by Judith Curry
The IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5C is now published [link].
The good news is that it is better written and with better diagrams — no more turgid prose and obscure diagrams that we’ve come to expect from the IPCC.
The other ‘good’ news is facetiously articulated by the Australian:
The bad news is of course best articulated by Al Gore [link], including a dig at President Trump.
Oliver Geden tweets:
“One of the major governance ‘innovations’ of #COP21 – agreeing on a >3°C deal while putting a 1.5°C label on it.”
This tweet by Richard N. Haas, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, pretty much sums up the policy situation:
“Nothing suggests world will come close to meeting this goal on climate change. There is no US leadership, and the phrase “international community” is more rhetoric than reality. We’d better set aside $ for adaptation and accelerate R&D on geoengineering.”
I don’t see much in the way of new science or better ways of assessing uncertainty — same old, same old. Projections are based on the CMIP5 simulations. There are some more recent references cited in the ‘impacts’ chapter. Most of this addresses the difference between 1.5 and 2.0 C impacts, and also strategies for mitigation etc. The main issue is removing CO2 from the atmosphere, in the absence of being able to meet emissions targets.
The main climate science conclusion is that things would be a little better at 1.5C relative to 2C. For example:
“By 2100, global mean sea level rise is projected to be around 0.1 metre lower with global warming of 1.5°C compared to 2°C (medium confidence).” [0.1 m = 4 inches.]
They also assume that climate model simulations are useful at regional scales:
“Climate models project robust differences in regional climate characteristics between present-day and global warming of 1.5°C, and between 1.5°C and 2°C.”
“Robust is here used to mean that at least two thirds of climate models show the same sign of changes at the grid point scale, and that differences in large regions are statistically significant.”
Without going into all the policy implications, I have a few comments about 1.5C
Consider this figure from Berkeley Earth regarding land temperatures since 1750:
Over land, we have already blown through the 1.5C threshold if measured since 1890. Temperatures around 1820 were more than 2C cooler. There has been a great deal natural variability in temperatures prior to 1975 when human caused global warming kicked in any meaningful way.
And the IPCC climate model projections ignore the bottom third of the ‘likely’ climate sensitivity values – 1.5 to 4.5 C -, with only the outlier Russian model having a value of ECS as low as 2.1 C. Much of this problem goes away if ECS is actually 1.5 to 2 C.
And then there is the goldilocks issue. Who would prefer the climate of the 18th or 19th century relative to the climate of the early 21st century?
Apart from warmer temperatures, what evidence is there of potential catastrophes? An observed increase in extreme weather events is not well justified, if you correctly account for the influence of multi-decadal ocean oscillations. So, what is the possible worst cast impact for 1.5 or 2.0 C warming on the timescale of the 21st century?
- collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, possibly resulting in up to 2.5 m sea level rise as per the NOAA (2017) report (actually, the IPCC does not even make this case, they are predicting SLR of 1-2 feet). This extreme scenario, which would maybe justify all this, is regarded as extremely unlikely, and we are not presently on such a trajectory. In any event, if the WAIS collapses it is more likely to be due to the geothermal heat flux and volcanoes beneath the ice sheet. Recent research shows portions of the WAIS rising at a rate of 41 mm/yr, acting to protect the WAIS from collapse. MASSIVELY uncertain.
- species extinction. After alarming conclusions in AR4, the AR5 backtracked, and this new Report backtracks even further. What about the ocean – acidification and declining oxygen? Our understanding is in its infancy, but this needs to be looked at more.
IMO, even with erroneous attribution of extreme weather/climate events and projections using climate models that are running too hot and not fit for purpose of projecting 21st century climate change, the IPCC still has not made a strong case for this massive investment to prevent 1.5C warming.
Pingback: 1.5 Degrees C | Transterrestrial Musings
With the recent revelation that the temperature record being used is basically garbage why would anyone pay any attention to what the IPCC has to say? Their actual understanding of how the climate actually works is so small to begin with and add to that the fact that they do not know what the past global temperatures actually were anyone claiming to be able to predict future climate would have to be ignorant as all get out or so unbelievably disingenuous.
“With the recent revelation that the temperature record being used is basically garbage”
Well I know UAH is but that’s not what you’re talking about is it?
Is it the staggering revelation that the UKMO receives corrupted files from National Met services and has to quality control BEFORE including in HADCRUT?
And that prior to 1850 there is uncertainty due lack of observations? (which is why uncertainty
This from Australian researcher John McLean (Phd) … this based on his thesis.
Oops … 1950
Which is why uncertainty is included….
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/crutem4/data/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/index.html
Tony Banton
Forgive my ignorance, but does scientific uncertainty include SST being recorded almost 100 km inland? Tropical islands with month long temperatures of 0˚C? and others recorded at over 80˚C? amongst the other 70+ audited errors in the HadCrut records?
You seem to make it sound as if a few understandably errors were made which can be corrected along with some reasonablely expected uncertainty. These are some of the high points.
Main points:
The Hadley data is one of the most cited, most important databases for climate modeling, and thus for policies involving billions of dollars.
McLean found freakishly improbable data, and systematic adjustment errors , large gaps where there is no data, location errors, Fahrenheit temperatures reported as Celsius, and spelling errors.
Almost no quality control checks have been done: outliers that are obvious mistakes have not been corrected – one town in Columbia spent three months in 1978 at an average daily temperature of over 80 degrees C. One town in Romania stepped out from summer in 1953 straight into a month of Spring at minus 46°C. These are supposedly “average” temperatures for a full month at a time. St Kitts, a Caribbean island, was recorded at 0°C for a whole month, and twice!
Temperatures for the entire Southern Hemisphere in 1850 and for the next three years are calculated from just one site in Indonesia and some random ships.
Sea surface temperatures represent 70% of the Earth’s surface, but some measurements come from ships which are logged at locations 100km inland. Others are in harbors which are hardly representative of the open ocean.
When a thermometer is relocated to a new site, the adjustment assumes that the old site was always built up and “heated” by concrete and buildings. In reality, the artificial warming probably crept in slowly. By correcting for buildings that likely didn’t exist in 1880, old records are artificially cooled. Adjustments for a few site changes can create a whole century of artificial warming trends.
Details of the worst outliers
For April, June and July of 1978 Apto Uto (Colombia, ID:800890) had an average monthly temperature of 81.5°C, 83.4°C and 83.4°C respectively.
The monthly mean temperature in September 1953 at Paltinis, Romania is reported as -46.4 °C (in other years the September average was about 11.5°C).
At Golden Rock Airport, on the island of St Kitts in the Caribbean, mean monthly temperatures for December in 1981 and 1984 are reported as 0.0°C. But from 1971 to 1990 the average in all the other years was 26.0°C.
These are from a post from Anthony Watts but if any are in error please point them out.
They certainly sound like the results of such errors would result in garbage.
I am not a climate scientist and only have a degree in Chemistry but I have been reading everything that I can get my hands on for the past three years.
Hot:
I’d suggest you read the thread on WUWT, paying particular regard to NS’s comments.
In short the “Bombshell” (LOL) is nothing more than errors in files sent to the UKMO from national Met services, which were, of course QC’d and corrected before inclusion in Hadcrut.
The originals rightly being preserved.
But thanks for the predictable.
crowcane:
Seems my above applies to you as well.
As it ever was.
Naysayer’s myth enters the lexicon, facts never to interfere.
Tony Banton
Now I don’t know all that much about climate science except what I have been able to pick up during my last couple of years of reading but I do know a couple of things.
First is that we have been told multiple times over the past 20 to 30 years that in 10 to 12 years the earth will reach a tipping point. It is strange how the tipping point is never reached.
The second thing is that search as I may I have never run across any predictions which have ever come to pass. So perhaps you can explain to me why in the world I should believe anything coming from the alarmist. I keep asking about predictions yet no one has been able to direct me to an accurate prediction.
As for the temperature record I will just have to rely upon the person who actually performed the audit. He was the one who described the data set as garbage. As far as I am aware he is the only one who has actually audited the data set. If someone else has then please point me to their published results so that I may educate myself.
All data is corrupt? All scientists corrupt?
How did BEST come to the exact same conclusions when they used as much data as they could get their hands on AND used their own algorithms? Same results.
This is grasping at the same straws that some have been grasping at for decades.
“Their actual understanding of how the climate actually works is so small to begin”
Yes, the top experts in the field don’t know anything. Let’s ask a few rogue “scientists” what they think.
I did not say that they did not know anything. I know that some people have a good handle on very narrow aspects of the climate. But you must lie about what I did say I guess because your arguments are so weak.
Also I said nothing about all data being corrupt just one particular set of data. Once again you are forced to make up stuff I guess.
I have been trying to find a prediction some of these scientists have been making which actually came to pass but have been unable to do so. I have been trying for the past three years or so. Perhaps you can enlighten me.
IPCC projections have proven to be very reliable. Nothing you wrote makes sense in the large picture.
“With the recent revelation that the temperature record being used is basically garbage why would anyone pay any attention to what the IPCC has to say?”
Because they have done a great job, and others have come to the same general conclusions using carious methods, various proxies, etc. I don’t know why people are paying attention to the outliers who have been predicting a cooling period in 2010, or 2015, or 2018 (yes they were still here telling us that this is the transitions year.)
Right, I simply cannot get to the result I want using a model. I can only get to the “true” result. Are you naive or just so ideologically committed that you cannot see how silly your statements are? I have spent over thirty years seeing models of all kinds come to the same conclusion, because that is what the modelers wanted – and models just produce what you tell them to.
No doubt the top experts know a lot. But that’s not the questions is it? The question is, do they know enough to justify their 95% confidence claims? Do they know enough to justify spending trillions that could be better spent elsewhere?
As for your claim below that IPPC projections are “very reliable”, that really is bizarre. How many runs of how many models does the IPCC use to make these Reliable projections”? If the IPCC had a good model an a good understanding, would it need to run tens of models hundreds of times?
“Right, I simply cannot get to the result I want using a model.”
No climate scientist says models are correct.
In fact they cant be because an ensemble product cannot by definition depict NV adequately.
They are a tool to learning.
Not needed to show that CO2 is a GHG and warms the climate.
Hansen got it pretty good in 1988.
(Err – look at total forcing from ALL GHG’s in his projection scenarios and NOT just for anthro CO2).
when all the algorithms used by the various groups do the same thing, i.e cool the past and warm the present, it is hardly surprising all their manufactured “data” sets show the same thing.
By ” … is so small to begin”… means their “view window” is primarily CO2 emissions – propaganda for the public. All the other causes are just too complex to be more positive than if climate change is directly related to a single concern.
I think the most important point of the Climate Debate is for the general public to understand that CO2 is not a pollutant, but vital to all life on Earth. The second point would be that out of all the Greenhouse gases, CO2 is one of the trace gases and is overwhelmed by water vapor – the largest of the GHGs by a factor of about 40. Also, all the GHGs gases are close to their asymptote and will contribute very little extra heating (radiative forcing) if their levels are raised. (If they don’t know what an asymptote is – they can skip this last point!!)
My previous one-page on this topic is available here
https://www.dropbox.com/s/2phynwcq0zgxknx/Climate%20Debate%20-%20SPM-SR15.pdf?dl=0
It comes with two references – the first one is a 15-minute video with the explanation from Judith Curry – which is easy to watch and understand.
Gerald Ratzer: I would recommend
changing the name of any “Carbon Tax” to an “Environmental Levy”, which is collected by a nation and used exclusively for pollution reduction.
Implement a strict Clean Air Act, and also use funds raised to clean up our lakes and oceans and do top notch job on recycling. All nations should be encouraged to install electrostatic precipitators (which can operate at removing over 99% of particulate matter) on their coal-fired power plants.
It matters not how you label the money. What matters is who collects it and who distributes it. Also, who regulates those distributors?
And as for [encouraging], Who does the encouraging and what encouragements? Writing proposals in the passive voice and avoiding identification of agents makes the writing empty. Taiwan does and China does not (at least not much) protect its citizens from the effluents of burning coal; who encourages China to act like Taiwan, how do they do so, and what effect can they actually have?
johnmclean7 | October 12, 2018 at 12:46 am |
“Mr Mosher, you have made accusations based on your assumptions.”
John, There is some chance you might have some late good news from Steven.
This guy made such a fundamental data mistake that I cannot believe he got a PHD
1. CRU uses a screening process to discard stations that do not meet there criteria.
2. That criteria includes having enough data in the 1951-1980 period.
3. If a station lacks this it is DUMPED from analysis.
4. Consequently you must check the STATIONS USED file
5. That file is here:
https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/crutem4/crutem4_asof020611_stns_used_hdr.txt
6. The OUTLIER data he crows about in columbia
‘For April, June and July of 1978 Apto Uto (Colombia, ID:800890) had an average monthly temperature of 81.5°C, 83.4°C and 83.4°C respectively.”
IS NOT IN THE DATASET!!! I found this in 30 seconds
7. below find the ACTUAL STATIONS USED FOR COLOMBIA
800010 126 817 1 SAN ANDRES/SESQUICEN COLOMBIA 19612011 101961 3646 1136
800090 111 742 -999 SANTA MARIA COLOMBIA 19752011 101975 3647 1138
800220 105 755 2 CARTAGENA/NUNEZ A COLOMBIA 19512011 301951 3648 1137
800970 79 725 250 CUCUTA/DAZA A COLOMBIA 19712011 101971 3651 1210
801100 62 756 1490 OLAYA HERRERA AIRPOR COLOMBIA 19412000 101941 3652 1209
802220 47 742 2547 BOGOTA/ELDORADO A COLOMBIA 19232011 101923 3655 1282
802410 46 709 171 LAS GAVIOTAS COLOMBIA 19712011 101971 3656 1282
802590 36 764 961 CALI/BONILLA A COLOMBIA 19482011 101948 3658 1281
803150 30 753 439 NEIVA/SALAS A COLOMBIA 19712011 101971 3661 1281
803910 79 726 -999 CAZADERO AP. COLOMBIA 19481970 101948 3663 1210
803920 76 726 1235 BLONAY COLOMBIA 19512000 101951 3664 1210
803930 49 751 1495 EL LIBANO COLOMBIA 19521970 101952 3665 1281
803940 50 757 1400 NARANJAL COLOMBIA 19512000 101951 3666 1209
803960 44 744 1550 TIBACUY GRANGE COLOMBIA 19522000 101952 3667 1282
803990 13 775 1700 OSPINA PEREZ COLOMBIA 19531970 101953 3668 1281
Next, to understand WHY APTO UTO is NOT USED BY CRU
you have to look at the data
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/stations/12644
8. NOTE THAT THE STATION HAS NO DATA IN the 1950s. CRU will dump this.
9. See the outliers? ya, for us QC will correct this raw data
The thesis was examined by experts external to the university, revised in accordance with their comments and then accepted by the university.
So if you have a problem with his results I suggest that you take it up with the university.
I do know this. The historical records indicate that hurricanes, wild fires, floods, droughts, and tornadoes have all either been trending down or are flat. I know that what records we do have about past weather events indicate that more storms and worse storms occur when the earth is cooling not warming. I know that not a single prediction made has come to pass and that all of these so called experts keep moving back the time when so “tipping point “ will be reached. With such a sorry record I am trying to understand just why I should listen to anything that they have to say.
Crowcane
Thank you fro reminding SM and other contributors of these important facts. They are more evidence that global warming is beneficial, not harmful.
Mr Mosher, you have made accusations based on your false assumptions. These false assumptions are:
1 – What’s said about CRUTEM4 doesn’t necessarily hold true for HadCRUT4. The assumption might seem reasonable but as section 7.2 of the audit shows, CRUTEM4 sometimes differs from HadCRUT4 when we’d expect them to be the same (i.e. for HadCRUT4 data based only on observation station data).
2 – That the documentation for CRUTEM4 is correct. An extract from CRUTEM4 for that grid cell and the two either side of it in 1978 (I.e. same cells as shown in Figure 6.3) is as follows
1978 1 0.25 0.93 0.23
1978 2 0.95 1.10 1.43
1978 3 -0.30 0.17 0.23
1978 4 -0.35 8.65 -1.03
1978 5 -0.10 0.22 0.20
1978 6 -0.25 9.02 -0.23
1978 7 -0.40 9.22 0.63
1978 8 0.40 -0.18 -1.00
1978 9 -0.10 0.14 -0.07
1978 10 0.00 0.46 -0.30
1978 11 0.25 0.62 0.30
1978 12 -0.20 0.12 -0.00
Do you see the odd values 8.65, 9.02 and 9.22? I checked the data for each of the other stations in the same grid cell and none look particularly strange. (I must admit that this check of other stations was based on what stations I thought were included because there’s nothing in the station metadata to explicitly say that.)
John McLean
John thanks for stopping by. If you are interested in doing a guest blog post on your thesis to discuss these issues, it would be most welcome. Judy Curry
John.
HADCRUT4 is
A) CRUTEM4 for the LAND– colombia is land
B) HADSST for the SEA.
https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
The stations used for HADCRUT4 for the land
ARE here
What are the basic raw data used?
For land regions of the world over 4800 monthly station temperature time series are used. Coverage is denser over the more populated parts of the world, particularly, the United States, southern Canada, Europe and Japan. Coverage is sparsest over the interior of the South American and African continents and over Antarctica. The number of available stations was small during the 1850s, but increases to over 4500 stations during the 1951-2010 period. For marine regions, sea surface temperature (SST) measurements taken on board merchant and some naval vessels are used. As the majority come from the voluntary observing fleet, coverage is reduced away from the main shipping lanes and is minimal over the Southern Oceans. Improvements in coverage occur after 1980 through the deployment of fixed and drifting buoys. The development of the datasets is extensively discussed in Jones et al. (2012) and Kennedy et al. (2011). Both these sources also discuss the consistency and homogeneity of the measurements through time and the steps that have been made to remove non-climatic inhomogeneities.
Raw station data used to produce CRUTEM4 are available from the Met Office website (CRUTEM4) and the station data (and graphs) are also available via our Google Earth interface.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/crutem4/data/station_files/CRUTEM.4.6.0.0.station_files.zip
and here if the FINAL list
https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/crutem4/crutem4_asof020611_stns_used_hdr.txt
I welcome you to post at Judith’s but please post the data you actually USED and dont charge people to buy your analysis
“That the documentation for CRUTEM4 is correct. ”
This seems to come up in every audit of temperature datasets. Very seldom in the world of commercial data processing can you merely point to a document saying the procedure is to do X rather than actually proving you did X with demonstrations, precisely because it very often turns out that for complicated, well-intended reasons you ended up not doing X.
There simply HAS to be some measure of climate alarm. That is the IPCC’s reason for being. Keep the scare-screws tightened. Even if you are stepping away from your failed predictions.
Thanks as always, Dr. Judith. I was going to make the same point—we’ve done the experiment. We’ve seen 2°C of temperature rise already, and it was greatly beneficial overall. So why hyperventilate over seeing a smaller 1.5°C rise?
Best to you and yours,
w.
