by Ross McKitrick
I have a new paper in the peer-reviewed journal Environmetrics discussing biases in the “optimal fingerprinting” method which climate scientists use to attribute climatic changes to greenhouse gas emissions. This is the third in my series of papers on flaws in standard fingerprinting methods: blog posts on the first two are here and here.
Climatologists use a statistical technique called Total Least Squares (TLS), also called orthogonal regression, in their fingerprinting models to fix a problem in ordinary regression methods that can lead to the influence of external forcings being understated. My new paper argues that in typical fingerprinting settings TLS overcorrects and imparts large upward biases, thus overstating the impact of GHG forcing.
While the topic touches on climatology, for the most part the details involve regression methods which is what empirical economists like me are trained to do. I teach regression in my econometrics courses and I have studied and used it all my career. I mention this because if anyone objects that I’m not a “climate scientist” my response is: you’re right, I’m an economist which is why I’m qualified to talk about this.
I have previously shown that when the optimal fingerprinting regression is misspecified by leaving out explanatory variables that should be in it, TLS is biased upwards (other authors have also proven this theoretically). In that study I noted that when anthropogenic and natural forcings (ANTH and NAT) are negatively correlated the positive TLS bias increases. My new paper focuses just on this issue since, in practice, climate model-generated ANTH and NAT forcing series are negatively correlated. I show that in this case, even if no explanatory variables have been omitted from the regression, TLS estimates of forcing coefficients are usually too large. Among other things, since TLS-estimated coefficients are plugged into carbon budget models, this will result in a carbon budget being biased too small.
Background
In 1999 climatologists Myles Allen and Simon Tett published a paper in Climate Dynamics in which they proposed a Generalized Least Squares or GLS regression model for detecting the effects of forcings on climate. The IPCC immediately embraced the Allen&Tett method and in the 2001 3rd Assessment Report hailed it as the way to show a causal link between greenhouse forcing and observed climate change. It’s been relied upon ever since by the “fingerprinting” community and the IPCC. In 2021 I published a Comment in Climate Dynamics showing that the Allen & Tett method has theoretical flaws and that the arguments supporting its claim to be a valid method were false. I provided a non-technical explainer through the Global Warming Policy Foundation website. Myles Allen made a brief reply, to which I responded and then economist Richard Tol provided further comments. The exchange is at the GWPF website. My comment was published by Climate Dynamics in summer 2021, has been accessed over 21,000 times and its Altmetric score remains in the top 1% of all scientific articles published since that date. Two and a half years later Allen and Tett have yet to submit a reply.
Note: I just saw that a paper by Chinese statisticians Hanyue Chen et al. partially responding to my critique was published by Climate Dynamics. This is weird. In fall 2021 Chen et al submitted the paper to Climate Dynamics and I was asked to provide one of the referee reports, which I did. The paper was rejected. Now it’s been published even though the handling editor confirmed it was rejected. I’ve queried Climate Dynamics to find out what’s going on and they are investigating.
One of the arguments against my critique was that the Allen and Tett paper had been superseded by Allen and Stott 2001. While that paper incorporated the same incorrect theory from Allen and Tett 1999, its refinement was to replace the GLS regression step with TLS as a solution to the problem that the climate model-generated ANTH and NAT “signals” are noisy estimates of the unobservable true signals. In a regression model if your explanatory variables have random errors in them, GLS yields coefficient estimates that tend to be biased low.
This problem is well-known in econometrics. Long before Allen and Stott 2001, econometricians had shown that a method called Instrumental Variables (IV) could remedy it and yield unbiased and consistent coefficient estimates. Allen and Stott didn’t mention IV; instead they proposed TLS and the entire climatology field simply followed their lead. But does TLS solve the problem?
No one has been able to prove that it does except under very restrictive assumptions and you can’t be sure if they hold or not. If they don’t hold, then TLS generates unreliable results, which is why researchers in other fields don’t like it. The problem is that TLS requires more information than the data set contains. This requires the researcher to make arbitrary assumptions to reduce the number of parameters needing to be estimated. The most common assumption is that the error variances are the same on the dependent and explanatory variables alike.
The typical application involves regressing a dependent “Y” variable on a bunch of explanatory “X” variables, and in the errors-in-variables case we assume the latter are unavailable. Instead we observe “W’s” which are noisy approximations to the X’s. Suppose we assume the variances of the errors on the X’s are all the same and equal S times the variance of the errors on the Y variable. If this turns out to be true, so S=1, and we happen to assume S=1, TLS can in some circumstances yield unbiased coefficients. But in general we don’t know if S=1, and if it doesn’t, TLS can go completely astray.
