by Judith Curry
How would you explain the complexity and uncertainty surrounding climate change plus how we should respond (particularly with regards to CO2 emissions) in five minutes?
Last week I served on a panel for a summer school in Canada for engineering students. They are working on the energy transition, and their Professor wanted them to be exposed to the debate surrounding all this, and to think critically. I was the only climate scientist on the panel, the others were involved in renewable energy. Each panelist was given 5 minutes to make their main points. The essay below is what i came up with. 5 minutes is longer than an elevator speech, but it is still pretty short
Let me start with a quick summary of what is referred to as the ‘climate crisis:’
Its warming. The warming is caused by us. Warming is dangerous. We need to urgently transition to renewable energy to stop the warming. Once we do that, sea level rise will stop and the weather won’t be so extreme.
So what’s wrong with this narrative? In a nutshell, we’ve vastly oversimplified both the problem and its solutions. The complexity, uncertainty, and ambiguity of the existing knowledge about climate change is being kept away from the policy and public debate. The solutions that have been proposed are technologically and politically infeasible on a global scale.
Specifically with regards to climate science. The sensitivity of the climate to a doubling of carbon dioxide has a factor of three uncertainty. Climate model predictions of alarming impacts for the 21st century are driven by an emissions scenario, RCP8.5, that is highly implausible. Climate model predictions neglect scenarios of natural climate variability, which dominate regional climate variability on interannual to multidecadal time scales. And finally, emissions reductions will do little to improve the climate of the 21st century; if you believe the climate models, most of the impacts of emissions reductions will be felt in the 22nd century and beyond.
Whether or not warming is ‘dangerous‘ is an issue of values, about which science has nothing to say. According to the IPCC, there is not yet evidence of changes in the global frequency or intensity of hurricanes, droughts, floods or wildfires. In the U.S., the states with by far the largest population growth are Florida and Texas, which are warm, southern states. Property along the coast is skyrocketing in value. Personal preference and market value do not yet regard global warming as ‘dangerous.’
Climate change is a grand narrative in which manmade climate change has become the dominant cause of societal problems. Everything that goes wrong reinforces the conviction that that there is only one thing we can do prevent societal problems – stop burning fossil fuels. This grand narrative misleads us to think that if we solve the problem of manmade climate change, then these other problems would also be solved. This belief leads us away from a deeper investigation of the true causes of these problems. The end result is narrowing of the viewpoints and policy options that we are willing to consider in dealing with complex issues such as public health, water resources, weather disasters and national security.
Does all this mean we should do nothing about climate change? No. We should work to minimize our impact on the planet, which isn’t simple for a planet with 7 billion inhabitants. We should work to minimize air and water pollution. From time immemorial, humans have adapted to climate change. Whether or not we manage to drastically curtail our carbon dioxide emissions in the coming decades, we need to reduce our vulnerability to extreme weather and climate events.
With regards to energy. All other things being equal, everyone would prefer clean over dirty energy. However, all other things are not equal. We need secure, reliable, and economic energy systems for all countries in the world. This includes Africa, which is currently lacking grid electricity in many countries. We need a 21st century infrastructure for our electricity and transportation systems, to support continued and growing prosperity. The urgency of rushing to implement 20th century renewable technologies risks wasting resources on an inadequate energy infrastructure and increasing our vulnerability to weather and climate extremes.
How the climate of the 21st century will play out is a topic of deep uncertainty. Once natural climate variability is accounted for, it may turn out to be relatively benign. Or we may be faced with unanticipated surprises. We need to increase our resiliency to whatever the future climate presents us with. We are shooting ourselves in the foot if we sacrifice economic prosperity and overall societal resilience on the altar of urgently transitioning to 20th century renewable energy technologies.
We need to remind ourselves that addressing climate change isn’t an end in itself, and that climate change is not the only problem that the world is facing. The objective should be to improve human well being in the 21st century, while protecting the environment as much as we can.
This was a pretty interesting discussion.
Not much time to really summarize, but I realize we BADLY need a new post. I’ve been crazy busy, but I just finished a big project and the Atlantic hurricanes are behaving, hopefully for the next two weeks. I’ll try to get a post up on the heat waves in the western U.S.
Gotta plan for this?
https://link.medium.com/1tKsSxiEOhb
The “Great Dying” occurred about 270 million years ago when global temperature and CO2 levels were less than today. However, China does have a plan for the future, and they are following the science … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1Iu9D5RhqQ
Yeah: Don’t let someone else’s nightmare determine how you respond to reality…
If this study has any validity and about 90% of the deaths are from extreme cold, including 1 million in Africa, the obvious solution is for more fossil fuels and the warmth that it provides, rather than less. What an absurd premise that somehow the extreme cold in these numbers can be attributed to tenths of degrees warming given the level of natural variability that has been involved over the last 200 years. There is no end in the grand narrative that everything can be laid at the feet of AGW.
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2021-07/mu-5md070521.php
CKid : If this study has any validity and about 90% of the deaths are from extreme cold
What’s the basis for your 90% number?
Please show your calculation.
CKid: What an absurd premise that somehow the extreme cold in these numbers can be attributed to tenths of degrees warming given the level of natural variability that has been involved over the last 200 years.
Where in that article is that attribution made?
Please quote it.
(LOL)
CKID: Do you warm up your dwelling by insisting that your entire neighborhood be heated up? Your county? Your state?
Why not?
Because it’s be completely absurd, that’s why not.
Yet you and others here, including Judith it seems (based on her comments about deaths in the Texas cold snap) seem to think it’s acceptable that the entire world be warmed up so that cold wave deaths be decreased.
Has any of you ever stopped to really think about this?
You are expecting that, instead of seeing that those humans suffering of cold be given adequate dwellings to prevent their deaths and suffering, we warming up THE ENTIRE ATMOSPHERE. Not only that, WE THREATEN CROPS, DECREASE WATER SUPPLIES, ACIDIFY THE OCEAN, DESTROY ECOSYSTEMS, CHANGE HYDROLOGICAL CYCLES
David
What is the point of providing links if you don’t read them. Read Eureka
David A. seeks to frighten people. Why is it he makes me laugh?
David Appell: It’s 94%, not 90%. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)62114-0/fulltext
David: Adding CO2 to the atmosphere doesn’t not actually warm an atmosphere. Man-made warming is model-driven, not real. Those models are based on wrong assumptions of reality, and no serious attempts to validate nor falsify. If more CO2 has any effect, it’ll be a cooling effect. More CO2 leads to more lush plant growth. Leading to more plant respiration. Respiration involves evaporative cooling; which cools the surface. As witnessed, empirically, in India and China.
More plants lead to cooling:
India: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abc8bc
China:
Link: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135984
Pdf: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337836655
Nobody , including the authors seems to want to acknowledge the conclusion reached by this study.
” leading to a reduction in net mortality due to cold and hot temperatures.”
RE: “WE THREATEN CROPS, DECREASE WATER SUPPLIES, ACIDIFY THE OCEAN, DESTROY ECOSYSTEMS, CHANGE HYDROLOGICAL CYCLES”
Say it louder and keep repeating it , , , that works.
I like the part where we save millions of lives using fossil fuels to provide energies for heating and air-conditioning. More importantly, without fossil fuel created plastics (like PCs, keyboards, mice, etc), we could never have this conversion. Now excuse me while I use gas to make breakfast while enjoying air-conditioning.
You want to do ALL THIS instead of giving a few people — just a few — adequate dwellings and furnaces and clothing, which modern day capitalism and government indifference has denied them.
And you apparently don’t think that’s absolutely insane.
David Appell | July 11, 2021 at 10:10 pm | Reply
“You want to do ALL THIS instead of giving a few people — just a few — adequate dwellings and furnaces and clothing, which modern day capitalism and government indifference has denied them.”
Gotta wonder about someones intellectual capacity who condemns capitalism.
Capitalism has brought forth more wealth and prosperity and most importantly raised more societies out of abject poverty than any other political / economic system man has devised.
“You want to do ALL THIS instead of giving a few people — just a few — adequate dwellings and furnaces and clothing, which modern day capitalism and government indifference has denied them.”
Ahhhh…..
The marxist underpinnings of the climate exaggerator.
Our government is clearly written to provide freedom, which can be terrifying, but doesn’t deny people – to the contrary, it enables them.
However, I am not without sympathy.
The single largest correlate of income ( inequality ) is intelligence ( inequality ).. There are many people that cannot compete in the modern intelligence economy. Their dissatisfaction is real.
Climate change is also real, but largely insignificant. The real and significant terror is that we are natural biological beings living in unnatural civilization.
Biological beings differentially evolve genetic traits that suit an environment. But there is also group selection. All members of a group may incur benefit or detriment based on the success or failure of the group.
Civilization constitutes such a group. Now, consider what happens when all members of a group receive benefit, but don’t necessarily embody the traits desired for the environment.
Here is the most terrifying chart in the world:
https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2019/06/Mortality-rates-of-children-over-last-two-millennia-800×533.png
How could this not be good? Child mortality has plummeted from around 50% to near zero! Certainly, near term human suffering and heartache is reduced. But like Yin-Yang, there is a dark side. The near term benefit may mask long term tragedy. These childhood deaths are part of standing variation of the gene pool. Certainly, most really horrible genetic variants are so fatal that they result in still birth or even prevent conception. But consider all the less fatal, but still very negative genetic traits that persist because our civilization ensures survival to reproductive age. When civilization enables survival of all, natural selection stops, and negative traits proliferate.
One of those traits is intelligence and there is evidence of the effect:
https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2014/02/ourworldindata_infant-mortality-rates-by-fathers-social-class.png
So, civilization prevents natural selection of differential mortality.
But civilization also de-selects through differential birth:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/images/databriefs/301-350/db332_fig04.png
Now, I am by no means advocating any “solution” – I would NOT trust any government to apply it. But I do believe as a principle that we should speak the truth and not avoid troubling topics, particularly when they will determine our future.
The horrible truth is that civilization itself is dysgenic!
There is some suggestion that this describes at least part of the historical rise and fall of civilizations. More barbaric conditions incur greater selection, but more civilized conditions foster dysgenic decline. Now consider the child mortality chart above and how synchronized not just a country, but the whole world is in this trend. As opposed to just the Greek civilization declining, the whole world is set up to fall in synchrony.
If you wish to worry, do not worry about largely irrelevant climate change.
Instead worry about dysgenic decline.
If that’s not enough, you could also worry about demographic collapse, global debt, ethnic conflict, or murderous marxist police states.
The Appleman is here !
Cleanup is the comment thread !
Cleanup in the comment thread !
Bring shovels and hip boots !
Big shovels.
Prepare to work overtime.
This will be a big job, correcting his false statements, exaggerations and general global warming hysteria.
“Instead worry about dysgenic decline.”
I have a difficult time imagining those who were the typical Darwin Award winners before the industrial age. But I suspect some very highly accredited individuals might gain the award today. A better question might be: what are we needing to adapt toward? Or, will CRISPR technology do the adapting? Or, if the socialists succeed in taking sole charge of elections what is their plan for the average person’s purpose in society? If we all agreed on that plan why do we need to be forced to follow it? How do we know the dictator that takes power will stick to any good plan?
“adequate dwellings and furnaces and clothing, which modern day capitalism and government indifference has denied them.”
Nonsense.
Cite your source.
jimmww wrote: “adequate dwellings and furnaces and clothing, which modern day capitalism and government indifference has denied them.”
Nonsense.
Cite your source.
580,000 homeless in the US
https://www.statista.com/statistics/555795/estimated-number-of-homeless-people-in-the-us/
Don Graham – Another fact free fantasy from the loonie bin.
The “plan” for any troubled pseudo-intellectual who equates current conditions of a biosphere with 30% increased plant biomass from CO2 enrichment and ever-increasing harvests, with the end Permian extinction caused by a brief sharp ice age with sea level regression and widespread ocean anoxia – this plan would primarily be centered on gentleness and patience. It would be the responsibility of social services and mental health professionals, perhaps with the assistance of the church. Especially those with experienced in helping people escape from harmful and insular religious cults. This takes time and skill – a process of guiding the troubled and mentally ensnared victim to overcome the mind-barriers erected by his/her captors and controllers, and eventually attain the supreme courage to start seeing the world as it really is. This process can’t be rushed – a little a day, every day. It might help to take daily countryside walks – let nature itself gently reassure the victim that the catastrophe invoked by the cult narrative is an illusion – that the resilient, flourishing natural world – is quite real.
And that it’s OK. It’s not your fault. We’re all here for you.
I have a 5:21 minute reply … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNeujL1IoCA
Thanks. Spot on!
Nice video.
Thanks. In order to catch the interest of short-attention “walking woke” I keep them short with music impact — and as usual they attack me and not the data.
HOW TRUE!!!!!
This would be a much more compelling video if sources were cited or linked in the description. As it is, I can’t imagine it convincing anyone who doesn’t already want to believe it.
Very good presentation!
Thanks. Now we just need to catch up to China on energy independence and reliability … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1Iu9D5RhqQ
Excellent summary! Forwarding it.
Succinct and accurate characterization of the issues. Thanks for posting.
What is relevant for informing climate policy and actions is the impacts of global warming, not the amount of global warming. Empirical evidence clearly shows that global warming is beneficial, not harmful. That’s the message that needs to be explained to the climate alarmists/catastrophists, politicians, media, IPCC, UNFCC and the environmental agencies worldwide.
Read sections 4.7 and 4.8 in Lang and Gregory (2019) Economic Impact of Energy Consumption Change Caused by Global Warming [1]? Below is Figure 15 from Section 4.7. With the Ecosystems Impact sector corrected the black dashed line moves to +0.4% of World GDP at +3 C GMST. That is, global warming is beneficial, not harmful, so there is no valid justification for policies and actions to reduce GHG emissions. Doing so is doing enormous damage to the World Economy!
https://www.mdpi.com/energies/energies-12-03575/article_deploy/html/images/energies-12-03575-g015-550.jpg
Reference
1. https://doi.org/10.3390/en12183575
Great points. The World Economy (and especially in developing countries) can best advance by using energy sources which are most economical, reliable, and efficient. Regarding the IPCC … many forget what past IPCC officials said about the true nature about their work … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36cyEt5JfRA
Peter, everyone thinks climate change economics is a joke. Your graph is a perfect example of that. The sea level rise at a surface warming of 3 C from 2000 causes only -0.2% loss of GDP??
Peter: What is average global sea level rise with warming of 3 C?
Give your number in meters.
RE: “What is average global sea level rise with warming of 3 C?”
Why not ask Al Gore? His ocean front mansion should be at risk, although according to him, it should already be under water . . .
>> Peter: What is average global sea level rise with warming of 3 C?
Well, if we look at the data over the last 60years, we see a sea level rise of about 0.1m while the temperature increase by roughly 1°C,
So one amateur way to answer your question would be say that a warming of 3°C could cause about 0.3m of GMSL rise.
Of course that is rather naive, there is simply no way that we see a global warming of 3°C in the real world, that defies any measured data!
morfu03 – Yes, it’s incredibly naïve. When the world warmed up from the depth of the last ice age, 25,000 years ago, sea level rose 125 meters for a warming of 5 C.
The ice on Antarctica and Greenland today represents about 58+7 m of sea-level equivalent. From that we’re only supposed to expect 0.3 m for 3 C of warming?
Come on. This is why Peter Lang’s graph is obviously absurd. Florida will be gone with 3 C of warming. And much of the East Coast. He should have known that before he ever published it.
“When the world warmed up from the depth of the last ice age, 25,000 years ago, sea level rose 125 meters for a warming of 5 C.
The ice on Antarctica and Greenland today represents about 58+7 m of sea-level equivalent.”
The sea level rise back then had very little to do with the ice shields at the poles, they are and remain relatively unchanged.
You are comparing an impossible scenario with a very different situation!
But yes, we can use the fact that the ice shields from back hen remained largely unchanged as argument that indeed very little sea level raise in the near future will come from melting polar ice shields.
NASA says “Prior to 2012, ice was lost at a steady rate of about 83.8 billion tons (76 billion metric tons) per year, contributing about 0.008 inches (0.2 millimeters) a year to sea level rise.”
Or about a 0.01m of the 50years from 1960 to 2010 and about 0.006m since then. Even assuming this is all only related to CO2 (a rather bold claim given the reality of sea cycles), I really do not see how this argument would affect my guess of 0.3m, the pole melting seem rather irrelevant for the discussion 25k years ago and now, I think you have been misled.
Here is a link to sea level raise attributions for RCP 8.5 scenarios
(they are unreal, unlikely and predict more than 3°c warming till 2100),
but the ballpark numbers are 0.05m for each of the pole and seemingly a complete collapse of the Greenland ice shield, which is doubtful)
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2016/04/antarctic-melting-to-boost-sea-levels-by-2100/0416_antarctic_2/
morfu03: NASA says “Prior to 2012, ice was lost at a steady rate of about 83.8 billion tons (76 billion metric tons) per year, contributing about 0.008 inches (0.2 millimeters) a year to sea level rise.”
Wow. Did you forget to include this, from the very same press release:
Ice losses from Antarctica have tripled since 2012, increasing global sea levels by 0.12 inch (3 millimeters) in that timeframe alone, according to a major new international climate assessment funded by NASA and ESA (European Space Agency).
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ramp-up-in-antarctic-ice-loss-speeds-sea-level-rise-300665882.html
You’re not being honest when you’re only quoting selected parts of a press release.
“ Well, if we look at the data over the last 60years, we see a sea level rise of about 0.1m while the temperature increase by roughly 1°C,
So one amateur way to answer your question would be say that a warming of 3°C could cause about 0.3m of GMSL rise.
Of course that is rather naive, there is simply no way that we see a global warming of 3°C in the real world, that defies any measured data!”
You are aware of a the 1st derivative?
And of the 2nd derivative?
There is an acceleration. And acceleration of the acceleration.
It is not linear.
Feedbacks.
Now try your feeble-minded calculation again.
FFS
“ Satellite altimetry has shown that global mean sea level has been rising at a rate of ∼3 ± 0.4 mm/y since 1993. Using the altimeter record coupled with careful consideration of interannual and decadal variability as well as potential instrument errors, we show that this rate is accelerating at 0.084 ± 0.025 mm/y2, which agrees well with climate model projections. If sea level continues to change at this rate and acceleration, sea-level rise by 2100 (∼65 cm) will be more than double the amount if the rate was constant at 3 mm/y.”
https://www.pnas.org/content/115/9/2022
Yes the astonishing rise in sea level, out of the younger Dryas event, was about 80 meters in a few hundred years, with CO2 eventually reaching 280 ppm at the Holocene Optimum.
Since CO2 had nothing to with that, it seems reasonable to direct our efforts to something we can control – adaptation. CO2 clearly has nothing to do with our current 2-3 mm a year rise – that would be temperature, which has eight other forcings besides CO2 which at current levels is fairly impotent.
We just came out of the Little Ice Age, a coldest time in the northern hemisphere in the most recent ten thousand years, the temperature is colder that during most of the most recent ten thousand years in the northern hemisphere. It is warmer now because it is supposed to be warmer now. Warmer times remove Arctic Sea Ice and evaporation and snowfall rebuild the sequestered ice around the Arctic. After a few hundred years of more snowfall, more ice will be pushed into the oceans and we will have another little ice age, this is how stuff works.
Yes. We are past the Holocene interglacial peak and heading for the next Glacial Maximum, roughly 70,000 years from now. There will be temperature rises and falls along the way, but we won’t get much hotter. It’s all down hill from here, with a few good up blips along the way. We certainly will not get ice free poles and won’t get anywhere the optimum global average temperature for life on Earth, which is around 10 C higher than now.
Warming good! Cooling bad!!
We have been in the latest ice age for the last 2+ million years with alternating glacial periods lasting 100,000+ years and interglacials like the present one lasting 10,000+ years. These deep ice ages seem to occur once every 150 million years +/- 30 million years and are thought to occur as our solar system passes through areas of high cosmic radiation. We could be heading into another glacial period in the next several thousand years where glaciers thousands of feet thick arise in the far north, and where sea levels drop by hundreds of feet making most of Canada, Alaska, Northern Europe and Siberia uninhabitable. Some believe that Global Warming may delay our descent into the next glacial period. On the other hand, it is possible that we may eventually leave the present ice age and go back to the much elevated temperatures that have been the rule for about 90 % of the time. It is possible that, regardless of what we do, our climate could get a lot hotter or a lot colder for a long time. Either of these paths would have enormous impacts on world populations.
What natural climate variability? Be specific. Don’t just toss the phrase out there.
BE SPECIFIC. What is expected to cause any natural climate variability?
In the words of Michael Ghil (2015) the ‘global climate system is composed of a number of subsystems – atmosphere, biosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere – each of which has distinct characteristic times, from days and weeks to centuries and millennia. Each subsystem, moreover, has its own internal variability, all other things being constant, over a fairly broad range of time scales. These ranges overlap between one subsystem and another. The interactions between the subsystems thus give rise to climate variability on all time scales.’
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/300542190_A_Mathematical_Theory_of_Climate_Sensitivity_or_How_to_Deal_With_Both_Anthropogenic_Forcing_and_Natural_Variability
RIE: *WHAT* natural factors are causing warming now??
I don’t need more of your generalized BS, which everyone knows. I want specifics — where is the natural warming? How much over what time period and why?
Natural variability on all time scales: solar (including indirect effects), geological processes, planetary tidal effects, large-scale ocean circulations
Robert I. Ellison :
In the words of Michael Ghil (2015) the ‘global climate system is composed of a number of subsystems – atmosphere, biosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere – each of which has distinct characteristic times, from days and weeks to centuries and millennia. Each subsystem, moreover, has its own internal variability, all other things being constant, over a fairly broad range of time scales. These ranges overlap between one subsystem and another. The interactions between the subsystems thus give rise to climate variability on all time scales.’
Physicists have a name for this kind of thinking: “hand waving.”
It’s not a complimentary term.
Come back and talk to us once you have read some of Michael Ghil’s papers. He is brilliant and has made hugely important contributions to climate science.
David reached his Dunning-Kruger limit long ago.
https://dept.atmos.ucla.edu/tcd/people/michael-ghil
RIE, that’s typical of your utter inability to answer a meaningful question and to resort to personal insults instead. You bail out every time.
And you fancy yourself as some kind of intellectual here.
Mister “I don’t need more of your generalized BS” hath spoken.
Judith wrote:
Natural variability on all time scales: solar (including indirect effects), geological processes, planetary tidal effects, large-scale ocean circulations
WHAT NATURAL VARIABILITY, Judith? Be specific.
What natural variability is now causing warming? WHAT????
You too are just waving your hands with meaningless words. You’re not doing physics. OK?
Oceanography would be more to the point.
Judith wrote: Come back and talk to us once you have read some of Michael Ghil’s papers. He is brilliant and has made hugely important contributions to climate science.
No Judith, you answer question about physics: WHAT NATURAL FACTORS ARE NOW CAUSING WARMING??
You clearly do not have an answer.
Telling someone to “go read a paper” is no answer whatsoever. You know that — and if you don’t at this stage in your career, what a shame. WHAT AN ABSOLUTE SHAME.
I just lived through the worst heat wave in human history. Over 600 died. Is it too late for your handwaving nonsense.
“No Judith, you answer question about physics: WHAT NATURAL FACTORS ARE NOW CAUSING WARMING??”
David, your ignorance of climate cycles is leading you to insult an expert on that very topic.
Heat is stored, and heat is released, by various mechanisms over time.
You want an instant answer to what is causing warming, when the warming itself is not even well diagnosed. Basic physics tells us that CO2 increase will alter the temperature trajectory upwards, but we don’ know what the trajectory would be without CO2. That same physics says that without substantial positive feedback, the increase is logarithmic with concentration – each *doubling* of CO2 gives you maybe 1.2C of warming, which means we are not in any sort of short term crisis.
And you are a denier of nuclear energy.
When I mention that buy-in on mitigation would be required from countries who don’t see it in their interest, you don’t respond, because it is *you* who don’t have an answer.
When the energy poverty half the world lives in is mentioned, once again, crickets.
“Generalized BS” is indeed bullsh!t. Maybe you’ve never taken a physics class in your life. Physics is the exact opposite of bullsh!t. That’s why it’s so successful. You can take that to the bank, and that’s why people who try to avoid it are called out onto the carpet.
David and poor wee willie at each other’s throats. LOL They both imagine they are vastly more clever than anyone here including Judith. Not remotely true of course. Poor wee willie is a crude bully – David the master of snark and sly innuendo. And of demanding and then ignoring peer reviewed science.
He just above accused Michael Ghil of handwaving – without I note bothering with the science. I have no doubt that it is beyond him anyway. Over his head because he has not got the underlying physics – and perhaps can’t get it because of cognitive dissonance. More open, wiser minds might use the clues the quote provides to a bigger picture of the Earth system. Not David.
Another reply from RIE completely devoid of actual science and physics.
Still waiting for RIE — or anyone — to provide the causative agent of any natural warming.
And by “causative agent” I don’t mean a chapter in a book.
The primary cause of post hiatus warming – ocean and atmosphere – was a reduction in low level marine boundary cloud in the eastern Pacific. The mechanism is the persistence of open and closed Rayleigh-Bénard convection cells over oceans. Closed cells persist for longer over cooler oceans.
e.g. https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4973593
And I gave him this – again – just yesterday.
https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/6/3/62
David repeats what are little more than climate memes – simple notions he calls physics – makes demands without making any effort to understand – and then whines about being insulted. Rinse and repeat. I have had enough of his toilet bowl vortex of climate madness today.
Robert I. Ellison: The primary cause of post hiatus warming – ocean and atmosphere – was a reduction in low level marine boundary cloud in the eastern Pacific. e.g. https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4973593
More of your B.S. There is no causation there at all. What equation or graph in that paper shows a projection of future warming?
Yet every year ocean heat content above 2000 m increases. Why? Where does that paper predict that? Where does that added heat come from? This paper says nothing about that.
I believe in physics. You think heat appears out of thin air.
Warming in SW cooling in IR. The lower albedo with reduced low level cloud. Again – I gave him this data just yesterday. Very odd indeed.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/shortwave-11-7-2021-1.png
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/ir-11-7-2021-1.png
> vastly more clever than anyone here
Chief, who took Judy’s as his bully pulpit for more than a decade, hath spoken!
Poor wee willie hath spoken in his faux biblical manner. It is more impressive that way. We are dealing with the wrath of poor wee willie now. God help us – because his AI overlord won’t.
‘And yet, in recent years, that system has started to fail. Rather than sustainable and widely shared prosperity, it has produced wage stagnation, ever more workers in poverty, ever more inequality, banking crises, the convulsions of populism and the impending climate catastrophe.’ https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/jun/25/the-new-left-economics-how-a-network-of-thinkers-is-transforming-capitalism
The opposite is the truth. Capitalism delivers peaceful and prosperous communities in vibrant landscape.
e.g. https://www.heritage.org/index/about
David, I believe in physics too.
Yes, Robert thinks heat appears out of thin air. Robert does not understand 1st law of thermodynamics…
Yes, he is aware there is 1st law of thermodynamics. But Robert does not know what it is.
> e.g. https://www.heritage.org/index/about
Res ipsa loquitur.
Eh… poor wee willie will have to do a lot better to make it worth playing.
Physics demands evidence – Christos has none. A faster spinning planet is warmer he says based on dodgy math and impossibly precise planetary temperatures. Outright wrong in the case of the moon. How that happens is magic creation of energy I presume. Until he has a mechanism and experimental data. I suggest he get hold of a kebab rotisserie and monitor the internal temperature.
How vastly more clever of you, Chief.
Please, do handwave a bit more.
Yes, Robert knows about 1st law.
It is the Robert’s 1st law which he applies to the 400 ppm CO2.
In Robert’s point of view, and according to Robert’s 1st law, the 400 ppm CO2 warm Earth’s surface by +33C…
But when it comes to the strong Rotational Warming Phenomenon … the Robert’s 1st law should be violated … sorry Robert, you don’t understand 1st law.
Pity…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I’m beginning to think David doesn’t read the literature. I guess one can believe anything after suspension of all cognitive functions.
David Appell Says: No Judith, you answer question about physics: WHAT NATURAL FACTORS ARE NOW CAUSING WARMING??
I’ll answer that:
1) Why are you so rude to Dr. Curry?
2) Simply look at the UAH Data, there has been no warming since 1980, so what warming are you talking about?
3) I’ve posted countless stations that show no warming even with a 33% increase in CO2 when you control for the UHI and Water Vapor.
4) I’ve also posted about the fewer clouds over the oceans due to the recent strong El Ninos. More sun reaching the oceans warms the oceans, it is that easy and has nothing to do with CO2
5) Geological records show CO2 has been as high as 7,000 ppm and caused no significant warming and sea life thrived.
6) As one of the other posts highlighted, the impact of CO2 and W/m^2 is approaching a horizontal asymptote
7) Simply Google Map Thermopyle and/or Troy. Countless well-known and well-documented Ancient Coastal Locations are well inland…and Vikings inhabited Greenland.
8) I could go on, but all you have is a corrupted data set to justify your position. The quantum physics of the CO2 molecule and 13 to 18 micron LWIR certainly don’t support CO2 causing warming.
The only “warming” you can point to is the “adjusted” NASA GISS Data which simply attributes warming from exogenous factors like the UHI and Water Vapor to CO2. Once again, simply look at Antarctica or any Desert, they show no warming because there are no new roads and buildings and very little water vapor.
Lastly, just look at the GISS Chart. It shows a dog-leg. Care to explain how CO2 can cause a dog-leg?
mesocyclone: Basic physics tells us that CO2 increase will alter the temperature trajectory upwards, but we don’ know what the trajectory would be without CO2.
Why not?
What would the climate be without CO2? What natural factors are currently forcing climate? Solar? Orbital? Clouds? Aerosols? ENSOs? Other ocean cycles? Climate models run without anthropogenic GHGs say these aren’t causing any net warming — in fact, they’re causing a slight cooling (mostly due to orbital factors), and holding down anthropogenic GHG radiative forcing by about 10%. (In other words, some say colloquially, aGHGs are causing 110% of the warming.)
So what natural factors are causing warming? Or cooling?
mesocyclone: And you are a denier of nuclear energy.
That’s false and a lie. As I’ve written, I have concerns about the transportation and short- and long-term storage of nuclear waste, as do a lot of people, but beyond that I’ve said I don’t know enough about it to give a good evaluation of its potential, including its economic potential, in a non-fossil world. I don’t feel the need to have an opinion on every topic.
David Appell: Still waiting for RIE — or anyone — to provide the causative agent of any natural warming.
And by “causative agent” I don’t mean a chapter in a book.
What is your objection to book chapters and other (linked) sources? This is for a 5 minute presentation.
Lund 2006 reconstruction of the Gulf Stream. There is enough change in poleward ocean heat transport indicated there to explain all the modern age warming if you use a model with a higher sensitivity to ocean heat transport. Any further questions?
stevenreincarnated: Lund 2006…Any further questions?
Link? Confirmations?
I’ve only been making the same argument here for a decade. Figure it out yourself.
stevenreincarnated: I’ve only been making the same argument here for a decade. Figure it out yourself.
It’s so easy to tell when they have nothing.
You have nothing. You’ll be making the conservation of energy argument against ocean heat transport changing the energy budget by next week, won’t you?
When are you going to simply provide a link to “Lund 2006?”
You seriously need to study up a little on ocean heat transport. Your last comment to RE about heat appearing out of thin air actually made me feel a little sorry for you. Isn’t climate related to your actual job in some way and not just a hobby for entertainment like it is for me? There’s a lot of studies out there that discuss it in detail dating back from over 50 years ago to currently. Read some.