No. We haven’t seen global average surface temp of 2C above pre-industrial. That’s the experiment we’re performing now. And it will likely be above 2C for an extended period of time.
Actually what you say is true, but not a refutation of what Willis and Dr. Curry say. The 2 degrees C they are talking about is from before industrialization. If you look at the graph that Dr. Curry posted, you can see that the change in temperatures during the pre-industrial time was highly variable (more slope due to the fact that temperatures are rising and falling) compared to the post-industrial record. Also this is where the 2 degrees comes from. The main point is the rate of increase and the magnitude of increase post-industrial and pre-industrial is not unprecedented. The only way to get a hockey stick from the data is to combine yearly averages with averages over longer periods which is mathematically not vigorous.
What is the optimum temperature for each region of our planet? Inquiring minds would like to know…
An easier calculation (might have already been done, in fact): What is the optimum concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere, holding steady other GHGs?
Re: “Actually what you say is true, but not a refutation of what Willis and Dr. Curry say. The 2 degrees C they are talking about is from before industrialization. If you look at the graph that Dr. Curry posted, you can see that the change in temperatures during the pre-industrial time was highly variable (more slope due to the fact that temperatures are rising and falling) compared to the post-industrial record. Also this is where the 2 degrees comes from. The main point is the rate of increase and the magnitude of increase post-industrial and pre-industrial is not unprecedented.”
The graph Curry posted shows no such thing. I know that because I know the paper the graph comes from, and I know the words of the main author (Richard Muller) of that paper.
That graph is for BEST, a.k.a. the Berkeley Earth surface temperature record. As Muller himself notes, the data from earlier on in the BEST record (ex: pre-1830s) is uncertain, and useful mostly for things like noting the effect of volcanic eruptions. This is clearly shown by the increased gray shading in the image. So you should not use that figure to infer that the temperature already increased by 2°C. That’s especially the case since that image is for land, while the 1.5°C target is about warming for land and oceans combined. The near-surface air above land warms much more than the near-surface air above the oceans, so 2°C land warming would translate into less than 2°C of warming for land+oceans combined.
Anyway, I suggest you read the paper the paper that image came from, and listen to Muller’s words. Curry conveniently didn’t cite the relevant paper, but whatever. Here are the relevant materials:
“A new estimate of the average Earth surface land temperature spanning 1753 to 2011
[…]
Note that we have extended the estimates back to 1753, although
with increased uncertainties. In these early years Earth coverage was
minimal”
http://berkeleyearth.org/static/papers/Results-Paper-Berkeley-Earth.pdf
Youtube, “Richard Muller: I Was wrong on Climate Change”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sme8WQ4Wb5w
The amount of land+ocean near-surface warming is not 2°C above pre-industrial levels, regarding of whether you define “pre-industrial” as being in the 1800s or the 1700s, and regardless of whether you use Berkeley Earth or some other surface temperature record. Instead, the amount of land+ocean near-surface warming is more on par with a bit less than 1°C above pre-industrial conditions. See, for example:
Figure 4 of: “Estimating changes in global temperature since the preindustrial period”
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-16-0007.1
“Emission budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5°C
[…]
Human-induced warming reached an estimated 0.93°C (±0.13°C; 5–95 percentile range) above mid-nineteenth-century conditions in 2015 and is currently increasing at almost 0.2°C per decade.”
http://www.gci.org.uk/Documents/Myles_Allen.pdf
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-2J3kaSzzC1o/Ww7c6d5_QhI/AAAAAAAABmU/QDKA99XxgacIqG3BryW7EDN9B8Q40JAvwCLcBGAs/s640/MWP%252C%2Bnorthern%2Bhemisphere%252C%2Bsouthern%2Bhemisphere.PNG
[figures 2A and 2B of: “Pacific ocean heat content during the past 10,000 years”
https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata201788%5D
Re: “The only way to get a hockey stick from the data is to combine yearly averages with averages over longer periods which is mathematically not vigorous.”
Proxies with different resolutions are justifiably used, and combined, in many branches of science. This is one way scientists get conclusions supported by consilient lines of evidence.
For example, biomarkers in medicine often have different temporal resolutions, yet clinical researchers still justifiably combine them into multi-marker records to generate analyses. Similarly, expression as measured by protein levels, mRNA transcripts, etc. has a different temporal resolution. That doesn’t stop biologists from combining these protein data, mRNA data, etc. into multi-marker estimates. Parallel points apply for scientists combining different dating techniques that have different resolutions (ex: radiometric dating with isotopes that have different half-lives), and so on.
So you’re simply engaged in special pleading when you object to scientists using multi-proxy records in climate science. And you provided no support for your claim that it is “mathematically not vigorous”. I’m sure all the clinical researchers, biologists, geologists, astronomers, etc. would be very interested to hear how some random person online showed that their multi-proxy records (combining records of different resolutions) are “mathematically not vigorous”.
“Proxies with different resolutions are justifiably used, and combined, in many branches of science. This is one way scientists get conclusions supported by consilient lines of evidence”
If you take a set of data and average the data by different time periods, mathematically the data that is averaged over the longer time period will show less changes because of the averaging, regardless of the data. This is by definition of average. This has nothing to do with climate science and is true regardless of what the data is. This is not a “special pleading” or whatever other argument you try to use, it is just a mathematical fact. The graphing of data that has different resolutions is not mathematically rigorous and doesn’t depend on how many people with advanced degrees do it. It is simply not vigorous to do so. That some “random blogger” brought it up doesn’t make it any less true.
tedpress @ https://judithcurry.com/2018/10/08/1-5-degrees/#comment-882014
The optimum GMST fro life on Earth is around 22C (the centre of the Greenhouse and Hothouse range) – chart see p.6 here https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324017003_Phanerozoic_Temperatures_Tropical_Mean_Annual_Temperature_TMAT_Polar_Mean_Annual_Temperature_PMAT_and_Global_Mean_Annual_Temperature_GMAT_for_the_last_540_million_years. That is about 7 C warmer than now. For more explanation see: https://judithcurry.com/2018/10/08/1-5-degrees/#comment-881915
[Ignore Atomsk’s Sanakan comments – its impossible to conduct a rational discussion with him; he’s trolling, misrepresenting, misinforming, diverting from the point under discussion, and the other tactics of the ideologically motivated alarmists]
Mike Roberts,
The more warming we can get the better. Warming is beneficial, not damaging and not dangerous.
Re: “[Ignore Atomsk’s Sanakan comments – its impossible to conduct a rational discussion with him; he’s trolling, misrepresenting, misinforming, diverting from the point under discussion, and the other tactics of the ideologically motivated alarmists]”
And, once again, it’s amazing what the moderation allows for on this blog, as long as one is a contrarian on the mainstream climate science. Also, it’s not my fault that you don’t like being called out on the source you misrepresent:
https://judithcurry.com/2018/10/08/1-5-degrees/#comment-881984
Re: “If you take a set of data and average the data by different time periods, mathematically the data that is averaged over the longer time period will show less changes because of the averaging, regardless of the data. This is by definition of average. This has nothing to do with climate science and is true regardless of what the data is. This is not a “special pleading” or whatever other argument you try to use, it is just a mathematical fact. The graphing of data that has different resolutions is not mathematically rigorous and doesn’t depend on how many people with advanced degrees do it. It is simply not vigorous to do so. That some “random blogger” brought it up doesn’t make it any less true.”
No, it’s special pleading, since you use that argument to object to multi-proxy analyses in climate science, but not multi-proxy analysis in other branches of science. And no, you’re not stating mathematical facts at all, especially when you’re using multiple proxies which have sufficient resolution to detect that magnitude of trend you’re looking at.
atandb, Judith Curry’s graph covers only the period from 1750, thought to be the start of the industrial period. The 2 degree comment refers to a brief excursion, in the early 1800s, to a temp 2 degrees lower than today’s.
Peter Lang: “The more warming we can get the better. Warming is beneficial, not damaging and not dangerous.”
So there is no warming that would be dangerous, you think? If not, what is the limit and why do you think that is the limit? Why do you think that climate zones moving polewards will not harm any species or ecosystem?
Mike Roberts,
See my reply to tedpress above, here https://judithcurry.com/2018/10/08/1-5-degrees/#comment-882024. Go to the two links for more explanation.
There’s more, but consider that first.
Peter Lang,
Right, so you think warming up to another 7C is fine. So your earlier claim that “more warming” is beneficial was missing a rider? According to you, warming up to another 7C would bring benefits but after that, it would be negative for the planet (since it would have gone beyond the optimum). I’m not sure how the PDF you pointed to shows the “optimum” temperature. Humans have never experienced an earth with such average surface temperatures as high as 7C and no higher than 3C above now. What do you think 7C above now would do to the ecosystems of the planet and how would such peturbations play out?
You might think a perfect temperature is 7C above what it is now but I feel fairly sure you wouldn’t like it. However, at least you seem to acknowledge that warming should be limited.
Mike Roberts,
You are making assumptions and jumping way ahead of what I said in answer to your question.
Did you look at the link to the Phanerozoic temperatures? You need to take into consideration the time scales involved. Yes, the paleo record indicates around 7 C is optimum for life on earth, but there is a wide band of warmer
temperatures that are better than now. An increase of 7C GMST probably cannot be reached for tens of millions of years. It seems unlikely Earth can get out of the current Icehouse conditions for probably tens of millions of years. But that’s a separate discussion. Let’s just deal with this century for now.
Regarding this century, 3 C GMST increase is unlikely to be reached. However, if it is reached, it would be beneficial overall – i.e. total of all impact sectors for the World. But that also is a separate issue. I have presented the evidence many times before on CE, but let’s deal first with the evidence that +7C is about the middle of the range of optimum temperatures for ecosystems, and any realistically achievable increase in GMST this century would be beneficial.
atandb: The graphing of data that has different resolutions is not mathematically rigorous and doesn’t depend on how many people with advanced degrees do it.
It can be done rigorously. To extend the medical analogy of AS, consider evaluating health or disease with temp data, HR and BP data, blood titers, and biopsy results, all measured at different times and with different sampling frequencies.
If it has not always been done rigorously in climate science (an assumption I am not asserting here), that does not imply that it couldn’t be done rigorously.
A rigorous approach to analyzing data with different sampling frequencies is in fact carried out by BEST.
Willis Eschenbach: We’ve seen 2°C of temperature rise already,
That does depend on what you take as the reference for earlier temperatures: I’d avoid the transient ca 1820 low point and prefer the last half of the 19th century which is more reliably known. That gives ca 1.5C increase; beneficial according to evidence so far.
Has the IPCC ever made a strong case for anything other than it’s own decline into obscurity.
This is just another attempt to incite global panic and is being used by the green blob in the UK to further the insane government mandate of all Electric Vehicles by 2040. Oh! and sending us all back into the 18th Century in terms of progress, technically and socially.
Dr Curry,
You might try reading Dr Nordhaus’s ‘The Climate Casino’. His assessment? The cost of inaction is substantially higher than the impact of carbon pricing on the world ecoeconomies.For his work, he was was awarded a Nobel Prize this week.
Warren
Was The Climate Casino written predicated on the assumption that CO2 causes global temperature change?
If so Dr Nordhaus should be stripped of his Nobel Prize as there is not one single, credible, empirical study I am aware of that has demonstrated the phenomenon.
There should be dozens, if not hundreds if the human race is to face the drastic actions the IPCC suggest are needed to ‘control’ the climate, but there are none.
Would you put a shotgun to your head without first ensuring it wasn’t loaded, which is what alarmists are proposing we do.
“If so Dr Nordhaus should be stripped of his Nobel Prize as there is not one single, credible, empirical study I am aware of that has demonstrated the phenomenon.”
This again? Come on, be serious.
I would like to find the correct citation for a peer reviewed journal article that documents a valid *method* used to show that CO2 increase causes global warming. That is, I am seeking the primary reference for this hypothesis. Has the claim that “it’s just physics” been properly published and peer reviewed (and accepted by responsible scientists as a substitute for the missing scientific method)? It appears that no one (NOAA, NSF, EPA, IPCC, DOE, NAS, etc.) ever attempted to use or to fund research for the scientific method, or for any other valid method, to actually test this hypothesis ….. despite the US government spending approx. $7 billion per year on CO2 technology studies (per GAO report). Could someone please refute an allegation of mass scientific malpractice by providing the correct citation for the published research showing a valid *method* used….. not “consensus” reports, but the actual research. Thank you for any suggestions and assistance. Have any of the 97% consensus scientists ever cited the proper reference? Have any journals ever required that a proper reference be cited?
Scott Koontz
Show me the studies and I’ll stop asking.
Warren, I believe Nordhaus has made an error in his climate change dynamic model (DICE), when he ignores fossil fuel depletion impact on their price, and miscalculates poor nation’s ability to afford ever increasing prices.
I realize most readers aren’t familiar with the industry, and I also see poor information about this topic, so its easy to see why Nordhaus has been making the same mistake for years.
I’ve reached the conclusion that fossil fuel depletion and inability to meet market demand won’t sink in for at least 5-10 years, after we see the return of $120/bbl WTI crude oil and liquified natural gas prices FOB Lake Charles go above $10 per MMBTU.
Warren Beeton: The cost of inaction is substantially higher than the impact of carbon pricing on the world ecoeconomies
Obviously that depends on the carbon pricing actually used, and on its effects. What price was used? What effects on CO2 accumulation did it project? Is anybody proposing “inaction”? I read and write supports of alternative actions that could be funded with the money instead of trying to achieve (small?) reductions in CO2.
Who would administer/enforce an increased price of carbon? The UN? Is there any reason to suspect that the money (say a tax) would be spent as Nordhaus would recommend?
If you read my earlier contribution to this blog – I would recommend
changing the name of any “Carbon Tax” to an “Environmental Levy”, which is collected by a nation and used exclusively for pollution reduction. Implement a strict Clean Air Act, and also use funds raised to clean up our lakes and oceans and do top notch job on recycling. All nations should be encouraged to install electrostatic precipitators (which can operate at removing over 99% of particulate matter) on their coal-fired power plants. Check on Taichung in Taiwan with Google or Wikipedia.
My full post is below with 2 references to back up the assertions.
I think there is hope of meeting the Paris Accord at both the 2C and 1.5C level.
==============================
Climate Debate: What Politicians need to know
With the recent publication of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) SPM – Summary for Policy Makers – (SR15) it is hoped that those who read the SPM will also read the following one-page document on aspects of the Climate Debate that all politicians should understand. Politicians and heads of state have done themselves and those they represent a serious disservice when they use the term “Carbon Pollution”. Carbon in the form of carbon dioxide (CO2) is a gas that is vital to life on Earth and is not a pollutant.
The Climate Debate really revolves around the public fully understanding the benefits of CO2. Through the process of photosynthesis, plants absorb CO2, water, and light to give off oxygen, while producing the food (sugars) they need to thrive. When there is more CO2, plants of all types do better, and they are at the foot of the food chain. Commercial greenhouse growers strive to provide the ideal growing conditions and typically boost the CO2 levels in their greenhouses to three times the level of CO2 in the open air. Even the rise from the pre-industrial CO2 levels of 280 ppm to the current 405 ppm has produced real, positive results around the world. For instance, the Leaf Area Index – a measure of the number of leaves – has grown by 14% over the last 30 years (a land area equivalent to two extra USAs). The area south of the Sahara, called the Sahel, is now a broad green belt from the Atlantic to the Red Sea, clearly visible from the International Space Station. The scientific papers on this research attribute 70% of this green expansion to CO2 and partially to extra rainfall.
Burning fossil fuels – hydrocarbons – does produce pollution but now it is possible to reduce this pollution to virtually zero with the best modern techniques. Japan and Taiwan have power plants, which burn coal from Australia, and yet they can remove most of the soot particles (pure carbon) and the toxic oxides (e.g. carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur oxides) so that their tall chimney stacks have a clear plume of CO2 coming out. Many people think the visible clouds coming out of power plant cooling towers is pollution; but it is condensed water vapor – clean, drinkable water. CO2 is not a pollutant. Pollution from transport can still be reduced further. For instance, instead of having a “Carbon Tax” have an “Environmental levy” that is collected in the same way and used exclusively for enforcing the current Clean Air standards.
The UN and its IPCC have demonized CO2 and accused the extra CO2 of being the primary source of climate change. Recent research has now shown that the IPCC models do not correctly predict the last 40 years, let alone any future period. The climate impact of CO2 is overestimated by a factor of at least two in the IPCC models. Also, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas and overpowered by water vapor when it comes to absorbing radiation by a large factor (based on the global relative abundance – typically 40 times more water vapor than CO2).
Temperatures have always fluctuated up and down historically and rather than blaming rising trends over the last century on CO2 we need to find the answers in the solar and ocean current cycles that exist. There are more effective models than the IPCC ones that do a much better job of tracking temperature changes and pass validation over the last 40 years. Demonizing CO2 is not the answer.
Below are two references to back up these assertions. They were both produced this year.
The easiest one to follow is a real climate debate by four experts in the field. For a quick example of the debate watch Judith Curry starting at minute 15 of the video, and then Patrick Moore at minute 41. The second is a set of 30 slides with extensive notes and links on the topic.
Yes, this is a complex field but if politicians can understand that CO2 is much more beneficial to all life than any problems with it, they can avoid being vilified themselves for making inappropriate decisions. Politicians need to understand the vital role that CO2 plays and the imperative to reduce pollution from hydrocarbons. This will be a more effective use of resources than the amounts squandered on expensive alternative sources of power, or carbon sequestration.
References:
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVXHaSqpsVg or Google Mann Curry Moore
2. https://goo.gl/3qwtaS
Gerald Ratzer
Professor Emeritus
McGill University
“Freedom is the right to tell people what they don’t want to hear.”
George Orwell
I will try this one more time. Maan has very little affect on Global Ice Making. CO2 is controled by the Green Foliage covering the earth.
There are three methods of heat transfer. They are conduction, convection, and radiant heat. Heat transfer to or from the earth can only be done by radiant. All material contains heat and is radiating it to cooler surfaces or absorbing it from warmer surfaces. The difference is the heat gain or loss of the material.
The earth gains heat radiated from the sun and loses heat it radiates to outer space, called black sky radiation. Outer space is considered absolute zero.
The amount of radiant heat hitting the earth from the sun daily is relatively constant. The radiant heat lost daily by the earth thru black sky radiation is constant since absolute zero is constant. The amount of heat gained by the earth’s surface depends on the surface area of the earth covered by water relative to that covered by land. Land area absorbs a larger percent of the radiant heat relative to the water area since the surface of the water reflects a percentage of the radiant heat back to outer space. The daily access heat, or loss of heat, is transferred to the oceans thru conduction and convection where it works its way to the poles and it freezes water adding to the polar ice caps or melts the polar ice caps thus keeping the surface temperature of the oceans, thus the earth, relatively constant. As the polar ice caps grow or melt, the surface area of the earth covered by land relative to that covered by water changes. This is the definition of global warming. I call it Global Ice making and Global Ice Melting.
