black carbon, replacing cooking fires with better ways of preparing food, etc. We can sequester carbon in agricultural soils and increase productivity, build a flood and drought resilient agriculture, conserve and restore ecosystems, reduce nitrous oxide and harmful tropospheric ozone emissions and save money on fertilisers, reduce the strong climate effects of black carbon and the millions of premature deaths that result from cooking over open fires at the same time. Population, development, technical innovation, multiple gases and aerosols across sectors, land use change, and the environment is the broader context.
The visions are fundamentally irreconcilable – but only one employs a flawed framing of science and offers only policy nonsense. They may envision a sackcloth future for us – and a cafe latte future for them – but the world is on a different path. The future is cyberpunk and not urban doofus hipster.
The singularity occurs on January 26th 2065 when an automated IKEA factory becomes self-aware and commences converting all global resources to flat pack furniture. Until then – endless innovation on information technology and cybernetics will accelerate and continue to push the limits of what it is to be human and to challenge the adaptability of social structures. New movements, fads, music, designer drugs, cat videos and dance moves will sweep the planet like Mexican waves in the zeitgeist. Materials will be stronger and lighter. Life will be cluttered with holographic TV’s, waterless washing machines, ultrasonic blenders, quantum computers, hover cars and artificially intelligent phones. Annoying phones that cry when you don’t charge them – taking on that role from cars that beep when you don’t put a seat belt on. Space capable flying cars will have seat belts that lock and tension without any intervention of your part. All this will use vastly more energy and materials this century as populations grow and wealth increases.
The entry above was meant to go elsewhere.
What I addressed was a broad science that was solidly referenced in my comments. Nothing is based on my own ‘authority’ but is rather based on science review principles.
I started from here long ago and in a distant galaxy.
>i> A number of studies have indicated that the decreases in global mean temperature associated with a future decline in solar activity are likely to be relatively small3,4,5,6,7. However, variability in ultraviolet solar irradiance has been linked to changes in surface pressure that resemble the Arctic and North Atlantic Oscillations (AO/NAO)8,9,10 and studies of both the 11-year solar cycle11,12 and centennial timescales13 suggest the potential for larger regional effects.
The surface pressure AO/NAO connection is the important observation. There is an equivalent system of pressure changes at the south pole. They add up to a global system that has a profound influence on global climate. Hence the ideologically founded objection.
Banton’s vehement, long winded, and repetitive rants demonstrate only a complete lack of comprehension for whatever underlying psychological imperative.
I suggest at any rate that no one is interested – least of all me – and that he should move on to something relevant – or at least amusing.
But it is not about science – it is about Banton, his climate memes and his progressive politics. It is all one – part and parcel of the culturally framed package of progressive global warming zealotry. It is framed as progressive and scientific. These people come here to count coup on dumb deniers and they find it utterly impossible to countenance anything but the scientific ignorance of right wing sceptics.
Hunt repeats ad nauseum what he imagines is a cute little denier gotcha. it is just a waste of everyone’s time.
Thanks – I’ve just bookmarked another link in the mechanism.
But again – why are compelled to repeat all this nonsense?
Damn – this is the link. http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n7/full/nclimate2235.html
As an Australian hydrologist, environmental scientist and hydrodynamic modeler – I already know the BOM.
Changes in the Earth’s radiation budget are driven by changes in the balance between the thermal emission from the top of the atmosphere and the net sunlight absorbed. The shortwave radiation entering the climate system depends on the Sun’s irradiance and the Earth’s reflectance. Often, studies replace the net sunlight by proxy measures of solar irradiance, which is an oversimplification used in efforts to probe the Sun’s role in past climate change. With new helioseismic data and new measures of the Earth’s reflectance, we can usefully separate and constrain the relative roles of the net sunlight’s two components, while probing the degree of their linkage. First, this is possible because helioseismic data provide the most precise measure ever of the solar cycle, which ultimately yields more profound physical limits on past irradiance variations. Since irradiance variations are apparently minimal, changes in the Earth’s climate that seem to be associated with changes in the level of solar activity—the Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice age for example—
would then seem to be due to terrestrial responses to more subtle changes in the Sun’s spectrum of radiative output. This
leads naturally to a linkage with terrestrial reflectance, the second component of the net sunlight, as the carrier of the
terrestrial amplification of the Sun’s varying output.’ Palle et al 2007 – http://bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/literature/Goode_Palle_2007_JASTP.pdf
Changes in long lived patterns of ocean/atmospheric circulation cause IR emission and SW reflection changes. The observed correlation over the last 1000 years between solar activity, SAM evolution, the state of the Pacific and temperature make compelling evidence for a top-down solar amplifier mechanism.
I call it a hypothesis here – and make a prediction. Will there be more La Niña over the next centuries? Can we expect more El Niño in a thousand years? Might we see great herds return to the Sahel? The details of the future evolution of climate remains absolutely uncertain. What is more certain is that the next global climate shift in due in a 2018-2028 window. It is odds on for a cooler sun and more upwelling in the Pacific Ocean this century – providing a cooling influence on the oceans and atmosphere and the inevitable regional variability in rainfall. https://watertechbyrie.com/2017/01/12/an-earnest-discovery-of-climate-causality/
Forget to close the italics html code. I start after the link of course.
From your SAM link:
In addition, the tropical Pacific is predicted to experience more extreme El Niño events during the coming century …
That would be like right now… the 21st century.
They have been blaming El Niño on greenhouse gas warming since the climate shift in 1976/77. Strictly speaking – ‘my’ reference referenced another study and you should really go to the source and assess reliability before relying on it. You might do that before getting back to me.
‘The large pre-industrial trends that are suggested by proxy records
may thus imply that the SAM is more responsive to direct solar forcing than indicated by present climate simulations3, or that the magnitude of solar irradiance changes applied in the Last Millennium simulations is too low24,25. Further modelling studies using the full range of solar irradiance change estimates25 may help to clarify the impact that past solar changes had on the SAM. Alternately, it is possible that proxy-based reconstructions
overestimate the magnitude of long-term changes in the SAM, or that trends in the SAM before anthropogenic greenhouse and ozone forcing were caused by internal variability or other physical process that cannot be resolved in radiative-forcing experiments.’
Upwelling in the north and central is very likely due to a solar trigger. There is a consilience of evidence. It may be that models incorporating solar/UV chemistry may better model SAM. It may be that anthropogenic warming and the ozone hole modify surface pressure responses at the poles. ENSO is a step beyond that. SAM and NAM solar modulated pressure changes at the poles modulate winds and currents in both hemispheres – and what we are looking for is a chaotic trigger. Something that biases the system to more or less upwelling over 20 to 30 year regimes – setting up wind, cloud and current feedbacks across the Pacific and adding up to millennia of extreme and abrupt variation. Solar activity and greenhouse gases influenced climate last century – one is heading steeply down this century.
… north and central Pacific…
Ellison, Istvan and Hansen refuse to answer the question ad nauseam.
Perhaps they don’t even understand it? Alternatively perhaps they understand it all too well?
“Perhaps they don’t even understand it? Alternatively perhaps they understand it all too well?”
Or again alternatively, along with most other posters who are familiar with your wittering, they consider that responding to your provocative, alarmist guff is a waste of useful bandwidth?
Is this a person or a robot?
“Strange I posted a reply to the above some 10 hours ago.”
I was assuming it was because it was so much personalised denigration and hugely off topic – as well as being science free. No one is interested.
Banton – I have just reviewed your comments going back a little. It has confirmed my experience. You take the same hectoring tone routinely with other ‘deniers’. You routinely take the opportunity to reply to my comments with the same complaints and denigration. Please stop it.
I suggested that I was a hydrologist, environmental scientist and hydrodynamical modeler and knew a little about it. In almost those words. You responded with some rant which ended in the ‘rhetorical’ device of ‘who’s got the biggest dick now?’ Almost the first thing you said to me was that I was a trump acolyte with a lack of morals.
From my perspective it appears that very little you say bears any resemblance to what I said. I’m not sure what this means even.
“Re a sig UV/O3/AMOC teleconnection.
There isn’t – as I outlined, giving meteorological reasons why it cannot “happen in the south”, and properly quoting the Nature paper he linked in support, to show that was not what it was saying.
The “lack of comprehension” is on your part Robert.’