Snarky
Yes, a little snarky. Maybe by tomorrow I’ll feel bad about it.
Hello Dave, I’m glad to meet you. Big fan BTW.
Considering the class mentioned above was for engineering students this is ideal.
“What natural climate variability? Be specific. Don’t just toss the phrase out there.
BE SPECIFIC. What is expected to cause any natural climate variability?”
Earth is a plate tectonic black box. So little is understood about the planet’s processes that there is not even a dynamic model to describe how it works. (Except the one at the bottom of this post) The rudimentary theory taught at the moment can only be described as a kinematic model that can only tell us the plate motions and not what drives them or how these systems are interconnected.
So, that alone says it could be a natural phenomenon. Let’s go a little deeper shall we? Here is an interesting coincident, or not;
We all know about Snowball Earth but did you know Plate tectonics is connected to it also?
In the study below the research strongly indicates that this link is evident in the geologic record. The seafloor spreading appears to have almost completely halted or slowed to barely discernible levels for 250 million years. At which time the Earth entered the period known as Snowball Earth.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223745786_Evidence_and_implications_for_a_widespread_magmatic_shutdown_for_250_My_on_Earth
Earth & Planetary Sci. Letters 282, (2009): 294-298 Condie, K. C., O’Neill, C. and Aster, R.
” We suggest that an episodic mantle thermal regime, during which a large part of the plate circuit effectively stagnates, may explain the 250-My magmatic age gap on Earth and a remarkable feature of the Paleoproterozoic record.”
Conclusions
“The distribution of U/Pb zircon ages from both subduction-related granitoids and detrital sediments shows a pronounced and robust minimum between 2.45 and 2.2Ga .Furthermore, there is a sparsity of greenstones and subduction-related granitoids, as well as evidence for juvenile continental crust in this 250-My time window. We hypothesize that this reflects a globally significant period of cessation or slowdown global magmatism and perhaps in plate tectonics”.
Interesting isn’t it? Plate Tectonics stops and the world freezes, it starts again and the world warms.
Consider then that the earth sweltered in greenhouse heat for 226 million years, starting in the late Permian (298.9 million years ago /Mya) and ending in the early Oligocene. At which time polar icecaps and ice sheets were unknown, and tropical flora and fauna extended from pole to pole.
These climatic oscillations from greenhouse to an icehouse have happened five times in the earth’s history. But our earth has only spent about 670 million years out of its 4.5-billion-year history in glacial conditions. So, the glacial periods only account for 15% of the earth’s total existence. This fact means that the normal state of the earth’s climate is a hot, mostly ice-free planet. This cold world of today is a geological and statistical anomaly. These odds alone say this warming is a natural phenomenon.
The Earth’s plate movement mechanism is variable and is not only responsible for the unprecedented cold period described in the study by Condie et al. above, but also the other glacial periods that followed. The Plate Tectonic mechanism/climate forcing also operates on much more moderate scales and can be shown to fit perfectly to our current plate movement and climate dynamics without the need of the current poorly constrained Co2 forcing model. The Co2 is instead a response to the geologic thermal forcing agent as it varies over extended time periods. It comes and goes from the systems as the Earth responds to the geologic forcing as is seen by the well-known Co2 lag time after warming has taken place.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas
“The change to glacial conditions at the onset of the younger Dryas in the higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere between 12,900–11,500 BP in calendar years has been argued to have been quite abrupt. in sharp contrast to the warming of the preceding Older Dryas interstadial. It has been inferred that its end occurred over a period of a decade or so, but the onset may have been faster.” . . . . . .
. . . . . .”Various paleoclimatic records from ice cores, deep sea sediments, speleothems, continental paleobotanical data, and loesses show similar abrupt climate events, which are consistent with Younger Dryas events, during the terminations of the last four glacial periods. They argue that Younger Dryas events might be an intrinsic feature of deglaciations that occur at the end of glacial periods.” . . . . . .
. . . . . . . “Measurements of oxygen isotopes from the GISP2 ice core suggest the ending of the Younger Dryas took place over just 40–50 years in three discrete steps, each lasting five years. Other proxy data, such as dust concentration, and snow accumulation, suggest an even more rapid transition, requiring about a 7 °C (13 °F) warming in just a few years. Total warming in Greenland was 10 ± 4 °C (18 ± 7 °F).”
That right there is all natural and makes what we’re all talking about here nothing but natural variability.
This new model below can show how the Earth’s plate tectonics mechanism is the source of the planet’s variable climate history. It will also show that the plate movement mechanism is driven through the mutual inductive coupling of the Sun and Earth’s magnetic fields and that the overall process has produced the climate variability seen in the data sets. The model links the solar magnetic proxies to historical earthquake, climate and geologic research to build a fully dynamic plate tectonic model that can explain its relation to the planet’s climate both past and present.
Plate Tectonics: a history of a changing climate through geologic forcing.
https://electroplatetectonics.blogspot.com/
Hello Dave, glad to meet you.
Considering the class mentioned above was for engineering students this is ideal.
“What natural climate variability? Be specific. Don’t just toss the phrase out there.
BE SPECIFIC. What is expected to cause any natural climate variability?”
Earth is a plate tectonic black box. So little is understood about the planet’s processes that there is not even a dynamic model to describe how it works. (Except the one at the bottom of this post) The rudimentary theory taught at the moment can only be described as a kinematic model that can only tell us the plate motions and not what drives them or how these systems are interconnected.
So, that alone says it could be a natural phenomenon. Let’s go a little deeper shall we? Here is an interesting coincident, or not;
We all know about Snowball Earth but did you know Plate tectonics is connected to it also?
In the study below the research strongly indicates that this link is evident in the geologic record. The seafloor spreading appears to have almost completely halted or slowed to barely discernible levels for 250 million years. At which time the Earth entered the period known as Snowball Earth.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223745786_Evidence_and_implications_for_a_widespread_magmatic_shutdown_for_250_My_on_Earth
Earth & Planetary Sci. Letters 282, (2009): 294-298 Condie, K. C., O’Neill, C. and Aster, R.
” We suggest that an episodic mantle thermal regime, during which a large part of the plate circuit effectively stagnates, may explain the 250-My magmatic age gap on Earth and a remarkable feature of the Paleoproterozoic record.”
Conclusions
“The distribution of U/Pb zircon ages from both subduction-related granitoids and detrital sediments shows a pronounced and robust minimum between 2.45 and 2.2Ga .Furthermore, there is a sparsity of greenstones and subduction-related granitoids, as well as evidence for juvenile continental crust in this 250-My time window. We hypothesize that this reflects a globally significant period of cessation or slowdown global magmatism and perhaps in plate tectonics”.
Interesting isn’t it? Plate Tectonics stops and the world freezes, it starts again and the world warms.
Consider then that the earth sweltered in greenhouse heat for 226 million years, starting in the late Permian (298.9 million years ago /Mya) and ending in the early Oligocene. At which time polar icecaps and ice sheets were unknown, and tropical flora and fauna extended from pole to pole.
These climatic oscillations from greenhouse to an icehouse have happened five times in the earth’s history. But our earth has only spent about 670 million years out of its 4.5-billion-year history in glacial conditions. So, the glacial periods only account for 15% of the earth’s total existence. This fact means that the normal state of the earth’s climate is a hot, mostly ice-free planet. This cold world of today is a geological and statistical anomaly. These odds alone say this warming is a natural phenomenon.
The Earth’s plate movement mechanism is variable and is not only responsible for the unprecedented cold period described in the study by Condie et al. above, but also the other glacial periods that followed. The Plate Tectonic mechanism/climate forcing also operates on much more moderate scales and can be shown to fit perfectly to our current plate movement and climate dynamics without the need of the current poorly constrained Co2 forcing model. The Co2 is instead a response to the geologic thermal forcing agent as it varies over extended time periods. It comes and goes from the systems as the Earth responds to the geologic forcing as is seen by the well-known Co2 lag time after warming has taken place.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas
“The change to glacial conditions at the onset of the younger Dryas in the higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere between 12,900–11,500 BP in calendar years has been argued to have been quite abrupt. in sharp contrast to the warming of the preceding Older Dryas interstadial. It has been inferred that its end occurred over a period of a decade or so, but the onset may have been faster.” . . . . . .
. . . . . .”Various paleoclimatic records from ice cores, deep sea sediments, speleothems, continental paleobotanical data, and loesses show similar abrupt climate events, which are consistent with Younger Dryas events, during the terminations of the last four glacial periods. They argue that Younger Dryas events might be an intrinsic feature of deglaciations that occur at the end of glacial periods.” . . . . . .
. . . . . . . “Measurements of oxygen isotopes from the GISP2 ice core suggest the ending of the Younger Dryas took place over just 40–50 years in three discrete steps, each lasting five years. Other proxy data, such as dust concentration, and snow accumulation, suggest an even more rapid transition, requiring about a 7 °C (13 °F) warming in just a few years. Total warming in Greenland was 10 ± 4 °C (18 ± 7 °F).”
The warming above was natural and this current climate variability pales in comparison in both rapidity and temp.
This new model below can show how the Earth’s plate tectonics mechanism is the source of the planet’s variable climate history. It will also show that the plate movement mechanism is driven by the mutual inductive coupling of the Sun and Earth’s magnetic fields and that the overall process has produced the climate variability seen in the data sets. The model links the solar magnetic proxies to historical earthquake, climate and geologic research to build a fully dynamic plate tectonic model that can explain its relation to the planet’s climate both past and present.
Plate Tectonics: a history of a changing climate through geologic forcing.
https://electroplatetectonics.blogspot.com/
BTW ; A superior model stands alone, it only has to make better predictions of observations than its competitors. Remember that when you read it.
David
There is a very large volume of work on Natural Variability of which some of the best are by Hubert Lamb. Phil Jones also remarked that natural variability was much greater than had hitherto been realised in his 2004 paper looking at the savage British winter of 1740 after the benign 1730’s.
Their colleague John Kington recently wrote a very readable book ‘Climate and weather’ which goes into some detail, by decade, of the ever changing climate with looks further back to the early roman cool phase and the late roman warm phase.
As he remarks ‘the relatively warm conditions from the 15th century into the early 16th century, the coldness that set in during the late 16th century marked the onset of a severe phase in the little ice age with glacial advances in Scandinavia the alps and Iceland . During this period the climate of the British isles may have been at its coldest since the last ice age., It is remarkable that in each of the last three four and possibly earlier millennia a cold stage occurred in or about the middle centuries which in each case appears to rival the severity of this phase of the little Ice age the so called ‘climatic pessimum.’
What causes natural variability? The jet stream position, wind direction, temperature of the ocean, cloudiness, amount of ice, and no doubt many other factors interacting with each other.
tonyb
tonyb: “What causes natural variability?”
According to the belief in the ignorance of experts, natural variability of weather is unforced and chaotic. So they don’t look for a direct cause, but tend to imagine that changing the global climate will change the weather variability. I never believed a word of it, and searched for solar drivers of heat and cold waves.
Solar wind variability causing Northern Annular Mode anomalies drives weather variability. With the greatest heat and cold events being ordered by various heliocentric configurations of the four gas giants, and with the weekly-monthly anomalies ordered by the relative positions of the inner bodies. That dictates what season or month a warm or cold anomaly occurs in.
So weather variability must cause climate variability.
Ulric Lyons wrote: So weather variability must cause climate variability.
Climate is, generally speaking, the average of weather. So weather variability averages out to zero. The question then is what causes climate variability.
jungletrunks: You were bragging about China’s low per capita CO2 use in comparison to the US.
I’m about done with you — you can’t resist twisting my words and claiming I wrote things I never did.
I never “bragged” about China’s emissions — I simply stated them as a fact.
Put words in my mouth again and you’ll get no more replies.
David wrote:
“Climate is, generally speaking, the average of weather. So weather variability averages out to zero. The question then is what causes climate variability.”
Climate is the sum of weather over time. So if the weather averages out to zero, so will the climate. But the solar forcing of NAM anomalies does not average out to zero over inter-decadal or inter-centennial scales.
Ulric Lyons : Climate is the sum of weather over time.
It’s the average. If the “weather” in every 1 deg lat x 1 deg long grid on Earth is 1 C above normal for each day for 30 years, the climate will be 1 C above normal for that 30 yr period — it won’t be the sum of all those grids (total grids=180×360) times the number of day in 30 years times 1 C, which would be an enormous number.
PS: If the “weather” is 0 C above normal in each grid for each day for 30 years, the sum and the average are equal.
David writes: “Climate is, generally speaking, the average of weather. So weather variability averages out to zero. ”
I am keeping this quote. Pure fool’s gold.
David Appell writes “Climate is, generally speaking, the average of weather. So weather variability averages out to zero.”
I am keeping this quote. Pure fools gold.
Where did the other David Appell go? He was much more congenial. Perhaps he retired, realizing his arguments had grown thinner over the past decade…
Thomas
There are already enough feuds going on here without you adding to it :)
Tonyb
Tony –
Here’s another update:
dpy6629 | July 9, 2021 at 11:53 am |
Well, I’ve given you plenty of papers to track down saying that these systematic errors can be used to engineer ECS over a broad range. What I said was true despite your squirrel. BTW you are gaslighting when you say their statement is consistent with their science. You are completely clueless in that matter of the science so it’s an argument from ignorance;
Joshua
Just continue to rise above it
tonyb
Tony –
Will do.
Today’s update:
dpy6629 | July 13, 2021 at 12:06 pm |
It does appear that VTG’s final position is “I admitted I was wrong after repeating my error scores of times but I refuse to reenter the discussion because you have proven my culpability. Further, I will lie about the truth being told and interpret it as insulting.”
Didn’t even have to wait till tomorrow for the next update.
dpy6629 | July 13, 2021 at 6:05 pm |
I quoted my exact statements.
VTG, You have repeated at least 20 times the fact that you find truth telling insulting. In the mean time, what Daryl said that started your current line of tripe was this:
Joshua posted exactly the same thing numerous times, acting like a child. Joshua is a troll by any definition.
I think he just asserted that you are childish and a troll by any definitio
David Young daily update:
Choice of do many comments – but I’ll peck this one:
dpy6629 | July 14, 2021 at 3:45 pm |
[…]
.> My assertion about Willard being a professional troll is obviously true. He is proud of it and has a whole massive site devoted to the finer points.
Tony –
Today’s update:
> dpy6629 | July 24, 2021 at 10:19 pm |
Josh…(blah, blah)… He (blah, Kah)
Man-made effects are:
– Urban heat, due to waste heat. It is globally insignificant.
– Greening of the earth – which leads to cooling!
– Greenhouse gases. Such as the carbon dioxide theory of climate change. I can find no good empirical evidence for it. There is even less evidence for a water vapor positive feedback effect causing to even more warming. Suppose there is a greenhouse gas effect! I disbelieve the conventional models derived from Manabe and Wetherald, 1967. Given all alternative models are labeled “denialism”, I can’t see how we can arrive at a consensus on man-made climate change through a “greenhouse gas effect”.
Mark
Once again illustrating that Greta Thunberg, David Appell and sundry other people are harassing the wrong countries, comes this study showing the huge contribution to urban co2 pollution caused by China which represent 23 out of the worlds worst top 25 megacities
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-9779781/Climate-change-Just-25-mega-cities-emit-52-cent-worlds-urban-greenhouse-gases.html
tonyb
It is an interesting discussion if evaluated reasonably.
China has probably done better than any other country over the last 50 years to improve the lives of the their citizens. Should the Chinese delay giving their citizens the benefits of modern society due to others beliefs?
Correct — and a big reason is that China actually follows the science behind climate change — which is — more CO2 is helpful (not harmful) to the earth … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1Iu9D5RhqQ
Rob,
It is a very important question, but I take issue with the framing.
“China has probably done better than any other country over the last 50 years to improve the lives of the their citizens.”
The “Great Leap Forward” was an effort by the Chinese government to “improve the lives of their citizens” while the last 50 years’ actual improvement was due to the Chinese government “liberalizing” its economy- generally understood as removing the government from it where ever possible.
Warmists have an answer to your second question- they believe, in the name of justice, that western nations must eliminate emissions to compensate for the third world’s recognition of the value of economic growth. None of the western nations have done this, of course. Probably because they can’t figure out how to do a great leap backwards and still give the kids smart phones and transcontinental holidays.
>while the last 50 years’ actual improvement was due to the Chinese government “liberalizing” its economy- generally understood as removing the government from it where ever possible.
I agree
I happened to have toured China a few years ago and got to review many State owned companies as well as privately held. The difference in how they operated was amazing with the private companies having the latest technologies and processes while the State run firms were out of the 60’s in many aspects.
But the communists did do better than say India over the same period of time in improving the lives of their poor as well their overall economic power.
Rob,
Another thing about the Chinese in the last decade or so they have vaulted to be the world leader in issuing patents. That takes a lot of intellectual power. I think the widely touted GDP per capita are the wrong metric to judge the true strength of a nation. Without the petrodollar propping up the
dollar (and dollar denominated debt) the USA would already be #2 in the world*.
Assuming we aren’t going to use our nuclear weapons.
climatereason: comes this study showing the huge contribution to urban co2 pollution caused by China which represent 23 out of the worlds worst top 25 megacities
The Chinese emit less per capita than the US.
Do you think you have an inherent right to emit more CO2 than does a citizen of China?
A nontrivial amount of the CO2 China emits comes from producing the junk sent to America and Europe that we can’t get enough of.
And the US has already emitted twice as much CO2 as has China since. That CO2 has created twice as much of the warming we’re in right now than has China. First take the beam from thine own eye.
The local DA has spoken: “The Chinese emit less per capita than the US”
Slave labors unit cost is very low.
China still produces more CO2 per year, almost double that of the US.
The local DA probably should stop powdering his wig so much, incessant powdering has impacted the cavity between his ears
China still produces more CO2 per year, almost double that of the US.
That’s because more people live there.
Do you think that, as an American, you have a right to emit more CO2 than an individual Chinese person?
America emits far more CO2 than Tuvalu. Is that fair?
APPELL>>”China still produces more CO2 per year, almost double that of the US.
That’s because more people live there.
Do you think that, as an American, you have a right to emit more CO2 than an individual Chinese person?”
But to answer your question: yes, America, a free country which has uplifted much of the world due to our economy and technology, has every right to emit more CO2 per capita than a repressive, racist, genocidal dictatorship.
But it’s irrelevant to the debate.
mesocyclone, yes, it’s irrelevant to the debate.
It’s very fair, DA, and it’s fair that Chinese individuals want their standard of living to increase too; they can then consume more, stay cooler, or warmer as the case may be. How do you feel about the Chinese Uighurs? They and many others help the per capita metric you admire so much.
How do you feel about the Chinese Uighurs?
Everything has to be political here, doesn’t it?
No thanks.
mesocyclone: But to answer your question: yes, America, a free country which has uplifted much of the world due to our economy and technology, has every right to emit more CO2 per capita than a repressive, racist, genocidal dictatorship.
So children in China have to go without refrigerators and stoves and hot water and modern medicine and all the conveniences and advantages you take for granted because they live under a government over which they have absolutely no control?
The local DA begins a debate using per capita data to intrinsically embellish a political perspective, a measure of economic fairness measured in CO2. Capitalisms standard of living is greedy, bad; communisms piss poor standard of living is noble (though greedily improving). The DA fades out as the politics is peeled back.
The local DA begins a debate using per capita data to intrinsically embellish a political perspective, a measure of economic fairness measured in CO2. Capitalisms standard of living is greedy, bad; communisms piss poor standard of living is noble (though greedily improving).
Like I wrote, you have to make everything political.
I was simply asking about equity.
DA, “So children in China have to go without refrigerators and stoves and hot water and modern medicine and all the conveniences and advantages you take for granted because they live under a government over which they have absolutely no control?”
Yet the DA justifies implicitly in his opening statement that a low standard of living is good, because such produces less per capita pollution, less consumption.
Yet the DA justifies implicitly in his opening statement that a low standard of living is good, because such produces less per capita pollution, less consumption.
I never said a thing about a low standard of living being good. Don’t put words in my mouth.
You were bragging about China’s low per capita CO2 use in comparison to the US. What do you think happens if the Chinese peoples standard of living increases, and they get that refrigerator, stove; conveniences? You previously asked: “Do you think you have an inherent right to emit more CO2”. Unless one wishes to live in poverty, the answer is yes. It’s striking that you can’t bridge your ideological sensibilities with reality. A higher standard of living means more CO2, at least until a revolutionary power source comes about.
“Like I wrote, you have to make everything political.
I was simply asking about equity.”
It is a political decision whether to move CO2 emissions to another part of the planet, but not reduce them, in the name of equity.
Since it makes no sense at all, it isn’t even a difficult political decision- which is why it hasn’t happened.
And, of course, team warm swears that it’s cheaper and every bit as reliable for China to build out a power grid that is 100% “renewable” without nuclear, so there really isn’t any equity question at all, much less a difficult one. But, of course, that’s a fairy tale so it hasn’t happened anywhere either.
When your entire cause is incoherent virtue signaling (headed up by a teenager who flies private jets to demonstrate to others how to travel by sailboat) the lack of “action” should be unsurprising.
jeffnsails850:When your entire cause is incoherent virtue signaling (headed up by a teenager who flies private jets to demonstrate to others how to travel by sailboat) the lack of “action” should be unsurprising.
No Jeff — any cause I have is headed up by ME. I don’t control Greta Thunberg. I haven’t mentioned her. It’s just convenient for you to use her as a way to dismiss arguments without actually doing any of the hard work to engage with them. It’s what many do, and it’s all you’re doing here.
mark4asp: Greenhouse gases. Such as the carbon dioxide theory of climate change. I can find no good empirical evidence for it. There is even less evidence for a water vapor positive feedback effect causing to even more warming.
“Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997,” J.E. Harries et al, Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001).
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
These findings have been confirmed:
“Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave data between 1970 and present,” J.A. Griggs et al, Proc SPIE 164, 5543 (2004)
http://spiedigitallibrary.org/proceedings/resource/2/psisdg/5543/1/164_1
“Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth’s infrared spectrum between 1970 and 2006,” Chen et al (2007)
http://www.eumetsat.int/Home/Main/Publications/Conference_and_Workshop_Proceedings/groups/cps/documents/document/pdf_conf_p50_s9_01_harries_v.pdf
Chen 2007 extends this analysis to 2006 using data from the AURA satellite launched in 2004
“Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth’s infrared spectrum between 1970 and 2006,” Chen et al, (2007) http://www.eumetsat.int/Home/Main/Publications/Conference_and_Workshop_Proceedings/groups/cps/documents/document/pdf_conf_p50_s9_01_harries_v.pdf
Mark, continuing (I’m surprised this blog let me post all these links):
More papers on this subject are listed here:
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/papers-on-changes-in-olr-due-to-ghgs/
Increases in downward longwave radiation:
What happens to longwave radiation that gets absorbed by greenhouse gases? The energy heats the atmosphere which in turn re-radiates longwave radiation. This re-radiated energy goes in all directions. Some of it makes its way back to the surface of the earth. Hence we expect to find increasing downward longwave radiation as CO2 levels increase.
Philipona 2004 finds that this is indeed the case – that downward longwave radiation is increasing due to an enhanced greenhouse effect.
“Radiative forcing – measured at Earth’s surface – corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect,” R. Phillipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004)
http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2004/2003GL018765.shtml
-to be continued-
Mark, here’s more:
Evans 2006 takes this analysis further. By analysing high resolution spectral data, the increase in downward radiation can be quantitatively attributed to each of several anthropogenic gases. The results lead the authors to conclude that “this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.”
“Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate,”
W.F.J. Evans, North West Research Associates, Bellevue, WA; and E. Puckrin
http://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm
ftp://ftp.orbit.nesdis.noaa.gov/pub/smcd/spb/lzhou/AMS86/PREPRINTS/PDFS/100737.pdf
More papers on this subject are listed here:
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/papers-on-changes-in-olr-due-to-ghgs/
Mark, finally, you asked for evidence of the water vapor feedback. This is what I have from some time ago. I’m sure there is much more out there. I really wonder how hard you looked. Did you try the IPCC WG1 5AR?
Water vapor content has increased 4% in the last three decades.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BAMS_climate_assess_boulder_water_vapor_2002.png
IPCC 5AR WG1 Technical Summary TFE.1 “Water Cycle Change,” pp 42-45.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf
If you go read ‘Weather Cycles’ by William Burroughs (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Weather-Cycles-William-James-Burroughs/dp/0521381789), he did statistical Fourier analysis of a variety of data sources, looking for cyclical ‘beats’ in climate-related matters.
He found a wide variety of signals, including what is now referred to as the QBO, he found beats of 8-9 years, he found beats of 20 years and 22 years (the double sunspot cycle) amongst others.
Future climate surprises may be either on the warm or cool side – and we may be pushing the planet towards unwelcome climate transitions. Electricity is 25% of the problem of greenhouse gas emissions. Effectively and efficiently mitigating greenhouse gases starts with a broader multi-gas and aerosol strategy – CFC’s, nitrous oxides, methane, black carbon and sulfate. Along with ongoing decreases in carbon intensity and increases in efficiency and productivity. And technical innovation across sectors – energy, transport, industry, residential and agriculture and forestry.
Some of the answer is under our feet. Winner of the 2020 world food prize Rattan Lal – himself a scientific treasure – estimates that some 500 Gigatonne carbon (GtC) has been lost from terrestrial systems since the dawn of agriculture. ‘Soil is like a bank account – we must replace what we have removed.”
This soil carbon store can be renewed by restoring land. Holding back water in sand dams, terraces and swales, replanting, changing grazing management, encouraging perennial vegetation cover, precise applications of chemicals and adoption of other management practices that create positive carbon and nutrient budgets and optimal soil temperature and moisture. Atmospheric carbon is transferred from the atmosphere to soil carbon stores through plant photosynthesis and subsequent formation of secondary carbonates. The rate of soil carbon sequestration ranges from about 100 to 1000 kg per hectare per year as humus and 5 to 15 kg per hectare per year inorganic carbon. The near term potential for carbon sequestration in agricultural soils is approximately equal to the historic carbon loss of 80 GtC during the modern era. This is about 10 years of global annual greenhouse gas emissions. At realistic rates of sequestration 25% of current annual global greenhouse gas emissions could be sequestered over 40 years. In Australia a comprehensive program of ecological restoration across landscapes – worth every cent for many reasons – would enable all and more greenhouse gas emissions from energy to be offset.
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 and steel 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 and driving progress. Cheap and abundant energy power powers a world of promise.
Robert
I would very much like to see you updating your article on soil carried here more years ago than either of us would like to admit.
Soil is a much under used resource and is a more realistic place for sequestration of carbon than most other sources being suggested and would also provide the ability to green the planet. Its a win win situation..
tonyb
Rattan Lal won the world food prize last year. He has estimated that the carbon content of 157 ppm CO2 could be sequestered in soils and ecosystems by 2100.
Farmers are spending billions more in inputs and going broke. But there is a grassroots – to make a pun – movement.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNW0ZN0XCpg
‘But ask the animals, and they will teach you; the birds of the air, and they will tell you; 8ask the plants of the earth, and they will teach you; and the fish of the sea will declare to you. 9Who among all these does not know that the hand of the Lord has done this? 10In his hand is the life of every living thing and the breath of every human being.’ Job 12.7-10
Robert
You will be pleased to hear I used that precise information in a letter to our local paper last year. I think it was in reply to the local XR chapter banging on about needding more solar panels in order to get to net zero by 2025. The trouble is that soil is literally under the activists radar
I will look at the video later as it won’t play on my heritage iPad
Tonyb
Watched video above, re ‘no tillage’. It does not work everywhere; be careful. I have bitter experience of that. It is ok if rain is regular, but disastrous in other situations.
Weeds can desiccate the soil through transpiration, especially in dry winds, that will leave the soil incapable of supporting the intended crop. A small vineyard, half tilled for two years showed a healthy tilled half, the other half ruined. Even delayed tilling can prove detrimental.
“Wisdom is with the aged, and understanding in length of days (read experience)” Job 12.12
I have two short articles ( 2 to 3 pages) which I think can be read in 5 minutes (each). The titles explain what they are addressing.
Let me know if they help this discussion.
CO2 is close to its warming limit –
https://www.dropbox.com/s/4w3jssld6vjynq4/CO2%20is%20close%20to%20its%20warming%20limit-28June21.pdf?dl=0
Net Zero – why we need a cost-benefit analysis justification to reduce CO2.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/zovdf6a9cbm2ab3/WCD-CO2-17June.pdf?dl=0
Great articles Gerald. I too signed the “World Climate Declaration” and have been doing what I can to help get the word out. Those graphs associated with your “CO2 limit” article are critical to the debate, which is why the “alarmists” refuse to acknowledge them, and which is why I will soon include them in a video. In the meantime, I made this to help my kids better understand … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xcc5-ApXFm8
John, I like your video – and wish our politicians would see and understand it. If your kids do understand it, then everyone in our government should.
Keep up the good work and spread the word and the video!!
Gerald: You should do yourself a favor and study as least one textbook on planetary climate science, instead of resorting to silly high school level graphs. I suggest the textbooks by Pierrehumbert or Dessler.
Do some real science.
David – you may consider the charts are silly, but it took scientists 100 years to realize that the Arrhenius approximation for CO2 Radiative Forcing is in error in that a log function cannot go through the origin (0,0). This is required from the Physics that if there is no CO2 – there can be no heating from CO2. The Lightfoot approximation corrects that mistake and offers a more accurate estimate of how close CO2 is to its warming limit. Now, this year Professors Happer and Wijngaarden confirm the extra warming from CO2 (and other greenhouses) is close to their warming limit. Where the estimate is about 1% of extra heat from a doubling of CO2. I challenge you to read the paper from the two professors and tell me you honestly understand the Maths and studied this in high school!!
Gaerald ==> Take heart . . . . David Appell is the quintessential troll. He is here in the same spirit that the Football Hooligans of Europe attend soccer games — they are there just for the fight. He is not here to clarify anything or to learn anything. The Troll Trick is to be rude and attempt to provoke.
He is very good at it. But it is a worthless, unworthy effort.
> it took scientists 100 years to realize that the Arrhenius approximation for CO2 Radiative Forcing is in error
Arrhenius published it in 1889, and the Eyring equation was proposed around 1935.
Gerald Ratzer: David – you may consider the charts are silly, but it took scientists 100 years to realize that the Arrhenius approximation for CO2 Radiative Forcing is in error in that a log function cannot go through the origin (0,0).
The logarithmic radiative forcing equation for CO2 is only valid for a certain range of CO2, and not for very low values of CO2. At low values I believe the RF goes approximately like sqrt(CO2), but don’t quote me on that. Similarly, at very high values of CO2 an additional term comes into the RF equation that goes like (ln(CO2))^2. See:
“Radiative forcing at high concentrations of well-mixed greenhouse gases,”
Brendan Byrne and C. Goldblatt, Geophysical Research Letters, Jan 13 2014.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2013GL058456
BTW, these functions don’t come from analytical calculations, they come from numerical fitting.
Gerald Ratzer wrote: Now, this year Professors Happer and Wijngaarden confirm the extra warming from CO2 (and other greenhouses) is close to their warming limit. Where the estimate is about 1% of extra heat from a doubling of CO2. I challenge you to read the paper from the two professors and tell me you honestly understand the Maths and studied this in high school!!
CO2 isn’t close to being saturated.