That radiant heat absorbed by oceans and land masses is transferred to the atmosphere thru conduction and convection. When it is winter in one hemisphere it is summer in the other and the same with spring and fall. I would think the average temperature of the lower 5,000 feet of the atmosphere changes about 10’F to20’F each day. This probably takes more heat than man has added to the earth in the last 50 years. That heat man adds to the atmosphere each day is radiated to the black sky and the infinitesimal amount left helps melt the ice during global warming, should be called Global Ice Melting.
Absolute Zero is -459.68’F and the average surface temperature of the sun is between 7,300’F and 10,000’F. If we could go back in time 18,000 years, the end of the last ice age, we would probable see that the average daily temperature of the earth was in the mid 60’F as it is today. You must understand the amount of heat gained every 24 hours is almost equal to that lost during the same 24 hours. Angle of the earth’s axis is 23.5’.
The average surface temperature of the earth is about 63.5’f. The heat loss to black sky radiation every 24 hours is constant. The average radiant heat striking the surface of the earth is relatively constant. Because the sun is an active star the average temperature will change over centuries. As the surface area of the earth covered by water increases, the more radiant heat is reflected back to the black sky increases. When the daily radiant heat gained by the earth from the sun in 24 hours became less than that lost by black sky radiation we began ice making. Looking at the ice core from the Antarctic we can see that the earth began the new Ice Age about 18,000 years ago.
About 18000 years ago the new ice age began. Until the land mass grew enough the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere started growing. About 10000 years ago the green foliage was not enough to stunt the growth of carbon dioxide and the carbon dioxide level began to drop. 8000 years ago, man plus nature began to make more carbon dioxide than the growth of green foliage could overcome and the carbon dioxide began to rise until present.
As soon as all the ice at the poles suspended over the water finishes breaking off, due to the accumulation of the new ice on top, the lowering of the oceans will remain at this slow rate.
Someone out there must understand how nature operates.
” Land area absorbs a larger percent of the radiant heat relative to the water area since the surface of the water reflects a percentage of the radiant heat back to outer space.”
No.
When seen from a distance, the ocean surface has a low albedo, as do most forests, whereas desert areas have some of the highest albedos among landforms. if the entire Earth was covered by water — a so-called aquaplanet — the average temperature on the planet would rise to almost 27 °C.
Note the Roy Spencer conundrum 2016 (Highest temperatures are actually when the TOA solar insolation reaching the Earth is weakest, because it’s mostly land[NH] that’s being illuminated, which has a much lower effective heat capacity than the ocean does).
All but one US Senate Democrats colluded to vote “No” on Judge Kavanaugh… just like the global warming hoax and scare tactics– the ONLY compelling convergent evidence we see from those pushing AGW alarmism is a picture of collusion and corruption of Leftist climate scientists.
Judith, thanks for this post.
BTW, many of the CMIP5 model runs show we should have already passed the 1.5 deg C threshold globally (land + ocean).
https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/exhibit-08.png
Source of the graph:
https://www.amazon.com/Dad-Why-Global-Warming-Denier-ebook/dp/B078VBBPHD/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1515370466&sr=8-1&keywords=dad+why+are+you+a+global+warming+denier%3F
Cheers,
Bob
PS: Judith, I just checked that spreadsheet associated with the graph above, and 18 of the 81 models show global land+ocean temperature anomalies (reference 1861-1890) in excess of 1.5 deg C in 2018.
Ciao,
Bob
“18 of the 81 models show global land+ocean temperature anomalies (reference 1861-1890) in excess of 1.5 deg C in 2018.”
But not their 95% confidence lower limits.
Which cover NV, since the product is an ensemble and smooths that away (even were it predictable).
Bob, about your graph. Have you used blended model data, land SAT plus SST? If you haven’t, the comparison with the blended observational index is unfair.
Your Berkeley Earth data ends in 2014. If you add the three last years the visual impression would change.
Tony Banton | October 8, 2018 at 1:08 pm |
“18 of the 81 models show global land+ocean temperature anomalies (reference 1861-1890) in excess of 1.5 deg C in 2018.”
Still in denial.
“But not their 95% confidence lower limits.”
It is a statement of pure fact, Tony, Something you keep dodging.
If you wish to use 95% confidence limits Bob could presumably say that
“70 of the 81 models show global land+ocean temperature anomalies (reference 1861-1890) in excess of 1.5 deg C in 2018. in their 95% confidence upper limits.”
Is that scary to be so wrong?
“It is a statement of pure fact, Tony, Something you keep dodging.”
Nope I only refer to IPCC consensus science.
Only by your definition is that wrong.
Logic dictates the opposite
And BTW: I said LOWER confidence limits….. err obviously!
angech, but yes, so 18 could be said to be a success by Mr Tisdale’s assertion.
But what RCP projection were they following?
And no “70 of the 81 models” were not at +1.5C this year even at RCP 8.5 …
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-5WnyRjvKPP0/V3B5lmFQABI/AAAAAAAAA-c/xDoJYF4qD6oIUhyv0o52KONNmkGGxhCVQCLcB/s1600/CMIP5%2BRCP8.5%2BModels%2Branked%2Bby%2Btrend%2Bover%2B1861-2005.png
“Andno “70 of the 81 models” were not at +1.5C this year even at RCP 8.5 …“
Deflection, again, stop it.
You raised the issue of confidence levels to push15 models away from the 1.5 C they reached.
“But not their 95% confidence lower limits.“
I argued that by the same logic
“their 95% confidence upper limits.” You could conceivably get a far larger number of models to have included 1.5 C in their upper range by 2018.
–
Your choice of RCP 8.5 is illuminating. Predicting the hottest possible rise scenario they fiddled the models to keep them below 15 of the less warming models by 2018 to give a bigger scare effect and to not get slammed for predicting absurdly high figures now.
Your graph shows clearly no uniform starting point in the past, which should be present at day 1 2000? For forward predictions . It shows a complete flummery of backwards adjustments, far too flat from 1850 -1980 and missing all the 1940’s dip and 80’s rise.
It has a wide but not increasing enough uncertainty in the past.
It completely misses the mark in backwards projecting so if it gets it so wrong in the past how can it predict the future.
Hint, even the simplest betting programmes always have the right winners in their past “simulations.
Reblogged this on Quaerere Propter Vērum.
Thanks for this Dr. Curry.
A couple of things:
1. Richard Haas from the post said: ” We’d better set aside $ for adaptation and accelerate R&D on geoengineering.”
Not until we fully understand about what we’re geoengineering, no we shouldn’t “accelerate R&D on…”. And we don’t, period. The Haas quote is the equivalent of saying: “I don’t know everything about car engines, but let me re-engineer yours and put it back into the car with all of the other systems that depend on it.”
2. Plant life evolves over time in response to environmental pressures that constantly change. (Natural selection doesn’t just apply to animals).
The one that gets me as so fanciful is 1.5 degrees warmer will mean 70% decrease in corals and 2 degrees = 99% or extinction of corals; When corals have been around for 535 million years at least and have lived in 2 degrees and above temperatures for 99% of it’s time on this planet, sometime even 18 degrees above today and not only survived but thrived. Is so completely absurd. What kind of oversight do you have.
Why the presumption that corals are just going to die
Why the presumption of 70%? Shallow water corals, tidal corals, deeper water corals?
Why the presumption that they’re not adapting in any way at all?
Keith A Rowe,
Dead right.
I wonder why so many alarmists are completely incapable of doing basic reality checks of what they read and what they believe.
Similar corals to those in Australia’s Great Barrier Reef flourish in tropical areas further north which are 2C warmer. But warming in situ will kill them? Mmmm …
They could just migrate, eh? How quickly can a coral move?
“But, the most impressive sight is the more common “broadcast spawn” where male and female gametes are released in unison to mix and fertilize in the water column and float to the surface. The fertilized baby corals will drift in the ocean currents for weeks before settling on the seafloor where they will hopefully grow into new reefs.”
…and, bingo, only 10,000 years later you get a coral reef to replace the dead ones.
Wagathon, I made the same reference to my wife this morning: the LEFT needs no collaboration; evidence is not needed, only accusation is enough. I have been trying to discover sufficient empirical evidence to support a conclusion that increased atmospheric CO2 causes an increased atmospheric temperature. So far (after 10 years of study) I have found scant evidence – certainly not enough to warrant alarm. But, alas, I am not a scientist, just a lowly Engineer. So, what do I know??
tekguyjeff
I’m very glad you also have spent time attempting to establish any empirical evidence that CO2 causes the temperature of the planet to change. I’m educated barely beyond high school but have spent, probably the last 5 years or so searching for the self same evidence. To date I have seen one roundly discredited study.
So, after 40 years of climate panic, as far as I can establish, the underlying premise can’t be demonstrated beyond a laboratory experiment. There should be dozens, if not hundreds of robust empirical studies if the future of the human race is to be predicated on this single phenomenon.
As far as I can establish there would be far more scrutiny made of a claim for a cure for the common cold than there is of CO2 causing global temperature change.
This should be taken seriously and at the top of any agenda discussing CO2 caused climate change but somehow, no one seems to ask that simple question.
Why not?
Loved this statement, Judy: ” There has been a great deal natural variability in temperatures prior to 1975 when human caused global warming kicked in any meaningful way.”
Put another way . . In other words, most to all GT changes, SLR, glacial melt, Ice cap melt, sea ice changes, tropical cyclone cycles, floods, droughts, etc., which occurred prior to 1975 were what would be expected to occur within the natural variability of our climate . . . and weather patterns.
I hope the politicians and their staff who read IPCC SPM-SR15 will also read this simple one-page explanation that is not covered in SR15. One of the references is to a talk by Judith Curry earlier this year.
Climate Debate: What Politicians need to know
Politicians and heads of state have done themselves and those they represent a serious disservice when they use the term “Carbon Pollution”. Carbon in the form of carbon dioxide (CO2) is a gas that is vital to life on Earth and is not a pollutant.
The Climate Debate really revolves around the public fully understanding the benefits of CO2. Through the process of photosynthesis, plants absorb CO2, water, and light to give off oxygen, while producing the food (sugars) they need to thrive. When there is more CO2, plants of all types do better, and they are at the foot of the food chain. Commercial greenhouse growers strive to provide the ideal growing conditions and typically boost the CO2 levels in their greenhouses to three times the level of CO2 in the open air. Even the rise from the pre-industrial CO2 levels of 280 ppm to the current 405 ppm has produced real, positive results around the world. For instance, the Leaf Area Index – a measure of the number of leaves – has grown by 14% over the last 30 years (a land area equivalent to two extra USAs). The area south of the Sahara, called the Sahel, is now a broad green belt from the Atlantic to the Red Sea, clearly visible from the International Space Station. The scientific papers on this research attribute 70% of this green expansion to CO2 and about 30% to extra rainfall.
Burning fossil fuels – hydrocarbons – does produce pollution but now it is possible to reduce this pollution to virtually zero with the best modern techniques. Japan and Taiwan have power plants, which burn relatively low-grade coal from Australia, and yet they can remove most of the soot particles (pure carbon) and the toxic oxides (e.g. carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur oxides) so that their tall chimney stacks have a clear plume of CO2 coming out. Many people think the visible clouds coming out of power plant cooling towers is pollution; but it is condensed water vapor – clean, drinkable water. CO2 is not a pollutant. Pollution from transport can still be reduced further.
The UN and its International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have demonized CO2 and accused the extra CO2 of being the primary source of climate change. Recent research has now shown that the IPCC models do not correctly predict the last 40 years, let alone any future period. The climate impact of CO2 is overestimated by a factor of two in the IPCC models. Also, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas and overpowered by water vapor when it comes to absorbing radiation by a large factor (based on the global relative abundance – typically 40 times more water vapor than CO2).
Temperatures have always fluctuated up and down historically and rather than blaming rising trends over the last century on CO2 we need to find the answers in the solar and ocean current cycles that exist. There are more effective models than the IPCC ones that do a much better job of tracking temperature changes and pass validation over the last 40 years. Demonizing CO2 is not the answer.
Below are two references to back up these assertions. They were both produced this year.
The easiest one to follow is a real climate debate by four experts in the field. For a quick example of the debate watch Judith Curry starting at minute 15 of the video, and then Patrick Moore at minute 41. The second is a set of 30 slides with extensive notes and links on the topic.
Yes, this is a complex field but if politicians can understand that CO2 is much more beneficial to all life than any problems with it, they can avoid being vilified themselves for making inappropriate decisions. Politicians need to understand the vital role that CO2 plays and the imperative to reduce pollution from hydrocarbons. This will be a more effective use of resources than the amounts squandered on expensive alternative sources of power.
References:
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVXHaSqpsVg or Google Mann Curry Moore
2. https://goo.gl/3qwtaS
30th September 2018
Gerald Ratzer
Professor Emeritus
McGill University
By and large Australian coal is very high quality.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-27/fact-check-is-australias-export-coal-cleaner/6952190
Not to mention that Australia is one of the worlds largest exporters of coal and if they stopped exporting it totally it would reduce CO2 emissions drastically, not to mention their quality of life.
Funny how they just want to reduce what they use rather than what they sell to the world.
What is the assumed median TCR in this report? How is the orange dotted line calculated?
https://klimaathype.files.wordpress.com/2018/10/91dade1e-7e46-4b46-a5a6-a7ce2bb0803f.png
I don’t know. What the plot does is show is anything we do hardly matters. Which is what Lomborg keeps saying. We can’t change things by more than 0.5 C. What an exercise in futility.
On further reflection, the deniers make better decisions on the economics than the IPCC. How wrong can the IPCC be then when following conspiracy theorists produces better outcomes for the world.
I think pretty much a stalemate has been reached. As climate science is not solidly grounded on evidence, but mostly on models, it cannot progress significantly further. Most of current climate scientific output is quite mediocre. Confirmation of current understanding would require decades of data gathering and analysis. One side demands urgent action, while the other demands more certainty. Unexpected difficulties in the energy transition and a bigger price tag than anticipated in an economic environment that is becoming complex guarantee that nearly nothing will get done. Too much ado about nothing.
+1. The idea that 2 degrees will kill all the corals is absurd nonsense. But people will believe it because it is presented as “science”.
Indeed absurd given the fact that corals survived ten degrees hothouse warming in the PETM (per Scotese)
There are many white sand beaches because coral has always died and been replaced by new coral.
There are so many things wrong with the alarmist position, it’s easy to lose track. For one thing the price tag is fantastically high, thus the consequences to our economy and our living standard unacceptably ruinous. As Javier points out above, this pretty much guarantees nothing will get done. I used to waste a lot of time trying to figure out how supposedly intelligent people can’t see this. But it’s all of a piece. People who will believe that open borders are a fine idea, that racism remains ubiquitous, that a man accused of a sexual crime is certainly guilty simply by virtue of his gender, that speech is violence, that 1 woman in 4 has been sexually assaulted on college campuses, that Hillary Clinton would have made an excellent President, and on and on and on, will believe just about anything.
Large impacts to biodiversity, or even species extinction, may well become fact. But will it be correctly attributed? Do species face extinction because the climate changes slightly or because half of the Earth’s land area, the most fertile half, is now paved, tilled or turned into pasture?
Warming from current icehouse conditions (15C GMST) towards optimum temperatures for life on Earth (GMST around 18-24C), will be beneficial overall, not damaging (see chart page 6 here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324017003_Phanerozoic_Temperatures_Tropical_Mean_Annual_Temperature_TMAT_Polar_Mean_Annual_Temperature_PMAT_and_Global_Mean_Annual_Temperature_GMAT_for_the_last_540_million_years )
Re: “Warming from current icehouse conditions (15C GMST) towards optimum temperatures for life on Earth (GMST around 18-24C), will be beneficial overall, not damaging (see chart page 6 here: “
And, as usual, you’re still abusing Scotese’s work to support your politically-motivated position, even you’ve been repeatedly shown his research debunks your position:
https://judithcurry.com/2018/09/28/week-in-review-science-edition-87/#comment-881731
No. I have not abused Scotese’s work, nor misrepresented it, and his research does not debunk my position.
I’ve refuted your misrepresentations and assertions, which you keep repeating.
You have not tried to understand, or are incapable of comprehending, or are simply trying to divert and misrepresent, presumably because your ideological belief is being challenged.
You have also demonstrated you are incapable of conducting a rational discussion.
I repeat, I’ve refuted your criticisms that are relevant to the point I’ve made – i.e. that global warming up to the optimum temperature – would be beneficial and explained why your other points and attempted diversions – e.g. to cause of temperature change, mass extinctions at temperatures some 10-20 C higher than present GMST, and other distractions – are irrelevant to the point under discussion.
You have not shown any of the facts or statements in my comment here are incorrect: https://judithcurry.com/2018/10/08/1-5-degrees/#comment-881915
Re: “You have not shown any of the facts or statements in my comment here are incorrect: “
I already showed that your own source, Scotese, rebutted your claims. You even went so far as to cast aspersions on what he said:
https://judithcurry.com/2018/09/28/week-in-review-science-edition-87/#comment-881749
If you’re not going to change your mind when you own source cites evidence rebutting you, then there’s no reason to think you’ll change your mind in respond to any amount of evidence cited to you. There’s a term for people like that:
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/denialist
Without diverting to points I didn’t raise, and without misrepresenting what I said, which points that I said here https://judithcurry.com/2018/09/28/week-in-review-science-edition-87/#comment-881749 do you disagree with, and why. Quote the point, and state how you think it should be corrected, and why. Deal with each none separately.
Correction: “deal with each one separately”.
Re: “Without diverting to points I didn’t raise, and without misrepresenting what I said, which points that I said here https://judithcurry.com/2018/09/28/week-in-review-science-edition-87/#comment-881749 do you disagree with, and why. Quote the point, and state how you think it should be corrected, and why. Deal with each none separately.”
I’m free to choose whichever claim of your’s you make that I’d like to rebut. You don’t get to avoid the rebuttals by moving the goal-posts to another topic I’m not addressing.
I’ve told you repeatedly what claims of your’s I’m rebutting, and cited evidence rebutting them. For example, at:
https://judithcurry.com/2018/09/15/week-in-review-science-edition-86/#comment-880831
And you clearly made those claims:
“4. The fossil record shows life thrived when the planet was warmer than now and struggled when colder
5. The optimum temperature for life on Earth is during the so called ‘Greenhouse’ temperatures, which is centred on about 5°C warmer than now (see Scotese (2016) Figure 15:”
https://judithcurry.com/2018/09/15/week-in-review-science-edition-86/#comment-880820
Let me know when you can finally cogently address my rebuttal, instead of acting like you didn’t say things you clearly said.