The Nature paper was on UV/ozone chemistry initiating surface pressure changes ‘resembling’ the Arctic/North Atlantic Oscillations. There were a couple of other papers – including both model and observational studies linking the oscillations with AMOC.
But there is also a 1000 year Southern Annular Mode (SAM) study above linking solar activity to polar pressure fields – the definition of the SAM index. More than once I have said that it is these polar annular modes that set up wind and current patterns – both north and south in all the oceans. The polar vortices and sudden stratospheric warming are not the phenomenon under consideration.
The Nature paper that I started with in my comment suggested that this UV/ozone mechanism was responsible for 8-10% of blocking events. As I said we are looking for a chaotic trigger – a perhaps small event with large feedbacks – that biases the system to more of less upwelling in the Pacific. It provides a coherent framework for explaining a concilience in disparate data sources. Yes it does seem to be the long suspected terrestrial amplifier of solar activity. Why should I resile – I have been thinking about this for nearly 30 years. Not 10 minutes.
”Side tracked by countering your ad homs and bad manners.
Sorry my friend but those two things are unacceptable in my world.
The mark of the man.
And completely counter to civilised discourse.”
Misdirection and bad faith make any reasonable discourse impossible – and yet it is the original fact of the climate war.
Look at you taking the moral high ground in a highly charged political debate. Not that warmist have an overarching agenda that is is the assertion to power. It’s a common communist tactic. Civilized discourse indeed. That’s why, skeptics have been labeled with a barrage of derogatory terms, I’m sure you are familiar with all of them Robert. Name calling and uncivilized discourse started with denier . It escalated to having us all put in jail for disagreeing.
Where is the scientific paper on Google Scholar that predicts cooling will begin 2018 to 2028… that includes the data and code?
Meanwhile… two months into what could become the 4th warmest year in a row (2014, 2015, 2016, and now possibly 2017)… sea level rise rate has remained above trend for a record period of time… sea ice, etc.
Pray to the sun gawds. Just hilarious. For sum, adding up truth is morally impossible. Dead enders. Spoon benders. The ‘bad (or sick) guy’ CargoCult that climate skepticism has become.
You have misunderstood the meaning of the Nature paper.
It is indeed about a “top-down” UV/O3/AMOC link, that is modelled and not observed and produced 8-10% of blocking events.
So, as I said, it is an effect. Not a driver.
That is what I was referring to all the while you were saying it was irrelevant.
Try reading ithe paper again.
Note the words.
Stratosphere and stratospheric winds.
Which via SSW’s are a part causal influence on producing a -ve NAO and -AO.
Second I have NEVER used Trump in a post via reference to you, nor in any other way.
I never would as that is taking on a pub *argument* whereby no one can win – one persons opinion is just a valid as the others.
Not so with meteorology.
Sorry but my 32 years with the UKMO makes that a given.
Kindly point me to the post where I allegedly mentioned Trump.
You won’t find it.
‘However, variability in ultraviolet solar irradiance has been linked to changes in surface pressure that resemble the Arctic and North Atlantic Oscillations (AO/NAO)8,9,10 and studies of both the 11-year solar cycle11,12 and centennial timescales13 suggest the potential for larger regional effects.’
This is quite clear and you should check out the references – and it is a downward propagating wave as the paper says. Not SSW. And it certainly does happen at the south pole.
You certainly did call me a trump acolyte with moral turpitude. Are you calling me a liar now?
Turning on the vaudeville JCH? Always the clown.
‘A correlation analysis suggests that the changes are dominated primarily by the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), and Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). Our results confirm that dynamically induced variability caused the WTS. The radiatively forced SAT changes are determined mainly by anthropogenic forcing, indicating the warming influence of greenhouse gases (GHGs), which reached levels of 400 ppm during the hiatus period. Therefore, the global SAT will not remain permanently neutral. The increased radiatively forced SAT will be amplified by increased dynamically induced SAT when the natural mode returns to a warming phase in the next period.’ http://www.nature.com/articles/srep12669
That the next period will be warm is a false assumption.
If as suggested here, a dynamically driven climate shift has occurred, the duration of similar shifts during the 20th century suggests the new global mean temperature trend may persist for several decades. Of course, it is purely speculative to presume that the global mean temperature will remain near current levels for such an extended period of time. Moreover, we caution that the shifts described here are presumably superimposed upon a long term warming trend due to anthropogenic forcing. However, the nature of these past shifts in climate state suggests the possibility of near constant temperature lasting a decade or more into the future must at least be entertained. The apparent lack of a proximate cause behind the halt in warming post 2001/02 challenges our understanding of the climate system, specifically the physical reasoning and causal links between longer time-scale modes of internal climate variability and the impact of such modes upon global temperature. Fortunately, climate science is rapidly developing the tools to meet this challenge, as in the near future it will be possible to attribute cause and effect in decadal-scale climate variability within the context of a seamless climate forecast system [Palmer et al., 2008]. Doing so is vital, as the future evolution of the global mean temperature may hold surprises on both the warm and cold ends of the spectrum due entirely to internal variability that lie well outside the envelope of a steadily increasing global mean temperature.’ http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GL037022/full
The 20 to 30 year climate shifts have happened for a 1000 years at least. This is a broad science that I have been following for nearly 30 years – and it is easily enough to get me labeled as a global warming science denier and worse. And I am supposed to bow to Banton’s superios (sarc) knowledge or JCHG’s eccentric reading of the augeries?
The global warming zealot rejects information at odds with the group mediated memes, cannot revise assumptions, disparages outsiders and assumes an overwhelming moral and intellectual superiority. It is classic groupthink of course. These guys illustrate the problem admirably.
“This is quite clear and you should check out the references – and it is a downward propagating wave as the paper says. Not SSW. And it certainly does happen at the south pole.”
And how do you think said “downward propagating wave” is initiated?
In order to induce a -ve OA/-be NAO?
By the Strat PV disrupting via a SSW.
No, it does not happen at the S Pole, for reasons I outlined in my posts to you.
It can have an influence early/late in the Austral winter when the PV is just forming or in concluding it’s end in Spring.
From the Nature paper…
“While these paleoclimatic studies appear largely consistent with our model result that weak solar ultraviolet irradiance can have a significant impact on European winter circulation through ‘top-down’ dynamical forcing, detailed modelling and attribution for these events is beyond the scope of this paper. .
“Beyond the scope of this paper.” …
There is no other mechanism that “top-down” can influence the troposphere in the Arctic and NA to form HP cells.
Hence from ther the link to a weaker driving of warm/salty water driving the,northern arm of the AMOC.
The paper also says in the Discussion….
“However, there is uncertainty in the sign of the AMOC response to declining solar activity, with two recent studies suggesting a relative strengthening, associated with weaker radiative forcing and a possible change in stratosphere–troposphere coupling….
Again I AWAIT the link to my supposed “Trump” post.
It’s not going to happen.
Because there isn’t one.
You said it Robert:
“There is growing evidence that dynamical coupling across the tropopause means that stratospheric changes can influence the underlying troposphere [6, 8] and under some circumstances, robust tropospheric responses are indeed predicted by models. Tropospheric jet streams have been predicted to be sensitive to the solar forcing of the stratosphere [9, 10]. This could occur through disturbances to the stratospheric polar vortex  which are observed to propagate downwards to affect the tropospheric jets . (However, it should be noted that the fact that the disturbances appear first in the stratosphere does not necessarily mean that the stratosphere is driving the troposphere .) Alternatively, solar-induced stratospheric changes may influence the refraction of tropospheric eddies [14, 15]. Models (e.g., ) do predict that perturbations can descend from the stratosphere to the surface by altering the propagation of planetary waves coming up from the surface, an effect that has been reported in observations . Definitive identification of these ‘top-down’ solar influences on the troposphere is difficult; however, models show that the stratosphere has the potential to play a crucial role in regional climates. For example, Scaife et al  have demonstrated that stratospheric trends over recent decades, along with downward links to the surface, are indeed strong enough to explain much of the prominent trend in the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) between the 1960s and the 1990s, with implications for regional climate in Europe, particularly in winter. Effects have also been identified in the southern hemisphere .” http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/5/3/034008/meta
Just repeating yourself as nauseum without any actual referencing means sfa,
Now go away and try to understand the real issues and not the ones you imagine.