BTW it’s usual to link to a paper you mention so others can be sure to find it. If it’s this paper, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.03098.pdf, they get a CO2 climate sensitivity of 2.2 C. But their model is extremely simple, circa 1970s.
Don’t worry, I’m quite sure I can understand the math.
Gerald, great work!!!
“Its warming. The warming is caused by us. Warming is dangerous. We need to urgently transition to renewable energy to stop the warming. Once we do that, sea level rise will stop and the weather won’t be so extreme.
So what’s wrong with this narrative?”
Low indirect solar drives a warmer AMO which reduces low cloud cover, causing a greater warming potential than the rising CO2 forcing.
Central to the belief that climate warming is dangerous, is the myth that it increases heatwaves like 2003 and 2018 in Europe. Being discretely solar driven they were a cause and not a product of climate change.
So the warming attribution is specious through lack of understanding of the inverse solar forcing of the AMO, and the weather extremes attribution is confusing the solar driven noise of climate change (NAO/AO anomalies), as a manifestation of climate change.
Ulric: We just had one of the lowest levels of max TSI in recent cycles. We’re near the bottom of the solar cycle in terms of both sunspots and TSI.
So why are temperatures hitting record highs?
That depends on what records you use … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3M6AaXv4iI
John, I’m not about to click on any links of yours given the poor quality of the links you’ve posted here so far. Wise up.
So many want to stop climate change and falsely think stopping fossil fuels is the answer. However, humanity did stop climate change in the past — but at a great cost … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyXAPG4Xh5M
John Shewchuk: Humanity wasn’t burning fossil fuels in the pre-industrial past, were they?
So they weren’t assured of continued warming then, were they?
You bet your sweet lump of coal they used it long ago — it’s plainly detailed in the historical records. But no matter, all this talk about climate is just a cover story, an illusion, for the real agenda … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOpOnaRMGCY
John: You can be sure that any video that starts out with the word “Democrat” will be immediately ignored by me as ideological. LOL
David, TSI is not indirect solar forcing. Read the first line of my comment again.
Nighttime temperatures (TMIN) are hitting record highs,
not daytime temperatures (TMAX)
Please show the link between TMIN and sunspots / TSI.
Reblogged this on Utopia, you are standing in it!.
It may warm, it may cool, it may stay the same. Just be flexible.
jim2: It may warm, it may cool, it may stay the same. Just be flexible.
“The Sun may come up, or it may go down, or it may just hover right at the horizon. Just be flexible.”
Exactly, David.
Did you buy a generator yet? Best to be prepared!
Because of the unfortunate coincidence of a number of underlying considerations, which is how new records have always occurred.
Considering man’s relatively short existence on the planet, pretty bold to make sweeping generalizations about record high temperatures and then blame it on CO2.
Michael: The highs are in the RECORD — in the RECORDED temperatures.
That’s what’s being claimed. Get it?
“Recorded” is a minor blip in the planet’s history. Get it?
Recently someone said, “I just lived through the worst heat wave in human history. Over 600 died.” That correlation is very misleading, which is common in today’s media. First, that was not the worst in history. Second, in the past, more people died from heat waves because they didn’t have fossil-fueled electricity to run air-conditioners. Oh yes, and the data … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3M6AaXv4iI
John Shewchuk: Recently someone said, “I just lived through the worst heat wave in human history. Over 600 died.” That correlation is very misleading, which is common in today’s media. First, that was not the worst in history.
“During the last days of June 2021, Pacific northwest areas of the U.S. and Canada experienced temperatures never previously observed, with records broken in many places by several degrees Celsius.”
World Weather Attribution, 7/7/21
https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/western-north-american-extreme-heat-virtually-impossible-without-human-caused-climate-change/
More propaganda, however, I was able to find evidence of human-caused climate change … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BPsloM04R0
Get out the violins because Appleman the victim is whining about his local hot weather again.
The local temperatures were +30 to +40 degrees F. above normal.
It would be possible to blame global warming for about +1 to +2 dehrees F. of the temperature rise.
Local weather events are not climate change.
So far the first half of 2021 was cooler than the first half of 2020.for the global average temperature (UAH)
But that’s just a short term trend — not climate change.
Climate change is at least 30 years;.
So stop whining about “your” hot weather for a few days. Buy a window airconditioner for $100 for next time — at least one room will be cool.
Michigan has been unusually cool in 2021
— that must be C L I M A T E C H A N G E too ?
Global climate related deaths are down 99% from 100 years ago.
That’s the big picture you conveniently forget to mention every time you whine about your local heat wave.
Is Judy channelling Lord Lawson, and Will Happer, or the out-takes from Unsettled ?
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2021/07/lord-lawson-gets-f-for-hiring-josh.html
I have some real issues with the sudden death numbers reported during the recent heat wave in western Canada. In British Columbia, it was reported that 233 people died from sudden heat death during a four-day period. That number seems fantastically high, especially given there are 130 deaths in any given four-day period in BC. We get zero details about these deaths. How did these people die? Who are they? Could some common sense precautions prevented these deaths.
I would like to see an audit done on every finding of deaths from heat…or cold, including the study I linked to at the top. I want to know all the circumstances surrounding every single death. My instincts tell me a lot of liberties are being taken in getting those numbers.
I agree, Ckid. The political culture of contemporary media virtually guarantees weighted liberties are being taken.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/peteraldhous/texas-winter-storm-power-outage-death-toll
Excellent article Jungle — something the media refuses to acknowledge. This is why I call it the “green” virus to our energy grid …https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpVAHZCNTa8
Heat deaths
Oregon’s health department shows that the weekly death count in the state is approx 750 per week from all causes. The most recent data posted is for the week ended June 27, 2021 shows 733 deaths. The week ended June 27 includes the 2 of the 3 days of the 3 day heat wave (which ended June 28th).
https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/oha.center.for.health.statistics/viz/OregonHealthAuthorityCenterforHealthStatisticsWeeklydeathstable/Weeklydeathsummarydata.
Any and all deaths are a tragedy, but the oregon death count and the data supplied by jimmyv above for BC show that the actual heat related deaths are probably far lower than published.
Note – I could not locate data for the state of washington
Instead of forcing society to spend monumental amounts of money supporting today’s infant renewables technology, put all or some of that into alternatives R&D, and only switch to them once they can survive without political privilege.
Or, with say an absolute maximum of say a 10% subsidy. And make the subsidy utterly transparent, instead of as now one of any back-door subsidy schemes specifically designed to be impenetrable to voters and as difficult as possible to cost.
If we did that, how could the politicians possibly buy votes?
David: Do you know the meaning of secular in physics? Do you know that climate refers to secular changes? Do you understand that weather is the opposite? Since you are always asking about the the physical basis of statements made here, please provide the physics description of the coupling of climate change and extreme weather events.
The answer is part of basic meteorology 101.
Appleman may not know the answer, but this is it:
The most global warming has been in the northern half of the Northern Hemisphere, the least warming in the tropics.
That has caused a smaller temperature differential between the Arctic and the tropics.
The result ius milder weather in the Northern Hemisphere.
That milder weather can be seen in the data (ignoring the usual climate alarmists propaganda).
Declining long-term trends of many types
of extreme weather events, including:
— Atlantic Ocean hurricanes
— Japan Pacific Ocean typhoons
— US tornadoes
— US droughts (highest in 1930s)
— US heatwaves (highest in 1930s)
David Appell is thread bombing with his usual nonsense, as usual. He’s posted 30 of 76 comments so far – i.e. 40% of the comments so far.
He loses it when he sees (natural) climate change. He cannot stand it – it’s a direct attack on the anthropogenic change paradigm.
Your characterization is exactly consistent with Apprell’s often repeated statement that Global Warming/Climate Change is required by the Laws of Physics.
When in fact a system open to energy flows is not required by the Laws of Physics to do anything.
oops, excuse me, Appell’s, not Apprell’s
Dan, you are being silly. The system *is* required to *not violate energy conservation*.
If the path in the infrared band corresponding to the surface temperature becomes more opaque, the previous climate is inconsistent with energy conservation and something changes. The immediate result of the imbalance is to warm the surface, and sufficient warming of the surface re-establishes the balance. That’s a simple small-signal linearization of the problem.
If you’re proposing that this simple analysis breaks with some large-scale nonlinearity, first of all that’s quite a stretch and you need to propose a mechanism. But also, you’re proposing that the climate system reacts with a large-signal nonlinearity not only to mitigate (per Lindzen’s well-refuted theories) but to entirely cancel or reverse the forcing. This would indicate a fundamental instability in the system that 1) would be terrifying and 2) would be hard to reconcile with billions of years of life on the planet.
It’s really not an open question. Add greenhouse gases, change the climate, absolutely required by physics.
Add a small amount of greenhouse gases, warm the surface, a pretty simple physical analysis.
Add a lot of greenhouse gases and warm the surface substantially, essentially certain, basically required by physics barring some very exotic (and fantastic and even more terrifying than AGW) theory.
Energy is conserved for all systems at all times and for all states attained by the system.
If I put Appell’s statement and your statement together, for me this argument says that the Laws of Nature require that the energy content of any system at any state and for all times increases under conservation of energy.
That is clearly not the case. There are no developments of the general, fundamental, local-instantaneous formulation of the principle of conservation of energy that reflect this concept.
Something is missing. A piece that is implicit and/or opaque that limits the states of the system. All parts of the discussions are required to be explicitly stated.
As for … the previous climate is inconsistent with energy conservation …, this statement contradicts the very concept that energy is conserved for all systems at all times and for all states attained by the system. It is never possible that the physical domain is inconsistent with energy conservation.
The third paragraph is entirely presumptive on your part. I have never written anything that adresses any part of any of the ideas in that paragraph. You have made it up.
For a system that is open to energy flows, absolutely required by physics is a generalization for which there are uncountable numbers of counter-examples.
On the other hand, there are assumed/hypothesized/theoretical states of the system and its surroundings for which the general, fundamental principle of conservation of energy can be simplified to support that argument. It is critically important to note that the state of the system is assumed, and not calculated using the general fundamental formulation.
The energy outgoing from the physical domain of a system open to energy flows is solely determined by the physical phenomena and processes experienced by the materials internal to the system. The same obtains for a system open with respect to material flows. Outgoing energy, and mass, cannot be specified in mathematical models of the systems. A simple and easily understood situation is given by the flow and energy transport of a single-phase fluid in a one-dimensional flow channel. The characteristics of the continuous PDEs for this case indicate that only the pressure can be specified at the outflow of the channel. There is only a single characteristic directed to the exit from outside the flow channel.
Because the outgoing energy is determined solely by the phenomena and processes underway internal to the system, as those vary with time, the outgoing energy varies with time. The assumed/hypothesized/theoretical state of the system cannot be attained on a local-instantaneous basis, so some kind of average over time must also be invoked. If the system is of significant spatial extent such that different regions experience different phenomena and processes, then some kind of average over the spatial extent must also be invoked.
Variations internal to the system, coupled with potential variations in the incoming energy, will always produce variations in the state of the system. None the less, energy is always conserved: always, without exception.
Thus, in contrast to the simplistic nature of the assumed state of the system, and associated dismissal of the local-instantaneous general fundamental mathematical formulation of the Principle of Conservation of Energy, mathematical operations are required to be applied to that formulation in order to arrive at a more nearly correct characterization of the assumed state.
The ultimate outcomes are (1) the general fundamental mathematical formulation of the Princile of Conservation of Energy is not a part of the assumed state: it is annihilated by the assumptions, (2) the local-instantaneous fundamental formulation of the Principle must be additionally modified to account for averages over time and space so as to reach agreement with the assumed state, and (3) the assumed state and associated simplistic characterizations present an argument that is severely deficient relative to the physical domain.
“If I put Appell’s statement and your statement together, for me this argument says that the Laws of Nature require that the energy content of any system at any state and for all times increases under conservation of energy.”
Obviously a rather uncharitable reading to say the least.
My point is that you can’t change the radiative properties of the atmosphere without changing the climate – otherwise energy conservation would be violated.
If you’d prefer to read some nonsensical interpretation into that essentially bulletproof claim, your preference makes further conversation unlikely to be fruitful.
My point is that you can’t change the radiative properties of the atmosphere without changing the climate – otherwise energy conservation would be violated.
Everyone agrees with the first part.
The second part is not in agreement with the concept that energy is always, without exception, conserved. Even you agree with that concept.
That being the case, how can the second part make any sense at all?
When it comes to energy the Earth is not the system but only a part of the system. If the Earth actually were the system then GHGs would have no effect since they would just be bouncing the same energy around while never increasing or decreasing the total amount.
Mr. Appleman may not provide high quality comments, but he makes up for that deficiency by providing a large quantity !
That opinion is not from a peer reviewed study published in a prestigious scientific journal, it’s just my observation.
The only thing worse than Appleman thread bombing (a new term for me — I like it) is someone wasting their time counting Appleman comments ! (Just kidding — thanks for the data).
It’s already a waste of time reading Appleman comments !
As an Oregon heat wave near-victim, Mr. Appleman deserves our sympathy, as the heat has obviously had negative effects on his mental abilities … which were shaky to begin with.
You don’t have to count the number of comments. Just Search for David Appell. Currently about 50 of 270 comments
That’s very good, Judith, but it neglects the historical record of climate relative to CO2, and the exponential decline in effect.
The easiest would be to say that CO2 is not in control of climate change, and that we are not in control of CO2
That’s a great 5 minute pitch. Given that the ‘grand narrative’, aka cultural narrative, dominates society, I think for the nearer term it’s more important to understand how cultural narratives self-reinforce and invoke strong group behaviours, than it is to understand the climate system. Progress on both can be made simultaneously, of course. But until the cultural behaviour is interrupted, the grand narrative will remain in charge and not the physical science.
We believe we, as a species, are adversely influencing our climates but seem unable to see the practical solution to the problem we, as a species, have had for a whole ifetime: nuclear power in its many diverse forms and the better grid management it offers everybody. Instead of this practical option we have chosen the path of bizarre renewable energy mixed with much finger pointing at ‘cheap’ western fossil fuel use complete with blind eyes that cannot see the huge fossil fuel increases in China, etc. And yet we can be much, much more reliably greener without environmental damage within a decade or two via nuclear without risking wholesale instability and destruction of our electricity supply chains.
How on earth have all the ‘experts’ come to the conclusions they have about so called renewable energies and the massive expenses and environmental damage being caused by solar, wind etc.? Have these ‘experts’ all gone stark raving bonkers or is it another case of follow the money and the usual duplicity that entails?
“How on earth have all the ‘experts’ come to the conclusions they have about so called renewable energies and the massive expenses and environmental damage being caused by solar, wind etc.? Have these ‘experts’ all gone stark raving bonkers or is it another case of follow the money and the usual duplicity that entails?”
Typically, money follows culture, rather than vice versa. As Judith’s pitch points out, expertise is lost beneath the volume of the grand narrative. This applies to energy issues as much as climate science. The deployment of Renewables (Wind and Solar) across nations conforms primarily to a cultural trend, not to the climate or climate exposure of nations or to any objective policy principles. https://judithcurry.com/2020/11/19/cultural-motivations-for-wind-and-solar-renewables-deployment/ . Regarding the downsides, strong group beliefs (not bonkers, not duplicitous) override rationality.
UK-Weather Lass, this is from a nuclear averse power plant ret engineer, to make my bias clear.
Just months into my career over 50 yrs ago, I met someone from the UK nuclear establ, who was advising my big bosses. I was alarmed with the possibility of nuclear, because of the general incompetence and complacency. I was assured it won’t come my way – big relief. Not long afterwards I hosted in my office a senior engineer from a renowned Nuke manufacturer, who told me they no longer sold nukes to governments, exactly for the above reasons, plus more. It was also reported that sales overseas of nuclear plant skimped on safety instrumentation.
Over time from periodicals came a string of big nuclear costs. Sellafield, Tokaimura, Chernobyle, lately Fukushima, plus others less well known.
One thing that dogged my career were lack of quality control, in spite of reams of documentation. Faking documents is widespread. My experience in QA failure is near 100% of the time. But I did not expect that to happen in nuclear. Apparently it does.
Over 50 years, power plant engineering has made great leaps, technically. Equally has increased the incidence of cowboys in this field, and they sprout everywhere. Most times the people you can trust are few. I suspect that number has not increased in anyway.
interesting. But bearing in mind our betters are determined to get rid of fossil fuel, what are you suggesting we use for base load energy if not nuclear?
tonyb
Tony g
Off topic and I’ll stop here, but just wanted to update you on the progress in responding to your request:
Here you go, my friend:
dpy6629 | July 10, 2021 at 9:24 pm |
Rob, Joshie is a classic troll. He exists solely to unethically smear other people and use rhetorical devices to sneer at them.
@ climatereason I suggest we get more serious.
The last decade and half got me in contact with respected elders in the field of engineering, CEGB in UK, GE + Westinghouse in US, and Siemens in Europe, who did build, in various ways, the ‘Grid’ we relied on.
Then a virus crept in. Companies bought and dismantled for quick profit; systems of grid control by dubious financial ways (I recall being shown Enron financials as a way of dressing-down, by people who had no idea of the subject). Good people disappear, to be replaced by others with sometimes a fifteen day course as experience in very difficult jobs, just because they were cheaper.
I do see problems on the horizon. Example: warming waters by several degrees (more than 6 in my case 15yrs ago) means design change of turbine components to preserve best efficiency. Whether nuclear or fossil, it is a matter to resolve. When involved in specs, we designed for survival at difficult odds, not for profit (and the devil takes care of the rest). The problems that may arise, for sure, will not be solved by any one technology. It needs to be ‘belt and braces’ and keep all options open.
Covid showed how systems collapse very quickly – for lack of foresight-. Electricity was not touched. But it can be effected greatly in other ways, and much today relies on electrical power.
but there we have the dilemma. Our govts, egged on by activists are determined to kill fossil fuel power station. We will need approximately 3 times the amount of energy in 2050 as we do now as more and more things are electrified.
that power is needed 24/7 and at a sensible price.
In the UK we get some only1700 hours of sun per year with light levels at their worst and shortest in winter just when needed. We often get high pressures settling over us in winter meaning gaps in wind generation of up to 2 weeks-certainly 5 days is common.
So, without nuclear what do we use or do you think weather dependent renewables can do what is needed?
Incidentally do you know anything about these ‘giant battery farms’
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9775467/UKs-battery-farms-spark-fears-explosions.html
Any idea how long thy can store power for as obviously that is the achilles heel of renewables
tonyb
melitamegalithic, I do share concerns about safety in any industry especially one that deals in nuclear reactions, but the French model seems to indicate that it can be done properly, well and safely in spite of all the potential dangers, including the ones you mention.
It distresses me that the potential of a nuclear solution to cleaner, safer, reliable, and efficient delivery of electricity has been stifled as much by public disquiet over the dangers posed. It seems we have a tendency, as a species, to be dishonest, cut corners, cheat, mislead and generally behave irresponsibly and there is no clearer evidence of that than in the now fashionable renewable energy marketplace with claims it simply cannot back up with factual evidence. In the nuclear industry so far it has taken its place alongside hydro, gas, coal fired generators, etc., delivering baseload, and keeping our grids relatively reliable.
All potential solutions to the bigger issues of an era carry risks, but only through hard work, integrity and reward for work well done as compared to humiliation, punishment, shame and retribution for dishonesty and lack of responsibility will see us improve the delivery of electricity in the way we have over the last century. I well remember the seventies film ‘The China Syndrome’ as demonstrating much of what you mention as important in quality control and assurance in any large scale nuclear project. When we have people dying in explosions caused by renewable electric policies gone wrong we may want to compare that with nuclear energy’s safety record so far.
Nuclear isn’t perfect but it may be the only realistic choice we have if we are serious about ending our love affair with fossil fuel. But we must, unlike the solar and wind farce, do things properly.
climatereason
There is a saying that goes “when the going get tough, the tough get going”. Add to that ‘then the noisy crowd falls silent’. It falls to a select crowd to figure out what’s next possible (Dr Curry’s listeners). The fickle crowd settles for what’s easy, but they don’t decide at that point, CO2 or not. (As one MP once said: ‘we need you to tell us what to do’.) But you have to have those select few.
Your question/statement: “We will need approximately 3 times the amount of energy in 2050 as we do now as more and more things are electrified.”. Its not what we will need but what we can have. Reminds of 1973 fuel price hike, people had wanted cheap Ford guzzlers; fuel was very cheap (I had got a high efficiency small engined auto) Overnight you would not see a Ford on the roads. There wasn’t even a whimper about ‘need’. I recall a more recent time. FO rose from $70 to 180. Some countries just could not afford that. You rework the grid for selective supply.
The reason then was not CO2 but profits. In 2050 it might be the same (why the need to get serious), whether it is hydrocarbon or uranium. Except that in dire times the risk/cost with uranium is far greater. Power plants used to be a national concern (EDF still is). To service the nation – reliably and at minimal cost. That changed, and with the change invariably came higher costs and reduced reliability, and an invisible additional cost to be paid by public taxpayer – particularly with nuclear.
UK-Weather Lass, The French model is still very much a national concern, and may not be so subject to political diktat. My experience from a one-time contact with EDF is that they are very aware of the pitfalls of “dishonest tendencies”. (Their advice then: a QA doc is a certificate of dishonesty.)
Imagine what the total disregard for science experienced with Covid, – everywhere-, would do in the nuclear arena. (Brings to mind the film ‘Inception’, reliving a slow-motion train wreck repeatedly).
UKWLass …
> We believe we, as a species, are adversely influencing our climates …
It starts with what you said … ‘believe’. Andy West is correct when he says ‘money follows culture’. But Andrew Breitbart said it best, “Politics is downstream from culture.”
Belief systems evolve slowly and are difficult to change. Evidence, facts do not have the power one may think.
While, factually, humans certainly do have an affect on our environment, the questions of harm, benefit, degree, amelioration are all open to interpretation. That’s where culture comes in and gives us belief scenarios. Narratives, if you wish.
As an engineer, I have a very simple answer.
We don’t really know the sensitivity of the climat to CO2.
However, if CO2 is the problem, then nuclear is the solution. As assessing nuclear is simpler than assessing climate I think climate scientists who warn of CO2 and at the same time are against nuclear don’t understand much of both nuclear and climate.
Bingo – on target. While China is using coal as an interim energy solution to their growing economy, they are going nuclear in the long term — as we should … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1Iu9D5RhqQ
We know it to a factor of 2; it’s around 3 C per doubling, very unlikely to be less than half or more than double that, and even at the low end, quite troubling. I agree that taking nuclear off the table is a bizarre position from those taking climate change seriously.
The cultural happenstance that the people open to nuclear are culturally opposed to taking climate seriously and vice versa is causing enormous damage.
We? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? Who is “we?”
By what means do you “know” it’s around 3 C per doubling?
Sorry mt, know is not the appropriate verb. How about the verb think.
If the AMO, PDO and IPO get all jiiggy in the next 20-30 years, the know will turn into a oops.
I might add that renewables are not fit to deliver more energy than they take to produce, once you add the storage and the net adaption measures.
The EROI of nuclear is some 100, with advanced reactors som 2000, while the EROI of Solar and Wind is 4..10 (solar) and 8 .. 16 (Wind), divided by storage, net, and stabilization. In many regions of the world, seasonal storage is necessary which is not really feasible.
Completely agree. Even though “green” energy is not economical, nor efficient, nor reliable … at least the wind turbine industry has created many more jobs worldwide. Here’s just a sample … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyfms05WNoY
“How on earth have all the ‘experts’ come to the conclusions they have about so called renewable energies and the massive expenses and environmental damage being caused by solar, wind etc.? Have these ‘experts’ all gone stark raving bonkers or is it another case of follow the money and the usual duplicity that entails?”
Typically, money follows culture, rather than vice versa. As Judith’s pitch points out, expertise is lost beneath the volume of the grand narrative. This applies to energy issues as much as climate science. The deployment of Renewables (Wind and Solar) across nations conforms primarily to a cultural trend, not to the climate or climate exposure of nations or to any objective policy principles. https://judithcurry.com/2020/11/19/cultural-motivations-for-wind-and-solar-renewables-deployment/ . Regarding the downsides, strong group beliefs (not bonkers, not duplicitous) override rationality.
Oops, posted to wrong place. See UK-Weather Lass comment at 5:44 am 12th July.
Relax for 5 minutes with the Lonesone Avenue:
https://youtu.be/H2Pr34aru4o
Relax with boring elevator music?
It made me nervous.
This makes me nervous. While we talk science, the Left plans wealth redistribution and population control … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOpOnaRMGCY
John Shewchuk commented: While we talk science, the Left plans wealth redistribution
Unpriced carbon emissions already redistribute wealth, from the poor to the rich. Or hasn’t that ever occurred to you?
And “green” energies will keep the poor poorer. Again — it’s not about the climate — it’s all about politics — something to wonder about … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvzmHLCIyPc
Good music relaxes me,
as an audiophile since 1965.
Here are two antidotes to the “lonesome” song you posted:
Lonely Avenue, by Ray Charles
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUE3Z-LoWyQ
Lonesome Town, by Ricky Nelson
I wasn’t keen on the melody of Lonely Avenue and the Ricky Nelson number just wasn’t my thing.
My favourite Ray Charles song is “Tell Me What I Say?” (1963)
https://youtu.be/IvLwFPl_Bj0
.
It’s like proposing the Tidal Increase of the Sun Hypothesis (TISH)
Someone took exception to my use of the word Democrat. While that word can have an allergic reaction to some, I find that “John Kerry” has a much more soothing affect on many. More importantly, John Kerry does an excellent job of exposing climate-change fraud … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6J4l3g4ygc
If someone were to ask, “What can I do to mitigate the human factor in climate change?”
Given that China is the world’s #1 producer of greenhouse gas and is on a coal-fired power plant building spree, the answer is obvious, stop buying stuff from China.
JACurry’ comment – “Climate change is a grand narrative in which manmade climate change has become the dominant cause of societal problems. Everything that goes wrong reinforces the conviction that that there is only one thing we can do prevent societal problems – stop burning fossil fuels.”
I thought systemic racism was the cause of all societies problems ? Or is it Capitalism? Am I missing the evolving narrative that only a world government can solve?
All the above.
I think, instead of just sacrificing pickup trucks to the gods, they now want the vehicles filled with people before they toss them into the volcano.
My only quibble with the 5-minutes thing- there really isn’t any “debate” on climate change anymore, the general consensus is that it’s both real and really small. The only remaining debate is about communication- some want to scare children with fairy tales – and the debate about low emissions energy solutions.
The latter debate is over as well as far as science is concerned. This month is the 10th anniversary of James Hansen’s discovery that “renewables” are tantamount to “believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.” And he was late to the realization.
Left, right, climate concerned and “hoax” believers, Democrats and Republicans, all agree that we won’t be heating Chicago and Boston in February with windmills and solar panels.
Yet there is Judith at a Canadian “university” where “engineering students” are “taught” renewables are real and necessary because of RCP8.5.
The lucid aren’t sure how anyone gets into an engineering programs while believing they can heat Canadian cities with solar panels in sub-zero temps where sunlight is only a few hours a day, but it is a mandatory “belief” these days. You know, because batteries are unaffected by cold so a few trillions dollars worth of them ought to do it. Most of these students, of course, will nod and quietly roll their eyes as they dutifully draw up “plans” to clear-cut the nation for solar panels and windmills. Then they’ll take their degrees to the tar sands to make some money, or to Asia or Africa where functional energy production is still allowed. Maybe they’ll build pipelines to Russian gas and oil fields since fossil fuels don’t impact the climate outside of North America and Europe.
> the general consensus is that it’s both real and really small.
Citation needed.
“Citation needed.”
Even ATTP acknowledges RCP8.5 is bogus (though useful.) Back in the day you guys considered anyone who doubted 6-degrees was a “denier,” see David Suzuki, now you’re a member in good standing of “the warm” if you think it’s probably almost 2 C (and an extinction level crisis but do not dare call it “catastrophic.”)
The RIO Summit was in 1992, all international climate conferences since that time have literally cheered the quintupling of emissions in China, condemned the only thing that actually lowered western emissions (natural gas), and ignored the only emissions-free power source that works (nuclear.) That is not the agenda of a gang that believes its press releases or models.
> Even ATTP acknowledges RCP8.5
That squirrel won’t float, Jeff:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2020/02/09/but-rcps/
Unless you wish to argue that only 8.5 isn’t “really small,” I suggest you find another squirrel.
“Yes, RCP8.5 has become much more unlikely, but it’s still a useful worst case scenario and there are still valid climate modelling reasons for using it. However, it’s also important to recognise that our current trajectory is probably not taking us along an RCP8.5 pathway.”
ATTP
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2020/01/31/rcp8-5-another-update/
RCP8.5 isn’t real. Write that down. In fact those quotes were from a period where you all were distressed that even Nature and the Beeb were noting that 8.5 is now “misleading.”
And, of course, as we all know, 8.5 is the basis for all the news stories that are also misleading. It’s being used to scare people because reality isn’t scary enough for drastic action and because the warm are afraid of the consequences of letting people know that it isn’t as bad as we thought.
Or, as ATTP put it:
“There are some who think it’s important to highlight worst case scenarios in order to motivate us to avoid getting there. There are others who think it’s more important to highlight that we’ve probably already done enough to avoid these. I can see merits and problems with both arguments. The former could highlight how terrible things could get, but could then lead to despair, while the latter could highlight how much we’ve already done but could lead to complacency.”
You said that the consensus was that AGW was both real and really small, Jeff.
Nothing you’ll ever say about your second favorite scapegoat will support that.
With over 13,000 nuclear weapons that could be detonated globally within a few hours or days I wonder what the RCP # would be? It might even be a negative number (-RCP3.2) after civilization shrinks to just a couple hundred million.
https://www.oakridger.com/story/news/2021/06/04/oak-ridge-tenn-nuclear-war-famine-robock-physicist-ornl-national-lab/7543713002/
Poor Willy. Thinks the 8.5 fairy tale must be supported while the IPCC still acknowledges 1.5. It’s lower than predicted so worse than we thought!
How’s that working out for you?
Jack- if 13,000 nukes go off, the weather will be the least of your problems. And let’s not pretend leftists are anti-nuke- they objected to Ronald Reagan having them to be sure, but are happy to let the Mullahs of Iran build them.
How do you feel about a 4C world, Jeff?
Last time I asked Judy she did not respond.
“Last time I asked Judy she did not respond.”
Why would she? There isn’t a 4C world.
How do you feel about 1.5 with three quarters of it already done? That’s your world.
There’s more than one RCP, Jeff.
Why do you play dumb?
sorry that’s two-thirds.
Jeff does not always whine about 8.5, but when he does he will play dumb about 4.
Speaking of ignoring real problems to focus on climate change, it sounds like the engineering students are doing just that, by focusing on the transition that cannot happen. They will not be prepared for the real jobs they get.
The 30-day SOI has risen to over 8, indicating that the Pacific is ready for La Niña’s return.
https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/soi/
Reblogged this on WeatherAction News and commented:
This makes sense, just by looking at the climactic hardships humans have faced for millenia. However, even when you are reasonable, the counter is immediately a Year Zero for carbon. Because it’s never been about the climate, it’s always about resources.
One can argue that we are already as prepared for rare extreme weather as we can afford to be. We are far from oblivious to it.
The policy choices driven by the Eco Hysteria Narrative are mostly squandering of money on Green vanity projects that project wonder but deliver useless and often stupid “solutions”
Yes but a great many people believe this narrative. A recent poll found almost 40% of respondents agreeing that human extinction was likely in a century or less, in many cases far less, due to CO2 emissions.
https://www.cfact.org/2021/06/29/unfounded-fear-of-extinction-drives-climate-hysteria/
Why they believe this is a research question but no one is responding to this irrationality.