By the way, when are you going to stop pretending that only I (and not your source Scotese) said this?:
Page 2:
“Since 1880, [the average global temperature] has increased another .6° degrees to 14.4°C (as of 2015). This rate of warming is ~50 times faster than the rate of warming during the previous 21,000 years”
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Christopher_Scotese3/publication/275277369_Some_Thoughts_on_Global_Climate_Change_The_Transition_for_Icehouse_to_Hothouse_Conditions/links/5564088408ae8c0cab36f612.pdf
And yes, you did pretend that only I (and not Scotese) said that, even after I showed you it came from a Scotese article you cited:
https://judithcurry.com/2018/09/28/week-in-review-science-edition-87/#comment-881735
By the way, your above quoted contain so many insults that all but one of the comments (https://judithcurry.com/2018/09/28/week-in-review-science-edition-87/#comment-881749) in which I quoted it were removed in moderation. Of course, your insulting comment itself wasn’t removed in moderation, but that’s par-for-the-course in terms of the selective moderation on this website, when it comes to contrarians on mainstream climate science.
I didn’t not mention rates of change of temperature in the comment you were responding to. It was raised by you as one of your diversions, straw-man, red-herrings. As I pointed out, comparison of rates of change over different periods is invalid. If you had a basic understanding you’d know this yourself and would not have raised it as a distraction. I did not refer to it, so it is bogus to try to imply that because I quote temperatures from Scotese it means I accept everything he says.
If you quote something, does that mean you accept everything said in that source?
Please answer that question honestly, then drop this diversion.
You cannot rebut something I did not say!
Scotese does not rebut anything I said. If you believe he has, state what I said here and what he says that rebuts it. But do not misrepresent what I said (as you have done incessantly in the past and which I have repeatedly pointed out to you).
You have not rebutted the points 4 and 5 you copied from many threads back. I pointed that out to you over and over again. But, I’ve updated that, in part by inserting temperature ranges to avoid your misunderstandings and misrepresentations). The revised version is here: https://judithcurry.com/2018/10/08/1-5-degrees/#comment-881915 . Stick to responding to that comment.
If you have clear succinct rebuttals to any of the points in the above link make it here now. State the point I made that you disagree with, how you think it should be changed, and explain the reason for your suggested change. Do not misrepresent what I said and do not divert to other issues that I did not raise in the comment (linked in paragraph above).
Peter Lang: I’m free to choose whichever claim of your’s you make that I’d like to rebut. You don’t get to avoid the rebuttals by moving the goal-posts to another topic I’m not addressing.
Likewise, the rest of us are free to notice which of his points stand unrebutted. You call it “moving the goal posts”, but the rest of us call it getting a complete view of all the evidence pertaining to all the questions.
Atomsk’s Sanakan: I already showed that your own source, Scotese, rebutted your claims. You even went so far as to cast aspersions on what he said:
What Scotese said about his research results does not “rebut” what Peter Lang said about those same research results. Lang presents a fair interpretation of the data that is less extreme than Scotese’s interpretation. It’s something we face all the time in this discussion: scientists whose interpretations (“warnings”, fears for grandchildren and other future generations) go beyond what is supported by the empirical research results.
Clearly, It is Lang’s case that Scotese misinterprets Scotese’s results. Neither you nor Scotese has rebutted Lang’s case. Lang may be wrong (an assertion I do not make) but you have not shown it.
Matthew R Marler: Peter Lang: I’m free to choose whichever claim of your’s you make that I’d like to rebut. You don’t get to avoid the rebuttals by moving the goal-posts to another topic I’m not addressing.
Oops!
That was supposed to be addressed to Atomsk’s Sanakan.
This is hilarious:
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2018/10/08/important-years-history-major-un-report-sounds-last-minute-climate-alarm/
For example:
“Only the remaking of the human world in a generation can now prevent serious, far reaching and once-avoidable climate change impacts, according to the global scientific community.”
What stops me laughing is the impact such claims have had on policy, to the great detriment of most people and countries, and the enrichment of a favoured few.
Reblogged this on Climate Collections.
Pingback: Om IPCCs senaste alarmistrapport - Stockholmsinitiativet - Klimatupplysningen
Climate change is a false premise for regulating or taxing carbon dioxide emissions. Political or business leaders who advocate unwarranted taxes and regulations on fossil fuels will be seen as fools or knaves. Climate change is NOT caused by human fossil fuels use. There is no empirical evidence that fossil fuels use affects climate. Earth naturally recycles all carbon dioxide.
Fossil fuels emit only 3% of total CO2 emissions. All the ambient CO2 in the atmosphere is promptly converted in the oceans to calcite (limestone) and other carbonates, mostly through biological paths. CO2 + CaO => CaCO3. 99.84% of all carbon on earth is already sequestered as sediments in earth’s crust. The lithosphere is a massive hungry carbon sink that converts ambient CO2 to carbonate almost as soon as it is emitted.
The Paris Treaty is now estimated to cost up to to $100 trillion — $13,333 per human being. Nearly two-thirds of humanity’s cumulative savings over history. And will not affect climate at all. A modern coal power plant emits few air effluents except water vapor and carbon dioxide. Coal remains the lowest cost and most reliable source of electric energy, along with natural gas.
Coal & gas dominate electric energy generation because they are cheap and reliable. Without the CO2-driven global-warming boogeyman, wind and solar power will be relegated to the niches they deserve. Using renewable energy is like paying first-class airfare to fly standby.
They scare people so they can tax and control them.
Returning to the historical temperature data, has any series ever been officially audited?
What, you mean audited like engineers have to do? You must be joking! :)
Interesting pair of papers…
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/10/large-scale-wind-power-has-its-down-side/
“Harvard University researchers find that the transition to wind or solar power in the U.S. would require five to 20 times more land than previously thought, and, if such large-scale wind farms were built, would warm average surface temperatures over the continental U.S. by 0.24 degrees Celsius.”
Reblogged this on I Didn't Ask To Be a Blog.
Is it my imagination, or does the IPCC retrospectively alter their perdictions, I’m sorry I mean projections, so that the observed temperature is always at the median?
Good observation
you may also note as papers are starting to appear with a lower ecs, so the degrees c we must remain below, reduces. funny that.
i wonder what the magic temperature rise we must remain below will be if ecs turns out to be below 1.
The IPPC’s policy recommendations are based on a false premise – i.e. that global warming from current icehouse conditions is dangerous. Global warming would be beneficial, not damaging and not dangerous. Below is one line of evidence (from paleo temperature and how life thrived in warmer times than now),
The long term trends are that Earth’s climate is cooling. Earth’s climate has been cooling for 500 Ma, 50 Ma, 5 Ma, 2 Ma, 800 ka, 5 ka, 2 ka (see Scotese, 2018, chart (p.3) here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324017003_Phanerozoic_Temperatures_Tropical_Mean_Annual_Temperature_TMAT_Polar_Mean_Annual_Temperature_PMAT_and_Global_Mean_Annual_Temperature_GMAT_for_the_last_540_million_years .
• 250 Ma ago, GMST was 36.3°C; that was about 22°C warmer than now.
• GMST declined from about 28°C at 500 Ma ago to around 15°C now – a decrease of 13°C
• GMST averaged about 22–23°C over the last 500 Ma – i.e. about 7–8°C warmer than now
• Life thrived during the Jurassic and Cretaceous ‘greenhouse’ and ‘hothouse’ temperatures (20–28 C) – i.e. 5–13°C warmer than now.
• Tropical sea temperatures have cooled by around 20°C over the last 444 Ma (see p.6 in above link).
• Deep see temperatures have decreased by around 15°C over the last 50 Ma (p.6).
Reality checks:
1. Given that deep sea temperatures have cooled by around 15°C over the last 50 Ma, and given that the heat content of the atmosphere is the same as in the to 2 m of the oceans, it strains credulity to believe that the climate can warm dangerously in less than millions of years. High human CO2 emissions cannot and will not continue for more than perhaps a century, so these will not lift Earth out of the present icehouse period (ice at the poles and cycles of glacials and interglacials).
2. Given that GMST has been up to 22°C warmer than now and life survived (although this was a catastrophic extinction event), it suggest that GMST increase of a few degrees from the current icehouse conditions is not dangerous.
3. Given that GMST was around 5–16°C warmer than now during the Jurassic and Cretaceous and life thrived during these periods, it strains credulity to suggest that GMST increase of a few degrees is dangerous.
4. The fact that the Cambrian explosion occurred when GMST was around 26–29°C, i.e. 11–14°C warmer than now, suggests life thrives better at higher than present temperatures.
5. The planet has been greening over the past century. A recent CE post says the planet has been becoming much greener over the period 1999-2015: https://judithcurry.com/2018/09/19/the-most-amazing-greening-on-earth/
6. IPCC AR4 WG1 Section 6.3.2 says the planet is less arid when warmer, and Section 6.4.1.4 says global terrestrial carbon stocks were reduced by about 300 to 1,000 GtC at the LGM compared to pre-industrial time (mostly due to reduced CO2 concentration).
Since the Cambrian explosion, when GMST was around 26–28.6°C (12–14 C warmer than now), GMST has ranged from around 10.7°C to 36.3°C (i.e. 3.5°C below to 22°C above present GMST). Life thrived when GMST was in the mid ranges, but struggled during coldhouse and extreme hothouse conditions.
Further, life thrived during warming periods and struggled during cooling periods when temperatures were below the optimum (Greenhouse). Taken together, the evidence indicates that warming from the present icehouse conditions to ‘Greenhouse’ conditions, and higher atmospheric CO2 concentration, would be beneficial for life, not detrimental.
We have ample evidence that cooling would be damaging. We have the evidence mentioned above indicating that warming from current icehouse conditions would be beneficial.
Given that we know cooling is damaging, arguing that global warming would also be damaging is akin to arguing that the current GMST is the optimum so that both warming and cooling would be detrimental, but without valid evidence.
Re: “The long term trends are that Earth’s climate is cooling. Earth’s climate has been cooling for 500 Ma, 50 Ma, 5 Ma, 2 Ma, 800 ka, 5 ka, 2 ka (see Scotese, 2018, chart (p.3) here”
Looks like you’re still abusing Scotese’s work. Your own source rebuts you, as I’ve explained to you on other numerous occasions:
https://judithcurry.com/2018/09/15/week-in-review-science-edition-86/#comment-880831
https://judithcurry.com/2018/09/28/week-in-review-science-edition-87/#comment-881731
https://judithcurry.com/2018/09/01/the-lure-of-incredible-certitude/#comment-881556
Once again:
You’ve previously cited “Scotese (2016)”. I’m familiar with much of Scotese’s work. This is the article from Scotese that you’ve previously cited to make your politically-motivated points:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Christopher_Scotese3/publication/275277369_Some_Thoughts_on_Global_Climate_Change_The_Transition_for_Icehouse_to_Hothouse_Conditions/links/5564088408ae8c0cab36f612.pdf
If you’re citing it, then you should have read it, and thus know that it says things like:
“But Nature may not have its way. Things have changed. We have changed things. The addition of CO2 to the atmosphere during the last 200 years of human industry has amplified this natural warming trend and the average global temperature has risen rapidly. […] Since 1880, [the average global temperature] has increased another .6° degrees to 14.4°C (as of 2015). This rate of warming is ~50 times faster than the rate of warming during the previous 21,000 years”
“Extreme global warming was responsible for the greatest mass extinction of all time. 99.99% of all animal life was wiped out. We are fortunate that the mammal-like reptiles, our evolutionary ancestors made it through that climatic catastrophe!”
“These extremely warm polar temperatures were approached only a few times in Earth history, during the great Permo-Triassic extinction and during the warmest hothouse worlds (Cambro-Ordovician, Middle Devonian, Triassic, late Cretaceous, PETM, and middle Eocene)”
“The absorption of CO2 by the oceans resulted in the acidification of ocean waters and caused the widespread extinction of certain marine plankton […]. The amount of carbon injected into the atmosphere during the PETM (~4.5 trillion tons) is thought to be about equal to the amount of carbon (CO2 & CH4) that humans will release into the atmosphere during the next several centuries, as all fossil fuel reserves are inexorably consumed […].”
So your own source admits to anthropogenic global warming, and admits to warming-induced mass extinction. Your source also admits to ocean-acidification-induced extinctions, and compares that to ocean acidification in response to anthropogenic increases in atmospheric CO2.
You conveniently left these points out, making it easier for you to claim that warming would not be dangerous, and that warmer greenhouse temperatures would be optimal for life on Earth. Why did you do that?
Consistent with what Scotese said, increased atmospheric CO2 results in both warming and ocean acidification (due to ocean uptake of some of the excess CO2 from the atmosphere). Both of these factors likely contributed to the Permian extinction. See:
“Initial pulse of Siberian Traps sills as the trigger of the end-Permian mass extinction”
“Climatic and biotic upheavals following the end-Permian mass extinction”
“Ocean acidification and the Permo-Triassic mass extinction”
“End-Permian mass extinction in the oceans: An ancient analog for the twenty-first century?”
“High-precision geochronology confirms voluminous magmatism before, during, and after Earth’s most severe extinction”
“Mass extinction events and the plant fossil record”, table 2 on page 549
CO2-induced warming and ocean acidification are also occurring now. Further discussion on the ocean acidification in the sources below:
Doney et al., 2009: “Ocean acidification: The other CO2 problem”
“A time-series view of changing ocean chemistry due to ocean uptake of anthropogenic CO2 and ocean acidification”
“History of seawater carbonate chemistry, atmospheric CO2, and ocean acidification”
“The geological record of ocean acidification”
“Detecting anthropogenic carbon dioxide uptake and ocean acidification in the North Atlantic Ocean”
Given the aforementioned points of mass extinctions from CO2-induced warming and ocean acidification in the distant past, this has interesting implications for how CO2-induced, anthropogenic climate change contributed to the current man-made mass extinction. For further context, see:
“Accelerated modern human–induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction”
“Global biodiversity: Indicators of recent declines”
“Could a potential Anthropocene mass extinction define a new geological period?”
“Climate change and the past, present, and future of biotic interactions”
“Biodiversity risks from fossil fuel extraction”
You have a chronic comprehension problem. I’ve told you on many occasions, the point is not about causes of warming, its about the impacts of warming.
Re: “You have a chronic comprehension problem. I’ve told you on many occasions, the point is not about causes of warming, its about the impacts of warming.”
And you’re still pretending that I only mentioned the causes of warming. You’re not fooling anyone; it’s clear that I also mentioned the impacts of anthropogenic climate change, including ocean acidification. Once again:
You clearly made the following points when you cited Scotese:
“4. The fossil record shows life thrived when the planet was warmer than now and struggled when colder
5. The optimum temperature for life on Earth is during the so called ‘Greenhouse’ temperatures, which are around 3-7 C warmer than now (see Scotese (2016) Figure 15”
https://judithcurry.com/2018/09/01/the-lure-of-incredible-certitude/#comment-880112
Yet as I’ve repeatedly pointed out to you, you’ve yet to square those points of your’s with the fact that your source Scotese:
1) admits to anthropogenic global warming,
2) admits to warming-induced mass extinction,
3) admits to ocean-acidification-induced extinctions,
4) compares point 3 to ocean acidification in response to anthropogenic increases in atmospheric CO2
https://judithcurry.com/2018/09/15/week-in-review-science-edition-86/#comment-881557
Seriously, how can you use your source to claim that “[t]he optimum temperature for life on Earth is during the so called ‘Greenhouse’ temperatures”, when your own source points out mass extinctions during those greenhouse conditions?
How can you claim that “[t]he fossil record shows life thrived when the planet was warmer than now and struggled when colder”, when your source says that there were mass extinctions during warmer greenhouse conditions?
How can you misuse Scotese’s article to claim that anthropogenic climate change will be harmless (or just beneficial) when Scotese, and numerous other sources, compare anthropogenic climate change to ocean acidification and greenhouse-gas-induced warming that contributed to previous mass extinctions?
Do you even read the sources you cite and misuse?
“This rate of warming is ~50 times faster than the rate of warming during the previous 21,000 years”
anyone making the above statement and actually believing it is beyond help. i also have a bridge to sell them.
Atomsk’s Sanakan, quoting Scotese: “But Nature may not have its way. Things have changed. We have changed things. The addition of CO2 to the atmosphere during the last 200 years of human industry has amplified this natural warming trend and the average global temperature has risen rapidly. […] Since 1880, [the average global temperature] has increased another .6° degrees to 14.4°C (as of 2015). This rate of warming is ~50 times faster than the rate of warming during the previous 21,000 years”
Scotese may be sincere, but rates of previous warmings are very poorly estimated. The rate of warming since the late 1800s has not been shown to produce any lasting damage to wildlife.
AS,
You keep repeating the same comments that I’ve refuted over and over again. The fact you keep repeating them after I’ve refuted them demonstrates you have a severe comprehension problem.
To repeat, for the benefit of other readers, the point under discussion is not about CO2 or the causes of warming. It’s about the impacts of warming. That’s what you fail to understand. When you acknowledge that, and agree to discuss only that point, and agree to abide by the rules of rational discussion https://twentytwowords.com/a-flowchart-to-help-you-determine-if-youre-having-a-rational-discussion/ , then perhaps we might be able to have a rational discussion.
Regarding you repeatedly saying I haven’t read the source, how would you know? It’s a strawman and a baseless assumption. For your information I’ve read it many times since it was first published, and have been following and referring to the Paleomap project for decades.
I did not quote nor refer to Scotese in my point that the fossil record demonstrates that life thrived when GMST was in the Greenhouse range. That’s another example of your misrepresentations.
Further, you continue to demonstrate your dis-honesty in a variety of other ways, including by quoting selectively to misrepresent. Given that it is so frequent and repetitive I can only assume it is being done intentionally to mislead readers.
You said:
Where does Scotese says “there were mass extinctions during warmer greenhouse conditions”? What Scotese (2016) about mass extinctions is:
[my bold]
Another clear example of your misrepresentations.
Re: “You keep repeating the same comments that I’ve refuted over and over again. The fact you keep repeating them after I’ve refuted them demonstrates you have a severe comprehension problem.”
You’ve refuted nothing. All you’ve done is repeat the same abuses of Scotese’s work in comment after comment you repeat on blogpost after blogpost on this website. Not my fault you’ve finally run into someone who’s going to call you on it.
Re: “To repeat, for the benefit of other readers, the point under discussion is not about CO2 or the causes of warming. It’s about the impacts of warming. That’s what you fail to understand.”
*sigh*
I already addressed this, yet you’re pretending. Once again:
You’re not fooling anyone; it’s clear that I also mentioned the impacts of anthropogenic climate change, including ocean acidification.
“I did not quote nor refer to Scotese in my point that the fossil record demonstrates that life thrived when GMST was in the Greenhouse range. That’s another example of your misrepresentations.”
You can stop pretending that I didn’t quote exactly what you said. Once again, you said:
“4. The fossil record shows life thrived when the planet was warmer than now and struggled when colder
5. The optimum temperature for life on Earth is during the so called ‘Greenhouse’ temperatures, which are around 3-7 C warmer than now (see Scotese (2016) Figure 15”
https://judithcurry.com/2018/09/01/the-lure-of-incredible-certitude/#comment-880112
Re: “Where does Scotese says “there were mass extinctions during warmer greenhouse conditions”?”
I’ve literally quoted it for you multiple times. Stop pretending otherwise. Once again:
“Extreme global warming was responsible for the greatest mass extinction of all time. 99.99% of all animal life was wiped out. We are fortunate that the mammal-like reptiles, our evolutionary ancestors made it through that climatic catastrophe!”