I will go away when you link me to my supposed “Trump” *comment*.
Or alternatively when you say there wasn’t one.
Oh as a nice accommodating guy, always willing to help people learn – here are some links whereby you can fill the void of your knowledge re “downwelling waves” …. caused by SSW’s.
Found that “Trump” post of mine yet Robert?
I just feel I need to make it yet again that it is the polar annular modes that drive winds and ocean currents. Surface pressure in high latitudes is what the annular modes are defined by. There is considerable scientific for solar UV/ozone chemistry link to surface even if the teleconnection is stil under investigation.
… surface pressure… and I am in the business of searching for Trump – I would be here all day. It is something I remember and it is all of a pattern with the Banton’s behaviour – hectoring and bullying aside.
… not in the business of searching comments for trump…
When my syntax disintegrates it is time to give it a rest.
Just one thing – science is not about semantic deconstruction of the language of a specific study – but about the data and putting it into a theoretical construct to discern the underlying meaning. The language of a paper is not definitive – nor can it be – but are inferences drawn from data. The essence of Newtonian truth – or near truth. Deciding how near is only possible on putting it in a broad context.
The problem with much climate science is that it is a Procrustean bed. The reasons for that are varied – they include genuflecting to a form of words just to get published. There is also the risk of public opprobrium from the collective of global warming zealots and otherwise to careers.
The problem with zealots it is only the semantic picking over of the corpse of science.
“… not in the business of searching comments for trump….”
Then I am “not in the business”
Of treating you with respect Robert.
You make an unsubstantiated accusation.
*Alternative facts* (?)
Someone else did that recently.
Here are the 2 relevant subjects that our *discussion* has spanned….
This one, and ….
Wot you do is “control F” on a Win Device or if on IOS device just type into search bar “Trump” or acolyte” or actually just “Tony Banton” and click on – Find “….”.
And voila there you have a very short list of just 6 mentions of my (full) name). One of which is in the side-bar.
… as opposed to – Mmmm let’s see, ah…..
Heck Robert – it says “over 100”.
And you accuse me of “spiel”.
And these all without you dealing with critical responses with consideration.
You obviously think everyone is just waiting with bated breath on your latest pearls of wisdom.
Followed up on those links is yet?
Done that search yet?
Really Robert, my posts are small beer on there and you would find any mention of “Trump” or “acolyte” in under 30 secs.
I know as I’ve tried … and come up blank.
Would you care to confirm please?
Is this a person or a robot?
Was that remark addressed to me? If so I’m definitely a person, although I do know a few “robots”. Here are my questions again, although they are a trifle off topic in here:
You have yet to present any evidence at all on Arctic ice extent and temperature in the 1940’s
Maybe we can get on to that topic in due course, since I like to think of the Arctic as my specialist subject, but for the umpteenth time, the title of [that] thread mentions “Alternative Facts” but not the “Arctic”. I assume Rud introduced the latter as a specific example of a more general principle? Any chance we can discuss the general principle, perhaps referring to the Arctic as a specific example if that helps clarify matters? Which it doesn’t seem to be doing at the moment!
Your ‘psychological experiment’ is more than a little creepy.
It was sarcasm You see robots are good at trivial and repetitive tasks.
Your Trump comment specific to me was moderated out. Seems to be a habit with you. Content free disparagement.
It is referred sarcastically to here.
It proves to me that I wasn’t mistaking you for someone else in my recollection. Ring a bell in your selective memory?
BTW – I’d guess most of the hundred comments there would be me laughing at Jimmy D’s circuitous logic in the face of actual data – and wondering how long he could keep it up. Childish I know – but everyone needs a hobby.
“Your Trump comment specific to me was moderated out. Seems to be a habit with you. Content free disparagement. .
Ah, nice get out Robert but still wrong.
A “with one bound free” swerve, via it being moderated out, eh?
FYI: I don’t lie.
I never posted a comment with reference to Trump in my *discussion* with you.
With this response you continue to build my already considerable contempt for you.
“It is referred sarcastically to here.
“But this is a right wing rant by a Trump acolyte – right?”
That was your comment made of me (presumably). I did not make it.
It no way proves I made similar of yourself.
Have you finally understood what the Nature paper was saying?
That you spent many ad hom containing posts trying to deny to me.
Seems to me you have difficulty all around with reality.
So well done.
I cannot prove that it was not moderated out.
However we could ask our host to investigate.
Would you be agreeable?
Those following this will know however.
You have evidenced in your *discussion* with me a distinct lack, of what in my mind is one of the most basic things that maketh the man.
It was a sarcastic reply to your comment. On that I am clear and I am always honest.
And no I am not agreeable – you have wasted enough of everyone’s time here.
“It was a sarcastic reply to your comment. On that I am clear and I am always honest.”
It was a sarcastic comment to SOMEONES comment, on that I gratnt you are being honest.
However it was not mine.
Your refusal to give ground and admit it was not mine is what makes you “dishonest” on this occasion.
That you should resort to it being “moderated out” is contemptable.
“And no I am not agreeable – you have wasted enough of everyone’s time here.”
I know you are not “agreeable” (that is a sarcastic comment from me).
That must be obvious to every one following this by now.
However the only one wasting “everyone’s time” is your sarcastic self.
It is you that asserted that a paper said things that it plainly did not.
Discovered by simple dint of reading it fully and with background knowledge of the subject.
FYI: Explaining the correct interpretation of the science is not wasting people’s time, unless we are resorting the “alt fact” universe that is seemingly taking over the world.
Facts are facts there are no alternatives and placing your biased interpretation on them is not acceptable.
So perhaps instead of thread-bombing here to flood peeps with the benefit of you omniscience in climate science (again Sarc), then perhaps instead you might do more listening to those that correct you, instead of reflexively resorting to denial (general sense) and Ad Hom.
As I said beneath contempt my friend.
TaTa (unless you add a further reply)
I am not reading anything more from you. I have seen too many of your comments. I don’r believe you at all. I don’t think your that you have anything worthwhile to say on science. Your entire argument is based on narrative with no basis for an appreciation of a broad science required to appreciate the known and unknown of climate change. Indeed – I find nothing of any interest in anything you say. You merely repeat the same assertion based not on real science but on the logical fallacy of an appeal to your own authority. It is ludicrous.
You have indulged in serial hectoring and bullying of many ‘deniers’ here. I am not the first to identify your misdirection and bad faith. Enough is enough.
“I won’t be reading any more from you”
Fine by me.
“I don’r believe you at all. I don’t think your that you have anything worthwhile to say on science.”
Of course you don’t believe me.
Of course I have nothing “worthwhile” to “say” on science. You preferred version of it that is.
A self-fulfilling prophecy my friend
There are a few like you out there in the Blogosphere.
The greater the expertise in the science someone has – then more contempt the naysayer has for him/her.
It’s quite, quite obvious, mere common sense (sarc) that I do not know of which I talk re meteorology.
After all the whole of climate science is incompetent and/or fraudulent (more Sarc) and you are are merely dispensing the brilliance of your intellect.
You will not bully me with your false allegations, and ad Homs.
“Your entire argument is based on narrative with no basis for an appreciation of a broad science required to appreciate the known and unknown of climate change.”
My *argument* with you stems from your ignorance of a particular meteorological mechanism and a wilfully incorrect interpretation of a Nature paper.
Look to yourself first and do NOT be insulting, insisting you know more of that persons professional expertise than he himself.
“Indeed – I find nothing of any interest in anything you say. You merely repeat the same assertion based not on real science but on the logical fallacy of an appeal to your own authority. It is ludicrous.”
The above stands Robert.
If you hadn’t doubled down on your confirmation bias borne of arrogant hubris then you would have seen that you were misinterpreting the Nature paper.
I did not appeal to my own authority, I merely told you yours was not superior (via my background).
I patiently explained the mechanism with quotes from the paper showing your interpretation was wrong AND with linked SCIENCE telling of what that paper was demonstrating VIA effects that were “beyond the scope” of the paper.
However, I’m sure you will thread-bomb on here to benefit others of your omniscience.
I will engage if I see further meteorological falsehoods from you.
It seems that you just want to lecture/hector?
That will gain you a lot of friends, even on a contrarian blog.
A run-on, cut-and-paste witch doctor. I have no doubt many of the scientists he copies and pastes usually wince in pain every time he does it.