BOM and NOAA are seeing La Niña in September. It will be a cold winter in the Northern Hemisphere.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/model-summary/archive/20210706.nino_summary_4.png
Daily mean temperatures for the Arctic area north of the 80th northern parallel, plotted with daily climate values calculated from the period 1958-2002.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2021.png
So what?
Pingback: 5 minutes – Climate- Science.press
Here is better, in under two minutes:
There is ZERO evidence of a man-made climate catastrophe 100 years from now. There cannot be. Those who look around and see evidence of global warming today do not and cannot distinguish those events as being either man-made or natural; they look exactly the same and, in most cases are within natural variability. All concern over Climate Change relies on one thing alone: our ability to predict the future. The only tools we have for this are crystal balls and the computerized climate models. Those models, using hundreds of assumptions, predict somewhere between a slight cooling and a near-impossible worst-case scenario, but for some reason it is ONLY the near-impossible worst-case scenario we are asked to worry about and “do something” about.
Yet when these climate models, from the US EPA and the international IPCC, are asked to predict the effects including just one specific assumption– specific reductions in manmade CO2– and depending on how drastic those cuts and how much of the world participates, they predict somewhere between 0.02 and 0.37 degrees less warming, over the next 100 years! That is negligible.
In simple terms, if the models are right, man-made CO2 is not a problem. If the models are wrong, man-made CO2 is not a problem.
One other thing we can do is to look at current trends and simply assume they will continue indefinitely. The trend from the NASA satellite global temperature record, if extended, says that the earth will warm between 1 and 1-1/2 degrees this century, a little higher than what it did the last century but well below the targets of the Paris Climate Accords. In simple terms, we need do nothing! Let’s not “do something” that costs dearly and accomplishes nothing.
> There cannot be.
True. Evidence of the future isn’t possible at the moment.
“All concern over Climate Change relies on one thing alone: our ability to predict the future. The only tools we have for this are crystal balls and the computerized climate models. ”
Climate Models: Worse Than Nothing?
https://www.aier.org/article/climate-models-worse-than-nothing/
Also simple physical arguments and abundant paleoclimatic analogs.
Simple-minded arguments and abundant pseudo-climate analogs?
The Earth system has in the past shifted greatly and with rapidity. The problem with pushing changes on such a nonlinear, incalculable system is that it is may happen again.
I shall not stand up, lest I fall down.
Possibility is not a basis for action.
Risk assessment is always the basis of pragmatic responses. In essence pragmatic action is developing and deploying advanced nuclear reactors, reducing pollutants even when they are greenhouse gases and restoring and conserving soils and ecosystems. The only downside is if risk became unwelcome surprises. All paid for from the proceeds of economic growth and development.
Robert Ellison wrote:
The Earth system has in the past shifted greatly and with rapidity. The problem with pushing changes on such a nonlinear, incalculable system is that it is may happen again.
Of course it could happen again. The problem is you seem to think it’s the only thing that can happen in the future, whereas such nonlinear shifts seem to be relatively rare. (When was the last one before the industrial era?) Meanwhile the immediate problem is that the surface temperature is warming at 0.2 C/decade.
The theory suggests that the system is pushed by greenhouse gas changes and warming – as well as solar intensity and Earth orbital eccentricities – past a threshold at which stage the components start to interact chaotically in multiple and changing negative and positive feedbacks – as tremendous energies cascade through powerful subsystems. Some of these changes have a regularity within broad limits and the planet responds with a broad regularity in changes of ice, cloud, Atlantic thermohaline circulation and ocean and atmospheric circulation.
Dynamic climate sensitivity implies the potential for a small push to initiate a large shift. Climate in this theory of abrupt change is an emergent property of the shift in global energies as the system settles down into a new climate state. The traditional definition of climate sensitivity as a temperature response to changes in CO2 makes sense only in periods between climate shifts – as climate changes at shifts are internally generated. Climate evolution is discontinuous at the scale of decades and longer.
e.g. https://watertechbyrie.com/2014/06/23/the-unstable-math-of-michael-ghils-climate-sensitivity/
[“Sorry, this comment could not be posted.”]
No great loss then.
Robert Ellison wrote:
The traditional definition of climate sensitivity as a temperature response to changes in CO2 makes sense only in periods between climate shifts
Yes, yes, I know. Everyone knows.
When was the last climate shift?
When will be the next climate shift?
Since you don’t know when the next climate shift will be, you seem to expect everyone to do nothing until it happens, at which point you will say I Told You So. In fact we could have serious warming until that point. We’re having serious warming now. So it makes sense to reduce and eliminate GHG emissions *now*, to protect human and nonhuman ecosystems, and also to reduce the chance of any upcoming climate shifts.
That’s it. That’s all. How could you disagree with that?
Robert I. Ellison No great loss then.
That’s weak.
That’s very tedious David. The last climate shift was 12998/2001. If it is not happening now. The Earth system is governed by the Navier-Stokes partial differential equations in 3 dimensions. A fluid flow problem in which there are many coupled nonlinear oscillators.
But tell me – what other than thread bombing CE would you do?
1998/2001 of course.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GL037022
Risk assessment is always the basis of pragmatic responses. In essence pragmatic action is developing and deploying advanced nuclear reactors, reducing pollutants even when they are greenhouse gases and restoring and conserving soils and ecosystems. The only downside is if risk became unwelcome surprises. All paid for from the proceeds of economic growth and development.
He not only doesn’t read the literature linked – he doesn’t read thread. Then misrepresents and complains of my impatience.
Robert Ellison: 1998/2001 of course.
A large El Nino. Doesn’t look like a large nonlinearity since then, just the acceleration of warming expected from radiative physics + feedbacks:
https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/SOTC_global_temps_1850-2019_620.jpg
Just because I mention 1998… although ENSO is one of globally coupled nonlinear oscillators. The decadal change in surface temperature trajectory is overwhelmingly the result of cloud feedback to sea surface temperature. How have you still not got this?
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2019/04/maptpiipo.sm_.png
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2019/02/tpi-sst.png
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-015-2525-1
Robert I. Ellison: The decadal change in surface temperature trajectory is overwhelmingly the result of cloud feedback to sea surface temperature.
Where’s the proof, and what’s causing the sea surface temperature to increase?
Your linked paper is just another of your typical citations to indices fluctuating, as if that’s some big revelation. I’d still like to know where these supposed nonlinearities of yours have manifested themselves in the physical climate system that matters to us — surface and tropospheric temperatures, sea ice, sea level, extreme weather, and for you to show that quantitatively.
I have given more than enough evidence.
Escellent!
Let’s look at the changes in UV radiation over the current solar cycle.
https://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/solar/mgii_composite_2.png
Record heat? Record temperature? Didn’t you notice that the global temperature is BELOW the 30 year average?
http://www.powerforusa.com is a great way to follow this issue as well as all matters related to energy. The article, Harm Caused by Net Zero Policy, at https://bit.ly/3hElRed is a good place to start.
“The sensitivity of the climate to a doubling of carbon dioxide has a factor of three uncertainty”
I have to disagree, as it is FAR WORSE! Also it is not about “uncertainty”, but a blunder in ALL radiative forcing based approaches. That is while other approaches based on past climate are useless, since they necessarily have to build on the theory of CO2 induced climate anyhow.
The problem is easy to show, I already posted it on WUWT. The modelling always starts with two assumptions: a surface emissivity of (almost) 1 and clear skies. Many times over even the overlay between CO2 and vapor is ignored. These simplifications are illicit and cause a huge error. You can use modtran to show the impact, that is how much a doubling of CO2 will reduce emissions.
No GHGs except CO2, no clouds, tropical atmosphere, emissions TOA in W/m2:
400ppm: 400.664
800ppm: 395.954
Delta: 4.71
GHGs on, no clouds, tropical atmosphere, emissions TOA in W/m2:
400ppm: 298.52
800ppm: 295.191
Delta: 3.329
GHGs on, Stratus cloud top 3.0km, tropical atmosphere, emissions TOA in W/m2:
400ppm: 269.004
800ppm: 266.398
Delta: 2.606
The same 3 scenarios with U.S. 1976 std atmosphere (only deltas)
3.768
2.983
1.853
Another iteration, this time with vapor. How much do emissions decrease with a 10% increase of vapor (tropical atmosphere)?
2.826 (vapor only GHG)
2.261 (with other GHGs)
1.099 (with other GHGs & clouds)
It is certainly not a perfect represenation of reality, and we can not even “fix” surface emissivity. Yet, the overlapping issue massively reduces the effect of any increase in GHGs. Realistic parameters here will roughly reduce the impact of 2xCO (or any increase of it) by 50%, and that of increases in vapor even more.
Once you correct for this mistake and consider realistic parameters including the overlapping issues, you will only get an ECS < 0.5K!!!
Something very similar goes for the GHE (or greenhouse gas effect rather) as well..
https://greenhousedefect.com/basic-greenhouse-defects/the-beast-under-the-bed-part-2
If you live in Arizona this article isn’t comforting …
https://www.wsj.com/articles/californias-power-jam-11626042040?st=o59lfjdkasp1n97&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
And we all should be concerned, because the Left is attacking our energy grid with a Green New Deal “Virus” designed to weaken America’s energy independence.
I live in Arizona, and found the article misleading, or at least incomplete. Due to California’s excess of solar and wind generated energy, power companies in Arizona (one of which I used to work for) run their units as low as they can reliably do so at times, and then make up for the rest by buying power from California at absolutely low prices. Then when California needs power, they ramp up and send power to California at absolutely high prices. This has been going on for years. California in their lack of reasonable planning has been subsidizing Arizona’s power rates to consumers in this way for years. The routing concerns of power that flows through California back to Arizona is likely either non-existent or minor, but I do not know for sure, and the article did not give any real examples. Even if examples exist of power that leaves Arizona, goes through California, then back to Arizona, I imagine that building a power line would take care of that problem. If they are talking about power that goes from another state, through California, then to Arizona, then Arizona could simply stop supplying the equal amount of power to California, and power Arizona instead. I am not sure that this is really an issue for Arizona, which has plenty of power, and plans for outages, weather, etc. unlike California, and as as was recently seen unlike Texas. There may be a very specific area in Arizona that could be impacted, but for the most part, Arizona is doing fine, and actually buys power at a low cost and sells power at a high cost.
Wow! A state government that’s actually competent! What a great thing that is.
Thanks, atandb! I live in Az, as well. Good information.
How much temperature rise do we see over the tropical Pacific? And why will winter in the Northern Hemisphere be cold?
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx_frames/gfs/ds/gfs_nh-sat4_t2anom_1-day.png
Very well written, and at a minimum, you showed the students what real education is like. I’d love to see you create a report that addresses all the major claims by the alarmists:
1) # and Severity of Hurricane over time
2) # and Severity of Tornadoes over time
3) # and Severity of Floods over time
4) # and Severity of Droughts over time
5) # and Severity of Wildfires over time
6) Have the high temperatures (not the adjusted average) been increasing
7) Using high values, when truly was the warmest year
8) How can uniform CO2 cause a temperature differential over the Land vs Sea, N vs S Pole, N vs South Hemi, Desert vs Rain Forest
9) Isolate the locations that are shielded from the UHI and Water Vapor and truly identify the impact of CO2 on temperatures by removing the exogenous factors
10) Run an experiment that proves LWIR can actually warm water (LWIR doesn’t penetrate water)
11) Demonstrate how atmospheric H20 make CO2 irrelevant in the lower troposphere where all the glaciers
12) Demonstrate how sea levels aren’t accelerating
13) Include archeological evidence like the location of Troy, Thermoloply and Hannibal’s march to suggest that things were much warmer during the Minoan and Roman warming period
14) Show the Iceland Ice Core and the 600 million year record of CO2 and Temperatures to show that CO2 has been as high as 7,000 ppm and coral and sea life thrived and that things were much warmer during the early Holocene
15) Use Modtran to demonstrate that CO2 won’t cause a “dog-leg” in temperatures with gradual increases in CO2
16) Use Al Gore’s graphic to show that previous temperatures peaks were higher with lower CO2, and that CO2 can’t explain the glacial/interglacial cycle
17) Simply show that global warming is tied to ocean warming which it tied to solar radiation reaching the oceans
18) Show that as long as pressure valves like ENSO exist, CAGW is impossible
19) Use spectral calc to demonstrate the CO2 and LWIR between 13 and 18 microns is consistent with a black body of -80C
20) Use Spectral Calc to demonstrate that H20 absorbs 100% of 13 to 18 Micron LWIR by 15m, making CO2 irrelevant near the surface of the earth
There are old dreamers and young visionaries. It is not a 5 minute job but a project for the future of agriculture and life itself on 5 billion hectares of hope. On which grazing animals – to be practical – are a key to renewal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vQW8Tl_KLc
Robert I Ellison,
Thank you for your YouTube videos; informative.
The cattle raising portions of the Regenerative Farming intrigued me as I have recently completed a 6700 driving tour of our Western US National Parks which included observations on lots of cattle raising. The tour began in our Southwest Kansas and Colorado, Arizona, California, then Northwest through Oregon and Washington, heading East, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, both North and South Dakota, then Iowa. What I saw was range cattle raising with cattle grazing the grass, then the sagebrush taking over the range making cattle feeding difficult. In the Northwest, the valleys, like along route US 12 heading East (Seattle to NYC), the valleys were irrigated, growing alfalfa and grass, for feeding cattle in the winter. In many irrigated regions, cattle in pastures were knee deep in grass, lying down at times, content. Further East towards Billings MT, pasture was parched, sagebrush covered and the cattle were huddled in dry creek beds, yet only a couple of miles away was the Yellowstone River, having made its way up North from Wyoming. In North Dakota, both home to the Bakken shale oil fields, there were the National Grasslands, formally known as the Great Prairies whose 60 variety of grassed required hoofed animals (previously bison) and intense grazing.
My question: Do you know of any information on the types of cattle raising in the regions I have recently visited that may be amenable to Regenerative Farming practices as your YouTube videos displayed?
No great secret. Mixed pasture grasses that are allowed to mature and put down roots – and then grazed intensively. A system in which grazing animals are front and center in farm productivity, carbon sequestration and environmental conservation. The problem is not cows but how we manage them.
Climate debate complexity briefly explained
First, the twin subject matters are intrinsically complex — climate and human energy use. Second the policy implications are dramatic, so a lot of people have something to say. Third, opinions are highly polarized. Thus the conditions are right for a lot of debate.
My issue tree discovery is helpful here, as follows. For simplicity assume a uniform 3 response issue tree. There is an initial statement, something like “We must stop destructive global warming”.
There are 3 responses to this initial statement. (In an issue tree a response can be either a question, an answer to a question, an objection or a response to an objection.) Each response in turn gets three responses, and each of those gets three, and so it goes as the tree grows.
When we get just to the tenth series of responses there are about 100,000 responses. The tenth level alone has almost 60,000 (3 to the 10th power). In most cases the issues become more detailed at successive levels down from the initial statement. The complexity of climate and energy use supply lots of detail, so the tree can get enormous.
I am sure the issue tree to date of the climate debate is at least this large. Millions of words have been written. Of course the structure is not nearly this uniform, both it and the growth over time are erratic.
For the record I discovered the issue tree structure of complex issues in 1973. For those who might be interested in learning more I have a crude textbook from 1975: “Issue analysis — an introduction to the use of issue trees and the nature of complex reasoning” at
http://www.stemed.info/reports/Wojick_Issue_Analysis_txt.pdf
Of course some statements are true and others false. The disagreements are over which are which. But it helps to understand the structure, or at least that it exists. There are thousands of distinct issues, all part of a complex whole — the climate change debate.
How much permafrost in Siberia will melt this year?
https://i.ibb.co/1K864Gk/gfs-nh-sat3-t2anom-1-day.png
Renowned climate scientists newspapers reveal a slaughter of unprecedented proportions!
The combination of extreme heat and drought that has scorched the Western United States and Canada over the past two weeks has killed hundreds of millions of mussels, clams and other marine animals, the New York Times reports.
The big picture: An estimated 1 billion small sea creatures died during the heat wave in the Salish Sea at the end of June, according to marine biologist Chris Harley, per the Washington Post.
https://www.axios.com/heat-wave-kills-hundreds-millions-marine-animals-caa680e0-7845-4f6a-9e49-84c046868618.html
What is the temperature of surface the Pacific Ocean off the west coast of North America?
https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/contour/uspacifi.fc.gif
I think the salmon will be happy this year?
The animals that were left on the beach after the tide went out died.
Hot World Syndrome is a phenomenon where the global warming apocalyptic content of mass media imbues viewers with the notion that the world is a hotter and more intimidating place to live than it actually is, and prompts a desire for more protection than is warranted by any actual threat. Hot World Syndrome is one of the main conclusions of the anti-humanism movement of the United Nations. Additionally, murderous examples of failed socialism — as witnessed by large segments of Leftist-lib society from the safety and comfort of Western civilization — has created a global psychosis, causing people to turn on the morals, principals and ethics that otherwise would sustain their spirits and prevent them from succumbing to moral decline and mental helplessness. Individuals who do not rely on the mainstream media and who understand the floccinaucinihilipilification of the cabinets and cabinets full of worthless global warming research, have a far more accurate view of the real world than those who do not, are able to more accurately assess their vulnerability to present and future weather conditions, and all the myriad vagaries of life over which they have no control. The global warming realists do not fear the hand of man and tend to be nicer people with a life and have a wider and healthier variety of beliefs, attitudes, behaviors and lifestyles. Towing a boat to the river with the family in the back of a SUV is not evil, no matter what the liberal fascists may wish to believe today.
As unscientific as it is, the equation from a layman’s perspective is simple:
This is the calculation. It’s basic Arithmetic, nothing fancy, no hidden agenda, just something you can do by taking your socks and shoes off.
Atmospheric CO2 levels in 1850 (beginning of the Industrial Revolution): ~280ppm (parts per million atmospheric content).
Atmospheric CO2 level in 2021: ~410ppm.
410ppm minus 280ppm = 130ppm
÷ 171 years (2021 minus 1850) = 0.76ppm of which man is responsible for ~3% = ~0.02ppm.
That’s every human on the planet and every industrial process adds ~0.02ppm CO2 to the atmosphere per year on average.
At that rate mankind’s CO2 contribution to the atmosphere would take more than 20,000 years to double the CO2 content in the atmosphere which, the IPCC states, would cause around 2°C of temperature rise. That’s ~0.0001°C increase per year for 20,000 years.
One hundred (100) generations of humanity from now (assuming ~ 25 years per generation) would experience warming of ~0.25°C more than we have today.
The Manua Loa CO2 observatory (and others) can identify and illustrate Natures seasonal variations of atmospheric CO2, but does not distinguish between natural and man made atmospheric CO2. Hardly surprising really, despite mankind’s CO2 emissions being completely independent of seasonal variation. It should reveal itself as a straight line, but is so inconsequential, this ‘vital component’ of Global Warming is not illustrated.
The global fall in output of man made CO2 over the last 16 months of the Covid-19 pandemic, estimated at ~14% (14% of ~0.02ppm CO2 = 0.0028ppm) does not register anywhere on the Manua Loa data.
Why am I not surprised?!
There are net ocean and land sinks of some 2 GtC each – and a net source of 9 GtC from people – increasing over the modern era. The result is not surprising.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1d/Ghgs-epcia-holocene-CO2-en.svg/1200px-Ghgs-epcia-holocene-CO2-en.svg.png
If instead you plot CO2 levels over the entire Phanerozoic, 500 odd million years, the recent rise isn’t even noticeable.
https://judithcurry.com/2021/07/11/5-minutes/#comment-955280
“ Why am I not surprised?!”
I could tell you, but it seems you would be unable to assimilate.
Ever considered that it’s because it is that tiny that it’s lost in the noise?
If I had only one minute to respond to a question about the existential threat of climate change, these would be the points I would make.
1) The climate changes in response to multiple factors beyond human control or even scientific understanding.
2) Climate change results from both natural and anthropogenic causes that vary in different environments.
3) Nothing humans can do on a local, national, or global scale can prevent the climate from changing.
4) A changing climate contributes to both beneficial and detrimental effects, but the relative benefits or detriments vary depending upon the location and species impacted.
5) Carbon dioxide contributes significantly to warming only when water vapor and other factors are of minimal impact or even absent.
6) Humans and other life must adapt to their ever-changing environment in order to survive and flourish.
7) Only the most adaptable life will persist on this dynamic planet revolving elliptically and precessing obliquely around a variable star in a chaotically complex galactic reality.
3) Nothing humans can do on a local, national, or global scale can prevent the climate from changing.
True but beside the point. There are things that humans can to to make the climate change extremely quickly compared to typical patterns over geologic time. The few rare precedents to what we are doing led to massive extinction events.
5) Carbon dioxide contributes significantly to warming only when water vapor and other factors are of minimal impact or even absent.
This is simply false.
There are things that humans can to to make the climate change extremely quickly compared to typical patterns over geologic time.
Please explain how 1930s humans could have prevented the droughts of the dust bowl.
Why is your herring red, Teddie?
Thank you for commenting.
You are correct that humans do impact climate. Creating a city certainly changes the climate in that locale as does agriculture that replaces a forest. One of the most significant ways that humans cause climate to change is by altering the land. My statement refers to the fact that natural climate change occurs regardless of what humans do. Historical as well as geological records illustrate the variability of climate. The earth has been warming for nearly two-hundred years, since the cessation of the Little Ice Age which began around 1500. Even over the the past century there has been warm periods and colder periods that do not seem to relate to anything humans are doing.
In a random sample of air containing 10,000 molecules with relative humidity of about 50 percent and temperature of 298 K, there would be about 96 water molecules compared to 4 carbon dioxide molecules. Additionally, water absorbs IR at most of the same wavelengths as carbon dioxide, but even more effectively because of its structure. Furthermore, most of the Earth is covered with water. Statement #5 is simply true except when the atmosphere near the surface is relatively cold and dry. I should add that carbon dioxide has a net cooling effect in the stratosphere. It is not surprising that you would think that my #5 is false. The contribution of carbon dioxide to tropospheric warming is exaggerated by the media and politicians who do not understand the science.
Doc:
Cooling in the stratosphere is part of the picture, yes, as predicted.
“The contribution of carbon dioxide to tropospheric warming is exaggerated by the media and politicians who do not understand the science.”
Shall we compare doctorates? What are you a doctor of?
The greenhouse effect doesn’t saturate at high optical depths. Consider Venus.
A good place to start is the “grey atmosphere” approximation. We did this in first semester in grad school (Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, U Wisconsin – Madison). The Henderson-Sellers and McGuffie textbook will walk you through it if you’re interested.
mt,
The atmosphere of Venus is about 97% carbon dioxide compared to 0.04% for the Earth. The barometric pressure at the surface is about 92 atmospheres. Because Venus is only 0.728 AU from the sun, it receives 1.9 times the solar energy per unit area compared to the Earth. These differences result in an average surface temperature of about 740K compared to 287K on Earth. On the other hand, Mars also has an atmosphere very similar to the composition of Venus at 96% carbon dioxide. Mars is about 1.5 AU from the sun resulting in only 44 percent of the solar energy per unit area received by the Earth. Mars has a mass of only 0.107 Earth mass and is about half the diameter resulting in 0.39 Earth gravity. As a consequence, the atmospheric pressure at the surface is a relatively low 0.0063 atmospheres, and the average surface temperature is only 130K.
The atmospheres retained on a terrestrial planets in our solar system after 4.6 billion years depends upon several obvious factors, distance from the sun and gravity are primary. Venus and Mars have similar atmospheric compositions, Venus and Earth have similar gravity. Venus receives the most solar energy by far and Mars the least because of both its greater distance and smaller size. Neither Venus nor Mars has anywhere near the atmospheric water, water vapor, or ice that is present in the Earth’s atmosphere. All of this argues against using Venus to warn of the dangers of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere.
There are important benefits from adding carbon dioxide to our atmosphere as well. A warmer Earth is far better than a cooler Earth.
The Holocene interglacial began about 12,000 year ago and will end someday perhaps in a few thousand years. Humans alive during the next glacial advance may wish we had added more carbon dioxide to our atmosphere, although I doubt that will make any difference.
I completed by doctorate 601 months ago yesterday. I’m sure yours gives you more license to argue climate science than mine, but I’ll stick to discussing the science rather than comparing credentials.
Doc: By what mechanism does gravity make a planet warmer?
DocStephens wrote: I should add that carbon dioxide has a net cooling effect in the stratosphere.
No, CO2 still absorbs IR when it’s in the stratosphere. The stratosphere cools because GHGs have absorbed IR in the troposphere and that IR didn’t get to the stratosphere.
DocStephens wrote:Humans alive during the next glacial advance may wish we had added more carbon dioxide to our atmosphere
Humans alive during the next glacial advance — which wasn’t to be for another 50,000 years — could have decided then what they wanted to do to the climate, if anything. It’s absurd that we would be deciding it for them now. Much of our CO2 won’t even be in the atmosphere then.
Responding to David Appell
You asked by what mechanism gravity would make a planet warmer. First of all, I never said that. However, gravity and temperature, among other factors, determine what gases are likely to remain in a planet’s atmosphere. In our solar system, planets near the sun and with relatively low gravity are unable to retain light gases such as hydrogen, helium, neon, ammonia, and even some low molecular mass hydrocarbons such as methane, because their average speed at ambient temperatures may exceed the escape velocity of the planet. Because of the low gravity of the moon, it lacks an appreciable atmosphere. Mercury lacks an atmosphere because of its low gravity and high temperature, however, the side of Mercury facing away from the sun, may have some gases in an extremely thin atmosphere. Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, and Uranus are gas giants with many low molecular mass gases in their atmosphere because of their greater mass and resulting stronger gravity. Pluto is so cold that most gases condense or freeze even though the gravity is relatively low due to its low mass. The Earth’s atmosphere has changed drastically over time. Oxygen is mostly biogenic and was absent until photosynthesis and plant life evolved. The Earth’s primordial atmosphere contained many of the lighter gases that escaped into space.
You seem to disagree that carbon dioxide cools the stratosphere. Carbon dioxide is the primary GHG in the stratosphere. It emits the heat radiation it absorbs in all directions. The emission of heat into space is greater than the heat absorbed from below resulting in a net energy loss from the stratosphere and a cooling temperature profile with increasing altitude.
You stated that the next glacial period “wasn’t to be for another 50,000 years.” I don’t believe there is much agreement about that. I chose to state “a few thousand years” because the interglacial prior to the Holocene, known as the Eemian, lasted from 130,000 to 115,000 years ago for a duration of 15,000 years. The Holocene is now about 12,000 years since onset, so another three thousand would be similar to the Eemian.
Doc:
“…our analysis suggests that even in the absence of
human perturbations no substantial build-up of ice sheets would
occur within the next several thousand years and that the current
interglacial would probably last for another 50,000 years.”
“Critical insolation–CO2 relation for diagnosing past and future glacial inception, “A. Ganopolski et al, Nature v529 14 Jan 2016
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature16494
DocStephens, your post is 100% Pure Genius, absolute Genius. I want to expand upon one of your points “5) Carbon dioxide contributes significantly to warming only when water vapor and other factors are of minimal impact or even absent.”
If you choose locations that are controlled for the UHI and Water Vapor Effect as you suggest and isolate the impact of CO2 on temperatures, you get absolutely no warming with a 25% or more increase in CO2. Better yet, go up to the top of the Troposphere and you see the true impact of CO2. Water Vapor is precipitated out only CO2 is left as the dominant GHG. What is the temperature? -80C, EXACTLY the black body temp of 13 to 18, 15 Peak Micron LWIR. CO2 doesn’t cause warming, it puts in a temperature FLOOR.
https://imgur.com/7K3DXSR
Here is all the NASA data you need to debunk CO2 as the cause of warming.
https://imgur.com/a/CDasqHH
Thank you for your comment and for the links for further information. Excellent point about stratospheric cooling caused by increased CO2. My earlier post “Energy Madness” might be of interest to you.
co2: Greenhouse theory doesn’t say that local warming is proportional to CO2 at every point on Earth. So your graph is meaningless.
Still:
“Record warming at the South Pole during the past three decades,”
Kyle R. Clem et al
Nature Climate Change volume 10, pages762–770 (2020).
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-0815-z/
Nature Magazine is a great source of “other” information … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTCDbOGOZ4M
Correction: Climate science doesn’t say….
PS: The proper representation is, of course, to plot the temperature *anomalies* from a baseline.
Comparing models with observationally based reconstruction.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VbgzCahx8o
‘The global-mean temperature trends associated with GSW are as large as 0.3 °C per 40 years, and so are capable of doubling, nullifying or even reversing the forced global warming trends on that timescale.’
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0044-6
The standard approach is to calculate greenhouse gas warming and then estimate feedbacks. Easier said than done.
http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/fall11/atmo336/lectures/sec5/varia.gif
‘Figure 9.43 | (a) Strengths of individual feedbacks for CMIP3 and CMIP5 models (left and right columns of symbols) for Planck (P), water vapour (WV), clouds (C), albedo (A), lapse rate (LR), combination of water vapour and lapse rate (WV+LR) and sum of all feedbacks except Planck (ALL), from Soden and Held (2006) and Vial et al. (2013), following Soden et al. (2008). CMIP5 feedbacks are derived from CMIP5 simulations for abrupt fourfold increases in CO2 concentrations (4 × CO2). (b) ECS obtained using regression techniques by Andrews et al. (2012) against ECS estimated from the ratio of CO2 ERF to the sum of all feedbacks. The CO2 ERF is one-half the 4 × CO2 forcings from Andrews et al. (2012), and the total feedback (ALL + Planck) is from Vial et al. (2013).’
Famous last words – whoops!
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig9-43.jpg
Doc: You connected gravity and surface temperature above:
Mars has a mass of only 0.107 Earth mass and is about half the diameter resulting in 0.39 Earth gravity. As a consequence, the atmospheric pressure at the surface is a relatively low 0.0063 atmospheres, and the average surface temperature is only 130K.
But how does surface pressure, on Mars or Venus or Earth, warm an atmosphere? How does the 92 atm surface pressure on Venus explain its 735 K surface temperature?
It seems rather obvious. The atmosphere of Venus is 965,000 ppm carbon dioxide compared to 415 ppm for Earth, and Venus receives 1.89 times the amount of solar radiation per unit area. Virtually the entire atmosphere of Venus is composed of greenhouse gases compared to Earth with a variable composition of greenhouse gases ranging from near zero to 3 or 4 percent depending upon the amount of water in the atmosphere. I’ve never done the calculation but I’d expect the warming due to the GHE is several hundreds of degrees compared to about fifty degrees for the Earth. The high pressure is explained by the amount of carbon dioxide and its relatively heavy mass. Because Venus is so much closer to the Sun most of the lighter gases were driven off leaving mostly carbon dioxide which is 57% heavier than the Earth’s atmosphere of nitrogen and oxygen.
Isn’t gravity central to plate tectonics? Gravity from the moon and sun are responsible for tidal forces, which in turn effects ocean currents. Don’t these gravitational forces effect climate?
David Appell | July 13, 2021 at 5:46 pm
Still:
“Record warming at the South Pole during the past three decades,”
Kyle R. Clem et al
Nature Climate Change volume 10, pages762–770 (2020).