“These extremely warm polar temperatures were approached only a few times in Earth history, during the great Permo-Triassic extinction and during the warmest hothouse worlds (Cambro-Ordovician, Middle Devonian, Triassic, late Cretaceous, PETM, and middle Eocene)”
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275277369_Some_Thoughts_on_Global_Climate_Change_The_Transition_for_Icehouse_to_Hothouse_Conditions
Re: “Another clear example of your misrepresentations.”
You’re attempts at gaslighting are not working. Try something else, and stop the pretending.
Wow. You shown your lack of comprehension again. Scotese did not say the extinction events were during greenhouse temperatures. He said they were during extreme hothouse temperatures. I’ve point this out to you over an over again.
Re: “Where does Scotese says “there were mass extinctions during warmer greenhouse conditions”? What Scotese (2016) about mass extinctions is:”
Oh, and in case you decide to pretend that Scotese is talking about a “hothouse” and thus not “greenhouse conditions”, then note that hothouse is a greenhouse condition. A hothouse is an advanced greenhouse state. Scotese has made this clear multiple times, both in that article and in his previously published research. You’d know that if you’d bothered to actually read some of his work.
For example, you quote him as saying (bolding added by you):
“These are times when the Earth experience super – hothouse conditions. The average global temperature may have risen above 25˚C (28˚ C – 30˚C). The Permo -Triassic Super Hothouse world was certainly the more severe.”
Yet elsewhere in his published work he says:
DOI: 10.1016/S0899-5362(98)00084-0
“Gondwanan palaeogeography and paleoclimatology
[…]
The pattern of the Permo-Triassic extinction seems to fit with an episode of super-greenhouse global warming [page 110].”
I have been referring to the chart on p.6 here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324017003_Phanerozoic_Temperatures_Tropical_Mean_Annual_Temperature_TMAT_Polar_Mean_Annual_Temperature_PMAT_and_Global_Mean_Annual_Temperature_GMAT_for_the_last_540_million_years (It appears you didn’t look at it)
And previously to Figure 15 in Scotese 2016. Either way the message is the same. Life thrived through the mid temperature ranges. You keep referring to the mass extinction events during extreme hothouse conditions. That’s irrelevant since we are currently in icehouse conditions. Any increase in warming towards the central range (optimum) would be beneficial.
Re: “I have been referring to the chart on p.6 here:”
You’ve previously referred to Scotese’s other article, and then engaged in evasions when I showed that article rebutted you. I even linked to an example of you citing the article, so you can stop pretending otherwise. Once again:
“4. The fossil record shows life thrived when the planet was warmer than now and struggled when colder
5. The optimum temperature for life on Earth is during the so called ‘Greenhouse’ temperatures, which are around 3-7 C warmer than now (see Scotese (2016) Figure 15”
https://judithcurry.com/2018/09/01/the-lure-of-incredible-certitude/#comment-880112
It’s not my fault that you’re now trying to evade your citation of “Scotese (2016)”, now that it’s become clear that Scotese’s work refutes you.
Re: “Either way the message is the same. Life thrived through the mid temperature ranges. You keep referring to the mass extinction events during extreme hothouse conditions. That’s irrelevant since we are currently in icehouse conditions. Any increase in warming towards the central range (optimum) would be beneficial.”
You can repeat your politically-motivated talking points all you want. It doesn’t change the fact that your own source (Scotese) rebuts you. Nor does it change the fact that a hothouse is an advanced greenhouse and that Scotese said mass extinctions occurred during these greenhouse conditions. Deal with it.
As you’ve been told over and over and…, you’ve yet to square your points with the fact that your source Scotese:
1) admits to anthropogenic global warming,
2) admits to warming-induced mass extinction,
3) admits to ocean-acidification-induced extinctions,
4) compares point 3 to ocean acidification in response to anthropogenic increases in atmospheric CO2
https://judithcurry.com/2018/09/28/week-in-review-science-edition-87/#comment-881748
I suggest you go back and read the comment I posted at the top of this subthread. Read it carefully and try hard to understand it, then consider it. Don’t keep repeating over an over again what I’ve already refuted here and many times before.
Re: “I suggest you go back and read the comment I posted at the top of this subthread. Read it carefully and try hard to understand it, then consider it. Don’t keep repeating over an over again what I’ve already refuted here and many times before.”
Once again, you’ve refuted nothing. All you do is repeat the same politically-motivated points, abuses of Scotese’s work, gaslighting, etc. You can’t actually address what Scotese says, because it rebuts you. That often results in you pretending that Scotese didn’t say something, and that it was instead I who said it.
For example, here you are citing Scotese (2016):
“4. The fossil record shows life thrived when the planet was warmer than now and struggled when colder
5. The optimum temperature for life on Earth is during the so called ‘Greenhouse’ temperatures, which are around 3-7 C warmer than now (see Scotese (2016) Figure 15”
https://judithcurry.com/2018/09/01/the-lure-of-incredible-certitude/#comment-880112
This is a quote from Scotese (2016):
“Since 1880, [the average global temperature] has increased another .6° degrees to 14.4°C (as of 2015). This rate of warming is ~50 times faster than the rate of warming during the previous 21,000 years”
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275277369_Some_Thoughts_on_Global_Climate_Change_The_Transition_for_Icehouse_to_Hothouse_Conditions
When I gave that quote to you, you acted if the quote was from me, not Scotese. And this is the response you gave to the quote:
“I told you before it is invalid to compare over different lengths of time. You’ve compared rate of temperature change over 135 years with that over 21,000 years. Totally misleading, disingenuous. You are repeatedly dis-honest and have zero credibility. I won’t waste time on you.”
https://judithcurry.com/2018/09/28/week-in-review-science-edition-87/#comment-881735
So I’ll ask you this question again (since you clearly couldn’t answer the points from my previous comment):
Why do you cite a source that is, by your own logic, “invalid”, “[t]otally misleading, disingenuous,” “dishonest”, and has “zero credibility”?
https://judithcurry.com/2018/09/28/week-in-review-science-edition-87/#comment-881749
https://judithcurry.com/2018/09/28/week-in-review-science-edition-87/#comment-881749
Peter, anyone reading the exchange between yourself and the sks representative can quite clearly see the bait and switch at play.You have explained your position as clearly as it can be explained,i fear further attempts at clarification will be a waste of your time.
bitchilly,
I agree. I’ve realised this from watching his comments on many threads. However, I was using him as a useful idiot to refine and clarify my points, remove the opportunities to misrepresent (e.g. by replacing Scotese’s ‘Icehouse’, ‘Greenhouse” and ‘Hothouse’ temperatures ranges with the temperature ranges in the Scotese 2018 charts), and by trying to get the SKS guy to state the actual points he disagrees with, what change he suggests, and why. I didn’t really expect he’d do so, but that would reveal to all what his game is. If he did respond – obeying the rules of rational discussion – then we’d be able to debate each point until each is resolved.
Thanks for pointing out he is part of the SKS team of alarmist zealots. I hadn’t realised that. It certainly reveals how bad that organisation is. By the way, what is his real name – the link to his profile says nothing. Revealing that SKS workers have to hide behind a pseudonym.
The point made by Atomsk and myself previously, and many scientific references, is that it is the rate of change of climate that causes the damage and extinctions, a point you are side-stepping with continuous references to periods when the climate was not changing fast at all. Those stable-climate periods are no parallel to what is happening now.
JimD,
So, do you acknowledge that several degrees higher GMST is not dangerous, probably beneficial, and what you are concerned about is the rate of change of GMST?
Comparing rates of change of temperature over different lengths of time is nonsense. Atomsk referred to comparison of rates over 135 years and 23,000 years. It’s equivalent to comparing the rate of change over 1 year with that over 170 years. You should realise that is nonsense.
Second fallacy is he referred to the extinction event 250 Ma ago, which was during Extreme Hothouse when GMST was 21C higher than now. That comparison is clearly not relevant to the Icehouse conditions Earth is in now. Warming from Icehouse towards optimum (about 7 C warmer than now), is obviously beneficial for life (given the rates of change that could realistically be achieved).
The rate of change is the immediate problem. Five degrees in a century is worse for extant life than five degrees in a million years, and the problem at hand is five degrees in a century. If you don’t think many degrees in a century is a problem, you need to find a reference for that, and not keep repeating how happy the dinosaurs were in the Cretaceous period, at least until the sudden climate-change induced end of their time.
JimD,
You did not answer my question? Do you acknowledge that several degrees higher GMST is not dangerous, probably beneficial? Answer that first.
No, you’re not understanding the answer. Many degrees higher how quickly? That affects the answer, and you failed to specify. When you say “beneficial”, do you mean allowing for us to evolve into something else or not?
JimD,
This thread is not about causes of global warming nor about rate of change of temperature. Keep on topic for this thread. Do not try to divert. Answer the question I asked first to acknowledge that you accept the points I raised in this thread.
Yes, it is harmful if added before 2100, and even 2 degrees is according to the IPCC report with lots of backup publications. Knowing what happens by 2100 is key to understanding what this debate is about, otherwise you start getting off topic. Just focus on the short-term covered by our population’s lifetimes to be relevant here.
Referring to IPCC and hand-waving is not a valid response. You haven’t demonstrated anything wrong with the points in my comment at the top of this thread. That is what the discussion on this thread is about.
Since you haven’t answered the question it’s fair to presume you cannot.
What is wrong is you don’t consider the time scale at all. Fast change is bad. That’s your answer.
As I said, This thread is not about causes of global warming nor about rate of change of temperature. Keep on topic for this thread. Answer the question I asked first to acknowledge that you accept the points I raised in this thread.
I’ll address the issue of rate of change on a separate thread, but not until you answer my question regarding this thread. The subject of this thread is in the top comment here: https://judithcurry.com/2018/10/08/1-5-degrees/#comment-881915 .
This thread is about what warming happens by 2100, and you are ignoring that fact completely. It matters. Warming by 2100 is not the same as warming in a million years, for us or life in general, and you fail to make any distinction where one is needed.
Quote the point you disagree with from the top comment on this thread, state how you suggest it should be changed, and explain why. Do the same separately for each point you disagree with, so we can deal with each separately.
Strong warming over short periods is not quote “beneficial”. That is the point I am making. The post is about several degrees of warming by 2100 and how harmful that is to humans and life in general.
JimD,
As I said, I’ll deal with the two issues (optimum temperature for life on Earth and impact of rate of change of temperature) separately. First answer my question about the optimum temperature for life on Earth.
Do you acknowledge that the optimum GMST for life on Earth is around is around 7C warmer than now?
If not, what do you believe is the optimum temperature for life on Earth and why? What’s your evidence?
To answer this question, ignore rates of change of temperature. We can get to that after you’ve answered this question.
Life adapts to rely on its climate, and life on earth has adapted to Holocene conditions, so these conditions are optimum for life as it exists now. Cretaceous conditions were optimum for a different set of life, not the Holocene type. When the temperature changes quickly, life can’t adapt fast enough and this is when the problems start. Holocene life won’t fare well in suddenly Eocene conditions. So the answer to your optimum climate is, it is the climate which our life has evolved and adapted to already, which for us is the Holocene. With added CO2 we enter conditions for which life is not adapted but in many cases threatened instead.
In that case why has life thrived during warm periods of the Holocene but struggled during cold periods – casing massive famine., starvation and dark ages?
Why has the planet greened rapidly over 16 years, 1999-2015 https://judithcurry.com/2018/09/19/the-most-amazing-greening-on-earth/
Why are tropics showing the the highest rates of greening?
Why do you speculate that the Holocene GMST is optimum for current life and it cannot adapt to and benefit from warming over this century?
Human life is statistically healthier and wealthier in the less hot parts of the world further from the equator. It is explained by less disease/pestilence and more outdoor comfort and abundance that all help lifespans productivity. Ecosystems are adapted to their local climates or ocean conditions. The report has this – “Climate-related risks to health, livelihoods, food security, water supply, human security, and economic growth are projected to increase with global warming of 1.5°C and increase further with 2°C. “. So this is not my speculation, it is what the report has. There’s lots more where that came from if you need details.
http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/file/sr15_spm_final.pdf
The subject is today’s climate is optimal for us because we are adapted to it. Warmer climates degrade life in measures like productivity and health. It’s downhill from 1.5 C to 2 C. Downhill means non-optimal. From the report –
“Extreme weather events: risks/impacts to human health, livelihoods, assets, and ecosystems from extreme weather events such as heat waves, heavy rain, drought and associated wildfires, and coastal flooding.”
JimD,
Not supported by paleo evidence. Warmer GMST is better for life. It will make it more productive, as it has done through each previous warming from Icehouse towards optimum temperatures, including through the 20th Century and from 1999-2016, and during the Miocene from 15 C to 18.7C.
There have been no mass extinctions when GMST has increased through this range, so that argument you keep repeating is wrong. You should acknowledge this and admit you were wrong before you make any more comments.
The world’s population is moving towards lower latitudes. How does that fit with your beliefs that warming would be harmful?
Looks like you need to read the report, because the trends are not at all in the right direction for the foreseeable future, and you may be the only person saying the warmer the better as we are set to blow through several degrees of warming. If you like 600-800 ppm more than 300-400 ppm, you need to make the case for it because nobody has done that, and for a good reason as humans have not existed in those conditions before. Remember to mention rising sea levels and humanly uninhabitable areas in your case.
Sorry, JimD, You will not answer any of my questions or address the subject under discussion, nor admit when you are wrong, ever, so I am not interested in following you down your never ending rabbit holes.
You have made no case that doubled CO2 levels are better for humans or extant life. On the one hand we will have worse heatwaves, droughts and fires, but on the other hand worse floods, storms and coastal surges. Your case for this being better is unconvincing to say the least.
Re: “Comparing rates of change of temperature over different lengths of time is nonsense. Atomsk referred to comparison of rates over 135 years and 23,000 years. It’s equivalent to comparing the rate of change over 1 year with that over 170 years. You should realise that is nonsense.”
I literally quoted your own source. How many times are you going to pretend otherwise?
You cited Scotese 2016:
“4. The fossil record shows life thrived when the planet was warmer than now and struggled when colder
5. The optimum temperature for life on Earth is during the so called ‘Greenhouse’ temperatures, which are around 3-7 C warmer than now (see Scotese (2016) Figure 15”
https://judithcurry.com/2018/09/01/the-lure-of-incredible-certitude/#comment-880112
What Scotese 2016 says on page 2:
“Since 1880, [the average global temperature] has increased another .6° degrees to 14.4°C (as of 2015). This rate of warming is ~50 times faster than the rate of warming during the previous 21,000 years”
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275277369_Some_Thoughts_on_Global_Climate_Change_The_Transition_for_Icehouse_to_Hothouse_Conditions
Let me know when you can finally admit to what you own source says. Engaging in speeches about SKS, or whatever organization you’re currently paranoid about, does not address what your source said. You thinking I work for SKS is reminscent of anti-vaxxers thinking I worked for the CDC when rebutted their claims on autism.
And insulting me (which Curry’s moderation of course allows for for those attacking mainstream science) doesn’t what your source said.
If you have a problem with what your source said, then make that clear when you cite that source. But don’t come insulting me when I quote your own source, and don’t act as if the quote is something I made up.
Refuted repeatedly.
Re: “Refuted repeatedly.”
Not really. It’s a really simple question that you refuse to answer, because it shows your own sources debunk you (to the point that you insult me for quoting what your source says).
Once again;
Did you source Scotese (2016) say this on page 2?:
“Since 1880, [the average global temperature] has increased another .6° degrees to 14.4°C (as of 2015). This rate of warming is ~50 times faster than the rate of warming during the previous 21,000 years”
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275277369_Some_Thoughts_on_Global_Climate_Change_The_Transition_for_Icehouse_to_Hothouse_Conditions
You quoted it, not me. So Scotese cannot rebut me.
Further, just because I quote something from a paper doesn’t mean I accept and agree with everything in that paper. I asked you previously, if you quote something from a paper, does that mean you accept everything stated in that paper? You did not answer. Please answer that question now.
You continually make nonsense assertions, strawman arguments, misrepresentations.
Did John Cook assign you to disrupt Climate Etc.?
How long do you think a contributor to SKS would be allowed to continue posting on SKS before being banned if he/she behaved as you do here?
Jim D: The point made by Atomsk and myself previously, and many scientific references, is that it is the rate of change of climate that causes the damage and extinctions,
When did rate of change become “the” point?
What’s the evidence that the recent rate of change, since 1880, has ever by itself (without land use changes and chemical pollution) caused any extinction?
Atomsk’s Sanakan: All you’ve done is repeat the same abuses of Scotese’s work in comment after comment you repeat on blogpost after blogpost on this website.
You have not shown that Peter Lang has abused any of Scotese’s work. At most you have shown that Scotese is more alarmed than Lang by what are by historical standards not great changes. The extreme hothouse conditions are not in the forecast from CO2-induced warming.
The extremes we are seeing increasingly are caused by the rate of change of climate, and we are only at the beginning of an upramp depending heavily on policy. The quicker the new extremes come, the less we and ecosystems, are prepared for them, and the damage is worse. Several degrees in a century is a big problem, but several degrees in a million years is not. It’s the speed not the size of the change.
JimD,
Evidence to support your claims please.
You completely disbelieve the 1.5 degree report, so what hope do I have?
Jim D, (I assume talking to Peter Lang)
“You completely disbelieve the 1.5 degree report, so what hope do I have?”
I have read back through the comments, and find no confidence in your statement. Where do you get the idea that Peter Lang disbelieves anything except for the damage function? At most I think his point is that the value of the temperature is likely optimized at a higher number than the current value. I find that “complete disbelief” is a gross exaggeration.
Further, he is asking for proof of your statement that,
“The extremes we are seeing increasingly are caused by the rate of change of climate, and we are only at the beginning of an upramp depending heavily on policy. The quicker the new extremes come, the less we and ecosystems, are prepared for them, and the damage is worse. Several degrees in a century is a big problem, but several degrees in a million years is not. It’s the speed not the size of the change.”
My problem with the above statement would the part that states “Several degrees in a century is a big problem”. I would like to see proof of that as several degrees in a day is demonstrably not a problem, as that amount of variation is normal. Why would several degrees in a century be a big problem. It is possible that your definition of several is different than mine, as I would more rigorously characterize it as 1.5 to 2 degrees per doubling or roughly 0.5 degrees per one hundred years. So maybe we are not talking about the same rate either. What proof do you have that “several degrees in a century” is a viable concern? Put another way, what data set do you get several degrees in a century from? If this is a rhetorical comment, then I accept that the rate of change needs to be considered, but I would not conclude that the current rate is a concern.
Both your statements are at odds with the report that says that there is damage beyond 2 degrees and that occurs by mid-century if we don’t do anything. Lang goes as far as to say it is even beneficial the warmer we get beyond that. Do you agree with that? Do you consider droughts, heatwaves and fires on one hand and floods, coastal surges and sea level on the other? What goes into your evaluation of climate change? What did the report miss?