Yes I do quote many studies.
Reblogged this on The Ratliff Notepad.
If the science is settled, we don’t need any more research, we can de-fund it and fire the scientists. It will save millions
Say, we’ve gone as far as we can go?
Arrest all change? Plato will be pleased.
“Exactly what are scientists marching ‘for’?”
To go back in time.
Pingback: Judith Curry: Exactly What Are Scientists Marching ‘For’? | The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
The remarks from Jim Gates are powerful and profound.
Yes, and his almost instantaneous backing off from almost all of his remarks undercuts the whole thing. He appears to have been manipulated by a master manipulator. The kangaroo kourt in kongress will be a kirkus.
Reblogged this on CraigM350 and commented:
Andrea Saltelli has written a superb piece on the March, from the perspective on Polanyi’s Republic of Science. Well worth reading
So because scientists are bad people they shouldn’t march until they get their house in order. Get back in your ivory towers and this time we will chain them in from the outside.
Never mind that scientists also enjoy the provisions of the 1st amendment to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for redress.
It’s just more smear smear smear. They’re green; they’re socialists; they’re products of tribal evolution… it’s just plain insane.
“So because scientists are bad people they shouldn’t march until they get their house in order. ”
When scientists combine flawed science with a political agenda is greatly lessens the creditability of the overall science community to reach conclusions that the public will accept.
The scientific questions of:
a. how much will human released CO2 warm the planet and
b. how might the climate and sea level change as a result of “a”
morphed into a propaganda campaign promoting the notion that the science supported the notion that all climate change is the result of human released CO2 and that all changes to the planet’s climate are negative.
The truth is that the science on point “a” is narrowing but still highly uncertain and that science has no reliable data to predict “b”
“They’re green; they’re socialists; they’re products of tribal evolution… it’s just plain insane.”
I agree. Greens, socialists, and evolutionists are insane.
You should do some research into past climates and the sea levels associated with the warmer climates that existed in previous times.
Remember, correlation does not mean causation
Right Rob, you think you are so smart that you have to remind me that correlation does not mean causation.
But the point you missed was that warmer periods and higher sea levels are correlated, no matter what the cause.
So if doubling CO2 causes 1.2 degrees of temperature rise, we get about 1 meter sea level rise, but if doubling CO2 gives about 3 degrees of temperature rise, we get a bit more, about what we got during the last interglacial.
Remember, thinking that if the same warming occurred in the past and cause x amount of sea level rise, that the same amount of warming now will not cause any sea level rise is the definition of insanity.
and you are missing the higher co2 levels and warmer periods are correlation, not neccesarily causation.
we don’t know what caused what, all we know is that historically co2, warmer periods, and higher sea levels roughly correlate (I’ve seen some graphs showing co2 levels lagging the other items)
I just consulted the American Psychiatric Association Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) and could find no such definition.
“1.2 degrees….. we get about 1 meter of sea level rise….”
> “1.2 degrees….. we get about 1 meter of sea level rise….”
and since they are claiming we’ve seen 0.7 degees of increase since the 1950s, we should have close to two feet of sea level rise. where are the examples of that?
It’s neither linear nor instantaneous. For example, 4 C melts both ice-caps and gives us 70 meters of sea-level rise, but not all immediately.
One glaciologist was quoted that it could take 7,000 years. That should give everyone time to move to Denver.
At what point does the entire mindset move back from the absurd ? Some thought in 1990 New York City would be under water by now. I’m building up a dossier on all failed predictions. In a decade it will be too heavy to carry.
Canal St. in NYC under 20 ft. of water by 2010. ( I shouldn’t bait the trolls, ” is not, it was 2013)
I was going to start a file on ” it’s worse than we thought ” .
Sea-level rise rates coming out of the last Ice Age occasionally exceeded 10 feet per century, and this would be a much sharper kick in temperature than any previously. Part of this rapid melting scenario involves Europe cooling somewhat for a while as the AMOC is halted.
You are losing it Bob. But perhaps I should cut you some slack. A nephew who is a scientist has some of the same MSM generated opinions on Trump. His Uncles all told him he’s naive. But we still love and respect him. So I’m going to assume you are young and therefore naive. Beats the alternative.
The cause is the properties of CO2 that absorb and emit infrared radiation.
So there is correlation and causation, the not necessarily being false.
“we don’t know what caused what” Yeah we do!
Claiming correlation is not causation, when there is a physical cause puts you in the clown car.
There are clearly people who disagree with the concept that CO2 is THE simple knob that regulates the temp of the earth.
Cites for all
The science daily link speaks of Sea Levels 129,000 years ago that were 6 to 9 meters higher
than today but with similar temperatures. So, where’s our 6 to 9 meters?
Also, the same paper notes differences in temperatures in the two
hemispheres. Critics of the MWP say
that it wasn’t uniformly warm, much as some data show today. This may be a reality of global warm periods and this criticism of MWP sounds discredited after considering this paper and the current warming.
I am neither young nor naïve.
I seem to remember you were also in the service and work in nuclear power same as me.
I sailed under the ice with guys off of the Bus. Now I don’t recall if those guys were some of the ones who made the original historic voyage, but that’s a clue to how old I am.
As to the MSM, I do watch a variety of news channels including FOX, but what I get of Trump is directly from his speeches, maybe the MSM has a doppelganger they put up there in an attempt to sway voters.
I thought dear Hillary would be in jail by now.
Want a bet on who wears the bracelets first Donald or Hillary?
Your over zealous belief that AGW will lead to disastrous results seem to lead you to accept many correlations of data that support your belief but reject those that do not.
“So if doubling CO2 causes 1.2 degrees of temperature rise, we get about 1 meter sea level rise”
There is no reliable data to show that such a temperature rise will result such a rise in sea level. Over the last 25 years there has not been any significant increase in the rate of sea level rise while there has been warming. The current rate of rise has been occurring for hundreds of years.
At any particular location, it is far more likely that changes in land height greatly dominate the changes in sea level. If someone is worried about sea level rise- they should be building robust infrastructure to protect their coast. That is the most reliable means of protecting against damage. If you look at very long term information, sea level appears to be near historical lows so it does seem reasonable that it will rise.
Bob- There are limited financial resources that need to be spent wisely. We have no reliable information to know how or where the climate will change as a function of increasing levels of CO2 or that the climate will be significantly worse at 500 ppm than at 400 ppm or 280 ppm. If changes occur fairly gradually infrastructure IS the best reaction.
“The current rate of rise has been occurring for hundreds of years. ”
Horse manure, I think you need to provide a cite for this.
From the article:
“…their own intellectual satisfaction, scientists help society to achieve the goal of “self-improvement”.”
Scientists in this context encompass almost anyone who wants to improve society. Maybe we need to revert back to: science is a process of inquiry. The scientific method is used in that process. Wiki has a cartoon defining the scientific method. Nowhere does the scientific method include taking the news to the masses.
What caught my eye from the article was the beginning of the above quote: “…their own intellectual satisfaction,..” Highly individualistic, self-absorbed one might say, yet, the inspiration and the motivation to keep digging is carried on the shoulders of the scientist, where, I believe, it belongs.
A long time ago, as a grad student myself, I had walked by an open door to a lab, lighted inside only by the daylight coming through the windows, and there stood the Chairman of the Department by a lab bench, pipet in hand measuring out some fluid to be added to guinea pig heart muscle tissue in a temperature controlled bath. He was alone, with his experiment and recording smoked drum. No one was doing his research but himself. His career rose or fell on these results; his own intellectual satisfaction.
This scenario is not how I portrayed academic science of today, up thread on March 5th. We seem to have lost our way, at least in the values represented in investigating something that has tweeted our imagination. Taking the time to query an observation as we hustle through our day.
Put this in the wrong place. My comment there disappeared???
Climatedebatedaily.com turns a blind eye to the Sun and takes off in a huff of sarcasm !
Hopefully the editors will now admit global warming is nothing but he left versus right issue and has nothing to do with science.
Here’s something to be marching against on Earth Day. The EPA is scrapping a rule to keep track of methane emissions. Methane was one of the so-called no-regrets fast measures on this blog and in various op-eds. Not so much for Pruitt.