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-0815-z/
PBS NOVA ran a show in the 90’s about a sudden increase in melt from under the Antarctic Ice, A large piece of shelf broke off and everyone was jumping to conclusions, the tests showed the melt water contained volcanic source chemicals. I think it was called Mystery Under the Ice.
1. https://phys.org/news/2014-06-major-west-antarctic-glacier-geothermal.html
Researchers find major West Antarctic glacier melting from geothermal sources
2. https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=295861&org=NSF&from=news
Previously unsuspected volcanic activity confirmed under West Antarctic Ice Sheet at Pine Island Glacier
3. https://sp.lyellcollection.org/content/specpubgsl/early/2017/05/26/SP461.7.full.pdf
A new volcanic province: an inventory of subglacial volcanoes in West Antarctica
4. https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geosphere/article/14/6/2407/565649/Geodynamic-models-of-the-West-Antarctic-Rift
Geodynamic models of the West Antarctic Rift System: Implications for the mantle thermal state
5. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2017GL075609
Heat Flux Distribution of Antarctica Unveiled
Yes, that is what is happening there in Antarctica.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Antarctic_Rift_System
Imagine having all that Ice on top of East Africa’s Great Rift Valley;
https://geology.com/articles/east-africa-rift.shtml
And don’t forget about Greenland
6. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-19244-x#Abs1
High geothermal heat flux in close proximity to the Northeast Greenland Ice Stream
As I mentioned before, we are in a period of increased volcanic activity.
So, this increase in volcanic activity in Antarctica began 30 years ago and has been accelerating the melting to the present time. But this current surge in global activity is simply the most recent tail end of global volcanism that began around the time at the end of the Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice Age.
Fortunately the Japanese have kept earthquake records since before 900AD. These were of course quakes that caused great death and destruction of notable scales worthy of documentation in their cultural history, not unlike the way Londoners have recorded their devastating fires through the centuries.
The Edo period or Tokugawa period began in 1603 and ended in 1867, about the time when many people now say a detectable anthropologic warming is noticeable in the records.
I would counter this by examining the Japanese earthquake record with just the 8.0 earthquakes shown to have occurred in the eras before and since. There were only five 8.0 earthquakes noted in Japanese records during the 265 years of the Edo period. Were these the only 8.0 earthquakes to occur during the Edo period or were they as numerous as the 11 quakes that occurred in the much shorter 164 years since 1850? Were the additional Edo records simply lost to history?
This works out to one single 8.0 earthquake every 53 years on average for the Edo period vs one single 8.0 earthquake every 15 years on average for the period that followed it to the most recent events. It would appear the Edo was by no (seismic) accident a time of great peace and prosperity.
http://www.earth-pri…02Ishibashi.pdf
ANNALS OF GEOPHYSICS, VOL. 47, N. 2/3, April/June 2004
Status of historical seismology in Japan
Katsuhiko Ishibashi
Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Faculty of Science, Kobe University, Kobe, Japan
3. Periodization of Japanese history and historical documents
Page 345.
“During the Edo period of long-term peace and stability, economic and cultural developments of Japan created mountains of primary documents, not only in the ruling class but also among the commoners of burgeoning cities and taxed villages. These documents include official histories, records and diaries of the Tokugawa shogunate; histories, chronicles, records and diaries of 250-or-so regional lords; numerous records memoranda, letters and diaries by urban merchants and leading farmers in villages; and private writings of various kinds among the ruling warrior class.”
“Because of national isolation under the Tokugawa shogunate, Japan had little contact with the West except for The Netherlands for more than two centuries during the Edo period and left behind the progress of modern science and technology. Instead however, bibliography, historiography, national and local history had been highly developed, many Ancient and Medieval documents were transcribed or published in wood-block prints, and thus rather plentiful high-quality data had been prepared for the historical research that followed the Meiji Restoration.”
So we must choose whether the contemporary accounts of the Edo period earthquakes by a society of “highly developed bibliography, historiography, national and local history” became misplaced and/or outright lost and destroyed, or was this period a time of lower plate energies that were interrupted at specific and pronounce times of sudden mantle displacement driven by, and specifically timed to, the solar magnetic record.
2.5 The ANNALS OF GEOPHYSICS, VOL. 47, N. 2/3, April/June 2004, Status of historical seismology in Japan;
continued with this interesting revelation;
Page 357.
“There are, however, serious problems in these books. One is that probably the collection is not complete, especially for the Edo period. Hence,Usami, for example, is very enthusiastic in further searching for buried historical materials and publishing them.”
It appears they are perplexed by the lack of records of seismic events of recordable scales. The massive earthquakes that they think should have occurred throughout this period that would be present in the records. Were they somehow lost? Or did they just not occur?
http://www.earth-prints.org/bitstream/2122/763/1/02Ishibashi.pdf
7. Some recent results of historical seismology in Japan
7.1. Recurrence history of great interplate earthquakes along the Nankai trough
Page 361.
“The 1707 Ho’ei and 1854 Ansei earthquakes took place in the Edo period causing widespread severe disasters due to strong ground motions and tsunamis , and an enormous number of records has been preserved.”
That is a remarkable statement in regards to three 8.0 events, the 1707 and the two 1854 events, an enormous number of records were not only made but preserved to the present. Yet where are just a few of the records of those many more missing massive earthquakes that they think also occurred throughout the Edo period?
I want to point out here BTW that the model I have developed predicted when these earthquakes should occur, located where the solar magnetic record and seismic activity correlated. The quakes are sparse in the Edo period and then suddenly increase to the present as the solar magnetic record spikes all the way to the present.
2.0 http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/solanki2004/solanki2004.html
Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years
Nature, Vol. 431, No. 7012, pp. 1084 – 1087, 28 October 2004.
S.K. Solanki1, I. G. Usoskin2, B. Kromer3, M. Schüssler1, and J. Beer4
1 Max-Planck-Institut für Sonnensystemforschung (formerly the Max-Planck- Institut für Aeronomie), 37191 Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany
2 Sodankylä Geophysical Observatory (Oulu unit), University of Oulu, 90014 Oulu, Finland
3 Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Institut für Umweltphysik, Neuenheimer Feld 229, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
4 Department of Surface Waters, EAWAG, 8600 Dübendorf, Switzerland
“According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode.
The model has to much material to post here including graphs. The predictions the model makes are remarkable though.
https://electroplatetectonics.blogspot.com/
Marc Linquist
Independent researcher at PTDynamics
Doc wrote: Additionally, water absorbs IR at most of the same wavelengths as carbon dioxide, but even more effectively because of its structure.
It is simply false that there are no wavelengths for CO2 to absorb because water vapor has occupied them all. Just flat out false. You need to go learn more. If this were true scientists would have said so a century ago. It amazes me when people think they know something simple that scientists somehow missed since 1896. That just doesn’t happen and it’s the sign of someone who isn’t serious.
Here’s a nice figure:
http://www.ces.fau.edu/nasa/images/Energy/GHGAbsoprtionSpectrum.jpg
Moreover, CO2 is present where there is little to no water vapor, such as in the polar regions and in the stratosphere. There CO2 absorption dominates.
BTW, CO2 emits heat to space only at the very top of the atmosphere. Below it absorbs. The stratosphere on net cools because the troposphere is absorbing IR and so that IR is not getting to the stratosphere as it used to.
You are correct. “It would be false to say there are no wavelengths for carbon dioxide to absorb because water vapor has occupied them all.” I would never make such a ridiculous claim. I said “most” because that is assuredly true. When water is present in the atmosphere, it absorbs most of the IR from the surface. When it is not present as in arid regions and polar caps, carbon dioxide absorbs most of the heat from the surface that is absorbed.
DocStephens: You are correct. “It would be false to say there are no wavelengths for carbon dioxide to absorb because water vapor has occupied them all.” I would never make such a ridiculous claim. I said “most” because that is assuredly true.
It’s not assuredly true. Each of these molecules is absorbing in hundreds of thousands of wavelengths.
For example, for fun I once looked in the HITRAN database to see how many absorption lines CO2 had between the (exact) wavenumbers 666/cm and 668/cm. The answer is 1,406. Not all of the same widths or probabilities, of course, but there a great many lines for each molecule and plenty of them that do not overlap. By no means do climate models consider them all, but the ones they do absorb plenty without overlap as well.
David Appell: It is simply false that there are no wavelengths for CO2 to absorb because water vapor has occupied them all. Just flat out false. You need to go learn more.
David, I’m not sure you understand how to read the chart that you posted.
1) The only wavelengths relevant to the GHG Effect are the LWIR around earth temperatures. Those are centered around from temperature of 18C which is consistent with the atmospheric window and 9.5 Micron LWIR.
2) H2O absorbs the vast majority of the LWIR near 9.5 Micron, in fact the H2O absorption is hard to tell from the total absorption of the atmosphere.
3) CO2 only absorbs between 13 and 18 Micron, 15 micron peak. H2O also absorbs those wavelengths.
4) Using the Spectral Cal gas cell, you will see that by 5 meters H2O absorbs all the outgoing 15 micron LWIR. CO2 absorbs 100% at a lower altitude, so at best, CO2 can slightly lower the level of the warming.
5) 15 Micron is at the very coldest range of the earths radiation of IR, that is consistent with -80C. You don’t warm anything with -80C radiation. You can verify that at spectral calc as well.
Your chart debunks the CO2 causes warming claim.
co2islife wrote: Your chart debunks the CO2 causes warming claim.
So you’re able to quickly dismiss 100 years of careful, detailed work by thousands of professional physicists, chemists, spectroscopists, and climate scientists in a mere five sentences.
You honestly think you’ve accomplished this here? That it’s that easy?
I’m sorry, I don’t see any point in debunking your claims — I know it won’t make one iota of difference to you or your ideas.
co2: do you honestly think you can debunk the careful, detailed work of thousands of professional scientists over a hundred years in a mere five sentences?
I don’t understand that.
I’m not going to debunk your claims because I know it won’t make one bit of difference to you.
Geophysical series have Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamics. It looks something like this. Regimes and transitions rather than slowly evolving in response to whatever forcing. An emergent property of interacting subsystems. The future is incalculable but encompasses the full range of past outcomes of stochastic processes.
https://www.tandfonline.com/na101/home/literatum/publisher/tandf/journals/content/thsj20/2015/thsj20.v060.i07-08/02626667.2014.959959/20150826/images/medium/thsj_a_959959_f0002_oc.jpg
Here’s what it looks like in the real world
http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/fall11/atmo336/lectures/sec5/varia.gif
Pingback: Horwitz on the Climate Change Debate: Social Science too (Part I) - Master Resource
Given the Milankovitch cycles, I believe that the peak warming in Europe occurred during the Roman period.
“The turn of the eras saw several centuries of warming.
In the Alps, the mountain glaciers receded somewhat.
It is true that most of Hannibal’s war elephants, who tried to conquer Rome using them as today’s tanks, died while crossing the snowy mountains, but a few hundred years earlier or later an attempt to carry these warm-blooded animals across the Pyrenees and Alps would have been unthinkable at all.
The Alps became easier to cross in the other direction as well. Not long after Hannibal was repulsed, the Roman legions began conquering the lands beyond the Alps – Gaul, Germania and Illyria.
The Alps themselves were conquered and divided into Roman provinces. One of the many Roman strongholds established in the Alpine valleys gave rise to Vienna.
Warming meant increased moisture for northern Africa. Areas of present-day Tunisia (Africa Proconsularis) became a major agricultural center of the Roman Empire and a favorite vacation spot for wealthy Romans. According to some estimates, a million tons of grain were harvested annually in this province.”
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2948/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/
Thank you Ireneusz.
They use Milankovitch cycles to justify the wrong notion which claims 400ppm CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere are capable to warm Earth’s surface from 255K to 288K!
It cannot be warmed by +33C because it is impossible!
Greenhouse gases in Earth’s thin atmosphere are trace gases.
There is not any greenhouse warming effect on Earth’s surface merely because CO2 and H2O are trace gases in a very thin 1,23kg/m^3 Earth’s atmosphere…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Pingback: Horwitz on the Climate Change Debate: Social Science too (Part I) – Climate- Science.press
Robert Bradley, thank you for the link. I’ve copied a few bits and added a comment under each.
“6. … Obviously, if the benefits outweigh the costs, then we shouldn’t be worrying about global warming.”
The benefits do outweigh the costs. So we should not be doing anything to reduce global warming. It is beneficial and we should welcome it, not damage the world economy with policies to try to reduce it.
“8. What are the costs of the policies designed to reduce the costs of global warming? This question is not asked nearly enough.”
The costs are enormous. They are and will continue to do serious damage the world economy, ecosystems, and human wellbeing.
“I could add more, but this is sufficient to make my key points. First, it is perfectly possible to accept the science of global warming but reject the policies most often put forward to combat it. One can think humans are causing the planet to warm but logically and humanely conclude that we should do nothing about it.
Second, people who take that position and back it up with good arguments should not be called “deniers.” They are not denying the science; they are questioning its implications. In fact, those who think they can go directly from science to policy are, as it turns out, engaged in denial – denial of the relevance of social science.”
Spot on!
“Judith Curry, echoing Alex Epstein and Bjorn Lomborg, can have the last word:
How the climate of the 21st century will play out is a topic of deep uncertainty. Once natural climate variability is accounted for, it may turn out to be relatively benign. Or we may be faced with unanticipated surprises. We need to increase our resiliency to whatever the future climate presents us with. We are shooting ourselves in the foot if we sacrifice economic prosperity and overall societal resilience on the altar of urgently transitioning to 20th century renewable energy technologies.
We need to remind ourselves that addressing climate change isn’t an end in itself, and that climate change is not the only problem that the world is facing. The objective should be to improve human well being in the 21st century, while protecting the environment as much as we can.”
Climate change is a miscommunication problem. The activists have encouraged the media to exaggerate enthusiastically and have made it a partisan issue.
How bad is it? 69% of Democrats think they are suffering today as a result of climate change (even the IPCC acknowledges that not one of them is). Independents are about equally divided between the right answer (no) and the wrong answer (yes) and just 21% of Republicans think they are suffering today as a result of climate change.
A third of the nation tells pollsters that climate change has definitely been “exaggerated” while they cannot get a majority to say that it isn’t exaggerated. 53% of independents say climate change has been exaggerated or they don’t know, 77% of republicans and 22% of Democrats. Twice as many independents are aware of the exaggeration as Democrats.
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/y4ic1h9zy9/econTabReport.pdf
For the Koonin haters, this is what he’s on about. If you make up fairy tales, you polarize people to the point that it’s self defeating. While the NYT, Washington Post and CNN are screeching that your children are dying today from climate change, fully half of the country doesn’t believe them, is rolling their eyes at the David Appels of the world, and one political tribe is so far off the deep end of la-la-land that they might as well be demanding a trillion dollars for a ray gun to defeat Cthulhu.
Another fun stat from that poll. 39% of Democrats say, now, in July, that they “always” wear a mask. Only 12% say never. Note that these are vaccinated adults. A third of independents and half of Republicans say they never wear a mask.
Maskless vaccinated people are watching a political tribe slip deeply into parody territory. And that’s before you take a look at what they did to schools and police forces. For people who want a healthy democracy, that’s not a good thing.
Another gem from this poll. They asked those who were affected by Climate Change what specifically got them. The most popular answers were the “polar vortex” and “severe hurricanes.”
So, the greatest impacts were from something that isn’t actually happening (more and worse hurricanes) and the worst thing about global warming is how cold it is. If you are concerned about climate change, you should be very worried that this is the foundation of your support for action.
MS Curry;
Your own description of the event made it obvious your audience and the other speakers were all believers in a coming climate crisis.
>>>>> “They are working on the ENERGY TRANSITION … I was the ONLY CLIMATE SCIENTIST on the panel, the others were involved in RENEWABLE ENERGY”. <<<<<<
Knowing the deck was stacked against you, Ms. Curry, there is only one way to attack the climate change religion in only five minutes: Ridicule.
Start by informing the engineering students that we have had global warming for the past 45 years — which includes all of their lives.
Congratulate them on surviving approximately 20 years of global warming.
Spend the next four minutes listing the "best" scary environmental predictions of doom stated by "experts" since the 1960s, and name the experts for each one..
Finish in the last 30 seconds by stating the batting average for predictions of doom is zero.
Remind the students that the coming climate crisis is yet another prediction of doom — a prediction we've been hearing since oceanographer Roger Revelle in the late 1950s.
Final thought:
The climate crisis is ALWAYS coming,
but it NEVER shows up.
Ditto. People who believe in climate alarmism also beleive in ghosts … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3VYx0luk-E
Agree. We have all overlooked the significant contribution Greta has made to climate science — and it only takes 2 minutes … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtJkQP8O4bo
Excellent. I see that you stuck with the never ending its of comments. Good for you. I don’t get into these marathons since my message won’t mean anything to the participants. They have all already made up thei minds, especially those who believe CO2 is bad. Donn
>
My five minute spiel would be, “The climate is warming more quickly in recent decades than we are accustomed to and it seems probable that human emissions of greenhouse gases have contributed significantly to this warming, as have other human activities.
However, the record keeping on temperatures is short and imperfect, and our understanding of the various components of both climate and climate change is evolving–growing rapidly due to massive funding of climate research, but with a long way to go. Until we understand them better we will find it impossible to attribute specific impacts to what we have done, as opposed to the natural operation of the very complex climate system.
If this were a laboratory experiment the professor would advise further observation until the record and the elements influencing the experiment provided more clarity. However, large portions of the scientific community, politicians and the general public are concerned that inaction may lead to catastrophe.
This presents a dilemma.
A better analogy might be a doc who notes that “you’ve put on a couple pounds. I’m not sure if that’s the beer or binge watching Netflix or something glandular. You control the beer and Netflix, dial ’em back a bit.”
Washington Post/NYT: Medical experts announced today that JeffN will literally explode within 5 years unless he adopts a zero calorie diet and runs marathons.
Michael Mann cheers the news story as “spot on”, wondering why anyone who questions it would deny the connection between weight and health.
Willard announces that Netflix is a “squirrel” and “beer” is the center square in WeightBall Bingo. Just as “zero calorie” is a distraction we hear from the merchants of doubt. None of this makes sense to anyone other than Willard, but there it is.
Bernie says weight gain is now an existential threat, is failure of capitalism, and the only answer is radical transformation of the economy.
Judith notes: he ate a bunch of salty foods over the weekend, he may not have put on a couple pounds, let’s keep an eye on the scale.
Appell replies to Judith saying JeffN may already be dead, showing on a chart that he lay down in bed at about midnight and, as of 3 a.m. still hasn’t moved- a trend we obviously should assume will continue forever.
Here’s a 5-second pitch, Jeff:
https://3000quads.com/
Does that work for you?
If you want to know the line that makes me be interested in climate change, here it is. I don’t recall where I read it, it’s not mine.
“We are digging up and releasing in a short period of time carbon that the planet took millions of years to sequester. ”
It makes sense to transition away from that. Which means we ought to look at stuff that works.
> It makes sense to transition away from that. Which means we ought to look at stuff that works.
Not sure how the second claim follows from the first.
Jeffsnails notes “We are digging up and releasing in a short period of time carbon that the planet took millions of years to sequester. It makes sense to transition away from that.”
Sorry, why does it make sense? We are using water that was placed on earth millions of years ago, we are using soil that took millions of years to make. We evolved to do this. Why single out coal as if it somehow different? How is it different to eating spinach with its contained carbon?
You are in effect in denial of our right to exist by use of the resources that made us. Geoff S
Willard:
“Not sure how the second claim follows from the first.”
I know, that’s why most people who read your posts realize you aren’t interested in climate change. People are problem solvers.
Geoff: “We are using water that was placed on earth millions of years ago.”
Yep, and putting it back on the earth, right where we got it from. My truck burns 20 miles to the gallon of a liquid that our planet spent a million years pulling out of the atmosphere for some reason and will take a million more to put back underground.
Let me clarify- we already know there is no urgency to CO2 release but it’s worth watching. And we already know the atom is the future, we’re just waiting on a few political activists to wake up. IMO, the most significant “problem” at the moment is that my SUV is tethered to a messy, expensive, liquid fueling a heavy engine prone to breakdowns and my ability to get this fuel is largely in the global control of homicidal dictators in Russia and the middle east.
And nobody can explain to me why it is we’re still removing entire mountains in West Virginia when a reactor does the job cheaper, more safely and more reliably. The only reason that I can see is that our activist class isn’t very bright and prefers unobtanium.
So we burn dinosaurs until we get activists who care. I find that frustrating, but there’s no rush obviously.
“My truck burns 20 miles to the gallon of a liquid that our planet spent a million years pulling out of the atmosphere”
Not if it’s burning corn, or recycled french fry oil.
> People are problem solvers.
You’re not a problem solver, Jeff. You’re a peddler.
There is no silver bullet. We’ll need every weapon we got.
Deal with it.
“Not if it’s burning corn, or recycled french fry oil.”
When I see a plan for fueling 100 million cars with corn that doesn’t involve global starvation or french fry oil I will take note.
Willie- your solar panels and windmills will be expensive, unreliable tools providing auxiliary power to the actual grid. Deal with it, focus on where the power will come from: dam the Hudson River or build a nuke, then play with how windmills will mess with the edges of New York City demand.
“When I see a plan for fueling 100 million cars with corn that doesn’t involve global starvation or french fry oil I will take note”
Ha, yes, that would be when we all should take note; though with the fast paced evolution of technology I’m not so concerned about using fossil fuel, we’ll look back at a lump of coal in a museum but recognize this era was when we needed it the most.
“… The climate is warming more quickly in recent decades than we are accustomed to and it seems probable that human emissions of greenhouse gases have contributed significantly to this warming …”.
The rate of warming ~1910 – 1945 was about the same as 1980 – 2015.
During the former period human emissions were relatively insignificant:
https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-247ebcd81332d638de2113883dc1f586
Chris Hanley: The rate of warming ~1910 – 1945 was about the same as 1980 – 2015.
Chris, it’s true the rates of warming were the same over both these 35-year periods: 0.14 C/decade, according to my calculations using NASA GISS data.
But warming since Dec 1945 is also 0.14 C/decade, a 75-year period.
Warming since Jan 1970 is 0.19 C/decade, a 51-year period. Since Jan 1990, 0.21 C/decade.
Warming is accelerating.
Warming in the 1910-1945 period is usually attributed, from what I’ve read, to an increase in solar irradiance, CO2 and clearing of volcanic dust from earlier centuries. It shows that if we had some similar natural warming now, when all warming is from GHGs, we could be in even more trouble. (Though the climate really isn’t that sensitive to warming from solar irradiance.)
GLOBAL ICE MAKING AND GLOBAL ICE MELTING. Explanation.
Radiant heat is the only form of heat that travels thru a vacuum.
The average surface temperature of the sun is 9,940.73 degrees Fahrenheit.
Absolute zero is -459.67 degrees Fahrenheit.
The average surface temperature of the earth is 61 degrees Fahrenheit.
I believe the radiant heat striking the earth has been decreasing thru the Melanie. Either because the average surface temperature is cooling, the radius of the sun is decreasing or a combination of both. This is shown by the increase in the length of each successive ice age. The Vostok Ice Core Chart shows this.
The last Ice Age began about 142,000 years ago when the Ice Melting Stage ended and the Ice Making Stage began. At that time the oceans were at their lowest and the Ice Making Stage began. The Radiant heat reflected to the Black Sky was less than that retained by the Earth. Nature began making the Ice Shelf. This took about 10,000 years.
132,000 years ago, the Ice melting stage began. The oceans were at their highest and the radiant heat reflected to the black sky was at it’s highest. The ice covering upstate New York was over a mile thick.
The last Ice Age lasted about 120,000 years. This one should last about 130,000 to 140,000 years. About 12,000 years ago Nature began making the ice shelf. The oceans began to rise. As the oceans rose the 35-degree salt water began to melt the edges if the ice shelf. Understand the ice shelf is resting on land. About 6,000 years ago the breaking off of the Ice Shelf and melting heat equaled the radiant heat reflected to the black sky.
That is where we are now. This ice age should last about 130,000 years. MAN, CAN POLUTE AND KILL HIMSELF, HERSELF, OFF BUT WILL NEVER PRODUCE ENOUGH TO ALTER NATURE.
The CO2 produced will help the farmers feed the growth of humanity!!!
The Ice Age has three stages:
1. With the oceans at their lowest, the earth begins losing more radiant heat to the black sky than it retains from the sun. The ice in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres is at its thickest. Nature begins to melt the Ice and deposit it on the frozen land areas at the poles. This is the beginning of the Ice Sheet. About 10,000 years later the edges begin breaking off due to the 35degree salt water melting the edges and bottom of the ice Shelf. This took about 2,000 years.
2. At this point the oceans are down a little from their highest. The oceans will stay at this level until the ice sheet is completely gone.
3. At this point Nature keeps removing heat from the oceans and they begin to drop to their lowest point again.
The CO2 graph on the Vostok ice core shows this for the previous Ice Ages. The more green foliage the lower the CO2 level.
The design depends on two items.
THAT IS HOW I WOULD EXPLAIN THERE IS A CONSTANT AVERAGE SURFACE TEMPERATURE OF THE EARTH.
Emphasize the political aspect. It’s driven almost entirely by politics and not science. The science is paid for by the politicians for purpose and everyone wins, people are elected to save us, the grifters make money pushing it (consultancy etc…), the scientists get jobs, journalists gets stories paid for and media gets something to talk about non-stop. How does one go against this complex of interests of win for everyone except the consumer. Sure it’s non-sense and anyone who really looks at the science can see but it’s money in the bank and votes in the polls. And the bad guys are the people that are rational because we “really need to save the planet NOW!!!”.
How does one go against?
Word of mouth. The American people found out how to find the asymptomatic with only one individual asking for assistance and only seeing their answer with results. Never a single response.
Hopefully they are reading the above and in a few days I will see that word of mouth still works.
Keith Rowe wrote: [conspiracy theory]
The nice thing about conspiracy theories is that no proof is needed to claim them, and they can’t be disproven. Moreover, anyone who disputes them can simply be claimed to be in on the conspiracy. Makes for a nice tight theory that requires no critical thinking at all but yet somehow soothes the conspiratorialist.
The CO2 graph on the Vostok ice core shows this for the previous Ice Ages. The more green foliage the lower the CO2 level.
The design depend on two items.
1. Water contracts as it warms from 32degrees Fahrenheit to 39degrees Fahrenheit. The lighter 32degree water heads to the surface and is replaced by the 35degree water.
2. The Ice Shelf is on the bottom of the ocean.
As the 35degree Fahrenheit water at the bottom of the ocean melts the side of the ice shelf it also works its way under forming an overhang allowing it to break off.
The Frozen water made to replace the heat needed to keep a constant average surface temperature of the earth is now being deposited on the ice sheet and other frozen areas of the poles.
The volume of water being removed from the oceans, and frozen, is now equal to that breaking off the Ice sheet.
That is how we will remain for about the next 110,000 years.
i DID NOT COPY THE COMPLETE THING
Here’s my five-minute take on a climate change summary.
First, on the premise of anthropogenic CO2 being the evil of it all. The make-up of greenhouses has this set of attributions, give or take a some percentages:
Kiel/Trenberth 1997:
Water vapor 60%
CO2 26%
Ozone 8%
Methane/NO2 6%
Gavin Schmidt et al 2010:
Water vapor 5
Clouds 25%
CO2 20%
Others 5%
Anthropogenic CO2 is said to be 5% of the total CO2, so in the total attribution picture it comprises 2%. Some authors had mentioned 5% of total. Hence it can be viewed as a fairly insignificant amount. Further note that the IPCC in their last AR5 summary for policy makers does not mention water vapor at all! Their focus on anthropogenic CO2 alone is misplaced, to say the least.
Surely, there are acknowledged cross-amplifications and damping factors among greenhouses, albeit of speculative magnitude, among these greenhouse components. However, when adding to them the solar variance and the ill-definable aerosol drivers, in toto it shows the murkiness of the claim of manmade CO2 ‘guilt’.
Second, the temperature of the vast ocean volume of water could not be accurately measured over time, and will not be in the near future. The water temperature could otherwise be a clear trend indicator, independent of short term variations and oscillations. There is one very credible showing of the real warming, that is, the sea level measurements via tidal gages: hard core, direct measurements from the 1800’s on, in some locales. The sea level rise contributions come mostly from thermally expanding water and fresh water inflow from arctic zones (eustatic changes), both compounding their contributions. The important search for drivers points to the acceleration within the essentially linear graph trends. That acceleration would be a direct indicator traceable to mankind’s recently added greenhouse gas production. Of course, when evaluating the graphs, one must exclude origins (isostatic changes), where ground is known to be subsiding, like in Alaska, and where it is rising, as in the Mississippi delta. NOAA with its GLOSS network monitors over 300 gaging sites over the globe.
Let us examine trends on seven graphs that are spread worldwide.
Brest, France 1815 – 2017 4.25 in/century no acceleration
Hawaii 1905 – 2015 5.8 in/century deceleration by 1.05 in/century
Battery NY 1840 – 2015 11.2 in/century no acceleration
Sidney AU 1885 – 2011 2.55 in/century no acceleration
Newlyn U.K. 1915 – 2016 1.2 in/century no acceleration
Charleston SC 1921 – 2000 12 in/century no acceleration
San Francisco 1855 – 2010 5.33 in/century no acceleration
Worldwide past sea level rise is 6.3 inches per century, with a corresponding 1.34 degree C global air temperature increase.
Acceleration should be clearly discernible, i.e. from man’s warming contributions over more than a century. It is not.
In conclusion, one must ask how could frequent citations justify such widely sounded apocalyptic alarms, predictions varying from 3 to 8 feet per century?
If we deduce the global warming acceleration qualitatively from linear sea level rise – there is no such measured acceleration, and therefore no apparent correlation to risen anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
Thank you Dr Curry . . but we should keep it in the description . .
We need to remind ourselves that addressing “man-made
‘ climate change isn’t an end in itself, and that “man-made” climate change is not the only problem that the world is facing.
Or, AGW & ACC.
And, alarmist sorts should be questioned on which they are speaking of, CC, or ACC. That’s the way to change the conversation, as many have become to believe that all CC is man-made.
Robert C, “as many have become to believe that all CC is man-made.” Agreed.
What is more, climate change has become nearly synonymous with temperature change, so that any process or material that is sensitive to temperature is near-automatically described as caused by man-made climate change.
We really have to make a bigger issue of natural variation. This is an old problem, but acceptance of many evils as man-made has overwhelmed the natural argument. It is even happening now in this blog. DA asks for descriptions of natural effects causing temperature changes, without admitting to the presence even of variable cloud cover.
How did so many people become so stupid in the last 20 years? Geoff S
High economic growth scenarios when powered by fossil fuels could see atmospheric CO2 levels of 1000 ppm by the end of the century. The Arctic Circle last time levels were that high.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2020/11/cloud-ts.png
You assume that CO2 is a control knob and not a thermometer of the oceans, as temperatures determine how much gases a liquid can hold.
Oceans are a net sink for CO2 and marginal changes in solubility with temperature doesn’t change that. There is a balance between CO2 release and CO2 sequestration mediated by rock weathering. The increase in CO2 in the atmosphere in the modern era is because more CO2 is being emitted to the atmosphere than is being sequestered in deep repositories. I ‘assume’ that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
RIE,
“There is a balance between CO2 release and CO2 sequestration mediated by rock weathering. ”
Burning coal is but another example of rock weathering.
‘Combustion is a high-temperature exothermic (heat releasing) redox (oxygen adding) chemical reaction between a fuel and an oxidant, usually atmospheric oxygen, that produces oxidized, often gaseous products, in a mixture termed as smoke.’ https://www.chem.fsu.edu/chemlab/chm1020c/Lecture%207/01.php
Weathering is not combustion.
https://energypost.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/word-image-24.png
RIE writes about coal “Weathering is not combustion”.