Jim d,
You still have not provided evidence to support your claims. Provide the evidence, not appeal to authority.
Like I said, if you don’t believe authority in the form of the 1.5 degree report, then what chance do I have? I would not make a different argument from that.
It’s nothing like the present conditions – unless we get some bolide strikes, a few million years apart.
For a better example look at the period from Eocene to present. Warm period and warming were massive beneficial to life. Cold periods were more difficult. Extinctions were caused by cooling, not warming.
Why am I in moderation? Surely someone has to bring up the mitigation deception?
“So, what is the possible worst cast impact for 1.5 or 2.0 C warming on the timescale of the 21st century?
collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, possibly resulting in up to 2.5 m sea level rise as per the NOAA (2017) report (actually, the IPCC does not even make this case, they are predicting SLR of 1-2 feet). This extreme scenario, which would maybe justify all this, is regarded as extremely unlikely, and we are not presently on such a trajectory.”
–
Waffle.
“collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, possibly resulting in up to 2.5 m sea level rise” can only take place over a thousand years underthe IPCC scenario.
on the timescale of the 21st century” we are looking at barely 10 cms of SLR attributable to WAIS melting.
“This extreme scenario, extremely unlikely, and we are not presently on such a trajectory.” is pandering to the IPCC report.
Just say impossible scenario [by 2010] and be done with it.
Just a small thing Judith,
Your first link above (http://sr15_spm_final/ ), for me fails, however it is at https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/sr15/sr15_spm_final.pdf .
Thank you Tom, I had the same issue.
Consider this figure from Berkeley Earth regarding land temperatures since 1750: There has been a great deal natural variability in temperatures prior to 1975 when human caused global warming kicked in any meaningful way.
So the variability after 1975 is all human and before all natural variability?
I do not think this is a provable and credible statement.
Several studies have been published since AR5 identifying much more information about the extent and dynamics of geothermal activity affecting the West Antarctica and Greenland Ice Sheets, including very recently the paper showing the rise of the floor under the WAIS. Since no discussion in AR5 was provided about the apportionment of the respective Ice Sheet’s contribution to GMSLR coming from geothermal activity, I will be interested in how this dynamic is treated in the new IPCC.
Much has been learned in the years since AR5 about this complex issue. I expect an effort toward full disclosure will be forthcoming.
“Since 1970 the global average temperature has been rising at a rate of 1.7°C per century, compared to a long-term decline over the past 7,000 years at a baseline rate of 0.01°C per century (NOAA 2016, Marcott et al.
2013)”.
Instrumental temperature characteristics are consistent with natural climate variability of short-term events and steep warming trendlines >0.5degC/century that are merely the overprinting internal oscillations on the longer-term Holocene climate baseline.
https://i.imgur.com/dVWBw4r.jpg
Shouldn’t we all enjoy a good laugh at the disappearing uncertainty in BEST? How can a heavily-adjusted accumulation of records of averages of measurements from devices that are mostly not even accurate to .1 degrees have an uncertainty of less than .1 degrees? Errors might average out, if they happen to have the proper distribution, but that averaging cannot increase measurement precision.
With proper uncertainties, we appear to know it got warmer after the LIA, and during the 20th, but not much else.
Another accurate post from Chris Booker, exposing more of the mitigation BS and fra-d.
In 2010 China stated that they would double co2 emissions by 2030 and India stated they would treble them.
Trump is the only leader who has had the brains to leave this cesspool of lies, fra-d and deception. Evidently no other leader can add up simple first grade sums.
Unbelievable but true.
Christopher Booker: The Truth About China’s & India’s Coal Boom
Date: 07/10/18
Christopher Booker, The Sunday Telegraph
“China and India have never had any intention of reducing their dependence on coal, as they had both made abundantly clear in documents each country submitted before the Paris agreement, where China said it planned to double its CO2 emissions by 2030, and India that it would treble them
The BBC and The Guardian recently reported on new satellite pictures revealing that China, as easily the world’s largest emitter of CO2, is now busily building so many new coal-fired stations that they will add 259 gigawatts or 25 per cent to its coal-fired output, more than that of all US coal-fired power stations combined.
This “approaching tsunami” of new coal plants is “wildly out of line” with the 2015 Paris climate agreement, reports The Guardian, quoting a report from the research group Coalswarm. But in no way should this be a surprise. It is just what China announced it intended to do at the time of Paris, when it said it would be doubling its CO2 emissions by 2030. Official Chinese figures confirm that the country is well on target, having increased its emissions by 6.9 per cent in the first quarter of 2018 alone.
What makes this much odder, however, is that The Guardian itself was already reporting as long ago as 2010 that China planned a massive expansion of its coal-fired power generation. Odder still is that The Guardian also revealed that the UN was planning to pour “billions of pounds of public money” in subsidies to China and India, to enable them to build 20 “heavily-polluting coal plants”.
This was to be done under the UN’s “Clean Development Mechanism” scheme, designed to subsidise “developing” countries like China and India to rely only on “sustainable development” as their economies caught up with the West.
The idea was that these countries would be given “carbon credits”, which could then be sold to organisations in the West, to allow them to “offset” their own CO2 emissions. To earn these credits, the developing countries had to show that on specific projects they were curbing their emissions: as when they replaced a “dirty” old coal plant with a new one using less polluting “clean coal” technology.
By 2010 this system had thrown up so many scandals, including wholesale fraud, that it came under heavy fire, and in some more blatant respects it was modified. But the UN ruled that China and India could still earn carbon credits for closing “dirty” power plants to replace them with “more efficient” new ones.
In fact the real message was that China and India never had any intention of reducing their dependence on coal, as they had both made abundantly clear in documents each country submitted before the Paris agreement, where China said it planned to double its CO2 emissions by 2030, and India that it would treble them.
This was precisely the reason given by President Trump in 2017 for pulling the US out of the “Paris accord”, which he regarded as no more than a cynical charade. But The Guardianand the BBC never mentioned any of this. If they had followed the story properly, they would have no reason for now expressing shock at what China and India are up to because they would have known it all along”.
Professor Judith Sloan’s article in today’s The Australian:
If climate disaster is nigh, at least we’ll be spared IPCC reports
Here we go again — a group of like-minded, henny-penny scientists telling us the world is about to be transformed in a bad way unless we act. Yes, we’ve heard it many times before.
The good thing this time is that this group of credulous scientists who are part of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is telling us that we are so close to a tipping point that there will be no point issuing any more warnings. That will be a ¬relief.
Evidently, the difference ¬between the world temperature rising by 2C and 1.5C is huge. More people being inundated, more floods/droughts, greater destruction of biodiversity, hardly any coral reefs left. You know, the normal catastrophic stuff.
And “actions that can reduce emissions include: phasing out coal in the energy sector, increasing the amount of energy produced from renewable sources, electrifying transport and reducing the carbon footprint of the food we consume”. That is, all the favourites of the far-Left.
Mind you, the content of the IPCC report released yesterday ain’t science. It doesn’t set out ¬refutable hypotheses and test them. In fact, we don’t even have reliable data on global temperatures. Using climate models to support predictions of future disasters is actually not that far from making astrological prophecies.
And, of course, scientists make truly appalling economists. They don’t understand the first thing about cost-benefit analysis. Check out this piece of guff: “Limiting ¬global warming to 1.5C compared to 2C could go hand-in-hand with ensuring a more sustainable and equitable society.”
To suggest that all coal-fired power stations will need to be closed by 2050 is not just silly, it is also completely naive. According to German environmental group Urgewald, “1600 coal plants are planned or currently under construction in 62 countries … The new plants will expand the world’s coal-fired power capacity by 43 per cent”.
And bear in mind, most of these plants will last at least 50 years. Luckily, our own Prime Minister recognises the essentially fraudulent nature of these international reports. Scott Morrison said yesterday that “we’re not throwing money into some global climate fund and getting pulled around by the nose by all these international agencies when it comes to these other reports. I mean the same ¬report that (came out yesterday) said a year ago that the policies were fine”.
He may be weak for refusing to consider Australia pulling out of the Paris climate agreement, but at least he’s not being fooled by some of its various appendages.
For anyone who wants to spend time on yet another IPCC report predicting future climate cataclysms, I recommend you read Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s latest book, Skin in the Game. He makes the distinction between science and scientism.
The IPCC report is a clear ¬example of the latter, with all its fancy concocted charts and tables pretending to be based on real ¬science undertaken by disinterested scientists when it is nothing of the sort.
According to this insightful ¬author, “one can see that these academic-bureaucrats wanting to run our lives aren’t even rigorous. They can’t tell science from scientism — in fact, in their eyes scientism looks more scientific than real science”.
In sum, “scientism is to science what a Ponzi scheme is to an -investment”.
We should all bear this in mind next time we see a report from the IPCC.
END
Judith Sloan is an economist and company director. She holds degrees from the University of Melbourne and the London School of Economics. She has held a number of government appointments, including Commissioner of the Productivity Commission; Commissioner of the Australian Fair Pay Commission; and Deputy Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
Re: “The good news is that it is better written and with better diagrams — no more turgid prose and obscure diagrams that we’ve come to expect from the IPCC.”
I find their diagrams and text to be quite readable. And I have no background in climate science. So I don’t think the problem is with the IPCC, but instead with certain people who read (and complain) about IPCC reports.
Anyway, to remind people again, the IPCC tends to under-estimate the impacts of climate change, which runs contrary to the charge of alarmism that Curry often likes to launch against the IPCC:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-ipcc-underestimated-climate-change/
“Climate Change Skepticism and Denial: An Introduction
[…]
A constant refrain coming from the *denial* campaign is that climate scientists are “alarmists” who exaggerate the degree and threat of global warming to enhance their status, funding, and influence with policy makers. The contribution by William Freudenburg and Violetta Muselli provides an insightful empirical test of this charge and finds it to lack support. […] They then present evidence that IPCC assessments have in fact understated the degree of subsequently reported climate disruption, supporting their argument.”
And this is some of the relevant supporting research on this point:
“Reexamining Climate Change Debates: Scientific Disagreement or Scientific Certainty Argumentation Methods (SCAMs)?”
“Climate change prediction: Erring on the side of least drama?”
“Global warming estimates, media expectations, and the asymmetry of scientific challenge”
Furthermore, the IPCC’s tone tends to be more tentative and less “alarmist”, with sufficient attention paid to uncertainty:
“The language of denial: Text analysis reveals differences in language use between climate change proponents and skeptics”
“Comment on “Climate Science and the Uncertainty Monster” by J. A. Curry and P. J. Webster”
“Guidance note for lead authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on consistent treatment of uncertainties”
Your excerpts do not contain a single number. Fully in the best traditions of the PostScientific American.
Re: “Your excerpts do not contain a single number. Fully in the best traditions of the PostScientific American.”
Because the numbers are given in the cited sources themselves. And what “excerpts” are you talking about? Do you think the italicized sections are from the Scientific American article? If so, then you’ve failed miserably. They’re each an individual source. So, for example, this is a list of three papers, referred to by title:
““Reexamining Climate Change Debates: Scientific Disagreement or Scientific Certainty Argumentation Methods (SCAMs)?”
“Climate change prediction: Erring on the side of least drama?”
“Global warming estimates, media expectations, and the asymmetry of scientific challenge””
So instead of wasting my time with your ideologically-motivated bias regarding Scientific American, please actually learn to read sources for comprehension.
“I doubt that Atomski has any science background at all – not necessarily a problem if your self education includes the philosophy of science. It is a problem when the purpose is partisan advocacy rather than enlightenment.”
Once again, the selective moderation on here allows for evidence-free nonsense like this, as long as one is contrarian on mainstream climate science.
Yes, I failed miserably. Your italicised sections follow immediately the SciAm link, a common practice for an excerpt. I fell for it. I no longer presume you innocent. BTW, your excerpts from individual sources (which give the numbers) do not contain a single number.
We may note that Atomski didn’t deny my doubts as to the depth of his scientific background – and his purpose here – just repeated a complaint about Judith Curry’s moderation and contrarians. Misleading and deceptive?
Re: “Yes, I failed miserably. Your italicised sections follow immediately the SciAm link, a common practice for an excerpt. “
Nope. Common practice is for a link to come directly after the quoted section. And yes you did fail miserably, since all you would have to have done is read the SciAm link to see that none of the quote sections appeared in the link. But, of course, you didn’t bother to read the SciAm link. So you were criticizing a source you hadn’t even bothered to read. Do better.
Re: “BTW, your excerpts from individual sources (which give the numbers) do not contain a single number.”
The numbers are given in the sources, as was already explained to you. But you’ve already shown you don’t actually read sources before commenting on them, so I don’t actually expect you’ll read any of those sources. That would be too hard for you.
I doubt that Atomski has any science background at all – not necessarily a problem if your self education includes the philosophy of science. It is a problem when the purpose is partisan advocacy rather than enlightenment.
“So I don’t think the problem is with the IPCC, but instead with certain people who read (and complain) about IPCC reports.” Right. You’re slipping. I dreamed you complained that new studies were done since AR5 and I was less than smart to keep hammering on what the IPCC said. Which as I recall, A fair estimation in AR5 of SLR going to about 2090 is about 2.3 inches per decade under the middle two emission scenarios. I can go with you lighting AR5 on fire and stomping on its ashes because of whatever they call this new deal. But I’d like to know what the rules are?
Atomsk’s Sanakan: Anyway, to remind people again, the IPCC tends to under-estimate the impacts of climate change, which runs contrary to the charge of alarmism that Curry often likes to launch against the IPCC:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-ipcc-underestimated-climate-change/
Maybe. That is the opinion of those authors, who give more weight to extreme consequences of low probability than most reviewers, and more than the IPCC authors. To date warming has not produced negative consequences, and has produced positive growth in natural vegetation and agriculture.
From Michael Shellenberger:
A new Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report attacks nuclear power as a key climate solution by promoting the notion that it risks nuclear weapons proliferation, may cause childhood leukemia, and destroys the natural environment.
“Nuclear energy,” write IPCC authors, “can increase the risks of proliferation, have negative environmental effects (e.g., for water use), and have mixed effects for human health when replacing fossil fuels.”
In fact, study after study over the last 40 years finds that nuclear is the safest way to make reliable electricity, and climate scientists found that nuclear energy has saved 1.8 million lives by preventing premature deaths from air pollution.
Where nuclear was 19% of U.S. electricity last year, solar and wind still constitute just 1.3 and 6.3% of electricity in the U.S., and 1.3% and 3.9% of electricity globally.
And yet IPCC repeatedly characterizes nuclear as inherently flawed in contrast to renewables whose problems can be solved through “policy interventions.”
In reality, there is no policy intervention that can change the physics of making electricity.
Solar farms (like California’s Ivanpah) require up to 5,000 times more land per unit of energy than nuclear plants (like California’s Diablo Canyon) because sunlight is energy-dilute and uranium is energy-dense.
IPCC authors promote “policy interventions” to “enhance affordability” for renewables, but never suggest similar “policy interventions” for nuclear.
And IPCC authors note that “Bundling energy-efficient appliances” with renewables can reduce costs — which is true, but combining energy efficient appliances with nuclear (or any other energy source) would have the same effect.
The report comes days after two major scientific papers published by Harvard University professors found that “the transition to wind or solar power in the U.S. would require five to 20 times more land than previously thought, and, if such large-scale wind farms were built, would warm average surface temperatures over the continental U.S. by 0.24 degrees Celsius.”
IPCC authors even promote “bio-energy” — the use of wood, dung, and ethanol — fuels with large, well-documented negative human health and environmental impacts.
In 2012, a Science Advisory Board to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency concluded bioenergy was not “carbon neutral” — a view supported by more than 90 leading scientists in an open letter from more than 90 leading U.S. scientists, and the European Union’s Environment Agency.
IPCC authors use biased and misleading cost comparisons to put solar in a positive light and nuclear in a negative one.
Nuclear, IPCC authors claim, is an example “of where real-world costs have been higher than anticipated… while solar PV is an example where real-world costs have been lower.”
In truth, those places like California and Germany who have added the most solar and wind have seen their electricity prices rise significantly as they have dealt with the high cost of unreliability which require expensive solutions like batteries that more reliable sources of energy don’t require.
In other words, solar energy is so expensive in part because it produces electricity at less than one-third of their rated power over a year, whereas nuclear plants run at full power over 90% of the year — something the IPCC report never explains.
Worse, the IPCC report reinforces the widespread — and wrong — view that poor nations can “leap-frog” rich nations with solar panels, batteries, and energy efficiency, by pointing to charity or development agency subsidies for rural solar in poor villages.
IPCC points to the 19 million people in Bangladesh who now have solar-plus-batteries, but never mentions that the same country is building nuclear power plants.
In sharp contrast, the IPCC hammers again and again on the alleged dangers of nuclear:
In spite of the industry’s overall safety track record, a non-negligible risk for accidents in nuclear power plants and waste treatment facilities remains. The long-term storage of nuclear waste is a politically fraught subject, with no large-scale long-term storage operational worldwide. Negative impacts from upstream uranium mining and milling are comparable to those of coal, hence replacing fossil fuel combustion by nuclear power would be neutral in that aspect. Increased occurrence of childhood leukaemia in populations living within 5 km of nuclear power plants was identified by some studies, even though a direct causal relation to ionizing radiation could not be established and other studies could not confirm any correlation (low evidence/agreement in this issue).
In truth, the environmental impacts of uranium mining are vastly smaller than for coal, precisely because uranium is at least two million times more energy dense than coal.
“Waste” (used fuel) from nuclear plants, meanwhile, is the only waste by-product from any electricity production that is not externalized into the environment, which is why nuclear waste never hurts anyone, while seven million die prematurely each year from air pollution.
Elsewhere IPCC engages in unsubstantiated fear-mongering, claiming “Continued use of nuclear power poses a constant risk of proliferation.”
Where many nations acquire civilian nuclear plants do so in part to provide the option of gaining a weapon in the future, no nation has used its civilian nuclear plants to create a weapon.
Moreover, as nuclear weapons have spread from one to nine nations since 1945, deaths from wars and conflicts have declined 95% — and by 90% in battle conflicts between India and Pakistan — an outcome empirical studies attribute largely to nuclear deterrence between large nations.
More.
See Forbes article here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/10/08/attacking-nuclear-as-dangerous-new-ipcc-climate-change-report-promotes-land-intensive-renewables/#5a5d5bcae19c
Michael Shellenberger who plucked the IPCC’s 2C target out of the air? Now one of the good guys?
Please quote where Shellenberger “plucked the IPCC’s 2C target out of the air”?
I understand it was Yale professor William Nordhaus in the 1970s https://www.carbonbrief.org/two-degrees-the-history-of-climate-changes-speed-limit
I assume this from above is true:
“A new Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report attacks nuclear power as a key climate solution by promoting the notion that it risks nuclear weapons proliferation, may cause childhood leukemia, and destroys the natural environment.