No, significant methane growth is from anthropogenic causes like farming practices and leakages from gas and oil operations. This is a component of the anthropogenic forcing change that could be about 10%. Natural emissions may be rising in response to warming, but so far are not the main growth.
Learn the difference between growth and total emission sources.
A shallow impoundment dam releases huge amounts of methane. Biological decomposition dwarfs human activities. So while humans may be driving the increases, those increases are marginal to the total.
Also Pruitt doesn’t believe warming has much to do with CO2. This is what you get when you put the swamp creatures in charge.
It’s an interesting interlude. My unofficial transcription:
Q: Do you believe, that it’s been proven, that CO2 is the primary control knob for climate? Do you believe that?
A: “I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see. But we don’t know that yet. We need to continue the debate, continue the review and analysis.
Many facets within.
First, there is a mismatch between the question and the answer.
The question is about proof and control knob for climate.
The answer is about global warming, then a caveat of what we do and don’t know and then a call for continued analysis.
My response (after more reflection than an interview might offer ) might have been:
“There likely will never be complete, unequivocal proof of attribution of any trends in the atmosphere. However, it is likely that increased CO2 causes increased global temperature. But global temperature is not climate. The questions then become about: extent, marginal changes to climate ( storms, precipitation, extremes – and change is from a base, not zero ), risk-benefit ratio from such assessments and perhaps most importantly, the secular changes in global CO2 emissions.
The extent of warming has been lower than the low end of past modeled projections. Changes to climate have been correspondingly small. Many of these changes would appear to convey benefit to humanity ( reduced storm intensity from reduced kinetic energy, reduces variability, etc. ) beyond the direct benefit of the energy and fertilization of crops. And 75% of global CO2 emissions are from countries with lower ( and falling ) total fertility rates, which will perpetuate the already falling global CO2 emissions rate, perhaps making dictates unnecessary.”
That’s how I might have answered.
My answer is that it would be stupid to have the world reach 600 or 700 ppm by the end of the century. We need to be slowing down and stopping with the fossil fuels, and be doing it already.
Why? we know that plants will grow much better in 600-700ppm of CO2, what’s the known downside?
How many meters of sea-level rise would give you pause? That’s just one. Change increases the frequency of extreme events that affect or even destroy vulnerable communities. Think of the heatwaves in France some years back. They were not prepared even though those temperatures were typical of India. It’s not the temperature, but the rate of change that causes the problems. Similarly floods, droughts, storms, coastal issues.
The $20T debt means we may be running out of our grandchildren’s money to spend.
Nevertheless, I would contribute to funding for monitoring methane emissions from the colossal, potentially unstable, methane clathrate stores under the East Siberian Arctic Shelf.
The source of the ongoing emissions is from a layer affected by the 6,000 year warm pulse which occurred during the Holocene Climactic Optimum. So, while it’s not necessarily a concern due to current warming, drilling activity there is a potential issue for me.
Perhaps we should organize a counter march starting and proceeding in opposite direction. Wearing tinfoil hats with a ‘hockey stick’ over our shoulder.
Seriously, if they want to restore the integrity of Science, they should display a sign of humility, admit that they were ‘over enthusiastic’ in their misplaced concern for the planet and boldly reassert and rededicate themselves to the basic tenants or real science.
CO2 brings no additional energy to the equation. It can only slow the 15u radiation by a maximum of 2 watts/m2 which the earth in its own random chaotic way will compensate for by accumulating a constant solar input until it has raised its temperature (over a 100 year period) with the constant water vapor available to restore this 2 watts with a temperature rise of 0.5C. There is no additional energy available to evaporate more water vapor and no mechanism for CO2 to modulate the solar energy input to do so. (positive feedback via water evaporation loops with phantom energy is no different than the ‘back radiation’ phantom energy imagined by Hansen 30 years ago.)
Thermalization and the Maxwell-Boltzmann velocity distribution of gas molecules explain why CO2 has no significant effect on climate. A potentially larger threat to humanity than failing to recognize that CO2 has no significant effect on climate is failing to acknowledge what actually does.
Water vapor (WV) is the ghg which makes the planet warm enough for life as we know it. The WV trend is up as reported by NASA/RSS as shown in Fig 3 of http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com. This analysis provides the explanation of why CO2 has no significant effect on climate and identifies what does (98% match with measured average global temperatures 1895-2015)
Back-of-envelope type calculations revealed for the planet:
All energy, including all fossil fuels and all cooling towers adds about 2E13 kg WV/yr.
Irrigation contributes about 250E13 kg WV/yr or about 100 times as much as everything else combined.
The increased WV should result in increased low altitude clouds countering the increased ‘greenhouse’ effect from the added WV. The high sensitivity of average global temperature to clouds is calculated at http://lowaltitudeclouds.blogspot.com
EPA method of calculating global warming potential (apparently adopted by IPCC) is bizarrely wrong. Duration cancels out. Some of the mistakes of the Consensus are discussed here: http://consensusmistakes.blogspot.com
I think Judith Curry is pointing in the right direction with regard to the mix of science and politics, but I think how the mix actually occurs with regards to climate science is important to at least postulate.
Climate scientists can certainly remain or appear to remain above the political fray by publishing papers that omit extensive sensitivity testing that might well make their conclusions from the evidence presented much less uncertain. It appears that a paper with the “correct” message is not likely to be rejected for omitted analyses when in many cases the reviews concentrate on the analyses and evidence reported in the paper.
The second step on getting this message to the public is for journalists who might themselves be looking for the “correct” message to report the papers analysis and without, either through the lack of technical abilities, laziness or biases, attempting to find any weaknesses in the paper. In fact more often one will see only corroboration of the analyses by another scientist who in turn is not pointing what might have been ignored in the way of sensitivity testing or might not even be qualified to make a judgment on the papers topic.
This process works very much in favor of what is presented and to the politician works very much like a lawyer presenting the facts that favor his client but without anyone presenting the facts and evidence on the other side – which is how partisan politics works.
I too frequently see climate related papers that essentially get what is presented right, but where a few well chosen sensitivity tests or better analysis show the paper in a very different light.
The March could still be salvaged if it were converted to the Poster Session on the Mall. Scientists could present to the public what their research is about and what interesting things they have discovered. Those who chose to set up propaganda sites would get the self-selected audience they seek, but others could reach out to the general public. But the entire messaging would have to change so that neutrals and Trump supporters would be attracted to show up without fear.
Stupidity annoys me and this is nothing but stupidity. Science can not be done by public demonstration of how easily so-called “climate scientists” can be propagandized by political movements.. This is of course an anti-Trump movement as was the campaign to hide data from the incoming Trump administration. Both are irresponsible. As for hiding data, it may not necessarily be all political but could also involve a fair proportion of attempts to hide data manipulation that IPCC and similar organizations have practiced.
Invite the public to spout ignorant blather without correction by a scientist who knows better — as is the case here? Is that what you mean, Judtih?, How’s that working?
The goal appears to be purely political, so it’s worked very well.
Yep, because as we all know, the public is always ignorant. Particularly when compared against people such as yourself Steven.
Perhaps those of us under educated types should band together and send you a thank you card for doing our thinking for us.
Off topic – but on the topic of respect for the power of ideas to solve human problems. If wee willie had an iota of the wisdom of Nobel Prize winner in economics Elinor Ostrom – he might not be such a serial pest.
“IT SEEMED to Elinor Ostrom that the world contained a large body of common sense. People, left to themselves, would sort out rational ways of surviving and getting along. Although the world’s arable land, forests, fresh water and fisheries were all finite, it was possible to share them without depleting them and to care for them without fighting. While others wrote gloomily of the tragedy of the commons, seeing only overfishing and overfarming in a free-for-all of greed, Mrs Ostrom, with her loud laugh and louder tops, cut a cheery and contrarian figure.
Years of fieldwork, by herself and others, had shown her that humans were not trapped and helpless amid diminishing supplies. She had looked at forests in Nepal, irrigation systems in Spain, mountain villages in Switzerland and Japan, fisheries in Maine and Indonesia. She had even, as part of her PhD at the University of California, Los Angeles, studied the water wars and pumping races going on in the 1950s in her own dry backyard.