I did not mention combustion. I mentioned burning.
There are many sites where coal has burned or is burning with no help from man. Just natural.
Is that process OK? Is it part of Nature? Is burning really a natural process?
Do we have to distinguish CO2 from coal ignited naturally versus CO2 from coal ignited by people?
Do we have to regard the CO2 from natural decay of dead spinach as different from CO2 from spinach residues after people have eaten spinach?
The semantics of this argument about what is natural (therefore Angelic) and what is anthropogenic (and axiomatically Devilish) can get quite messy, especially if one has not got religion in the blood – or logic. Geoff S
Yep, just throw up extremely unlikely “what if” scenarios to presumably justify what? Are we suppose to panic?
High economic growth is unlikely? Why?
The oceans are a massive reservoir is an understatement. 39,000 GT in oceans vs 750 GT in atmosphere. Atmosphere CO2 its very small in comparison and the idea that solubility doesn’t change atmospheric CO2 is laughable. It is a greenhouse gas but the notion that it is a control knob is just as laughable.
High economic growth is unlikely with a high carbon tax because energy is the basis for GDP, it allows one person to do more. Restricting energy makes everyone do less. Which lowers standard of living and makes growth negative. Them’s the facts.
The oceans are a massive sink of atmospheric CO2. A marginally higher temperature means marginally less goes into solution where it is taken up by zooplankton and ultimately sinks as organic detritus..
https://www.whoi.edu/press-room/news-release/the-oceans-biological-pump-captures-more-carbon-than-expected/
And when did I mention carbon taxes?
Robert: CO2 Solubility in Water is about double from 20 degree water (1.7g/kg) to 0 degree water (3.3g/kg). Oceans in the Paleogene were very warm with a tropical arctic. Why, because the high amounts of shallow seas feeding warm water to the bottom of the ocean. CO2 was high….because CO2 isn’t as soluble in warm waters that were 10’s of degrees warmer than todays average 2-3 degree oceans. It’s laughable to think CO2 is a control knob.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/gases-solubility-water-d_1148.html
https://www.britannica.com/science/Cenozoic-Era
Although what we are talking about is fractions of a degree ocean warming and modern era atmospheric CO2 increases. And warmth some 56 million years ago when CO2 was in the order of 1000 ppm in the atmosphere was the point. The usual explanation involves volcanism over 10,000 years.
https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/styles/inline_all/public/climateqa_hottest_comic.png
Keith Rowe: It is a greenhouse gas but the notion that it is a control knob is just as laughable.
Why?
If humans ever try to terraform Mars, the first, easiest thing to do would likely be to get more CO2 into its atmosphere, by melting the polar ice caps made of dry ice. (Elon Musk suggested detonating nuclear bombs there.) Turns out there isn’t enough to raise the temperature to habitable, so you’d have to implement more projects after that. (Plus add oxygen, ozone, etc.) But it’d be a good control knob to turn as a start.
Robert: Your explanation of why it was warm back then was because CO2 was high. It’s a laughable notion. The oceans were many many degrees warmer back then and water solubility is much lower in warm waters and the reserves of CO2 in the ocean dwarf the atmosphere by magnitudes. Sure today CO2 is much higher because we are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere and have a imbalance, but it does not mean that at 1,000 ppm there will be alligators on Greenland. CO2 in the atmosphere is more a thermometer of ocean temperature in history than a control knob. It didn’t cause it – it’s reflective of it. And yes it is a greenhouse gas, but not as significant to make serious changes like 1,000 ppm make Greenland friendly to reptiles.
I said nothing about why the PETM was warm – just that the last time CO2 concentrations were in the order of 1000 ppm it was. We think it is a cloud feedback to warming caused by volcanic breakdown of carbonate at high temperatures and release of CO2. So what did cause the warming in your alternate reality that you repeat like a mantra? Is there any evidence from real science? I rest my case.
Has anyone followed the cloud research by Big Bear Solar Observatory tat began in the 1980s?
Earth’s surface may have been sunnier, or less cloudy, in the 1980s and 1990s. BBSO has conducted precision earthshine observations since 1994. Regular observations began in late 1997.
The research team improved upon an old method for monitoring earthshine. They compared earthshine measurements from 1999 to mid-2001 with overlapping satellite observations of global cloud properties. The cloud satellite record from 1983 to 2001 came from the NASA-managed International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project. By matching these two records, the researchers used the cloud data to extend the record and construct a substitute measure of Earth’s albedo, the fraction of light reflected by a body or surface.
The data showed a steady decrease in Earth’s albedo from 1984 to 2000. Between 1995 and 1996, Earth dimmed even more sharply. The data were consistent with satellite measurements of changing global properties. From 1997 to 2000, Earth continued to dim. The researchers suggest, during this time period, the decreases in Earth’s reflectance may be related to an observed accelerated increase in mean global surface temperatures. From 2001 to 2003, Earth brightened to pre-1995 values. The researchers attributed the brightening to changes in cloud properties.
“At the moment, the cause of these variations is not known, but they imply large shifts in Earth’s radiative budget,” said co-author Steven Koonin, a Caltech physicist. “Continued observations and modelling efforts will be necessary to learn their implications for climate.”
The research offers evidence Earth’s average albedo varies considerably from year to year, and from decade to decade. “Our most likely contribution to the global warming debate is to emphasize the role of clouds in climate change must be accounted for
The link: https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2004/0528earthshine.html
Pingback: Curry: The State of Climate Science in 5 Minutes – Watts Up With That?
So what’s wrong with this narrative? In a nutshell, we’ve vastly oversimplified both the problem and its solutions. The complexity, uncertainty, and ambiguity of the existing knowledge about climate change is being kept away from the policy and public debate. The solutions that have been proposed are technologically and politically infeasible on a global scale.
The other thing that is wrong with this narrative
https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/07/12/postbag/
Pingback: Curry: The State of Climate Science in 5 Minutes |
Reblogged this on Climate Collections.
Pingback: Curry: The State of Climate Science in 5 Minutes | ajmarciniak
Voted Craziest Crank Blog Post of 2021 (at least so far).
Try this one:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-755455
If only Isaac knew Gordon.
Pingback: The State of Local weather Science in Five Mins – Watts Up With That? – All My Daily News
A. There are 2 dates in this post:
2011-03-01 at top (with Reader View)
2021-07-11 in HTML view
Which one is correct?
-/-
B. What was the name of the enlightened summer school that had the wisdom to call a climate scientist to provide critical thinking for engineers?
Wow. Discussion above very interesting and revealing at many levels.
My work is trying to get people with radically different impressions of the present and future – to collaborate for the benefit of all – by getting out of their offices and taking them around an amazingly complex world…
…so they can learn first hand how complex life is…
…and that just about zero humans have ever forecast the future with great accuracy….
….and therefore the best thing we all can do to improve the state of our comrades on Earth….
…is to openly experiment with tiny “social innovations” that help us LEARN OUR WAY into an uncertain future….
…..and not build massive, expensive monuments to immortality that do very little to change anything (see Great Pyramids).
I also know first hand how wrong ALL models of the future can be – and how the political forces tend to work behind closed doors. I helped create the US/EU government models of mobile and stationary fuel economy and emissions long ago – so I know how the numbers were “negotiated” in meetings- and how terribly wrong all those forecasts were.
I also helped create the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) regulations, so know that they never changed much of anything long term. See massive market share of pickup trucks.
More importantly I have found that having people “go to the Gemba” and travel the large global systems and ecosystems they want to change – on the ground – always helps them see how to change these massive systems in bite-size, socially-attractive small steps.
See Toyota and Honda “just-in-time” “batch of one” innovation from hands of workers upwards.
So what?
Here is an on-ground homework assignment for those who think they can forecast the future of “climate remediation” policies being proposed by large governmental organizations.
The point is not to resolve arguments like those above.
The point is to help people see how to do more practical things – that are likely to have great benefit for all -IN ENTREPRENEURIAL, EXPERIMENTAL BABY STEPS…
….that help us learn together….rather than fight over forecasts most of us will never live to see play out.
So here are some “executive education” assignments for folks who want to understand climate remediation forecasts in the real world.
1. Travel the entire global chain of several industries facing climate change regulation – and see what that means “at the Gemba”
The government forecasts seek to move $ Trillion into global “green” solar and wind industries.
These will require billions (trillions?) of tons of batteries and hard-to-recycle glass and carbon fiber wind/solar farms – worldwide
Start your journey in the salars of LATAM, Asia, and the western US. Notice how mining lithium and other minerals will affect large water ecosystems.
2. Then go to the manufacturing sites of these energy infrastructure systems. Solar. Wind. Electric vehicles. How much energy and emissions are related?
3. Then go to the unforcastable human behaviors of these items in use. Charging and driving electric vehicles. Adjusting temperatures in billions of houses for the vicissitudes of wind/solar heating/cooling.
(Push your thinking with problems like this: If 30% of the vehicles in the NYC metro area are converted to electric – then how many square miles of land will be required to charge them? Really. Do the same for London, LA, Tokyo, etc. Try this.)
Ask things like “why are the Towers of Power” in CA shutting down?
4. And then go to all of of the large scale RECYCLING sites for the billions of tons of solar panels, EV batteries, utility storage batteries, carbon fiber windmill vanes….etc….
What?….
You say you can’t find these recycling sites?
Hmmm. You say they have not been built yet? You can’t find any recycling sites for the massive industries proposed to “save the climate?”
Hmmmm
So. Now ask yourself:
Which is more important?
Being right about forecasts of totally unknown things 100 years from now?
Or…collaborating right now on tiny, relatively benign, FUN, socially-rewarding experiments in creating a happy, fun, collaborative, FLEXIBLE set of new ventures….
….that will help us COLLECTIVELY LEARN OUR WAY into an unforcast-able future?
I’m placing my bets on the 3 billion people of the poorest people around the world who have been inventing ways to thrive – without the massive financial resources of the “colonizers”….for thousands of years
Try it. Go to the Gemba
Might be enlightening.
These policies are about money and control. CAFE, for example, was the misguided attempt to give Congress and the bureaucracy authority over which cars GM and Ford produced and when – thereby guaranteeing GM fully funded their lobbyists and there would be none of this “freedom” guff that the unwashed keep babbling about.
Then the rotten UAW – the smaller, but still important part that actually works – demanded to be able to make vehicles people wanted. And then Kia came along and proved you can’t simply regulate your way to making transportation unaffordable to the plebes.
So now we have the stalemate- governments attempt to dictate to industry and China what they can and cannot do. They chuckle, write a little check, and move on. The government is fine with this because they just blame the other party, secure in the fact that not even the left is daft enough to actually try something like their “100% renewables plan.”
You don’t need to visit the mines because the EVs and batteries aren’t going to happen because the only industry governments actually have total control over is electricity production. And they decided not to make electricity except in cases where it would be way to expensive to drive with it.
See, Jeff?
That is not problem solving.
Jeff – CAFE was indeed about control. But most of what you say is not borne out by the facts.
CAFE was asserted to be better than a “gas tax” – because it was assumed by the “scientific experts” that a gas tax was “regressive” and would hurt low income people.
And the idea was to allow car companies the maximum freedom to build both small and large cars – thus the AVERAGE part of the law. That would allow relative freedom in vehicle variety.
Now – that CAFE law – in structure and theory – was almost the same as the structure of the “climate change” models, and regulation…
…in that the both are trying to forecast a single desired “MAGIC NUMBER” long into the future (after current regulators will be gone…so can’t be “blamed” for any mistakes).
Almost all human endeavors show that long term point forecasts never work. Or if they seem to work, that is only by accident. See forecasts of population, GDP, outcomes of war, tax benefits, educational benefits, etc
Back to CAFE….
….turns out the scientists, forecasters, government experts etc were all wrong. See data. The fleet average never followed the forecast lines, and still does not.
And a gas tax turns out to be much better than enforcing a single point, society-wide forecast….
…because it allows people to make their own driving experiences fun, profitable, and environmentally healthy at the same time.
See the dramatic decrease in global automotive emissions around the world that happened with no consensus on a global single number emissions target.
The human species “greened” the global auto fleet largely because most governments put a flexible tax on gasoline – THAT ALLOWED BILLIONS OF DRIVERS TO CHOSE THEIR OWN WAYS TO CONSERVE FUEL…
….VERSUS A FLEET OF SEVERAL BILLION CARS THAT MATCHED THE DESIGN FANTASIES OF POWERFUL SINGLE-HUMAN REGULATORS LIKE THOSE IN US GOV’T…some of whom had never owned a car.
The current climate “experts” will undoubtedly be just as wrong as the single-number consumer advocates were about automotive fuel efficiency.
And it would prove very useful for them, and others to visit in person the massive “e-waste” dump sites in Asia, LATAM, and Africa – right now….
….to see what awaits EVs at the end of life.
EACH EV can contain 10,000 AA-size batteries – each battery with a mix of components.
Multiply that times 1.4 billion EV’s
Then do the same projections for the utility-scale, multiple-component UTILITY batteries.
When standing in front of a 24 mile wide waste dump in LATAM – and then envisioning how that smoldering waste dump might look with trillions of new 18360 or similar cells – burning…..one can have more respect for the realities of well-intended policies….cooked up in small rooms in gov’t and academic offices.
I don’t know you.
But I would argue that the emotions behind your short comment are reflected among thousands of academics and regulators….
…..who have powerful needs to be right.
I – and many others – have found that if you take zealous “experts” out of their offices….
…..and have them visit the global networks required for “simple” solutions like EV’s….
…..they wil find quite interesting….and productive new ways to think….calculate,,,,and collaborate.
See the article “The Importance of Stupidity in Scientific Research” in the Journal of Cell Science for a bit of – non vitriolic – insight.
Ants- the problem with the gas tax still exists- the less income you have, the less “choice” you have. The poor don’t have a high percent of purely discretionary driving that they can cut back on and they drive the less expensive used cars- which would be gas guzzlers.
Lower the price of electricity – get rid of the windmill mandates – and you have a shot at a big EV market. Do it with the atom and you reduce overall air, ground and water pollution – to compensate for the environmental cost of the batteries you need.
Do it over a widespread area and you put pressure on the need for more EVs. Put more market demand on EVs than the current battery tech can’t keep up with – particularly in the area of materials supply – and you get better battery technology. This is the innovation that we’re all supposed to assume when the topic is windmills and the driver is subsidies, but for some reason we’re not allowed to consider when the demand growth is private and organic.
But that isn’t happening because governments control electricity and have largely decided its future is very expensive, unreliable, and limited (the vaunted “conserve!” mantra). If you want anyone to drive around on electrons you cannot do those three things.
Willard- that’s problem solving. Cheap, reliable, and plentiful electricity is how you electrify transportation. And appliances, and heating, etc etc. Good thing it can be done emissions-free, isn’t it?
Two new items relating to the Texas grid crisis this Feb.
1: A new analysis from the University of Texas pinpoints that some natural gas providers were actually PAID to go offline during the crisis.
energy.utexas.edu/ercot-blackout-2021
2: The official death toll has been raise to over 200. Most seem to have died due to hyperthermia (they froze to death). “Death toll rises to 210 from February cold wave in Texas”
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Texas-freeze-death-toll-16313481.php
> that’s problem solving.
Sure, Jeff:
https://www.texastribune.org/2021/06/03/texas-electricity-bills-winter-storm-legislature/
Free markets. Got to love ’em!
Again with the gas in Texas, Willie? They needed gas to quadruple in performance in order to compensate for unreliables, it only tripled. But, yeah, bad gas.
Your rant against the CAFE laws don’t deserve any better than a re-run, Jeff. It suffices to meet your idealization of free markets fair and square.
But since you’re a tough customer:
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/texas-power-crisis-deepens-more-companies-skip-payments-due-grid-operator-2021-03-02/
Follow the ants.
Thank you for a well written piece with lots of space to help my reading ability with poor eyesight. But I had to stop right after reading the sentence with the phrase “go to the Gemba”, even though the sentence made sense without that phrase. Where is Gemba, I wondered? So I had to look it up.
“Genba is a Japanese term meaning “the actual place”. Japanese detectives call the crime scene genba, and Japanese TV reporters may refer to themselves as reporting from genba. In business, genba refers to the place where value is created; in… Wikipedia ”
I was never one to believe predictions, so it took me only one hour after I got interested in climate science (1997) to reject the prediction of the climate one hundred years in the future. However, in 1997 I made three climate predictions that have been right for the past 24 years. I deserve a Nobel Prize for my predictions, but I don’t have any connections:
(1) January will be cold (Northern Hemisphere)
(2) July will be hot (Northern Hemisphere)
(3) The Global Average Temperature will get warmer,
unless it gets cooler.
One question the class should be required to answer is how do they plan on mining for the raw materials, process those materials (e.g., separate the overburden from the ores needed), transport the materials to a manufacturing facility, power the manufacturing process, transport finished products to their ultimate destination, prepare sites for wind turbines/solar panels, maintain them, decommission, and dispose of them without using fossil fuels. I have not done the math, but I seriously doubt that weather dependent, intermittent, unreliable energy sources like wind and solar can generate sufficient energy to power the machinery required to reproduce themselves, which means that an energy transition to wind and solar is impossible. Plus, wind and solar are anything but clean and green. https://www.manhattan-institute.org/mines-minerals-and-green-energy-reality-check
Barnes, Absolutely.
I have found it useful in my commercial and educational work to use a circular diagram I learned from Toyota decades ago.
Toyota and Honda do not see the car business as “selling cars”.
They see it – explicitly – as a decades long CYCLE that never ends.
They see their strategic role as “stimulating” that cycle around, and around, and around again – over decades
I can’t draw a circle here, but the cycle in linear form is this.
Mine
Transport
Melt
Transport
Fabricate
Transport
Assemble
Transport
Sell
Driver drives
Service/Repair
Keep car high quality in use
…then…
DISASSEMBLE
SELL USED (Most people, and climate scientists) don’t know that 90% of the parts in a gas car are carefully disassembled, sold used at high profit, then used for tens of thousands of miles in a car- again – at no new supply/chain energy input)
MELT/RECYCLE THE USED PARTS. When these parts reach 100,000 to 200,000 miles of use…in a new…then used car. They are easily melted for new parts WHICH ALMOST COMPLETELY ELIMINATES THE MINING AND SMELTING PHASE OF NEW PARTS – see cycle above.
Of all the industries on Earth – autos – done the Toyota/Honda way – are already far more environmentally friendly – and profitable – than Tesla or any similar hard-to-recycle EV
If you apply this life-cycle diagram to current Climate Change strategies – promoted by non-practitioner “scientific experts”….
….you will see that the CURRENT “scientifically approved” transportation, “green” energy, and similar mandated solutions….
….are huge waste and post-first-use energy/emissions environmental insults waiting to happen.
A safe bet is that central government policies could be much more effective than currently planned….
….if they took a Toyota/Honda full life cycle look a the things that are being mandated or subsidized.
Good people make bad mistakes all the time by starting on a journey without looking at the existing maps.
The cycles of human interaction with the “climate” are far more important than single number forecasts of such a complex phenomenon.
Add to your life cycle view that wind turbines have a projected life of 20 years but frequently fail to last that long. It is not uncommon for them to fail in as few as 12 years. Solar panels are projected to last 25 years. Gas and coal power plants can last 40 years or longer. And, as you point out, we still need to figure out how to recycle many of the various components of solar systems and wind turbines plus batteries.
I can’t remember how many LED bulbs have failed (a LOT!), but I do remember they were supposed to last 15-25 years. (NOT!) So it seems with all things “green” – what they say you will get, isn’t.
“I can’t remember how many LED bulbs have failed (a LOT!), but I do remember they were supposed to last 15-25 years. (NOT!) So it seems with all things “green” – what they say you will get, isn’t.”
I’m a big fan of LED bulbs, and I’m not using them for “green” reasons.
They do last a long time, except… many will not survive long in can lightning, where they are pointed downwards. Unlike incandescents, they do not radiate away waste heat. So even though they have less waste heat, it will accumulate around the electronics if it cannot be carried away by air currents (convection) And, they save a lot of power and overall, will reduce the heat load on your air conditioning – a big deal here in Arizona.
I think you can get ones rated for can lighting, though.
I second Mesocyclon’s opinion. My CREE LEDs I bought at home depot back in 2012 are still working just fine. Good LEDs will usually have a visible heat sink around the base. In addition to the drawbacks about enclosed fixtures, LEDs don’t handle dimming at very low light levels very well in my opinion..
LEDs save money on energy and have very long lifespans.
I don’t use them in enclosed fixtures unless they are designed for that application.
Try finding any real data on the mean time to failure of LED lamps. Good luck!
I don’t know what the mean-time-to-failure is for LEDs. I have an average of 5 LEDs per room. I haven’t replaced any in years but I burned one out with a dimmer.
PV on the other hand have recently had their useful lifespans extended from earlier estimates of 20-25 years out to a new benchmark of 32 years based on emphatical data collected by American and European government agencies.
pv-magazine.com/2021/07/02/exploring-the-depths-of-europes-oldest-grid-connected-pv-system/
Pingback: Curry: The State of Climate Science in 5 Minutes – Climate- Science.press
The big picture. The communists used to claim that capitalism exploited the worker. But after the 20th century experiments (Soviet Union, China, Cuba, East Germany, Noth Korea, etc), it became impossible to maintain that communism improved the lives of workers. And the left deeply resent all the productive people, rich and poor, who risked their lives to escape those horrid places. So the narrative had to change. Now free markets endanger the earth rather than economic well-being, and ending the exploitation of the earth requires the dictatorship of technocrats (of the left). The workers are now dangerous and “deplorable” for wanting to live free. The left has accordingly shifted from the working class to the billionaire technocrats / Davos crowd as their vehicle to power, and they know that close surveillance/control of the population CCP-style will be needed to keep the deplorables in their place.
That’s why there is little or no science in climate “science”, which is mostly propaganda and outright lies. As one UK leftist politician said, ‘global warming is not useful because it’s true . . . it’s ‘true’ because it’s useful.’
David Longinotti: A lot of truth packed in few words.
Billionaire climate jet-setters just flew out of their annual Sun Valley conference on proverbial Lear’s after this years address by Bill Gates on climate change; over 90 private jets were at the local airport. I understand some of the air traffic had to be banned by the FAA.
The Left controls most of the wealth these days, and they’re all about power and control of the working class. The local billionaire class (US) are not alone among DC’s most influential peddlers, they come from afar; China, Russia, and much of the EU have their collective forks deep in DC meat, both oligarchs and foreign government actors alike. The trough is wide, but the nourishment is being consumed faster than it can be replenished.
Biden closes down pipelines in the US, and opens them between Russia and Germany, how does that happen, one asks?
What I wonder is just what Mr. Appell does for a living.
What percentage of posts on Climate Etc are from this one person?
I wonder if he answer Senator Kennedy’s simple question … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYd8Jioiq0E
Wow. That was shocking 🤦♂️
Definition of squirming.
This clip should be played every day on every national network during Biden’s entire term.
Leave it to a Good Ol’ Southern Boy to ask the question of the decade.
Typical gobbledygook response to a simple question.
I wonder if he answer Senator Kennedy’s simple question … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYd8Jioiq0E
“Do you realize I was actually on your side of this issue when I was chairing that committee and first heard about this? I thought it must be true until I found out what it would cost.”
— James Inhofe on global warming, on the Rachel Maddow Show, 3/15/12
https://www.msnbc.com/transcripts/rachel-maddow-show/2012-03-15-msna743531
I love global warming, especially because the climate now is better than in the past … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkU9FzTuqqA
David’s task is to make this blog unreadable.
Who pays him I don’t know. Taxpayers, maybe?
George: David’s task is to make this blog unreadable.
Who pays him I don’t know. Taxpayers, maybe?
George doesn’t like when his POV is challenged. He’s cocksure such ideas can only come from someone who doesn’t have his pure intent.
“Natural variability on all time scales: solar (including indirect effects)..” – curryja
It’s the indirect effects which are currently unknown but can be seen in the latest data.
Not only is there conclusive evidence that the solar cycle somehow influences the oceans (La Niña/El Nino switch) but also a decadel influence has been found linked to summer cooling of the East Antarctic:
….
We show that up to 20 to 40% of the observed summer cooling trend in East Antarctica was forced by decadal changes of the..
….
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/7/26/eabf9903.full
Is it too much use of the imagination to speculate that “decadel” changes correlates to the solar cycle of ~11 years? Could it be that it’s just the mechanism which is something new, unthought of before and requires out-of-box-thinking?
(The gamma ray anomaly emissions from the Sun, which have an equatorial/polar shift which doesn’t conform to current hypotheses, therefore lends itself as a potential clue to a solution imo).
Yet another anomaly in the gamma ray emissions of the sun. The ‘reflecting of incoming gamma rays’ idea simply doesn’t fit. What could possibly be the answer?
….
The sun radiates far more high-frequency light than expected, raising questions about unknown features of the sun’s magnetic field and the possibility of even more exotic physics .
Not only is the gamma-ray signal far stronger than a decades-old theory predicts; it also extends to much higher frequencies than predicted, and it inexplicably varies across the face of the sun and throughout the 11-year solar cycle. Then there’s the gap, which researchers call a “dip” — a lack of gamma rays with frequencies around 10 trillion trillion hertz. “The dip just defies all logic,” said Tim Linden, a particle astrophysicist at Ohio State who helped analyze the signal.
….
https://www.quantamagazine.org/gamma-ray-data-reveal-surprises-about-the-sun-20190501/
“The possibility of even more exotic physics.” – quantamagazine
Is the physics too wild & exotic to speculate that the sun’s tidal component of the Earth’s oceans varies with the ~11 year solar cycle?
How would we know whether this was the case? Is the sun’s tidal pull on the Earth increasing??
Are there perhaps signs of an increase in gravitational tidal effects increasing on other planets??
In climate models when they change the depth of solar penetration it changes ocean currents. There is a possible mechanism.
All the IPPC promoted climate models are a joke. Tell me which is best and we can go from there.
The fact that you can change the depth of solar penetration in a model and cause the ocean currents to change and that they set the depth of penetration instead of including this as an output could be one of the reasons you find them funny.
John Shewchuk: All the IPPC promoted climate models are a joke. Tell me which is best and we can go from there.
“We find that climate models published over the past five decades were skillful [14 of 17 projections] in predicting subsequent GMST changes, with most models examined showing warming consistent with observations, particularly when mismatches between model‐projected and observationally estimated forcings were taken into account.”
“Evaluating the performance of past climate model projections,” Hausfather et al, Geo Res Lett 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL085378
figure:
https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/1202271427807678464?lang=en
—
Exxon’s 1982 climate model:
https://debunkhouse.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/xom1.png
Exxon’s projections, made in the late 1970s for both CO2 and temperature, are today spot-on:
https://www.sciencealert.com/exxon-expertly-predicted-this-week-s-nightmare-co2-milestone-almost-40-years-ago
https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/ad8f11375841adc34eacf4d5006e392af25fc481/0_0_4642_5476/master/4642.jpg?width=700&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=9372a1598623c39149bd2eb99a74cfdc
In other words, we have enough play in forcings to pretty much come up with anything we want.
Robert :
“Physics demands evidence – Christos has none. A faster spinning planet is warmer he says based on dodgy math and impossibly precise planetary temperatures. Outright wrong in the case of the moon. How that happens is magic creation of energy I presume. Until he has a mechanism and experimental data. I suggest he get hold of a kebab rotisserie and monitor the internal temperature.”
Sorry, Robert. I did not realize you were questioning how it happens:
“How that happens is magic creation of energy I presume. “
No Robert. There is not any additional energy being involved. And there is not any energy creation taking place.
“Until he has a mechanism and experimental data. I suggest he get hold of a kebab rotisserie and monitor the internal temperature.”
Robert, are you being sarcastic?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos
It is obvious that the rotational speed of the planet has an effect on the surface temperature, because it influences the time it takes for the solar radiation to operate.
Thank you Ireneusz!
You say:
“It is obvious that the rotational speed of the planet has an effect on the surface temperature, because it influences the time it takes for the solar radiation to operate.”
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Half the time half the surface is in sunlight – half the time it isn’t. Regardless of how fast it spins. One of those simple, obvious and inconvenient facts they neglect.
Robert says:
“A faster spinning planet is warmer he says based on dodgy math and impossibly precise planetary temperatures.”
It is so very much simple what I say, and it produces “…impossibly precise planetary temperatures.”
Robert, I liked that part in your comment.
Planetary temperatures are being precisely measured by satellites.
Planetary temperatures are theoretically calculated now “impossibly precise”.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Robert:
“Half the time half the surface is in sunlight – half the time it isn’t. Regardless of how fast it spins.”
No, planet is not a flat surface, which half the time is in sunlight and half the time it isn’t.
Planet is a rotating sphere in the parallel solar beams flow. Planet rotates all the time… And it is important for surface temperatures how fast planet spins.
When rotating every planet’s spot changes its position in relation to the solar angular incidence. Now it is at dawn position, then it is at midday, at afternoon, at dusk… at midnight…
It is a mistake thinking about the planetary rotation as “Half the time half the surface is in sunlight – half the time it isn’t. Regardless of how fast it spins.”
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Planetary temperature is not precisely measured. Most precisely with the moon – that you get wrong. You calculate by inventing new ‘universal physical laws’ that ate derived without evidence.
The planet is not a flat surface it is a sphere. It is exposed to the same amount of solar energy regardless of how fast it spins.
Yes it is simple what you say – it is the story fallacy repeated endlessly. It is not remotely science. It seems clear you can’t tell the difference.
Christos, Robert is absolutely right — a spinning planetary sphere spends 50% of its time in the sunlight, 50% in darkness, regardless of its rate of spin, even if that rate is zero.
You haven’t presented a counterargument or countering data — simple negation isn’t an argument.
Six of one – half a dozen of the other.
Robert
“The planet is not a flat surface it is a sphere. It is exposed to the same amount of solar energy regardless of how fast it spins.”
That is 100% right!
Thank you.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
David
“Christos, Robert is absolutely right — a spinning planetary sphere spends 50% of its time in the sunlight, 50% in darkness, regardless of its rate of spin, even if that rate is zero.
You haven’t presented a counterargument or countering data — simple negation isn’t an argument.”
David, Robert has already corrected his statement.
“…It is exposed to the same amount of solar energy regardless of how fast it spins.”
And that is 100% right. Because planet surface rotates under the solar irradiance…
Planet is solar irradiated 100% of time.
Planetary sphere doesn’t spend 50% of its time in the sunlight, 50% in darkness…
Planetary sphere is solar irradiated 100% of its time.
And that is 100% correct!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Bizarre. I haven’t corrected anything. The planet was always a sphere spinning and energy comes from the sun. A planet isn’t warmer simply because it spins faster. That would seem to be prima facie a violation of the first law of thermodynamics. As a proposer of a ‘new physical law’ – the planetary rotisserie effect – it is incumbent on Christos to explain himself with experimental data.
Having never said that the Earth is flat – I corrected nothing. The Earth spins and warmth comes from the sun as mediated through the radiative physics of the atmosphere. Regardless of how fast it spins the incoming energy is the same. A planet is not warmer simply because it spins faster – prima facie that would be a violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics.
As a proposer of a ‘new physical law’ it is incumbent on Christos to provide experimental evidence.
Robert
“Regardless of how fast it spins the incoming energy is the same.”