“Nuclear energy,” write IPCC authors, “can increase the risks of proliferation, have negative environmental effects (e.g., for water use), and have mixed effects for human health when replacing fossil fuels.””
If this is true, the IPCC is now a train wreck. Something about the human caused climate change and dissing the best bet to minimize that. We caused it, but we can’t use nuclear power. Not what we caused, but that we can’t fix it with nuclear power.
Certainly not from the 1.5 degree IPCC report which sees nuclear as part of the solution.
Dr Richard Lindzen has just delivered his lecture to the GWPF. Here is his last line and his conclusion.
“Misrepresentation, exaggeration, cherry picking, or outright lying pretty much covers all the so-called evidence”.
“Conclusion. So there you have it. An implausible conjecture backed by false evidence and repeated incessantly has become politically correct ‘knowledge,’ and is used to promote the overturn of industrial civilization. What we will be leaving our grandchildren is not a planet damaged by industrial progress, but a record of unfathomable silliness as well as a landscape degraded by rusting wind farms and decaying solar panel arrays. False claims about 97% agreement will not spare us, but the willingness of scientists to keep mum is likely to much reduce trust in and support for science. Perhaps this won’t be such a bad thing after all – certainly as concerns ‘official’ science. There is at least one positive aspect to the present situation. None of the proposed policies will have much impact on greenhouse gases. Thus we will continue to benefit from the one thing that can be clearly attributed to elevated carbon dioxide: namely, its effective role as a plant fertilizer, and reducer of the drought vulnerability of plants. Meanwhile, the IPCC is claiming that we need to prevent another 0.5◦C of warming, although the 1◦C that has occurred so far has been accompanied by the greatest increase in human welfare in history. As we used to say in my childhood home of the Bronx: ‘Go figure’. ”
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2018/10/Lindzen-2018-GWPF-Lecture.pdf
Tossing crumbs to the GWPF there. That’s what they bring him in for. Doesn’t pass muster with any scientific audience.
Jim. I’m curious what specific crumbs would not pass muster? By quotation or specific data in the linked report what would the scientific audience be able to refute with facts? I’m not interested in their philosophy, I want to know how if fails to pass muster on the facts.
He knows that scientific audiences would laugh at his portrayal of global warming effects as nothing to worry about and just food. These are typical memes and show he is a full bore across-the-board denialist on any of the consequences of emission levels on the climate, and don’t even mention sea level rise to him.
Let me translate your reply, you have no facts, just your empty assertions. Sea level rise has been going on since 1700s
I have seen no specific rebuttals of the 1.5 degree report by experts, just keyboard jockeys.
Excellent! Thanks for posting
Re: “Misrepresentation, exaggeration, cherry picking, or outright lying pretty much covers all the so-called evidence”
No, that actually sounds more like what Lindzen did. For example, he presents the following following image on page 9 of the document you linked to:
https://archive.is/fneXk/875efadd08c0b3404d2e53115147ffc83fba1f2b.jpg
[from page 9: “Global warming for the two cultures”
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2018/10/Lindzen-2018-GWPF-Lecture.pdf%5D
He says this of that figure:
“Figure 1 shows the IPCC model forecasts for the summer minimum in Arctic sea ice in the year 2100 relative to the period 1980–2000. As you can see, there is a model for any outcome. It is a little like the formula for being an expert marksman: shoot first and declare whatever you hit to be the target [page 8].”
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2018/10/Lindzen-2018-GWPF-Lecture.pdf
The image Lindzen showed looks quite a bit different from the published images I’ve seen, such as:
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/–mnI7aHUmuQ/WvokpAgrH-I/AAAAAAAABiw/ol2NgHUBrwEznQ84KOsnj2bI3JrRdlEGACLcBGAs/s640/Arctic%2Bsea%2Bice%252C%2Bmodels%2Band%2Btrend.JPG
[figure 1 of: “Arctic sea ice decline: Faster than forecast”]
So I tracked down Lindzen’s source for his image, “Eisenman et al., J. Clim., 2011.” This is that paper:
“Consistent changes in the sea ice seasonal cycle in response to global warming”
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/2011JCLI4051.1
What Lindzen shows is the left half of figure 3 of that paper. Here’s figure 2 of that paper:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/na101/home/literatum/publisher/ams/journals/content/clim/2011/15200442-24.20/2011jcli4051.1/production/images/medium/2011jcli4051.1-f2.gif
[figure 2 of: “Consistent changes in the sea ice seasonal cycle in response to global warming”]
That image clearly rebuts Lindzen’s claim that the models are compatible with virtually any outcome, and the image largely matches what I’ve seen elsewhere in the published literature. So Lindzen cherry-picked the image that he thought helped his point, while ignoring an image that rebutted his point. He didn’t given an explanation for his cherry-picking. Thus he’s guilty of the very cherry-picking he accuses others of.
Reminds me of what Lindzen misrepresenting science back in 2001:
“The truth about global warming
[…]
Lindzen clearly relishes the role of naysayer. He’ll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking. […] he punctuates his measured cadences with thoughtful drags on a cigarette.”
http://www.newsweek.com/truth-about-global-warming-154937
17 years later: the more things change, the more Lindzen stays the same.
Atomsk’s Sanakan: Re: “Misrepresentation, exaggeration, cherry picking, or outright lying pretty much covers all the so-called evidence”
No, that actually sounds more like what Lindzen did. For example, he presents the following following image on page 9 of the document you linked to:
It’s what a lot of people do, as Lindzen said.. Lindzen (I doubt you could find outright lies) emphasizes the liabilities, holes, cavities etc in the case indicting CO2.
The Earth system is deterministically chaotic and I am a great believer therefore in catastrophe – in the sense of Rene Thom. At the outside an extreme event of low probability and high consequences for biology, hydrology and society more generally.
But the solution is technological across diverse sectors – including including agriculture.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/styles/medium/public/2016-05/global_emissions_sector_2015.png
Rattan Lal I regard as the leading global expert in soil carbon. He suggests in this some 500 GtC has been lost from the terrestrial system since the advent of agriculture some 10,000 years ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uh0TwQyw37A
Carbon sequestration in soils has major benefits in addition to offsetting anthropogenic emissions from fossil fuel combustion, land use conversion, soil cultivation, continuous grazing and cement manufacturing. Restoring soil carbon stores increases agronomic productivity and enhances global food security. Increasing the soil organic content enhances water holding capacity and creates a more drought tolerant agriculture – with less downstream flooding. There is a critical level of soil carbon that is essential to maximising the effectiveness of water and nutrient inputs. Global food security, especially for countries with fragile soils and harsh climate such as in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, cannot be achieved without improving soil quality through an increase in soil organic content. Wildlife flourishes on restored grazing land helping to halt biodiversity loss. Reversing soil carbon loss is a new green revolution where conventional agriculture is hitting a productivity barrier with exhausted soils and increasingly expensive inputs.
Increased agricultural productivity, increased downstream processing and access to markets build local economies and global wealth. Economic growth provides resources for solving problems – 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 and reduce the health and environmental impacts, developing better and cheaper ways of producing electricity, replacing cooking with wood and dung with better ways of preparing food thus avoiding respiratory disease and again reducing black carbon emissions. A global program of agricultural soils restoration is the foundation for balancing the human ecology. Many countries have committed to increasing soil carbon by 0.4% per year. As a global objective and given the highest priority it is a solution to critical problems of biodiversity loss, development, food security and resilience to drought and flood.
Carbon is much better restored to soils and ecosystems than remaining in the atmosphere.
JC asks:
>blockquote>So, what is the possible worst cast impact for 1.5 or 2.0 C warming on the timescale of the 21st century?
– collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet …
– species extinction
Good questions. My answers to the two questions are:
1. Reducing GHG emissions will have no impact on when the Antarctic Ice Sheet collapses.
2. There is no evidence that warming of a few degrees from the current icehouse conditions towards the optimum GMST for life on Earth will have overall adverse consequences. In fact, past rapid warming events from icehouse conditions have had hugely beneficial impacts for life, e.g. Figure 15:21 here: http://eprints.maynoothuniversity.ie/1983/1/McCarron.pdf
We’d better set aside $ for adaptation and accelerate R&D on geoengineering.
I hope no one lets the climate idiots try geoengineering. They have already ruined the economy of much of the western world.
So, just to be clear, you’re saying that the report has nothing of value and the scientists who worked on it were wasting their time over the last couple of years?
Hmm, looks like you’re not saying that, but don’t say what the value of the report is. Or maybe you don’t like that so many climate scientists apparently disagree with you?
It is worth noting that IPCC used to support nuclear power as one of the solutions to reduce co2 emissions. This leads one to believe that either the anti-nuclear scientists has gotten more power over the process or that it has come in through the political process. Both are worrying, especially seen in the light of the latest reports on renewables from MIT and Harvard.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/10/08/attacking-nuclear-as-dangerous-new-ipcc-climate-change-report-promotes-land-intensive-renewables/#7387f26aae19
1.5 C warmer than the cold minimum of the LIA – is meant to be dangerous?
And we’re already had 1 C so another 0.5 C is catastrophic?
The residents of isolated north Canadian communities such as Paulatuk, Kugluktuk and Cambridge Bay are running out of food and essential supplies since ice breakers can’t penetrate the exceptionally thick sea ice to reach them.
https://www.iceagenow.info/canada-extreme-sea-ice-prevents-crucial-deliveries-to-isolated-communities/
Just imagine how catastrophic 0.5 C warming would be to these communities?
(/sarc)
BTW did they include a chapter on CO2 greening, more trees now than 50 years ago, greening of deserts and surging agricultural production?
Probably the usual mantra “looks good now but just you wait – our computer models say it will all turn bad any day now.”
Any day now…
A lot of media coverage, particularly on the BBC, has been touting electric vehicles (EVs) as one of the ways to avoid the scary future projected by this IPCC report. However, if electricity generation and the energy used to make batteries is not sufficiently carbon-free, replacing internal combustion engines (ICEs) by batteries for transport will increase greenhouse gases (GHG) – there are scores of papers on this topic. In most parts of the world, particularly in China and India, electricity generation will come substantially from coal for decades to come. In such areas, moving to EVs will be very bad from GHG and other environmental considerations. Much more about EVs vs ICEs in this paper – Applied Energy 225 (2018), 965-974. I can send a copy if you email me at kalghatgig@gmail.com
EVs also mean a future in which developed nations need more electricity production per capita than they do today- particularly at night when most of those EVs will be plugged into the grid while their owners stream movies from thousands of internet servers.
In response, the warm bizarrely continue to insist on a future with less electricity per capita even though we have the technology to produce more without emissions. This is the actual “global warming debate.” it is not going well for the climate concerned, and never will.
dont now where the world is going. if we will not take dirctly action right now the world that we now will colapse. All those movies that tou have seen like 2012 ect will become reality. Please save our planet
Pingback: Why man-made global warming is still debated - frontporchweather
In response to sharing this I’ve seen this? Any comments said from LC15 & subsequent revision..
http://climateextremes.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/What-Lies-Beneath-V3-LR-Blank5b15d.pdf
This Australian report must not be taken as representing the average view of the average Australian.
Further, it does not represent the views of the average scientist interested in the subject.
The report displays the reason for its failure. It is badly biased. The references read like a Who’s Who of science activists and fellow travellers. The preface is by one of the worst of the alarmists, the one who admitted he plucked 2 degrees C out of the air, as a change that must not be exceeded by world effort.
The words of the report are a rehash of old rallying cries. The words say little about recent scientific advances. Scientists expect assertions to be supported by data. This report reads like it is from a data-free zone.
Scientists expect balance in arguments. There is no balance here. A multitude of dissenting views is simply ignored. There is not even the hint of an argument – it is a monotonous diatribe of unsupported assertions, assertions that are full of uncertainties expressed by many others.
Read it at your own risk.
Believe it to show your gullibility.
Caveat emptor. Geoff.
The only thing really robust is IPCC hubris.
I’ll plow this plowed ground and beat this dead horse yet some more. Maybe somebody will step up and ‘splain scientifically how/why I’ve got it wrong – or not.
Radiative Green House Effect theory (TFK_bams09):
1) 288 K – 255 K = 33 C warmer with atmosphere, RGHE’s only reason to even exist – rubbish. (simple observation & Nikolov & Kramm)
But how, exactly is that supposed to work?
2) There is a 333 W/m^2 up/down/”back” energy loop consisting of the 0.04% GHG’s that traps/re-emits per QED simultaneously warming BOTH the atmosphere and the surface. – Good trick, too bad it’s not real, thermodynamic nonsense.
And where does this magical GHG energy loop first get that energy?
3) From the 16 C/289 K/396 W/m^2 S-B 1.0 ε ideal theoretical BB radiation upwelling from the surface. – which due to the non-radiative heat transfer participation of the atmospheric molecules is simply not possible.
No BB upwelling & no GHG energy loop & no 33 C warmer means no RGHE theory & no CO2 warming & no man caused climate change.
Got science? Bring it!!
Nick Schroeder, BSME CU ‘78, CO PE 22774
Experiments in the classical style:
https://principia-scientific.org/debunking-the-greenhouse-gas-theory-with-a-boiling-water-pot/
Here is some science. The IPCC presents data that shows CO2 concentration increased by 116 ppmv from 275 ppmv in 1750 to 378 ppmv in 2011. They also showed that the radiative forcing (RF) of CO2 over the same period increased by 1.68 W m-2. There is no reason to doubt these. Then, the IPCC says over the same period, atmospheric temperature increased by 0.8oC. They claim all of the increase in CO2 is caused by the RF of CO2.
They are right provided you look at CO2 in isolation from the atmosphere. However, in the atmosphere CO2 and back radiation work against each other. Back radiation is the sum of the RF of all the greenhouse gases. There are several ways to show that the RF of CO2 is very small, around 0.6%, compared to the RF of back radiation. Thus, the warming effect of CO2 very slightly makes the back radiation smaller when it is warming the Earth of cooling iyt.
You can see more about this in the following paper: Lightfoot HD, Mamer OA. Carbon dioxide: sometimes it is a cooling gas, sometimes a warming gas. Forest Res Eng Int J. 2018;2(3):170-175. DOI: 10.15406/freij.2018.02.00043
H, Douglas Lightfoot
The IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5C is now published [link].
Judith, that link doesn’t seem to work.
Pingback: IPCC-raportin uutisointia | Roskasaitti
What interested me in the graph below – apart from the first reporting of the 26 degrees north array showing a declining AMOC – was the use of cumulative data. Not to be laughed at on a dynamic planet subject over geologic time to immense variability. While the AMO seems more an effect of Atlantic heat transport – it is northern heat transport that sets the scene interacting with orbitals, solar intensity and other variables. Internally it depends on water sinking to emerge maybe a 1000 years later in upwelling regions on the western margins of continents. Origins of shifting Pacific states. Wind blown current depends on polar annular modes and meridional (north/south) or zonal (east/west) wind patterns. The annular modes have a solar component and copious internal feedbacks I presume. I thinking of trying cumulative data with SAM and ENSO.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/smeed-fig-72-e1518284539722.png
Multi-decadal variability in the Pacific is defined as the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (e.g. Folland et al,2002, Meinke et al, 2005, Parker et al, 2007, Power et al, 1999) – a proliferation of oscillations it seems. The latest Pacific Ocean climate shift in 1998/2001 is linked to increased flow in the north (Di Lorenzo et al, 2008) and the south (Roemmich et al, 2007, Qiu, Bo et al 2006)Pacific Ocean gyres. Roemmich et al (2007) suggest that mid-latitude gyres in all of the oceans are influenced by decadal variability in the Southern and Northern Annular Modes (SAM and NAM respectively) as wind driven currents in baroclinic oceans (Sverdrup, 1947). SAM and NAM are driven by solar intensity and copious internal feedbacks I presume.
I have had some luck recently with cumulative data. This is cumulative monthly energy imbalances – multiply by seconds in a month to get energy – v. Argo. Space and ocean data are independent sources. But they should co-vary by the principle of conservation of energy. At the edge of the atmosphere energy in and energy out are purely electromagnetic. And oceans have an energy memory as heat. The correlation is 0.86.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/ceres-v-argo2.png
I suspect that the early Argo record is out of sync and that the planet has been warming continually over the 21st century thus far – albeit at a lower rate than 1976 to 1998. Although there may have been a late peak in the late 1990’s – then ERBS data on radiant energy flux accords with Josh Willis’ first ever annual ocean series (Wong et al 2006).
Just yesterday I was playing with cumulative MEI v. HadCRUT4.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2018/10/mei-v-hadcrut1.png
The oceans have a long memory and the atmosphere is a small part of the turbulent flow of energy through the Earth system. The correlation here is 0.82. The eastern and central Pacific are key regions – much of the tropics – for energy dynamics. Ocean surface temperatures shift at inter-annual, decadal and millennial scales – and with it low level marine strato-cumulus cloud cover. And oceans have a memory.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2018/10/co2-v-hadcrut.png
To be fair the correlation here is 0.86. So I am giving it 50/50. For the future – the only thing I am expecting is climate surprises – but I would opt for a reversion to the centennial mean of a cooler IPO.
And there is much that can be and is being done cost effectively – e.g. halting desertification or practical coastal land use – oceans and rivers need room to move – and given the pace of technological change. It frankly doesn’t seem a problem at all – if it weren’t perhaps for low probability events.
Re: “Just yesterday I was playing with cumulative MEI v. HadCRUT4.”
No need to waste time with nonsensical indices like cumulative MEI or cumulative TSI. Your cumulative MEI is:
1) arbitrary
2) has a compromised compromised relationship between the cumulative index and the trends you’re trying to use the index to explain
3) violates basic physics (look up the Stefan-Boltzmann law, for what’s going to happen to much of the energy from that short burst of warming you get with a temporary El Nino event).
You’ve know you’ve dun goofed when your contrarian idea on accumulation is so bad that even John Christy turns his back on it (after previously using it when he knew it was wrong):
“The amplitude of the 11-year [solar] cycle has diminished since the peak in 2000 and, in our residual time series, there is indeed a slight slowdown in the rise after 1998. One may arbitrarily select an accumulation period of TSI, so that a peak occurs near 1998 so the TSI coincides with (explains) variations in [lower tropospheric temperature] (e.g., a 22-year TSI trailing average peaks in 2000, though other averaging periods do not), but this would compromise the independence between the predictors and predictand [the predictor is the factor used to predict the predictand] [page 514].”
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13143-017-0070-z
And more from Timothy Osborn, who represents scientific points more accurately than does Christy:
“They suggest that these trends arise from cumulative anomalies of ENSO or cumulative anomalies of solar irradiance, but offer no compelling physical basis for this hypothesis. There is no consideration that a warmer climate would cause increased loss of radiative energy to space, nor that a cooler climate would decrease the emissions of radiation to space. This effect is necessary to explain how the Earth’s climate has remained within a relatively small range of mean temperatures for much of the Earth’s geological history, yet their hypothesis assumes that a step up in temperature (due, e.g. to an El Niño event) would be sustained even after the El Niño had dissipated, because they use the cumulative ENSO index. Furthermore, a cumulative variable must have a physically-defined baseline from which the anomalies are defined, which has not been done in this case. Otherwise, the baseline can be changed to produce an entirely arbitrary upward or downward trend in the cumulative variable, and thus support a false claim that the cumulative variable can “cause” a trend in the climate.
https://climatefeedback.org/scientists-reactions-us-house-science-committee-hearing-climate-science/
There is compelling physics for the energy dynamic – as I have explained many times.