All these cases had taught her that, over time, human beings tended to draw up sensible rules for the use of common-pool resources. Neighbours set boundaries and assigned shares, with each individual taking it in turn to use water, or to graze cows on a certain meadow. Common tasks, such as clearing canals or cutting timber, were done together at a certain time. Monitors watched out for rule-breakers, fining or eventually excluding them. The schemes were mutual and reciprocal, and many had worked well for centuries.” http://www.economist.com/node/21557717
All in all an optimistic message as opposed to the dystopian gloomings of a relatively ignorable cultist.
Yet Ostrom’s framework can help answer the rhetorical question of the current headline better than our Denizens’ self-serving crap.
Try applying Ostrom’s concepts to a mere march, Chief. We’ll see later if we really can scale her solution to bigger problems like AGW.
Here, have some linky for now:
The concept of property still remains libertarianism’s Achilles heel.
I’m never really sure if it means anything at all.
Solve the current headline?
Apply principles of management of commons to marches?
Properties is an Achilles heel?
And a cutesy ‘linky’ to something that seems to suggest that there are no commons.
A few ‘linkys’ that are perhaps more relevant.
That’s all the ‘linkys’ we are allowed at CE but there are many more. This is the way to save the world wee willie – and I can’t help thinking that your urban doofus hipster posturing – writ quasi large at the march – is utterly inconsequential.
> Solve the current headline?
Yes, “Exactly what are scientists marching ‘for’” can be answered using Ostrom’s framework. Here’s a decent outline:
Search for “strategies.”
> Apply principles of management of commons to marches?
Reducing Ostrom’s framework to principles of management would be a bit silly.
> Properties is an Achilles heel?
The concept of property, not properties.
> And a cutesy ‘linky’ to something that seems to suggest that there are no commons.
That linky rather argue that the commons ain’t the same as partnership arrangements, and one of Ostrom’s basic assumption behind her modulz to solve the tragedy of the commons need(s) revision. If you prefer a quote:
Thank you for the useless linkies, Chief.
> Solve the current headline?
Yes, “Exactly what are scientists marching ‘for’” can be answered using Ostrom’s framework. Here’s a decent outline:
“In her quest to achieve a creative synthesis, Ostrom cultivates a critical but constructive relationship with the theory of rational choice. At different levels of analysis she accepts, rejects, improves and revises the achievements of the theory. Ostrom constructs a syntax and grammar of institutions using the methods of the theory of rational choice. Moreover, she incorporates the method into a realistic theoretical program that helps represent individuals and society consistently across scientific disciplines. To address diverse, complex problems, says Ostrom, the social sciences need to use multiple methods and theories. Indeed, the rational choice theory is just one theory within a much broader family of theories.”
So the march is a way to solve complex social dilemmas according to wee willie. It is in fact more clearly at the simple competitive political end of the spectrum – where game theory applies.
Apply principles of management of commons to marches?
Reducing Ostrom’s framework to principles of management would be a bit silly.
Yes it is lot silly wee wilie.
Properties is an Achilles heel?
The concept of property, not properties.
The concept of properties suggests… ?
And a cutesy ‘linky’ to something that seems to suggest that there are no commons.
That linky rather argue that the commons ain’t the same as partnership arrangements, and one of Ostrom’s basic assumption behind her modulz to solve the tragedy of the commons need(s) revision.
And yes I did read the abstract. It seems rather simplistic. Hardin’s solution to the tragedy of the commons btw was to make everything private. It is more likely to devolve into government control with the worst of all possible outcomes. Ostrom solution is to empower collectives to manage problems of the commons.
The problem with the progressive is the unswerving belief that they can better everything from on high.
Ostrum’s much more subtle bottom-up approach involves adaptive governance at many scales but with landscape management at the level of the tribe, clan, collective, cooperative, etc.
It is the critical process for development, food security and biodiversity conservation. And the ‘silly linkies’ I provided show on ground realisations of collective action based on informed communities of stakeholders at the landscape scale.
I think wee willie is now suggesting that I don’t understand Elinor Ostrom. That’s clearly the case but I read exceptionally widely and keep an open mind. Or alternatively that voluntary partnerships – on aquifer management for instance – is something different to the landscape level collective management of common pool resources. Or that privatising (nationalising?) everything will solve all problems. Not sure really – but I am sure that I don’t give a rat’s arse.
> The concept of properties suggests… ?
> So the march is a way to solve complex social dilemmas according to
Not really, Chief. Try again. This time, make an effort to search for “strategies.”
Wee willies first ‘linky’ suggests that contractually enforced partnerships for common pool resource management is somehow different to rules spontaneously evolved. Some of these rules systems have worked for centuries. There is no reason why rules evolved through the collective (or partnership) can’t be contractually enforced. They – in other – confuse the end state with the process by which it is arrived at.
The second is an academic exercise putting Ostrom into a context of simple versus complex sociological frameworks. Fine as far as it goes – Ostrom combines the two.
“What role does the theory of rational choice play in the scientific evolution of the work of Elinor Ostrom? Ostrom accepts, rejects, and makes critical improvements to the prior achievements of the theory of rational choice, in the pursuit of a “creative synthesis.” She proposes that this theory can be used i) to study not only competitive situations involving the exchange of private goods, but also social dilemmas; ii) to construct a syntax and grammar of institutions; iii) to develop a broader concept of rationality; and iv) to integrate this theory into a realistic concept of individuals and social structures.”
Ostrom’s objective was to study these collective actions and to evolve principles of institutional design to apply more widely to complex social dilemmas in diverse real world contexts.
This is the global key to development, food security and biodiversity. It also enables sequestration of 350 billion tonnes of C02 as 100 billion tonnes of carbon.
> ‘linky’ suggests that contractually enforced partnerships for common pool resource management is somehow different to rules spontaneously evolved.
A quote might be nice, Chief.
Here’s one: “Our claim is that she has not properly distinguished between a commons and partnership
This claim doesn’t imply that “that contractually enforced partnerships for common pool resource management is somehow different to rules spontaneously evolved,” whatever that means. It might actually imply the opposite. Ostrom’s concept of commons is a different form of governance than government control or private property. The authors reject that idea.
Handwaving stuff around won’t help you this time, Chief. Read harder.
“How to study nested hierarchical social systems, systems within systems? How to integrate in the explanation the human ability to use a complex moral cognitive system to organize his behavior? What theory is required to understand the structure and evolution of uncertain and complex social dilemmas? How to create diagnostic theories in order to identify combination of rules, community attributes and the biophysical world? Ideally, Poteete, Janssen and Ostrom stresses, a realistic approach, ontologically founded, indicating the extent or degree of complexity required by the theory. “Ontological frameworks provide an analytic strategy to recognize the complexity without being overwhelmed by it.”
But I don’t need to search for strategy – I read the whole thing. It is not an overview as such but puts it into the theoretical context. Fair enough but mostly only of academic interest. Ostrom’s is the unifying field theory of sociology.
And of course properties may just be the plural of property.
> I don’t need to search for strategy – I read the whole thing.
Yet you still fail to even identify the proper parts of Ostrom’s framework.
This time, Chief, don’t just type, but think – what would be a valid reason to (choose to) march, according to Ostrom?
Your latest copy-paste doesn’t answer that question.
The march is purely political and can be explained by game theory. All can all of wee willies comments.
“As with any concept in economics, there is the assumption of rationality. There is also an assumption of maximization. It is assumed that players within the game are rational and will strive to maximize their payoffs in the game.” http://www.investopedia.com/articles/financial-theory/08/game-theory-basics.asp#ixzz4ayBVEwPJ
There is a limited assumption of rationality – because irrationality will get them wiped off the board.
Game theory is of course at one end of Ostrum’s theorry. At the other end is partnerships, cooperatives, etc. in which rules are evolved to solve complex social dilemmas. His ‘linky’ says that partnerships and collectives are different. But it is the rules of institutional design that is the critical point.
1. Define clear group boundaries.
2. Match rules governing use of common goods to local needs and conditions.
3. Ensure that those affected by the rules can participate in modifying the rules.
4. Make sure the rule-making rights of community members are respected by outside authorities.
5. Develop a system, carried out by community members, for monitoring members’ behavior.
6. Use graduated sanctions for rule violators.
7. Provide accessible, low-cost means for dispute resolution.
8. Build responsibility for governing the common resource in nested tiers from the lowest level up to the entire interconnected system.
I can only thick that wee willie imagines that the complex social dilemma is ‘teh donald’. It is really just alternative politics he hates. It is the group memes he is really defending against the outsider.