Yes, you are right. We both agree on that.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Robert
“A planet is not warmer simply because it spins faster – prima facie that would be a violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics.”
What makes you think so?
Why the faster rotation would violate the 1st law of thermodynamics?
Well, we know planet is warmer when it spins faster. But why do you think planet would violate the 1st law of thermodynamics?
Also, we are fully aware of it, the 1st law of thermodynamics cannot be violated…
So how the planet faster rotation would violate the 1st law then?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
No – we don’t know that a faster rotating planet is warmer.
Robert
“As a proposer of a ‘new physical law’ it is incumbent on Christos to provide experimental evidence.”
Thank you, Robert.
Here it is the experimental evidence:
Moon, because of the lower Albedo (a=0,11) than Earth’s Albedo (a=0,306), Moon receives 28% more solar energy than Earth…
Nevertheless, Moon is considered a much colder planet than Earth.
This has its explanation in the measured data:
Moon’s rotational spin is 29,5 times slower than Earth’s.
And Moon’s average surface specific heat is 0,19 times of that of Earth’s. Moon has almost five times lower average surface specific heat than Earth.
Because Moon’s surface consists of lunar regolith (soil), and Earth’s surface consists of water (ocean).
Both those physics data (the rotational spin and the average surface specific heat) are measured evidence.
What we did here is to compare two celestial bodies’ the average surface temperatures… The method we use is the “Planet Surface Temperatures Comparison Method”.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos wrote: Both those physics data (the rotational spin and the average surface specific heat) are measured evidence.
But you’re missing some empirical data: the Moon only has 4 letters in its name while the Earth has 5. Surely that must influence the average surface temperature as well….
David
“Christos wrote: Both those physics data (the rotational spin and the average surface specific heat) are measured evidence.
But you’re missing some empirical data: the Moon only has 4 letters in its name while the Earth has 5. Surely that must influence the average surface temperature as well….”
Thank you David.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
‘The Equation (Stefan-Boltzmann) is being completed by adding to the incomplete Te equation the new parameters Φ, N, cp and the constant β.
Φ – is the dimensionless Solar Irradiation accepting factor
N – rotations /day, is the planet’s axial spin
cp – cal /gr*oC, is the planet’s surface specific heat
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – is the Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant.’
You are as mad as Alan Lowry and I will keep posting Homer every time you repeat it.
Robert:
“‘The Equation (Stefan-Boltzmann) is being completed by adding to the incomplete Te equation the new parameters Φ, N, cp and the constant β.
Φ – is the dimensionless Solar Irradiation accepting factor
N – rotations /day, is the planet’s axial spin
cp – cal /gr*oC, is the planet’s surface specific heat
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – is the Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant.’
You are as mad as Alan Lowry and I will keep posting Homer every time you repeat it.”
Robert, you wrote in the first sentence:
“‘The Equation (Stefan-Boltzmann) is being completed by adding to the incomplete Te equation the new parameters Φ, N, cp and the constant β.”
And you wrote in the last sentence:
“You are as mad as Alan Lowry and I will keep posting Homer every time you repeat it.”
Thank you Robert.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Nice problem.
RIE says “Half the time half the surface is in sunlight – half the time it isn’t. Regardless of how fast it spins.”
The earth is acting like a rotating heat exchanger, absorbing heat from a point source and rejecting it to space after half a turn. However spin speed dictates the stable temperature point, besides other factors.
This link is for different purpose but same dynamics apply as regards speed. Link: http://enviro2014.vgtu.lt/Articles/6/259_Grzebielec.pdf See pg 5 fig 7
(Venus : very low rotation > high temp)
No – I didn’t write the first line – you did. Adding new ‘Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant’ by fitting imprecise data to dodgy math and ill conceived physics. That you simply repeat in every post.
MM – the equilibrium temperature happens when energy in equals energy out. Energy in is for this purpose close enough to constant. Albedo he assumes is constant – it isn’t. So that leaves radiative emissions – from surface, atmosphere and oceans – that will warm sufficiently to attain energy equilibrium at TOA. Venus is warmer because it has planet specific atmospheric properties and is closer to the sun – Occam’s razor.
Robert
“No – I didn’t write the first line – you did. Adding new ‘Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant’ by fitting imprecise data to dodgy math and ill conceived physics. That you simply repeat in every post.”
Very well said.
Please, Robert, share it with a friend.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
REI Agreed, almost.
Here earlier Link: http://enviro2014.vgtu.lt/Articles/6/259_Grzebielec.pdf See pg 5 fig 7 in fig there is an inflection point between 5 and 0, Effcy drops to zero at 0. Venus likely happens to be within that range. The odd one for spin.
See “Temperatures on the Planets” at this site https://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/astronomy/planets/
See also “A Day on Each of the Planets” at same site.
Spin matters. So does axial orientation, which effects temperatures range from equator to poles. And where the equilibrium point sets/stabilises. It was higher in the Eocene with lower equator to poles difference. (eocene global mean 31.6degC; modern 14.05degC)
Thank you for this shareable post. Today’s audience, such as my young relatives, may get the points before they lose interest.
Here’s my five-minute take on a climate change summary.
First, on the premise of anthropogenic CO2 being the evil of it all. The make-up of greenhouses has this set of attributions, give or take a some percentages:
Kiel/Trenberth 1997:
Water vapor 60%
CO2 26%
Ozone 8%
Methane/NO2 6%
Gavin Schmidt et al 2010:
Water vapor 5
Clouds 25%
CO2 20%
Others 5%
Anthropogenic CO2 is said to be 5% of the total CO2, so in the total attribution picture it comprises 2%. Some authors had mentioned 5% of total. Hence it can be viewed as a fairly insignificant amount. Further note that the IPCC in their last AR5 summary for policy makers does not mention water vapor at all! Their focus on anthropogenic CO2 alone is misplaced, to say the least.
Surely, there are acknowledged cross-amplifications and damping factors among greenhouses, albeit of speculative magnitude, among these greenhouse components. However, when adding to them the solar variance and the ill-definable aerosol drivers, in toto it shows the murkiness of the claim of manmade CO2 ‘guilt’.
Second, the temperature of the vast ocean volume of water could not be accurately measured over time, and will not be in the near future. The water temperature could otherwise be a clear trend indicator, independent of short term variations and oscillations. There is one very credible showing of the real warming, that is, the sea level measurements via tidal gages: hard core, direct measurements from the 1800’s on, in some locales. The sea level rise contributions come mostly from thermally expanding water and fresh water inflow from arctic zones (eustatic changes), both compounding their contributions. The important search for drivers points to the acceleration within the essentially linear graph trends. That acceleration would be a direct indicator traceable to mankind’s recently added greenhouse gas production. Of course, when evaluating the graphs, one must exclude origins (isostatic changes), where ground is known to be subsiding, like in Alaska, and where it is rising, as in the Mississippi delta. NOAA with its GLOSS network monitors over 300 gaging sites over the globe.
Let us examine trends on seven graphs that are spread worldwide.
Brest, France 1815 – 2017 4.25 in/century no acceleration
Hawaii 1905 – 2015 5.8 in/century deceleration by 1.05 in/century
Battery NY 1840 – 2015 11.2 in/century no acceleration
Sidney AU 1885 – 2011 2.55 in/century no acceleration
Newlyn U.K. 1915 – 2016 1.2 in/century no acceleration
Charleston SC 1921 – 2000 12 in/century no acceleration
San Francisco 1855 – 2010 5.33 in/century no acceleration
Worldwide past sea level rise is 6.3 inches per century, with a corresponding 1.34 degree C global air temperature increase.
Acceleration should be clearly discernible, i.e. from man’s warming contributions over more than a century. It is not.
In conclusion, one must ask how could frequent citations justify such widely sounded apocalyptic alarms, predictions varying from 3 to 8 feet per century?
If we deduce the global warming acceleration qualitatively from linear sea level rise – there is no such measured acceleration, and therefore no apparent correlation to risen anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
“Is the physics too wild & exotic to speculate that the sun’s tidal component of the Earth’s oceans varies with the ~11 year solar cycle?”
YES : because the mass of the sun decreases by less that a part per billion a year.
” Is the sun’s tidal pull on the Earth increasing??”
NO vide supra
“Are there perhaps signs of an increase in gravitational tidal effects increasing on other planets?”
NO because you got the sign wrong.
I’ll wait for the physicist David Appell to hopefully be a little more open-minded on the hypothesis.
As there is , at most , one kind of physics, you are bound to be disappointed.
Try a little dimensional analysis next time.
potsniron | July 14, 2021 at 3:50 pm | Reply
“Let us examine trends on seven graphs that are spread worldwide.
Brest, France 1815 – 2017 4.25 in/century no acceleration
Hawaii 1905 – 2015 5.8 in/century deceleration by 1.05 in/century
Battery NY 1840 – 2015 11.2 in/century no acceleration
Sidney AU 1885 – 2011 2.55 in/century no acceleration
Newlyn U.K. 1915 – 2016 1.2 in/century no acceleration
Charleston SC 1921 – 2000 12 in/century no acceleration
San Francisco 1855 – 2010 5.33 in/century no acceleration”
As postniron notes – the tide gauge measurements show a reasonable steady SLR, but little or no acceleration in the rate of sea level rise.
circa 1993, SLR began being measured by Satellites, there was at that time a sudden shift in the “measured” sea level rise. Most likely due to a change in the measurement process. 200 plus years of 1.5mm-2.0mm SLR per year, suddenly jumps to 3.0mm-3.4mm SLR per year in just a 25 year time span. With the global/composite tide gauge measurements now agreeing/lining up with the satellite measurements. All the while the individual tide gauges such as the ones mentioned by posniron showing the same consistency.
So what is the real rate of SLR today – FWIW, in am inclined to believe the individual tide gauges instead of the composite average
Joe, the acceleration in sea level rise as measured by tide gauge data:
https://www.globalchange.gov/sites/globalchange/files/global_average_sea_level_change.png
Joe: I have a monthly spreadsheet on Charleston SC. It definitely has an acceleration. The numbers are, since 1901
sea level change = 22 cm
current rate of sea level rise = 7.0 mm/yr
current acceleration = 0.087 mm/yr2
In the last 20 years sea level in Charleston has risen 1 inch every 31 months, on average.
Appell dude
The east coast is subsiding big time
Try again- but don’t get caught with obvious deception
Joe, you said Charleston SC showed no acceleration in sea level rise. It does. The deception was yours.
Moreover Joe, the vertical land motion near Charleston SC is only about -1.5 mm/yr at most, according to Figure 1 of this well known paper:
Subsidence along the Atlantic Coast of North America: Insights from GPS and late Holocene relative sea level data, Makan A. Karega et al, GRL 2016
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/2016GL068015
But as I wrote, in the last 20 years sea level in Charleston is rising an inch every 31 months on average, which is 9.8 mm/yr.
Some of this is due to the slowing of the AMOC current to the North Atlantic, which causes the water there to fall, which causes water to rise on the US east coast. Some of it is due to the usual reasons too, of course, thermal expansion and melting ice.
David
We went through this about Charleston a few months ago. The Corps 2020 report 3.3.4 says SLR is 1/8 inch per year, which makes your statement a gross exaggeration.
Also IPCC says there is low confidence in AMOC slowing down.
This means that whatever rate above the long term trend of 3.24 mm/yr (including subsidence) for the last few decades is most likely influenced by natural variability. Wait a few years for reversion to the mean. Bet on it.
https://www.sac.usace.army.mil/Portals/43/docs/civilworks/peninsulastudy/Appendix%20B3_HandH.pdf
CKid: We went through this about Charleston a few months ago. The Corps 2020 report 3.3.4 says SLR is 1/8 inch per year, which makes your statement a gross exaggeration.
They’re wrong, because they’re still doing linear fits. A quadratic fit is better — it has a higher Pearson coefficient. Download the data and calculate for yourself. I have.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8665530
Hilarious. Apple knows more than the Corps. No wonder you’ve been snowed by the establishment. You do no good for your cause.
Kiddie boy, do you know how to fit a function to data? Apparently not. Go take a class and learn. It’s not that difficult. Today spreadsheets make it trivial. Think for yourself.
You’re making a joke of science. Wise up. You don’t impress anyone with your 5th grade equations.
Kiddie boy, it’s painfully obvious you don’t understand even the fifth grade equations, so all you can do is defer to what the Army Corps feeds you. Because we all know THEIR high level of competence….
Appellman’s comment – “Subsidence along the Atlantic Coast of North America: Insights from GPS and late Holocene relative sea level data, Makan A. Karega et al, GRL 2016
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/2016GL068015
But as I wrote, in the last 20 years sea level in Charleston is rising an inch every 31 months on average, which is 9.8 mm/yr.”
David I am pleased that you improved on your due diligence in response to the subsidence issue.
However – do some due diligence on the 9.8mm per year SLR claim for charleston.
9.8mm SLR per year minus 1.5mm subsidence per year would mean 8.3mm effective SLR – 8.3mm per year is approx 2.4x the global average Sea level rise rate.
Due diligence –
David Appell | July 17, 2021 at 6:45 pm |
CKid: We went through this about Charleston a few months ago. The Corps 2020 report 3.3.4 says SLR is 1/8 inch per year, which makes your statement a gross exaggeration.
Appellman’s comment – “They’re wrong, because they’re still doing linear fits. A quadratic fit is better — it has a higher Pearson coefficient. Download the data and calculate for yourself. I have.”
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8665530
Appellman – check your math – linear fit since 2000 is approximately 3.5mm per year – yet you used a quadriatic fit to get 9.8mm per year
check you math.
Joe, sorry you couldn’t rise above your juvenile level. Now your emailed comments will get filtered out too.
joe wrote: circa 1993, SLR began being measured by Satellites, there was at that time a sudden shift in the “measured” sea level rise. Most likely due to a change in the measurement process. 200 plus years of 1.5mm-2.0mm SLR per year, suddenly jumps to 3.0mm-3.4mm SLR per year in just a 25 year time span.
If you look at the link to the graph I posted just above, you see there was no sudden shift in the measured sea level rise between tide gauges and satellites.
Another conspiracy theory debunked. PayPal or Patreon accepted.
The critical function of science is to rule out magical thinking. Otherwise known as the story fallacy. Alan links statistical correlations of reversals of solar magnetism in the Hale cycle to switches from El Nino to La Nina. The paper he bases this on is vague and doesn’t begin to explain the decadal scale shifts in global climate. Including more frequent and intense El Nino before 1998 and more frequent and intense La Nina since. A 20 to 30 year pattern seen in data over millennia.
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/img/meiv2.timeseries.png
The other study links changes in the Madden-Julian oscillation to east Antarctic temperature. This is all somehow related in Alan’s thought bubbles to solar gamma radiation bursts. The latter arise apparently from Hadronic collisions between background cosmic radiation and solar matter and photons at low solar activity. Annihilation of weakly interacting massive particles – aka dark matter – in the sun is ruled out as observations do not match modelled electron volt energy.
One may speculate unicorns and flying butt monkeys but until there is quantitative evidence it is not science. Until then skepticism is a scientific necessity.
‘There are several mechanisms for high energy gamma-ray emission from the solar region. The Sun can emit electromagnetic radiation extending from radio to gamma-rays during solar flare, which is likely associated with the interaction of flare-accelerated particles in the solar atmosphere. Up to now, dozens of solar flares have been detected by The Fermi Large Area Telescope (LAT) with gamma-ray emission above 100 MeV (Ackermann et al. 2014). The maximum energy observed up to now is about 4 GeV (Ajello et al. 2014). Another plausible mechanism is the self-annihilation of dark matter, i.e., heavy Weak Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPs), which may accumulate near the Sun when they lose energy upon scattering and are gravitationally captured. The Sun has recently been proposed as an intense source of high energy gamma-rays from dark matter annihilation via long-lived mediators (Arina et al. 2017; Leane et al. 2017). Fluxes comparable to or greater than the Crab Nebula flux are predicted in some of the proposed models. Apart from this conjecture, the most important astrophysical mechanism for steady solar gamma-ray production is the interaction of cosmic rays with solar matter and photons, that has been definitely detected by Fermi-LAT with maximum energy up to 200 GeV (Abdo et al. 2011; Ng et al. 2016; Tang et al. 2018).’ https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/aafe06
I meant to add this paper on ‘Solar influences on climate’ – something that science has explored for centuries.
And forgot again. nhttps://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009RG000282
That paper concludes:
“Despite these uncertainties in solar radiative forcing, they are nevertheless much smaller than the estimated radiative forcing due to anthropogenic changes, and the predicted SC-related surface temperature change is small relative to anthropogenic changes.”
“Or we may be faced with unanticipated surprises. We need to increase our resiliency to whatever the future climate presents us with.” I’ve argued this for twenty years, but not just re climate – there will be many surprises, such as the Global Financial Crisis and the Covid-19 pandemic.
Back in ’72, before academics research was politicized, MIT made a interesting model. So far it’s tracking pretty much as forecast! Turns out most all the pollution will be gone.
vice.com/en/article/z3xw3x/new-research-vindicates-1972-mit-prediction-that-society-will-collapse-soon
And war started by belligerent leaders in China, Russia, Middle East and African countries etc …
I’ve posted some of this at (UK) Times Online. All the replies to a daft article are from non-believers. Climate change articles in The Australian are also generally met with near-100 per cent scepticism by online commenters and letter writers..
As they should be. The empirical evidence is clear. Global warming is beneficial for the world economy and ecosystems.
Peter, still waiting for you to explain how 3 C of warming leads to only -0.2% change in GDP, when it inundates much of the state of Florida.
We hear continually about a few glaciers losing mass. Could these have been cherry picked from the 198,000 glaciers around the world?
From the RGI, we can learn that there are 198,000 glaciers in the World. However, this is a slightly arbitrary quantity, as it depends on the quality of the digital elevation model used, mapping resolution, and the minimum-area threshold used. Most analysts use a minimum area threshold of 0.1 km2; they will not map anything smaller than this due to difficulties in distinguishing between glaciers and snowpacks. If these small glacierets are including, the number of glaciers in the World could be up to 400,000, but they would still only account for 1.4% of the World’s glacierised area.
http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/glacier-recession/mapping-worlds-glaciers/
http://www.glims.org/RGI/rgi60_dl.html
“Annual mass balance of reference glaciers with more than 30 years of ongoing glaciological measurements…. The graph for global glacier mass change shows the estimated annual balance for a set of global reference glaciers with more than 30 continued observation years for the time-period 1949/50-2019/20. Global values are calculated using only one single value (averaged) for each of 19 mountain regions in order to avoid a bias to well observed regions.”
https://wgms.ch/data/faq/_FAQ_RefGlac_Global_Annual_MB.svg
https://wgms.ch/data/faq/_FAQ_RefGlac_Global_Cum_MB.svg
Nice reference, David. Thanks.
To me a glacier is ice which has broken off the ice shelf and is floating, thus melting. The ice shelf is ice which is sitting on earth. This was formed as the ocean rose from their lowest point. As the glaciers melt they cool the oceans. The water replaces that frozen and dropped at the poles to replace the heat radiated to the black sky.
The sun heats the ocean as the glaciers melt. This is how nature keeps a constant average surface temperature of the earth.
Ancient tree drums that recently came from Breiðamerkurjökull have been dated and turned out to be over 3000 years old. A natural geographer believes that they were part of a large forest that disappeared when it cooled in Iceland at the end of the so-called later birch period.
Most likely, the glacier cleared the forest away
Another tree trunk was found on Breiðamerkursandur this autumn and in an expedition to pick it up, another was found even larger. The smaller one was taken for examination, but the larger one will be picked up later when a sample was taken from him for age analysis. The drum has been in a freezer in the storage of Náttúrustofa Suðausturlands in Hornafjörður. In addition to dating the wood, a forester has studied a slice of the trunk. “This tree has 89 rings and it died in June. And it died very suddenly. The most probable cause is, of course, that the glacier he was involved in either that or some kind of flood, “says Snævarr Guðmundsson, natural geographer and division manager at the Southeast Iceland Nature Center. Traces of the meeting place and the sediments around the lurk indicate that it was rather the glacier that cleared the forest away.
https://www.ruv.is/frett/drumburinn-3000-ara-gamall-og-fell-i-skyndi
Ren
Similarly in Siberia, near the front of the treeline advancing north with current warming, fossil tree stumps have been found from the last period of similar warmth, the MWP 1000 years ago. The null hypothesis of current warming is a quasi-cyclical process and the power-grabbing Luddites haven’t even started the process of refuting this null hypothesis. Instead they try to persuade themselves that there is no null hypothesis and “science” doesn’t need to be falsifiable.
https://ptolemy2.wordpress.com/2020/07/09/the-to-and-fro-of-the-siberian-taiga-tundra-treeline/
The SOI index has already reached a value of 10.
https://i.ibb.co/MRJ3BTL/Screenshot-1.png
Pingback: Judith Curry: Der Zustand der Klimawissenschaft in 5 Minuten | EIKE - Europäisches Institut für Klima & Energie
Pingback: 5 Minutes with a Climate Sceptic – Small Dead Animals
Pingback: Judith Curry: Der Zustand der Klimawissenschaft in 5 Minuten – Aktuelle Nachrichten
One quibble, (maybe more than one), Given that the first wind turbine was built in July 1887, and the first commercially available solar panel was available in 1881, does that not make them 19th century solutions, not 20th….
Dr. Curry,
Great five minute explanation of a wicked problem, a couple of four suggestions
1) Perhaps one sentence on its wickedness,
2) One sentence on why the Precautionary Principle doesn’t apply
3) A quote from John Kerry, President’s Biden Climate czar , 01/27/2021:”When almost 90 percent of all of the planet’s global emissions come from outside of US borders, we (USA) could go to zero tomorrow and the problem isn’t solved,”
4) One sentence using the easy to remember and visualize expression of “CO2 knob”
Apologies if above suggestions are already covered above, if so I must’ve missed them.
One more comment,
Dr. Curry, a while ago you quipped: Why start counting (GG) from mid 1800’s, were those the goldilocks times (they weren’t my comment)?, So, why not start with a “tabula rasa” beginning year 2000 (nice round number) and stop worrying about legacy GG in the atmosphere and per capita emissions. BTW, it was reported that the Obama/Clinton duo felt “checkmated” in Paris by the Xi/Modi duo who reminded them of those two very thorny issues plus: you have plenty of NatGas, we don’t, all we have is coal, plenty of, and you’ve sent all your dirty industries to us to take advantage of cheap labor . And so it goes, add all this and then some to the wickedness bucket.
“How would you explain the complexity and uncertainty surrounding climate change …?”
Wasn’t this the question answered 500 years ago with the Ptolemaic Model currently played by the Radiative-Convective Equilibrium Model and the Grand Inquisitors by the Peers of Academia?
“Yes, Galileo, but how do you then explain that the sun is 93,000,000 miles distant and the day 24 hours?”
David
“Christos, Robert is absolutely right — a spinning planetary sphere spends 50% of its time in the sunlight, 50% in darkness, regardless of its rate of spin, even if that rate is zero.
You haven’t presented a counterargument or countering data — simple negation isn’t an argument.”
David, Robert has already corrected his statement.
“…It is exposed to the same amount of solar energy regardless of how fast it spins.”
And that is 100% right. Because planet surface rotates under the solar irradiance…
Planet is solar irradiated 100% of time.
Planetary sphere doesn’t spend 50% of its time in the sunlight, 50% in darkness…
Planetary sphere is solar irradiated 100% of its time.
And that is 100% correct!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Pingback: Something for the weekend #159 – 2020 : Tracking Optimism
During the last ice age at max. the oceans were 400 ft lower than present. That much water was tied up in ice caps. The only process that could transport water from the ocean to the ice caps is evaporation. Evaporation requires heat. I conclude that the ice age was caused by global heating, but now we are told that global heating will eliminate the remaining ice caps.. Can anyone explain how both could be true?
Good observation James. The standard model of the ice ages is deeply flawed due to the change in distance to the Sun being only 1-5% on the 100kyr glacial cycle (attributed to Milankovitch). This is why “feedbacks” had to be introduced to amplify the energy required to account for 5km high glaciers from the high Arctic to Bristol.
There’s another possible solution that requires exotic physics. The inclination cycle of Earth is also 100kyr with respect to the plane of the planets. If there is a stronger gravitational pull from the Sun which acts on the exotic core of the Earth when on this plane, then a tidal forcing can account for warmer water & increased precipitation at the polar regions. This initiates glaciation which then simply grows.
To answer your question with this gravitational forcing model, there will be a period of increased glacial melting combined with increased precipitation. The polar region precipitation will overtake the glacial melting to start the expanse of the glaciation process once again.
P.S. no greenhouse gases are required in this model unlike Milankovitch insolation.
The easiest way to look at it is the earth stores heat in the oceans.
When the oceans are at their maximum height the reflected heat to the black sky the earth reflects more heat than it retains.
To keep the average surface temperature from rising nature takes heat from the oceans and derps the lack of heat on the frozen areas at the poles.
The ice sheet, which is resting on what was the ocean floor, is where nature stores the lack of heat.
As the oceans drop from their maximum the ice begins to break off and the oceans melt the ice and cool the ocean.
When the amount of heat lost to the black sky is equal to that gained from the sun the ocean height stays constant.
I tried to post the above using my face book account. I only use it to post to this blog. Yesterday it did not work. I guess I have been a bad boy.
The e-mail and name worked
James H. Shanley:During the last ice age at max. the oceans were 400 ft lower than present. That much water was tied up in ice caps. The only process that could transport water from the ocean to the ice caps is evaporation. Evaporation requires heat. I conclude that the ice age was caused by global heating, but now we are told that global heating will eliminate the remaining ice caps.
Water still evaporates in a colder world. Also, it snows in colder regions.
“How would you explain the complexity and uncertainty surrounding climate change plus how we should respond (particularly with regards to CO2 emissions) in five minutes?”
I can do it in 3 words: It’s a hoax.
That’s not a claim the science is bunk. I accept the IPCC report on Climate Science as “settled science.” Take your “denier!” nonsense elsewhere.
In fact, the IPCC report does not ANYWHERE say we are in a climate crisis. It points out a roughly linear relationship between total CO2 and global temperatures, “all other things remaining equal” (which they do not).
We have entered a grand solar minimum. MOST of the scientists agree it is a “super minimum” (will last at least 20 years, perhaps as many as 50). By 2050 temperatures will be 1C cooler (same as in 1850). We won’t be using fossil fuels for the same reasons we stopped buying horses and typewriters, and the ONLY part of AGW theory for which predictions actually matched observations – Global Greening – will be sucking up the “extra” CO2 for free.
“In fact, the IPCC report does not ANYWHERE say we are in a climate crisis. It points out a roughly linear relationship between total CO2 and global temperatures, “all other things remaining equal” (which they do not).”
The natural relationship is logarithmic, not linear. If they’ve got it linear, they are assuming some remarkably odd positive feedback to linearize it.
And the science is not settled, no matter what you think. I couldn’t possibly be – there has not been time to falsify whatever theories they have put forth. So until that time has passed, and the results tested and challenged, it is simply *not science* – it is an untested hypothesis.
Don’t call people deniers – it is offensive. The term was chosen so that skeptics would be tarred with the same brush as holocaust deniers.
mesocyclone: Positive feedbacks are real — there’s nothing odd about them.
Yes, total warming is approximately linearly proportionally to cumulative emissions:
https://pressbooks.umn.edu/app/uploads/sites/46/2020/04/Figure9.jpg
PS: The word “denier” had a meaning before the holocaust, and it has the same meaning after it.
Here’s the math showing total warming is proportional to total emissions:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transient_climate_response_to_cumulative_carbon_emissions#Calculation
Here is the Wiki antidote … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=163GElh74T4
David,
Are you in denial that among the stations that have fairly complete records since 1898, the all time record highs for both Washington and Oregon were set in 1898?
John Shewchuk: Here’s the math showing total warming is proportional to total emissions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transient_climate_response_to_cumulative_carbon_emissions#Calculation
Here is the Wiki antidote … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=163GElh74T4
Let’s see…. peer reviewed science vs … Tony Heller. LOL
Just like “consensus” is political — so is “peer review” … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1-FxwVkQ60
The math is based on the climate models. The climate models have all sorts of feedbacks in them that are not proven, only hypothesized. I can make a model have a hyperbolic curve if I want. It doesn’t make it right.
The logarithmic relationship is based on fundamental physics, as first discovered by Arrhenius: Delta-F = alpha * ln(C/C0)
F is the forcing – i.e. how much heat is captured by the CO2.
Meso is correct. I’ve programmed tropical storm models. Pay me enough money and I can make them do whatever your agenda desires.
John Shewchuk: I’ve programmed tropical storm models. Pay me enough money and I can make them do whatever your agenda desires.
With morals like that, no wonder you think everyone else is also on the take.
But most of us value our integrity.
mesocyclone:The math is based on the climate models.
ALL physics is based on models, whether done analytically or numerically. Arrhenius too. He didn’t derive that logarithmic relationship from “fundamental physics” — he did a fit to the data.
The climate models have all sorts of feedbacks in them that are not proven, only hypothesized.
They come from the laws of physics. The largest feedbacks are obvious, well known, and the first two are well established:
* water vapor feedback
* ice-albedo feedback
* cloud feedback
More on the last one later.
“”mesocyclone:The math is based on the climate models.
ALL physics is based on models, whether done analytically or numerically. Arrhenius too. He didn’t derive that logarithmic relationship from “fundamental physics” — he did a fit to the data.””
So you equate Newton’s Laws with a vastly complex computer simulation that has never been tested against reality. Got it.
“They come from the laws of physics. . The largest feedbacks are obvious, well known, and the first two are well established:
* water vapor feedback
* ice-albedo feedback
* cloud feedback”
Okay, using the laws of physics, starting at quantum mechanics and moving all the way up to thermodynamics and hydrodynamics, predict the shape of a thunderstorm updraft column, in detail.
You can’t do it, because of chaos, and because of lack of deterministic inputs (brownian motion, for example).
> Bad gas.
I wasn’t talking about gas, Jeff:
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/texas-power-crisis-deepens-more-companies-skip-payments-due-grid-operator-2021-03-02/
Fortunately for the world enough resources have now been applied to EV’s and green sustainable energy that the question is no longer when, it’s just how fast will the fossil fuel age be replaced by renewable technologies? And with each passing year it looks like 2050 is quite doable for the most part.
The arguments about planet warmer good / bad by novices is not worth the time of day. But on the other side of the equation, becoming an expert requires a lifetime of dedication and even those who’ve dedicated their lives to it do not always agree, though the vast majority of scientist do agree. So it comes down to do we follow the vast majority of scientist, or do we hesitate because a small number of experts have different findings?
Fortunately as I say, it’s not going to come down to that at all. The technology revolution in renewables, electric cars, and on and on is pushing the crude industrial revolution solutions by the wayside. It’s just simple economics. A car with 1000’s of fewer moving parts is going to be cheaper to produce. Energy that comes from a socket at home or is mobile because of a battery is much nicer than having to go to some pump, worry about it exploding. The fact we can get this economically ourselves rather than have a big business or utility monopoly provide it is icing on the cake.
So go green and add some capital to your bank account by doing so. Let everyone else fight over the impact that burning fossil fuels equal in amount to burning a forest larger than the continent of Africa annually might have on the planet.
The fundamental problem with wind and solar is energy density. Cheaper, safer, proliferation resistant and less wasteful nuclear energy has the potential to provide electricity. industrial heat, liquid fuels, fertiliser, chemicals… In the interim there are fossil fuels to power human progress.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/medium/public/2021-04/total-ghg-2021.png
Robert Ellison: The fundamental problem with wind and solar is energy density. Cheaper, safer, proliferation resistant and less wasteful nuclear energy has the potential to provide electricity. industrial heat, liquid fuels, fertiliser, chemicals…
Nuclear energy is cheaper??