Carl Frohaug, October 10 Reply
Having followed much climate discussion material for many years now, it appears that most if not all policy decisions by politicians are made in a vacuum of proven data. The alarmists totally fail to balance good with concerning aspects of more carbon in the atmosphere. We at latitude fifty two, in Saskatchewan, Canada, growing grain to help feed the world, are benefiting nicely with slightly higher heat and C.O. 2. Our Boreal Forests are also greening nicely, reforestation easier to accomplish.
There is much talk of warming causing wars, seems if we look back a thousand years during parts of Medieval centuries it was global cooling that resulted in the darkest times for people surviving in the Northern Hemisphere. A recent trip through Ireland and Scotland was full of evidence where climate change resulted in starving northern tribes were forced southwards, resulting in most living within fortified protective structures. Such a step backwards from what the Romans had built in the much warmer climate either side of the birth of Christ.
Much of the Highlands of Ireland and Scotland showed great potential for growing dense boreal forests, yet were mostly barren. Areas that had been manually replaced during the Great Depression were supporting very healthy merchantable forest. If alarmist groups really believe less carbon dioxide is required, then trust nature to do that for us, put your resources to work reforesting rather than squandering tax dollars on more climate models.
Carl, I concur, having been brought up in Scotland – where some reforestation has been done – but there is lots of space for extra boreal forests which will thrive with the extra CO2. Maybe you saw the piece I wrote on the global Leaf Area Index which has grown by 14% over the last 30 years. CO2 is good for all life on Earth. Here is the rest of my post.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/2phynwcq0zgxknx/Climate%20Debate%20-%20SPM-SR15.pdf?dl=0
Carl,
reforestation is great. We can all support that. Ireland and Scotland used to be forested. Regrowing the forest in mostly sparsely inhabited nature preserves is a win win solution. To a non existent problem but it improves the landscape and pulls CO2 out of the air. If we can redirect the greens to forests and encourage them to stop air travel all over the world, that will be positive. Something good out of this controversy.
Scott
The UK Met office ‘Decadal’ five year forecast is out.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc
Using a reference period now of 1850-1900
Perhaps a more important question than ‘how much will the earth warm?’ is ‘how do people live sustainably in the most inhospitable places on earth currently?’
You see, if people can survive successfully with annual rainfall of 200mm and hottest temperatures of 40-50C not through computer modelling but appropriate agriculture, how on earth are people going to starve soon if their current scenario is 30C maximum heat and 800mm rain per annum? Assuming they use the right approach to agricultural sustainability…..
The issues are around water harvesting and retention, soil creation and retention, appropriate crops grown and other sustainable functions added.
Water absorption and drainage to groundwater are key metrics when assessing risks of flooding and erosion. The better the land drains, the more absorption capacity it has, the more foliage absorbs water before even hitting the ground, the less likely an area is to flood. Creating such improvements is far, far cheaper than repeated costs of regular flooding….
Personal experimentation shows that within five years, damaged surface soil can become healthy, drain better, absorb more and be more fertile to growing plants. Within a generation, others have shown you can regenerate native forest, reintroduce species diversity and reduce flood risks.
There is science and native wisdom involved, to be sure. But it concerns soil science, hydrology, species choice and initial nurturing. Sooner or later, nature simply takes over…..
It is very much about water management across landscapes – along with increasing organic content of soils on savanna, cropland, desert and forest – fundamental to water retention and productivity.
https://www.facebook.com/Australian.Iriai/videos/837253506390913/
Pingback: IPCC report calls for $122 trillion for clean energy, build 'one to two nuclear power plants every day,' world hunger would rise | The Global Dispatch | The Global Dispatch
Apropos of the politics of the moment, I am trying to find a post I think I saw here in the last few months. An Australian posted a link to his blog An Australian Irie, the gist of which is that we don’t have to agree at all about CAGW to agree what to do next: technology and efficiency, food, water, soils, resilience, energy… Can anyone post a link? Thanks!
You are dead right on that.
What we have to do about CAGW is nothing! The reason is that global warming is beneficial. The more we can get this century the better. Reducing global warming will cost a fortune and also reduce the benefits of global warming. The climate industry was estimated to be about $1.5 trillion per year in 2015 (about 1/9% of GDP) and increasing at about 2 to 10 times global GDP growth. In addition, reducing global warming reduces global GDP and GDP growth rate. Furthermore, reducing CO2 concentrations increases the damages when the next cooling event occurs.
All in all, the correct policy response is to do nothing to reduce global warming.
That’s one for Ellison.
AGW? SMH – but there are rational reasons for many things.
https://www.facebook.com/Australian.Iriai/
The Dow just closed down over 800 points. This dramatic drop in the stock market occurred within hours of landfall of the Category 4 hurricane Michael. We can look forward to yet another discussion about an additional casualty of Global Warming. There is no limit to what Global Warming can do.
cerescokind,
A (Not Quite) Complete List Of Things Supposedly Caused By Global Warming
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming2.html
I regret that I must disagree with Dr. Curry’s statement,
“IMO, even with erroneous attribution of extreme weather/climate events and projections using climate models that are running too hot and not fit for purpose of projecting 21st century climate change, the IPCC still has not made a strong case for this massive investment to prevent 1.5C warming.”
The climate models are NOT running too hot for the people who designed them. In fact, they are running just right and giving the desired results. It’s amazing how the models produce the anticipated results. It is unfortunate that Trofim Lysenko didn’t have similar models in the mid-20th century Soviet Union.
Egan. A quiz for the day:
How many systematic biases can a climate model have, and what is the direction of the sum of biases?
Pingback: Climate alarmists admit they want to dismantle our free-enterprise system
Pingback: Climate Alarmists Admit They Want to Dismantle Our Free-Enterprise System - Western Free Press
Pingback: Climate Alarmists Admit They Want to Dismantle Our Free-Enterprise System - Wiredfocus
Pingback: Climate Alarmists Admit They Want To Dismantle Our Free Enterprise System | PA Pundits - International
More than 1,5 deg warming has become the great monster in climate politics. The Great Ghost of Paris climate conference. How was the moster created?
All countries could agree that 2 degree surface temperature increase from pre-industrial would be too much for the human rase. The threat of annihilation sets up a great moral movement that increases towards moral panic and an endtime rhetoric. Two common headlines of newspapers prior to the Paris agreement: ” ‘Megastorms’ that throw thousand-tonne boulders over clifftops may be on their way back thanks to global warming.“ “The effort kicking off in Paris this week to hold the world’s nations to strict climate targets may be even more urgent than most people realize.”
The story about the Cow and the Bull and the other boulders from Eleuthera in Bahamas is spread around the world, to show the destructiveness and forces of superstorms. It`s an exiting story about what happened in superstorms 118000 years ago, when the wind and waves lifted boulders of up to 2300 tons ashore. The New Theory of Boulder Elevation came from a geologist Paul J. Hearty, and illustrate what we can expect if we don`t agree on a radical reduction of CO2 emission. This was really food for the climate scientist-activist James Hansen. “Hearty, an expert on Bahamas geology, first published in 1997 the idea that Cow and Bull and were hurled to their perch by the sea. Since then, Hansen has given the work much added attention by framing the boulders as Exhibit A for his dire view of climate change — which has drawn doubters in the scientific community.” ”That period was one where, in Hansen’s interpretation, “all hell breaks loose”: a collapse of polar ice, quickly rising seas, a shutdown of heat-transporting ocean circulation, and then superstorms spawned by a greater temperature contrast between warm tropics and cold poles.” Cited from: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/megastorms-that-can-throw-thousand-tonne-boulders-up-cliffs-may-be-on-their-way-back-thanks-to-a6754511.html
So, how was The New Theory of Boulder Elevation received among geologists? In 2002 there was presented a paper at The 114th Annual Meeting of the Geological Society of America. It was from the most profiled geologists of Bahamas. Boardman, Mark R., Carew, James L., Mylroie, John E., Panuska, Bruce C., Sealy, Neil E., and Voegeli, Vincent J.: Holocene deposition in Northwest Providence Channel, Bahamas : a geochemical approach. The conclusion was that Hearty and others hadn`t got the age right, and that the boulders was younger than the ground underneath. They had never been moved. “We regard the “boulders” to be residual karst towers, which explains the presence of the caves.”
Of couse Hearty and Hansen held on to The New Theory of Boulder Elevation. So, finally in 2016, when the Paris conference should be arranged, they gathered the climate scientist community around the paper: “Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern observations that 2 ◦C global warming could be dangerous”. James Hansen1 , Makiko Sato1 , Paul Hearty2 , Reto Ruedy3,4 , Maxwell Kelley3,4 , Valerie Masson-Delmotte5 , Gary Russell4 , George Tselioudis4 , Junji Cao6 , Eric Rignot7,8 , Isabella Velicogna7,8 , Blair Tormey9 , Bailey Donovan10 , Evgeniya Kandiano11, Karina von Schuckmann12, Pushker Kharecha1,4 , Allegra N. Legrande4 , Michael Bauer4,13 , and Kwok-Wai Lo3,4 . But now with no other geologist than Hearty.
From my comment on: https://scienceofdoom.com/2017/06/25/the-confirmation-bias-a-feature-not-a-bug/
Peter Lang and Atomsk
Your extensive debate is interesting but you seem to me that you have assumed control of Judith’s blog, I look forward to the reading the diversity of opinions from Climate Etc commenters but tire from having to scroll endlessly to find them.
Hank McCard
Hank McCard,
Thank you for your comment. I agree and accept your point. However, in this case it was not a rational debate.
Unfortunately, sometimes blogs are invaded by a troll. They post nonsense incessantly, will not obey the rules of rational debate, misrepresent, use strawman arguments, mislead and so on. Sometimes it is necessary to respond to every point until they are shown up for what they are, and to correct the misrepresentations. That’s what I decided to do in this case. I felt his misrepresentations and deceptions could not be allowed to stand unanswered.
Peter,
Thanks, I understand the circumstances. I doubt that I’ll receive a response from Atomsk .
Peter Land: Unfortunately, sometimes blogs are invaded by a troll.
I do not agree that Atomsk’s Sanakan is a troll. He consistently reiterates the selected evidence and some analogies that support the “action oriented” consensus; he refers to unanswered questions of science as “moving the goal posts”, even the most important questions such as changes of energy flows at the surface of earth. It’s more misjudgment (I would say) of the relative importance of questions whose answers are unknown.
Such as: what caused the increase in temperature in the first half of the 20th century, and what caused the apparent 1000 year periodicity in the ice core temperature record? Without solid evidence to resolve such questions, and others, forecasts about the future should be made in a spirit of humility. Or explicit recognition of the uncertainties, as in Dr Curry’s essay.
That nice little bit of ice off Alaska is still melting at this late date.
I feel like giving up on projections or is that predictions.
I’m not sure what predictions you made but I feel like doing that in climate is like making picks in the stock market- you might be correct in the long run but it can be hell in the short run. I’ve seen many projections of global cooling by a certain year. Given so many known and unknown variables I don’t know why they don’t give themselves a little more wiggle room. They might be right at some point but calling it within a decade might be all that can be expected.
I’m sure you know ice is absent off Alaska where the SST has been very warm. It will be interesting to see how long that lasts.
The SST off Maine and Labrador and is very warm. It has been that way for years. Very curious. I’m not sold on geothermal activity affecting OHC and SST there but with it affecting water temperatures elsewhere it does raise interesting questions.
Thanks CK.
A funny thing.
As I complained of this to my greenie son he looked up the site and the next day that speck of remaining ice had grown 4 times bigger.
No idea.
Was the graph wrong or has my retrospective prediction kicked in.
I was hoping a slab of ice here might act as a focus for rather rapid referee in the Beaufort and perhaps Chukchi regions.
The ESS has melted a lot but is till quite thick. Refreeze in these areas might be quite quick and quite the opposite of the last 2 years.
Pingback: The real agenda on climate change is not what you think - Self-Reliance Central
Pingback: IPCC achieves net zero credibility | Watts Up With That?
Pingback: IPCCs förslag för att nå 1,5 grader kostar triljoner - It. Ain´t. Gonna. Happen - Stockholmsinitiativet - Klimatupplysningen
Pingback: IPCC achieves net zero credibility |
Pingback: IPCC achieves internet zero credibility | Tech News
One of the huge disconnects from policy is the fact higher energy prices and lower temps both tend to increase winter deaths among the world’s poorest, which are generally quite a lot higher than summer deaths. The challenge to prove that GCIMs are accurate and reliable AND the impact projections are accurate and reliable AND the offsetting increases in positive factors like global biomass production, lower energy, higher winter temps, etc. are known to be smaller is just enormously high, and the IPCC doesn’t get anywhere close to it.
Dr Curry, thank you for your essay.
rubbish from th ipcc as always. Climate warmed at the end of the 20th century because of geomagnetic field intensity increase not CO2. This was caused from solar wind increase. Here is a link to NGDC-NOAA gif I compiled from their 20th century geomagnetic field models. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dimitris_Poulos/publication/326019540_gfm_animated/data/5b33c90b0f7e9b0df5d27866/gfm-animated.gif and here is the link to my papers where I describe the mechanisms https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dimitris_Poulos
Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #331 | Watts Up With That?
Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #331 |
Another year has gone by, and it’s now the Fall of 2018. It’s time once again to put up ‘Beta Blockers Parallel Offset Universe Climate Model’, a graphical GMT prediction analysis tool first posted on Climate Etc. and on WUWT in the summer of 2015.
http://i1301.photobucket.com/albums/ag108/Beta-Blocker/GMT/BBs-Parallel-Offset-Universe-Climate-Model–2100ppx_zps7iczicmy.png
Referring to the illustration, Beta Blocker’s Scenario #1 predicts a +3C rise in GMT by the year 2100 from the year 2015, roughly equivalent to a +4C rise from the year 1860, which should be considered the pre-industrial baseline year for this graphical analysis. Scenario #2 predicts a +2C rise from 2015, roughly equivalent to a +3C rise from 1860. Scenario #3 predicts a +1C rise from 2015, roughly equivalent to a +2C rise from 1860.
The above illustration is completely self-contained. Nothing is present which can’t be inferred or deduced from something else also contained in the illustration.
For example, for Beta Blocker’s Scenario #1, the rise in GMT of + 0.35 Degrees C / Decade is nothing more than a line which starts at 2016 and which is drawn graphically parallel to the rate of increase in CO2 which occurs in the post-2016 timeframe. Scenario #1’s basic assumption is that “GMT follows CO2 from Year 2016 forward.”
Beta Blocker’s Scenario #2 parallels Scenario #1 but delays the start of the strong upward rise in GMT through use of an intermediate slower rate of warming between 2025 and 2060 that is also common to Scenario #3. Scenario #2’s basic assumption is that “GMT follows CO2 but with occasional pauses.”
Beta Blocker’s Scenario #3 is simply the repeated pattern of the upward rise in GMT which occurred between 1860 and 2015. That pattern is reflected into the 2016 – 2100 timeframe, but with adjustments to account for an apparent small increase in the historical upward rise in GMT which occurred between 1970 and 2000.
Scenario #3’s basic assumption is that “Past patterns in the rise of GMT occurring prior to 2015 will repeat themselves from 2016 on through 2100, but with a slight upward turn as the 21st Century progresses.”
That’s it. That’s all there is to it. What could be more simple, eh?
All three Beta Blocker scenarios for Year 2100 lie within the IPCC AR5 model boundary range — which, it should also be noted, allows the trend in GMT in the 2000 – 2030 timeframe to stay essentially flat while still remaining within the error margins of the IPCC AR5 projections. (For all practical purposes, anyway.)
Scenario #3 should be considered as the bottom floor of the three scenarios, which is approximately two degrees C from pre-industrial CO2 concentration levels. It is also the scenario I suspect is most likely to occur.
The earth has been steadily warming for more than 150 years. The earth isn’t going to stop warming just because some people think we are at or near the top of a long-term natural fluctuation cycle. The thirty-year running average of GMT must decline steadily for a period of fifty years or more before we can be reasonably certain that a long-term reversal of current global warming has actually occurred.
How did Beta Blockers Parallel Offset Universe Climate Model come about?
Back in 2015, I had been criticizing the IPCC’s climate models as being messy hodge-podges of conflicting scientific assumptions and largely assumed physical parameterizations. Someone at work said to me, “If you don’t like the IPCC’s models, why don’t you write your own climate model?”
So I did. However, not having access to millions of dollars of government funding and a well-paid staff of climate scientists and computer programmers to write the modeling code, I decided to do the whole thing graphically. The illustration took about thirty hours to produce.
If I’m still around in the year 2031, I will take some time to update the above illustration to reflect the very latest HadCRUT numbers published through 2030, including whatever adjusted numbers the Hadley Centre might publish for the period of 1860 through 2015. In the meantime, I’ll see you all next year in the fall of 2019 when the topic of ‘Are the IPCC’s models running too hot’ comes around once again.
Pingback: Climate alarmists admit they want to dismantle our free-enterprise system | True North Reports
Pingback: IPCC erreicht Glaubwürdigkeit Null! – EIKE – Europäisches Institut für Klima & Energie
A good, practical, reality check. This is an example of what experienced engineers do (or should do) all the time.
Pingback: Energy & Environmental Newsletter: October 22, 2018 - Master Resource
Pingback: Hearken sinners: The end is near – AEI – American Enterprise Institute: Freedom, Opportunity, Enterprise | TrumpsMinutemen
Pingback: Energy And Environmental Newsletter – October 22nd 2018 | PA Pundits - International
Pingback: Hearken sinners: The end is near – Supporters and opponents of internet freedom line up for next legal battle | TrumpsMinutemen
How does one insert a figure or picture into this blog? I have tried a couple of different ways that do not work.
Any help any one can give is appreciated.
H. Douglas Lightfoot
I’m adding a + sign on both ends of an address that will work:
+https://i.imgur.com/2Mel3k5.png+
Delete the + signs, you’s get BOM’s latest Niño 3.4 prediction:
https://i.imgur.com/2Mel3k5.png
IN other words, no html for images. Just the bare-naked image address.
I think my colleague was wanting to insert the actual -.jpg into his post.
What you saying it has to be online somewhere and you just enter the URL.
Yes, if the full url ends in something recognizable as an image like .jpg or .png it should automatically insert the image.
I just saw this blog.
For info: In my newsblog on my website: http://www.nipsect.dk I discussed some clear mistakes/incorrect startements, I found in the new IPCC report, when it was published. I have not seen that other places. May be of interest for readers of this blog?
Pingback: Climate Alarmists Admit They Want to Dismantle Our Free Enterprise System – Americans for a Better Economy