Thanks for playing wee willie – but you have demonstrated my point.
Once again, Chief’s beliefs are being confirmed without the need to think things through.
That’s why he’s the Chief after all.
Come on guys. This thread has been dominated by two separate epic feuds which is of little interest to the rest of us.
Have a look at these even more epic feuds from history;
Then perhaps it would be nice if those involved in this current bout of CE feuding could them move on to more interesting things, including science.
Come on, TonyB. Chief is back and PhilJ decided to take Don Don’s place.
Nothing less of epic will do.
Here’s what’s in my hand:
Signaling dignified silence may not trump this. Who knows?
Best of luck.
It is of course an asymmetrical discourse. And it is not about science at all. Ultimately it is only about being more and clever and morally sound than deniers. We are of course the declared outsiders – who include 1000’s of respected climate scientists. Including Judith Curry of course. It is ridicule and disparagement all the way down. Surely you have realised that by now?
In the end it is little more than a millennialist movement such as the world has seen many time. Including the marchers.
This is by the way a sociological topic – Tony – and exploring the dynamics of the local doofuses is a way to explore the motivations of the collective of dofuses at the march.
Perhaps in a technical thread I can continue to make solidly referenced technical comments. Which will be inevitably responded to by claims that I don’t understand plain English or that the authors wince when they see me coming.
I plan on marching — with a sign that says something like “Science is about skepticism” — or something to that effect. Maybe, “Love Science, Not Partisans” or “Fund Reality Checks, Not Hysteria.” Anything other suggestions? From San Diego — in advance of the Comic Con Convention in July
Being a skeptical kind of guy what’s your best guess as to why the Great Barrier Reef is experiencing it’s second mass bleaching event within a year?
Try news.google.com and search for “Great Barrier Reef” and post a link that explains that this is entirely just a natural event.
As an Aussie commenting as early info on bleach II comes in, pls be aware that this Great Barrier Reef matter has a high virtue signalling content here as many locals think the GBR is ahead of the other 7 wonders of the modern world.
One needs to weigh the observations and especially the public commentary by the several players, some of whom seem more rigorously scientific than others. Beware of early forecasts of extents of bleaching (an even of definitions of bleaching). Some observers seem in the past to have made early area estimates by looking out of aircraft windows on reef overflights. (We had an offer from Uri Geller to find us new oil fields that way, but we declined both the use of our bizjet and the large fee.)
In other words, approach this GBR breaking news with scepticism. The woods are full of creatures this time around as other icons of global warming are being removed from the inventory of green threats as they turn out to be non-events. Much hope for catastrophe is pinned on the GBR. And the happy guys researching it have just been dropped ar promised a big bundle of Federal Gov’t $$$.
I have never visited the GBR but back in the early 70s I spent several months in the central american country of Belize where I explored their extensive reef system and Mayan ruins. I returned to Belize and visited many of the same locations that I had 35 years ago and I was sorry to find many of the cays and reefs I had dived and fished at were nearly unrecognizable. Pollution, and commercial development had pretty much ruined the original eco-system. Belize finally set aside several large areas for reef conservation about 8 years ago but it’s too late for about 70% of the reef. I know this is just anecdotal information and I’m not a biologist but I was there, I took pictures and the changes were striking.
You know even if was true that AGW was mainly responsible for the increasing frequency of these bleaching events nobody thinks your government is going to spend any serious money to address the multiple stress vectors disrupting the reefs: extreme temperatures, pollution, invasive species, over fishing, dredging, the list is long. Why waste money on fighting a problem that is impossible to stop? Or as our pentagon likes to say it’s just “collateral damage”.
Speaking of money I want to extend a hearty thanks for the 17 billion dollars you are sending to America for buying our F-35 war planes. Don’t you find it a bit humiliating that your military is just a puppet of our government?
Wow – you should be thankful someone is buying US goods. Frankly – it’s the most expensive weapons platform ever build – is coming for cheap – and critical components will be Australia sourced. It was a hard headed decision – and you should understand that regional economic relations – including with China – and regional strategic alliances are much more important to us than the US alliance. The era of PAX Americana is over. What’s his name seems to have seriously silly opinion.
The reef is in fact the best cared for in the world.
The 2016 bleaching has been and gone – and most of the reef has recovered just fine. They say that 25% of corals in the far northern section have died – with little damage elsewhere. It will be recolonised relatively quickly.
It was due to a transient temperature spike caused by El Nino. 2017 patchy bleaching is in the more southerly coastal reef I believe. Due to the La Nina Modiki. I noted anomalous local ocean temps on the TV news. Nowhere near the same temps as 2016.
There are a couple of issues for the future.
1. How quickly will El Nino activity decline from it’s 1000 year high last century.
And I will leave the others to your imaginations – because these people are not about either science or policy.
Oh – forgot. The private sector spends much more than $200 million a year on it.
My statement that the march was entirely political emerges from my denier mindset of course. The marchers have an ethical and intellectual superiority that squarely places the march in the polycentric governance framework of Elinor Ostrom – rather than as a tragedy of the commons. The latter is of course entirely the fault of deniers. The principle involved in the former is that anything sciency is their thingy. The corollary is that rules codified in a contract means that the resource becomes private property rather than common pool resources.
It echoes other famous limitations of the denier mind. We can’t read science – or if we do we don’t understand it and it all stems from a psychopathology. Supply a quote is cutting and pasting indiscriminately – not supplying a quote is handwaving rather than critical analysis. Because of course deniers don’t do critical analysis.
Let’s invite a Banton catastrophe – as my obsession de jour.
“Any reduction in global mean near-surface temperature due to a future decline in solar activity is likely to be a small fraction of projected anthropogenic warming. However, variability in ultraviolet solar irradiance is linked to modulation of the Arctic and North Atlantic Oscillations, suggesting the potential for larger regional surface climate effects…
The mechanism for these changes is via a stratospheric pathway, a so-called ‘top-down’ mechanism, and involves altered heating of the stratosphere by solar ultraviolet irradiance.” http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8535
I of course willfully misunderstand this. It is all SSW as the cause of weekly to millennial changes in surface pressure and it doesn’t happen in the southern hemisphere. Neither is true but it is insisted on with great vehemence and long, repetitive litanies of my failings. SSW is not in fact mentioned by the paper – and neither are polar vortices. Sorry I overlooked it then – but you have to divine it based on a mention of stratospheric winds and I simply don’t have the capacity for that.
The AO is one name for the Northern Annular Mode (NAM) – there is also a SAM.
But it is far from two studies – and their references. And it is still clearly a mechanism that has not been fully explained.
“Definitive identification of these ‘top-down’ solar influences on the troposphere is difficult; however, models show that the stratosphere has the potential to play a crucial role in regional climates. For example, Scaife et al  have demonstrated that stratospheric trends over recent decades, along with downward links to the surface, are indeed strong enough to explain much of the prominent trend in the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) between the 1960s and the 1990s, with implications for regional climate in Europe, particularly in winter. Effects have also been identified in the southern hemisphere .”
Perhaps they should talk to Banton about identifying the influences. He has an absolute grasp on it.
The SAM and NAM drive ocean/atmosphere circulation across both hemisphere producing global variability over millennia.
It can’t be right because they haven’t heard of it and therefore must be denier junk science. Hence the desperation. A desperation that has been in evidence for a long time. We are of course declared by them to be outsiders – and we include 1000’s of respected climate scientists. Including Judith Curry of course. It is ridicule and disparagement all the way down.
Still think you can talk to these people rationally about science?
we really need the rules that cap people who post too much to be enforced. a couple guys repeating statements/insults adds nothing to the discussion.
I am not repeating statements or insults. It seems clearly germane to the discussion on the motivations of the march. As none of your comments in this thread are. Batteries, generating capacity and CO2 grows plants are all the usual contrarion contributions that we have heard many times before. That they add nothing new to any discussion is really broadly beside the point. Should off topic be enforced? As far as I am concerned you are free to continue as you will.
But you need to dive a little deeper into underlying motives and not think that this is anything but an asymmetric discourse with people who define themselves as morally and intellectually superior to you, who cannot review assumptions and disparage outsiders. Thus the march is a demonstration of moral and intellectual superiority over Trump and his troglodytes.