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#/media/File:3-Learning-curves-for-electricity-prices.png
And this doesn’t include all the cost of the negative externalities of each of the electricity sources (particularly large for fossil fuels).
“To provide [electricity] in today’s world, an ‘advanced reactor’ must improve over existing reactors in the following 4-core objectives. It must produce significantly less costly, cost-competitive clean electricity, be safer, produce significantly less waste and reduce proliferation risk. It is not sufficient to excel at one without regard to the others.” Dr. Christina Back, Vice President, Nuclear Technologies and Materials for General Atomics, May 2016 testimony before the US Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing on the status of advanced nuclear technologies.
Fossil fuels have large negative externalities only if you believe CO2 will lead to a catastrophe. Since it probably won’t, we can count our lucky stars it fertilizes plants all over the world and will have an incremental effect of lessening deaths from cold. Warm is much better than cold by just about any metric.
Anyone using Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) as a valid assessment of the actual cost of various sources of electric generation is an idiot.
two fundamental logic errors constantly repeated
1) Projected utilization is almost always over stated by 40%-60% of actual utilization
2) LCOE ignores / omits significant costs – including, but not limited to, additional infrastructure to support the less density electric generation and omits the costs of back up generation and costs of maintaining frequency and reliability in the grid
These are well known errors in the computation of LCOE, yet advocates continue to repeat the errors, demonstrating the advocates dishonesty and/or their inability to comprehend basic engineering and cost analysis.
System costs of wind and solar kick in somewhere above 10% penetration.
Appell’s citation :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#/media/File:3-Learning-curves-for-electricity-prices.png
due diligence prior to posting – Appell apparently did not notice that the last graph in the wikipedia link showed Denmarks cost of wind energy
Odd thing it was based on wind blowing at 50 meters per second.
That is 69 miles per hour –
Any guesses on the validity of the rest of the analysis
Jim, this notion of desiring global warming to reduce deaths due to cold is so absurdly, laughably ridiculous it means I can’t take you seriously about anything.
And Jim, so much for “CO2 fertilizing plants:”
“Record-high temperatures in the Pacific Northwest and other parts of the West Coast along with prolonged drought in those areas and the Upper Midwest are stressing crops and livestock and raising concerns about irrigation supplies as conditions persist.
“Some fruit berry crops in the key Pacific Northwest producing region have been damaged or deemed not adequate to harvest. Apples and other tree fruits have been “sunburned” to the point of reduced value or will be shifted from retail to processing.
“In northeast Oregon, winter wheat harvest started,” the Oregon USDA field office said. “Yields were low, and quality was poor. Spring crops were in very poor shape due to the high temperatures and drought conditions. Blueberry crop harvest was condensed with the hot weather due to early, mid and late season varieties maturing together. Raspberry crops had a lot of damage. Cherry crop harvest was hit hard. Vegetable crops were fine where there was good water supply. Late summer and fall water availability did not look good for grass, vegetable, garlic and carrot seed fields.”
“In Washington, the state USDA office reported “widespread damage to raspberries and blueberries. High temperatures creased issues for orchards with little labor to get fruit off before heat affected the quality.” Fingers were crossed so far for the state’s apple crop with harvest still a few weeks away. Washington is the nation’s largest apple producing state. The state’s cherry crop was expected still to be good, but not the bumper crop originally expected.”
Food Business News 7/16/21
https://www.foodbusinessnews.net/articles/19120-drought-heat-wreak-havoc-on-western-crops
“The fundamental problem with wind and solar is energy density. ”
That is a problem. But the biggest problem is intermittency.
For example, in the US Southwest we have enough undeveloped land to generate all of our electrical demands with wind and solar. But we have no way to store it economically.
That said, the energy density certainly translates into costs, include horrible aesthetic costs.
Low capacity factors can be balanced with hydro, renewable gas, geothermally, gas peaking plants…
Well, David, the CO2 level was about 419 ppm just before the “heat” dome and was about 419 ppm just after the “heat” dome, and yet there is no “heat” dome. I would conclude that CO2 has no effect on “heat” domes.
mesocyclone: That said, the energy density certainly translates into costs, include horrible aesthetic costs.
Anything like ugly smog over Atlanta?
https://beveritt.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/atlanta-smog.jpg
joe wrote Anyone using Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) as a valid assessment of the actual cost of various sources of electric generation is an idiot.
Indeed a recent report on LCOE analysis says that “renewable energies such as solar, wind and battery storage are far cheaper than believed, but that they are already outcompeting coal, natural gas, nuclear, and hydro power.”
“Fossil Fuels Are Wildly More Expensive Than Previously Thought, Study Says Overinflated fossil fuel investments might be a ‘worthless’ bubble waiting to trigger the next crash, while renewables seem more appealing than ever,” Nafeez Ahmed, Vice 3/11/21.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjpqyw/fossil-fuels-are-wildly-more-expensive-than-previously-thought-study-says
The report is
“The Great Stranding: How Inaccurate Mainstream LCOE Estimates are Creating a Trillion-Dollar Bubble in Conventional Energy Assets,” ReThinkX
https://www.rethinkx.com/energy-lcoe
If you care to add wildly inflated costs of ‘externalities’. Energy is the cornucopia that makes civilisation possible. Whatever is imagined it costs the truth is that it is worth much more.
I am all for an orderly transition to low cost low carbon energy but we are not technologically there. There should be R&D on technical innovation across sectors – energy, transport, industry, residential and agriculture and forestry. But there is no justification for deploying technology that cannot work at the scale required or at a reasonable cost.
The last graphic in this Lazard’s presentation tells a more realistic story.
https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-and-levelized-cost-of-storage-2020/
RIE: “Low capacity factors can be balanced with hydro, renewable gas, geothermally, gas peaking plants…”
I’d put it differently: low capacity factors MUST be balanced with…
But the problem is both the low capacity factors, and the high variability in output. The way you deal with that is expensive. The best way I’ve seen is variable output nuclear plants – which are being used in Europe.
But still, you end up having to invest in, and maintain, extra capital equipment in order to deal with the deficiencies of the intermittent sources. That is a major economic problem, which is why the intermittency is the biggest problem. At least, to an engineer like myself.
The low energy density is more of an aesthetic problem – you end up using up putting ugly facilities in a lot more land than you do with other sources, especially nuclear.
The land area required for 100% wind and solar is most of the country.
The other sources I mentioned have low capacity factors but are dispatchable. Save them for high demand periods. High cost gas peaking plants are needed – as little as possible.
Dominion Energy is currently a green island in an ocean of red in my portfolio – with very low volumes traded on markets generally. .
https://investors.dominionenergy.com/stock-information/stock-price/default.aspx
‘Dominion Energy is building a clean
and sustainable energy future for
our customers, communities, and you,
our shareholders. Whether through the
largest offshore wind development
in the Western Hemisphere, or an
ambitious solar and storage buildout,
or the nation’s largest investment
in renewable natural gas, your
company is committed to combating
climate change and serving 7 million
customers safely and reliably while
keeping rates affordable. Onward to
net zero: We have cut enterprise wide carbon-equivalent emissions by about 55%.’
https://s2.q4cdn.com/510812146/files/doc_financials/2020/ar/Dominion_Energy_2020_Summary_Annual_Report.pdf
Can they do it? They have a comprehensive package – including extending operation of their current nuclear fleet and ultimately deploying advanced nuclear reactors. I’m betting they can.
Appellmans response – Fossil Fuels Are Wildly More Expensive Than Previously Thought, Study Says Overinflated fossil fuel investments might be a ‘worthless’ bubble waiting to trigger the next crash, while renewables seem more appealing than ever,” Nafeez Ahmed, Vice 3/11/21.
The report is
“The Great Stranding: How Inaccurate Mainstream LCOE Estimates are Creating a Trillion-Dollar Bubble in Conventional Energy Assets,” ”
Appellman
If renewables are actually less expensive – perhaps you can explain why countries such as denmark & Germany have the highest electric costs in the industrialized world
https://www.statista.com/statistics/263492/electricity-prices-in-selected-countries/
Robert I. Ellison wrote: If you care to add wildly inflated costs of ‘externalities’.
In what way have they been “wildly inflated?”
GWPF Newsletter: https://mailchi.mp/2551963e24c7/eu-climate-plan-dead-on-arrival-as-hungary-announces-it-will-veto-it-182654
EU climate plan dead on arrival as Hungary announces it will veto it
European Union rocked by wall of opposition over Net Zero costs
Maybe Hungary wants some 1000-year downpours too?
Or maybe they’re waiting for 10,000-year flooding.
In her post Judith wrote: Property along the coast is skyrocketing in value.
Climate concerns are already being priced into the market on the East Coast:
$14.1 billion in lost home values: Axios 8/23/18: “According to a new report by the nonprofit First Street Foundation, housing values in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut dropped $6.7 billion from 2005 to 2017 due to flooding related to sea level rise. Combined with their prior analysis of 5 southeastern coastal states with $7.4 billion in lost home value, the total loss in 8 states since 2005 has been $14.1 billion.”
https://www.axios.com/sea-level-rise-costing-billions-in-home-prices-7920a7a8-8db4-45b1-ad21-357c4d522fcb.html
—
Not only this, housing prices are being subsidized due to the threat of sea level rise and associated flooding:
$300 M in federal tax money to buy out homes along the NJ shore, in their “Blue Acres” program.
$400 M in Miami Beach to raise roads and improve dunes, paid for by increased utility fees, state taxes and federal taxes.
$48.3 M awarded from Louisiana Office of Community Development, Disaster Recovery Unit (OCD-DRU) to move 99 residents off Isle de Jean Charles, Louisiana.
$30 M – NOAA teaming up with other public agencies as well as private entities to provide $30 million in new grants to support coastal resilience projects in 23 states and U.S. territories.
$1.7 M in Newtok, Alaska, where FEMA is buying homes because of climate change. Asking for $150 M.
…and this is just what I’ve seen by casually reading the news, not from any research.
Here’s more about housing prices in south Florida that I just discovered while reading WaPo right now — an economics paper that finds an impact:
“In this paper, we explore dynamic changes in the capitalization of sea level rise (SLR) risk in housing and mortgage markets. Our results suggest a disconnect in coastal Florida real estate: From 2013-2018, home sales volumes in the most-SLR-exposed communities declined 16-20% relative to less-SLR-exposed areas, even as their sale prices grew in lockstep. Between 2018-2020, however, relative prices in these at-risk markets finally declined by roughly 5% from their peak. Lender behavior cannot reconcile these patterns, as we show that both all-cash and mortgage-financed purchases have similarly contracted, with little evidence of increases in loan denial or securitization. We propose a demand-side explanation for our findings where prospective buyers have become more pessimistic about climate change risk than prospective sellers. The lead-lag relationship between transaction volumes and prices in SLR-exposed markets is consistent with dynamics at the peak of prior real estate bubbles.”
Neglected No More: Housing Markets, Mortgage Lending, and Sea Level Rise, Benjamin J. Keys & Philip Mulder, National Bureau of Economic Research, WORKING PAPER 27930, DOI 10.3386/w27930
ISSUE DATE October 2020
https://www.nber.org/papers/w27930
Wrong link … here’s the right one …
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468013320300474
those numbers are daunting….
Yep. People shouldn’t build where land is sinking.
If sea level rise is the problem, why is the highest risk of flooding in the middle of the country?
https://firststreet.org/mission/
The subsidence rates are -2.151 and -3.076 mm/yr. The absolute rates of rise of the sea level are +0.7 and +1.0 mm/yr. The relative sea-level acceleration, reliable only in The Battery, is about +0.008 mm/yr².
https://www.triplepundit.com/story/2016/new-york-city-sinking-and-no-one-knows-what-do/22891
Jim2 – I am not going to agree or disagree with the assessment of SLR in the Battery/NYC tide gauge.
Assuming that it is 3.0mm (ish) comparable with the global rate of SLR, (assumed only for purposes of this discussion)
it would be astonishing that David Appell would believehis computation of 9.8mm annual SLR rise at charlestown SC would be accurate. Charlestown is only 700 miles south, so experiencing a 3x delta would be huge.
Joe: Why don’t you just download the Charleston SC sea level data, calculate the linear trend of the last 20 years, and tell us what you get.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8665530
Like so many things climate, it’s just a wild ass guess!
“Vertical land motion’s a big deal, and we don’t really have a great handle on the differences regionally,” Marcy said.
NOAA used surveying methods to measure the dip at its own station, but that number says little about what’s happening across the region. Matt Wellslager of the South Carolina Geodetic Survey called local estimates a “WAG” — in other words, a “wild ass guess.”
https://www.postandcourier.com/rising-waters/a-missing-piece-in-charlestons-sea-level-rise-puzzle-is-whats-happening-on-land/article_a6036d2e-db2f-11ea-88d7-ef6eea89efde.html
The subsidence rates are -2.151 and -3.076 mm/yr. The absolute rates of rise of the sea level are +0.7 and +1.0 mm/yr. The relative sea-level acceleration, reliable only in The Battery, is about +0.008 mm/yr².
Here are the data for The Battery:
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8518750
The site gives a long-term trend, starting in 1856, of 2.88 mm/yr. I calculate 2.89 mm/yr as of April 2020.
The Boretti 2021 paper gives an acceleration for NYC of 0.008 mm/yr2. For The Battery I get 0.010 mm/yr2.
OK so far, really good matches.
But for The Battery, the linear trend over the last 30 years is 4.3 mm/yr (1.4 ft/century). Over the last 20 years it’s 5.8 mm/yr (1.9 ft/century).
So long-term trends can are deceptive.
And acceleration matters. With what I calculated, the sea level rise in 2100, relative to 1856, will be 0.80 meters higher.
Let’s try that one again …
Wrong link … here’s the right one …
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468013320300474
I read this blog after reading the linked article. I can’t believe the number of apologists for China when they have the most coal generators and are building more at a time when we have a sitting president who doesn’t seem to want us to produce domestic oil and gas-natural gas has been a big game changer in terms of cleaner fuel. At any rate, it would be nice if some of the bright boys and girls intent on sending us back to the Stone Age by taking away our ability to live comfortably and reasonably in modern homes would at least scan this article. It points out how western nations aren’t the main source of global pollution problems and between the lines you can read that these are the same nations the UN wants exempted from having to do anything.
“..China, which has not lived up to its emissions pledges even as the U.S. has decreased its GHG emissions, “is also building and financing hundreds of other coal-fired power plants in countries such as Turkey, Vietnam, Indonesia, Philippines, Egypt, and Bangladesh.”
A few months after the Canadian report, Yale Environment 360 noted that “despite pledges to cut emissions,” China, responsible for 28% of GHG emissions though it makes up less than 19% of the world’s population, has been “on a coal spree.”
https://bit.ly/3igzfFO
China has not lived up to any climate standards because there is no climate crisis. While “pollution” is a real issue, the climate issue is fake — and China knows it — as we should … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1Iu9D5RhqQ
Mimzy, let’s go over this again:
China, Turkey, Vietnam, and the other countries you listed all emit less per capita than does the US. An individual American doesn’t have some inherent right to emit more CO2 than does an individual Chinese, Turk, Vietnamese, etc.
The US has already emitted more than twice as much CO2 as has China, in total. That’s CO2 in the atmosphere that’s created the climate change we’re experiencing now, and has acidified the ocean up to now. And it can’t be ignored in any discussion of equity.
A significant fraction of China’s emissions go towards producing products consumed in the US and Europe. We have outsourced some of our emissions to China.
From 2017, here’s a great article on the subject. It says, US emissions are 6% higher and Chinese emissions are 13% lower CO2 transfers are taken into account [globally].
https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-worlds-largest-co2-importers-exporters
The US is as much a part of the problem as is China, the EU, India, and other large emitters — more, historically — and in no way can we point a finger at China and blame it for stalling progress.
CO2e emissions have to be decoupled from economic growth everywhere.
“China, Turkey, Vietnam, and the other countries you listed all emit less per capita than does the US. An individual American doesn’t have some inherent right to emit more CO2 than does an individual Chinese, Turk, Vietnamese, etc.
The US has already emitted more than twice as much CO2 as has China, in total. That’s CO2 in the atmosphere that’s created the climate change we’re experiencing now, and has acidified the ocean up to now. And it can’t be ignored in any discussion of equity.
A significant fraction of China’s emissions go towards producing products consumed in the US and Europe. We have outsourced some of our emissions to China. ”
None of which has any relevance. Your entire argument can be summed up as “US bad, China not bad.” And that is pathetically wrong.
China’s population is 4.35 times that of the US.
https://rhg.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Figure-1.png
China never promised to reduce emissions.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2020/11/per-caita-emission-change-e1619207846264.png
Many high efficiency/low emission coal fired plants are being planned and built in ASEAN nations.
You are hard done by? Boohoo.
mesocyclone: Your entire argument can be summed up as “US bad, China not bad.”
Not at all, but to put all focus on China now is unfair. The US has had a widely disproportionate role in establishing climate change, and Americans are still climate criminals relative to the rest of the world, using the atmosphere as a garbage dump with little regard for how it affects anyone else in the world.
And that is morally wrong.
What a risibly pathetic attempt at moral blackmail. Americans are ‘climate criminals’ because you reached a level of development aspired to by the developing world using whatever energy technology they see fit. As per the Paris accord. I say encourage them – as we can’t stop them. The moral failure is to try to stop them.
I’d apply the same rules to everyone – but then you would need to win the local politics and not just whinge about it.
David
Are you willing to acknowledge that the fracking gas revolution has caused the USA to decrease its carbon emissions more than any other advanced economy?
While Germany with it’s Energiewende has gone in the opposite direction – vastly increased carbon emissions due to its utterly irrational closure of nuclear generation based on the fear of a force 10 earthquake and tsunami coming from the Baltic sea? (Or maybe lake Constance?)
Or does your belief structure oblige willful blindness of these facts?
Robert, get your facts straight. I wrote, “Americans are still climate criminals relative to the rest of the world.” That’s the countries who will go under from sea level rise, who have and will have millions of climate refugees, their homes burned out in wildfires, their homes lost to sea level rise for now and for centuries, and on and on and on.
You continually fail to understand all of this.
The least American can do is admit their share of responsibility for existing climate change, regardless of what it got them, admit what it has cost others, and begin to make amends and reparations. And truly lead the way to a sustainable future, which it is by no means doing now.
The same rules apply to everyone? Then let’s apply them, and not begin counting today just because you or others find it convenient to blame China so as to ignore your own sins — of which Australia’s are even worse on a per capita basis.
Phil Salmon commented: Are you willing to acknowledge that the fracking gas revolution has caused the USA to decrease its carbon emissions more than any other advanced economy?
No.
Because there’s been a mysterious acceleration in methane concentration in the atmosphere since about 2006, and some scientists are now wondering if this isn’t coming from methane leaks from fracking:
“Fracking may be a bigger climate problem than we thought: The mysterious recent spike in methane emissions? It just might be US fracking,” Vox.com, Aug 29, 2019
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/8/15/20805136/climate-change-fracking-methane-emissions
Phil: more: “Is Natural Gas Really Helping the U.S. Cut Emissions?
Methane leaks throughout the supply chain make the “cleaner” fuel more damaging to the climate than government data suggests,” Inside Climate News, 1/30/2020
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/30012020/natural-gas-methane-carbon-emissions/
“The industry points to data showing the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions are at their lowest level in decades, as coal power generation has been replaced by gas, which produces about half the carbon dioxide emissions when burned, and by renewable energy sources like wind and solar.
“But experts agree that those official figures understate emissions of methane, the primary component of natural gas and a potent greenhouse gas released in leaks throughout the oil and gas development supply chain. And while there’s uncertainty about how much methane is leaking, several studies show that the benefits of the switch from coal to gas over the last decade are smaller than government data suggests, perhaps substantially smaller.
“Many oil and gas companies have pledged to reduce their methane emissions. But beyond the methane leaks, emissions from new petrochemical plants and liquid natural gas export facilities in coming years, spurred by the gas boom, are set to surge.
“With costs of renewable energy sources like wind and solar now competitive with natural gas, many experts who have studied the industry’s emissions say that even though the switch from coal to gas has likely provided some climate benefits, marginal as they may be, it’s harder to argue that it can continue doing so in the future.”
David
Classic bob-and-weave
You’re dodging the question about reduced CO2 emissions by bringing in methane.
Is it really such a painful question?
So suddenly CO2 isn’t even relevant any more?
(Hint – it never has been relevant – possible grounds for agreement :-)
I’m disappointed by your evasiveness on this.
One wonders what exotic new pollutants will be discharged to the atmosphere with the massive ramp up of electric battery and hydrogen manufacture.
What a colossal exercise in futility this all is.
“Was it for this that clay grew tall?”
Phil Salmon: You’re dodging the question about reduced CO2 emissions by bringing in methane.
You’re dodging the issue, which is how US emissions effect climate change. That means you have to consider CO2e, not just CO2, so you have to include methane emissions. There’s been a mysterious acceleration in the methane concentration in the atmosphere, and some people suspect methane leaks from fracking. (Read the article, if you haven’t already.)
It does no good if the US decreases its CO2 emissions while increasing its methane emissions by an equivalent amount of CO2e. (It also doesn’t do any good by outsourcing our CO2 emissions to China.)
https://cdn.countercurrents.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/methane.jpg
“There’s been a mysterious acceleration in the methane concentration in the atmosphere..” – David Appell
This fits the hypothesis of CO2 increasing after warming of the higher latitudes due to gravitational forcing. The methane increases too.
New physics shouldn’t be ignored as the viable alternative to manmade global warming.
Isotopic evidence “clearly indicates” that the increase in atmospheric methane is from microbes and *not* from the burning of fossil fuels:
….
Methane emitted by microbial sources (also known as biogenic) tends to be lighter, with less of the carbon isotope C13 relative to C12, whereas methane from fossil fuels (thermogenic) and from burning biomass tends to be isotopically heavier. Measurements by INSTAAR and other research institutions clearly indicate that the atmosphere’s methane is becoming more depleted in the isotope C13. That can potentially winnow down the list of suspects.
….
https://www.wired.com/story/atmospheric-methane-levels-are-going-up-and-no-one-knows-why/
A potential suspect, which has not been considered, is an increase in microbial action from the seabed due to an increase in tidal forcing.
Alan Lowey: This fits the hypothesis of CO2 increasing after warming of the higher latitudes due to gravitational forcing.
How does gravity increase warming?
Alan Lowey: Isotopic evidence “clearly indicates” that the increase in atmospheric methane is from microbes and *not* from the burning of fossil fuels
That’s not what the WIRED article says that you linked to. (Thanks for the link.)
It says no one is sure how much is coming from a few potential sources: oil and gas production, livestock, microbes, and disappearing methane sinks.
It does say this:
“The culminating piece of research, published in Science last July, drew on ground-based measurements and observations from aircraft to estimate that methane emissions from the sector are 60 percent higher than estimates from inventories maintained by the federal Environmental Protection Agency. That figure amounts to a leak rate of 2.3 percent of total natural gas production in the US. A leak rate of just 4 percent would cancel out the climate benefits of burning gas instead of coal to generate electricity.”
https://www.wired.com/story/atmospheric-methane-levels-are-going-up-and-no-one-knows-why/
When you build things on sand or on swampland, there is a natural sinking that occurs. New Orleans was below sea level in 1965 when Hurricane Betsy hit-the previous big storm to flood the Vieux Carre. Corps of Engineers told NOLA officials then they needed to reinforce levees and stop planting trees and building parks with money used to maintain levees. So what happened? NOLA officials treated the money like a slush fund and funded projects that bought votes. When you pave over a swampy area you must consider run off-especially when you get rain more often than not all summer long. The same thing is a problem with overdevelopment far too close to shorelines. Building high rises on sand foundations is foolhardy at best. Building Malibu houses on sandstone bluffs and then acting shocked when they fall during a mild earthquake is eqaully dumb. Until we stop letting people build in harms way for the sake of making money, these things will continue to happen no matter what happens with the climate.
I fully agree Mimzy. I’ve been telling friends and family that all along. If you live below sea-level and you’re near the sea, you live in harms way. And for those who choose to live where hurricanes live, you’d better be sure your sea-side villa is “above” the max storm surge elevation — and then some. In the meantime, I find John Kerry’s efforts to save us all is very entertaining … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6J4l3g4ygc
An excellent article, thanks, reducing climate alarmism to its essentials.
How would you explain the complexity and uncertainty surrounding climate.. ?
How about – it resembles a living system (in terms of emergent adaptiveness):
https://ptolemy2.wordpress.com/2021/07/08/emergent-thermal-homeostasis-a-new-paradigm-for-ex-pluribus-unum-climate-stability/
The alarmists have won, their Luddite agenda of de-industrialisation is now policy in most advanced economies.
The activists of yesterday are the apparatchiks of today.
The automobile industry has been destroyed, replaced by toy electric cars for which batteries won’t ever exist and nor a charging infrastructure or the electricity needed for it. These new tommy-cookers will however burn to death thousands every year in inextinguishable lithium fires, stranding many others to die of cold and exposure along highways of death.
Forcing home heating to depend on gone-with-the-wind renewable electricity alone will condemn – has already condemned – millions to freeze to death in unheated homes in winters which won’t be getting any less cold.
The unfolding next few decades will quickly become black comedy – farsical economic chaos and destruction will follow. A voluntary depression driven by religious activism something resembling prohibition but a thousand times more senselessly destructive and counter-productive. And then the climate world war in which America and China will destroy each-other.
The misanthropic elitist left are now gaining the free rein to indulge their contempt of common humanity to it’s fullest and most lethal extent.
Ditto — and we can thank Bloomberg and the other alarmist media for contributing to climate hysteria … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgqIm-misws
The only crisis humanity is facing is the steady March by virtually every government towards increasingly totalitarian rulership.
Exactly what I’ve observed — and so I just uploaded this … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvzmHLCIyPc
Johnathan Galt (sounds like a not-very-clever fake name of a high school student) wrote: The only crisis humanity is facing is the steady March by virtually every government towards increasingly totalitarian rulership.
You want to see totalitarianism? Try living in a 3-4 C warmer world with sea level coming up everywhere, all major coastal cities drowning, no stable coastline anywhere, oceans continuing to steadily acidify, ecosystems collapsing or gone everywhere, more hardcore droughts, ever more heatwaves, ever few water supplies, water tables dropping, snowpacks going quickly, wars being fought over water, climate refugees flooding in at all northern borders, and on and on and on…. just imagine the crackdowns that governments will be putting in place THEN, the regulations being put in place THEN, the restrictions being put in place THEN.
That’s the trend we’re on. We’ve been on it now for 50 years.
You know this. You do.
These will look like the salad days of humanity.
JACurry’ comment – “Climate change is a grand narrative in which manmade climate change has become the dominant cause of societal problems. Everything that goes wrong reinforces the conviction that that there is only one thing we can do prevent societal problems – stop burning fossil fuels.”
Well clearly that’s flat-out wrong.
I don’t understand how anyone can look at society today and conclude this. You need to get out more, Judith. Much more.
David
From inside your left wing bubble, you have little idea what it looks like from the outside.
Out of interest, what issue is more urgent than climate change?
Hatter, Judith’s quote was about *cause*, not issues.
David Appell: JACurry’ comment – “Climate change is a grand narrative in which manmade climate change has become the dominant cause of societal problems. Everything that goes wrong reinforces the conviction that that there is only one thing we can do prevent societal problems – stop burning fossil fuels.”
Well clearly that’s flat-out wrong.
I suppose you can query the word “dominant”, but is anything cited more often as a cause of recent social distress than climate change? Jews maybe? Systemic White Supremacy? Marxism is cited as a cause of social distress in USSR, Cuba, China; and a threat to everywhere else. But in my reading climate change is cited frequently as a cause of societal problems, and it may indeed be a dominant narrative. It is a prominent theme in pronouncements from the leaders of the US Democratic Party.
Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy Roundup #463 – Watts Up With That?
This is a great summary, it would be an even better resource if there were citations for everything. Thanks Curry!
Pingback: Judith Curry: het klimaatdebat in 5 minuten samengevat | peterholland765
1. It’s the sun not the man.
2. The climate change ‘narrative’ is based on belief in the sanctity and holiness of climate models written by ‘expert’ modellers. Experts who are allergic to model testing, validation and falsification and who slander people as ‘deniers’ when we demand such rigor.
3. The entire climate debate is often conducted in ‘bad faith’
4. Climate sensitivity is an artifact of assumptions and model mania. It is not a real thing.
Completely agree. The “global warming” movement is really a “global politics” agenda in disguise … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvzmHLCIyPc
Completely agree also.
test
If I had five minutes, I’d want to focus on data insufficiency and inconsistency.
1. How do we actually define ‘global temperature’?
We haven’t even agreed whether it is a global average of a network of surface land temperature stations; a combined average of surface land temperature, surface ocean temperatures and surface ice temperatures; or a weighted average of various atmospheric temperatures in addition to those mentioned previously as well as the average temperature throughout the whole depth of our oceans. We haven’t agreed how to even go about deciding what the right way to make such a calculation is and we certainly haven’t considered energy inputs to our ‘earth’s surface system’ from sources within the core of the earth.
2. How long have we actually been making rigorous temperature measurements and how relevant is that in terms of the speed at which climate changes?
Actually, we’ve only really been making reliable earth surface temperature measurements for under 200 years, reliable measurements in the atmosphere using radiosonde balloons for around 70 years and regular measurements using satellite-based systems for about 40 years. Our measurements of ocean temperature are extremely incomplete in historical terms and our study of ice masses only really started in earnest when satellites were put up into orbit.
Given that studies of ice cores and deep sea cores seems to suggest that climate has cyclical beats which range from a few hundred years to hundreds of thousands of years, our rigorous measurements have been going on for about as long as it takes to give birth to a baby. 24 hrs isn’t very long compared to 9 months of gestation and even less compared to the 80 odd years one hopes that the newborn will exist on the earth.
Do you predict Harvard entrance based on the nature of initial crying and suckling, my friends??
3. Do we actually understand the nature of the feedback mechanisms which cause cyclical beats to be detectable in the proxy climate records?
Sure, we understand some of them, but we certainly don’t understand all of them. We don’t understand the complexity of different forms of el Nino and la Nina, for a start. We don’t understand the role of massive volcano eruptions and huge earthquakes on global climate, simply because there have been no data points for us to study with our new high tech analytical suites. We haven’t experienced a ‘Maunder Minimum’ nor a ‘Carrington event’ in this era of high tech science. We’ve only been measuring glacial retreat, we’ve not had the chance to measure glacial advances just yet. Although we’ve chopped down an enormous number of forests, we’ve not until recently started analagously large replanting schemes. The 21st century may tell us something about what effects they have…..
4. Do we actually understand what ‘normal natural variability’ means in terms of regional climate, global climate and extreme weather events? What IS a 1 in 1000 year event if we’ve never experienced one? How do we decide what one is if we only have 100 years of detailed records?
5. Finally, do we have any idea whatsoever what the latest wireless-related global revolution will do to the entirety of the natural world that depends upon such frequencies to control growth/germination/seeding etc events??
Now there is one set of unknown unknowns that will probably only become known unknowns by 2030.
This whole “manmade” climate change narrative is all base on one premise, which climate alarmists are unwilling to quantify … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cE6rAWcjTyw
You were born. The sun rises. There is light. The sun sets. There is darkness. You will die.