Read the science links I provide – and there is a science there that is hugely fun and that they want to shut down – here as much as anywhere. They want to bias science by creating barriers to publication, restricting career progression, controlling outlets like the IPCC and pillorying scientists who are deemed to dissent. You should understand that it is all based on shutting down outsiders. If you defer to that – you lose the right to speak out.
From Judith’s tweet link.
“Worse yet, the intellectual thugs will take over many campuses. In the mid-1990s, I could count on students who had wanted to listen to start yelling at the protesters after a certain point, “Sit down and shut up, we want to hear what he has to say.” That kind of pushback had an effect. It reminded the protesters that they were a minority. I am assured by people at Middlebury that their protesters are a minority as well. But they are a minority that has intimidated the majority. The people in the audience who wanted to hear me speak were completely cowed. That cannot be allowed to stand. A campus where a majority of students are fearful to speak openly because they know a minority will jump on them is no longer an intellectually free campus in any meaningful sense.”
“of course willfully misunderstand this. It is all SSW as the cause of weekly to millennial changes in surface pressure and it doesn’t happen in the southern hemisphere. Neither is true but it is insisted on with great vehemence and long, repetitive litanies of my failings. SSW is not in fact mentioned by the paper”
Actually…. now I’m thinking now that you don’t have the accumen required understand.
There IS no other mechanism that can down-well easterly winds from the strat to the trop.
How do you think a HP cell develops?
What is required is for a warm core aloft to develop and via hyddrostatic laws winds blow from cold to warm and turn right via Coriolis.
That will not happen until the COLD strat PV is DISRUPTED via the warm (er) air that is entrained via an SSW.
Like I have said several times – the SSW mechanism is not mentioned by the paper is because it was…..
“European winter CIRCULATION through ‘TOP-DOWN’ DYNAMICAL FORCING, detailed modelling and attribution for these events is BEYOND THE SCOPE of this paper. (my CAPS)
IOW: they were looking at the outcome of such events and used the term “Top-down” WHICH IS WHAT AND ONLY WHAT A SSW EVENT DOES.
The climate science world would be grateful if you *discover* another one, not to mention Mr Nobel.
From the paper….
“Anomalous temperatures in the region of the tropical stratopause give rise to changes in the subtropical stratospheric winds, in geostrophic balance with the modified equator-to-pole temperature gradient. This signal then propagates poleward and downward and is amplified by altered planetary wave activity8 before being communicated throughout the depth of the troposphere in the Pacific and Atlantic basins14”
What is it about that quote that you cannot connect to the strat PV?
What is at the “Pole” Robert?
Would that be the PV (clue, P stands for polar), ie at the pole (winter).
The changes in subtropical strat winds are due to less UV not warming the strat as much.
What does that do?
It reduces the deltaT to the pole.
What does that do? (when combined with OTHER teleconnections) – gives additional weakening that can displace and/or disrupt the PV …. causing the above.
It’s really not difficult Robert.
‘Variations in solar UV influence temperatures in the upper stratosphere such that the polar vortex winds strengthen in response to enhanced solar activity 43 and thus provide another route whereby the direct influence
of solar radiation higher in the atmosphere may influence
the climate below, having an impact on the jet stream winds and establishing weather patterns identified with the positive phase of the NAO and SAM.”
It seems clearly a different mechanism to SSW – the details of which are still a little sketchy in the scientific literature. Still the critical link is solar UV/ozone chemistry to SAM and NAM.
“It seems clearly a different mechanism to SSW – the details of which are still a little sketchy in the scientific literature. Still the critical link is solar UV/ozone chemistry to SAM and NAM”
Robert – that is the flip of the same solar mechanism.
Greater UV makes the sub-equatorial strat warmer relative to the polar. So stronger stratospheric westerlies.
Note westerlies – that has the effect via coupling with the troposphere of driving westerlies there too, and so, yes, making a link with NAM and SAM.
SSW’s have tenuous link to the AMOC via reduction in the NAO that drives the northern arm of the AMOC. “Tenuous” because other influences need to be in play at the same time.
Yes, UV irradiation on stratospheric ozone affects winds there (decreases/increases), but only decreases can cause a disruption of the PV such that easterlies can be influenced at the surface in the NA and Arctic.
The use of corrupt/politicised science is a powerful political weapon, but obviously only works if such ‘science’ is successfully misrepresented as genuine science, truth-seeking, objective and dispassionate.
At least as far as climate science goes, this march is about bolstering that misrepresentation. Maintaining the deceit of the ‘consensus’ and status quo.
Essentially, it’s a March For Corruption.
Or to put it in their chosen style, they rail at the correct characterisation of their partisan science as partisan science, ie for what it is.
So, there is no consensus about man’s GHG emissions causing warming? That is a deceit?
The fact that Judith Curry did not condemn Scott Pruitt’s claim that CO2 is not a primary contributor to climate change is illustrative. The earth just had 3 hottest years in recorded history. Judith extolled Trump coming in to question the current climate science research approach. But, the Administrator of the EPA does not believe that CO2 is the primary contributor to climate change. Does Judith Curry and the skeptics here share that view? If not, why have you not spoken up to correct Pruitt’s anti-science claims. Judith told us that Trump will help climate science and balance out the debate. Does anyone here support Pruitt’s claim that CO2 is not the primary contributor to climate change? Does Judith Curry support Pruitt’s claim?
Since there is no conclusive evidence either way as to whether CO2 is a primary driver or not, Pruitt’s views are indeed ‘anti-science’
But then so are the views of his predecessor (and the whole alarmist ‘consensus’), who make the equally anti-science opposite claim.
I do hope you spoke up about that too, rather than letting it slide for political convenience.
Do people here really believe that there is no conclusive evidence that CO2 is a primary driver of climate change? Does Judith Curry believe that?
When phrased specifically as you do, … “there is no conclusive evidence that CO2 is a primary driver of climate change…”, many, if not most here would agree that there is NOT conclusive proof.
There is evidence, (some here would disagree) and there is also exists counter evidence, (and others would disagree), but nothing remotely approaching conclusive proof.
I cannot speak for Dr. Curry, but I think she would agree with me, that the issue is not remotely determined at this time.
If you are unaware of this, you need to read more.about uncertainty.
Conclusive? I do not think that word means what you think it means. There is no double-slit experiment, no gravitational lensing, no Michelson–Morley experiment. We may never know with much reliability to what extent which trace gases are driving climate.
“The earth just had 3 hottest years in recorded history. ” Recorded history of global temperatures only goes back to 1979, anything not from a satellite is guesswork and models as evidenced by the adjustments in the record, without which the statement is unsupportable. Anecdotal evidence suggests some periods in history were probably warmer.
Perhaps you should refresh your understanding of what hypothesis, theory and law mean when used is reference to science.
CO2 as the control knob is still in the hypothesis stage.
Perhaps you should refresh Denizens’ memory on these concepts, TimG.
Last time I checked, having conclusive evidence on hypotheses do not change their epistemological status. Even laws remain conjectural.
Maybe it’s a vocabulary thing.
>>Alarmism is excessive or exaggerated alarm about a real or imagined threat …
Being able to claim that the alarm is excessive or exaggerated, begs to be warranted by evidence<<.
Such evidence, being that the evidence for alarm is inadequate. Bogus certainty, treatment of models as reality, etc.
I have a simple request to figure out if Judith Curry supports Scott Pruitt’s statement that CO2 is not a primary contributor to climate change.
As far as I am aware Scott’s statement was made this week. Presumably therefore it will be mentioned in Judith’s round up of information in the weeks review generally posted at the weekend and no doubt it will be more likely discussed then.
I can then make the point that it has been the warmest three years in some parts of the globe but not everywhere..
”I can then make the point that it has been the warmest three years in some parts of the globe but not everywhere..”
tobyb – you know what the term ‘mean’ actually means when referring to global mean surface temperature? It’s the average, the global average, meaning, I’m sure you’ll concede, that in some areas temps can be below the global average, and in others it can be above the global average.
Of course I know what ‘mean’ means. I make the point as those in charge of us often don’t. The fact that some parts of the globe are warming some static some cooling reflects the nuances of the climate much better than saying the globe has warmed. Investigating the reasons for these differences (temperatures, sea levels etc) is surely better science than creating an average that reflects the reality of few locations.