In the limited literature discussing properties of TLS estimators it is usually assumed that the explanatory variables are uncorrelated. As part of my work on the fingerprinting method I obtained a set of model-generated climate signals from CMIP5 models and I noticed that the ANTH and NAT signals are always negatively correlated (the average correlation coefficient is -0.6). I also noticed that the signals don’t have the same variances (which is a separate issue from the error terms not having the same variances).
The experiment
In my new paper I set up an artificial fingerprinting experiment in which I know the correct answer in advance and I can vary several parameters which affect the outcome: the error variance ratio S; the correlation between the W’s; and the relative variances of the X’s. I ran repeated experiments based in turn on the assumption that the true value of beta (the coefficient connecting GHG’s to observed climate change) is 0 or 1. Then I measured the biases that arise when using TLS and GLS (GLS in this case is equivalent to OLS, or ordinary least squares).
These graphs show the coefficient biases using OLS when the experiment is run on simulated X’s with average relative variances (see the paper for versions where the relative variances are lower or higher).
The left panel is the case when the true value of beta = 0 (which implies no influence of GHGs on climate) and the right is the case when true beta=1 (which implies the GHG influence is “detected” and the climate models are consistent with observations). The lines aren’t the same length because not all parameter combinations are theoretically possible. The horizontal axis measures the correlation between the observed signals, which in the data I’ve seen is always less than -0.2. The vertical axis measures the bias in the fingerprinting coefficient estimate. The colour coding refers to the assumed value of S. Blue is S=0, which is the situation in which the X’s are measured without error so OLS is unbiased, which is why the blue line tracks the horizontal (zero bias) axis. From black to grey corresponds to S rising from 0 to just under 1, and red corresponds to S=1. Yellow and green correspond to S >1.
As you can see, if true beta=0, OLS is unbiased; but if beta = 1 or any other positive value, OLS is biased downward as expected. However the bias goes to zero as S goes to 0. In practice, you can shrink S by using averages of multiple ensemble runs.
Here are the biases for TLS in the same experiments:
There are some notable differences. First, the biases are usually large and positive, and they don’t necessarily go away even if S=0 (or S=1). If the true value of beta =1, then there are cases in which the TLS coefficient is unbiased. But how would you know if you are in that situation? You’d need to know what S is, and what the true value of beta is. But of course you don’t (if you did, you wouldn’t need to run the regression!)
What this means is that if an optimal fingerprinting regression yields a large positive coefficient on the ANTH signal this might mean GHG’s affect the climate, or it might mean that they don’t (the true value of beta=0) and TLS is simply biased. The researcher cannot tell which is the case just by looking at the regression results. In the paper I explain some diagnostics that help indicate if TLS can be used, but ultimately relying on TLS requires assuming you are in a situation in which TLS is reliable.
The results are particularly interesting when the true value of beta=0. A fingerprinting, or “signal detection” test starts by assuming beta=0 then constructing a t-statistic using the estimated coefficients. OLS and GLS are fine for this since if beta=0 the coefficient estimates are unbiased. But if beta=0 a t-statistic constructed using the TLS coefficient can be severely biased. The only cases in which TLS is reliably unbiased occur when beta is not zero. But you can’t run a test of beta=0 that depends on the assumption that beta is not zero. Any such test is spurious and meaningless.
Which means that the past 20 years worth of “signal detection” claims are likely meaningless unless steps were taken in the original articles to prove the suitability of TLS or verify its results with another nonbiased estimator.
I was unsuccessful in getting this paper published in the two climate science journals to which I submitted it. In both cases the point on which the paper was rejected was a (climatologist) referee insisting S is known in fingerprinting applications and always equals 1/root(n) where n is the number of runs in an ensemble mean. But S only takes that value if, for each ensemble member, S is assumed to equal 1. One reviewer conceded the possibility that S might be unknown but pointed out that it’s long been known TLS is unreliable in that case and I haven’t provided a solution to the problem.
In my submission to Environmetrics I provided the referee comments that had led to its rejection in climate journals and explained how I expanded the text to state why it is not appropriate to assume S=1. I also asked that at least one reviewer be a statistician, and as it turned out both were. One of them, after noting that statisticians and econometricians don’t like TLS, added:
“it seems to me that the target audience of the paper are practitioners using TLS quite acritically for climatological applications. How large is this community and how influential are conclusions drawn on the basis of TLS, say in the scientific debate concerning attribution?”
In my reply I did my best to explain its influence on the climatology field. I didn’t add, but could have, that 20 years’ worth of applications of TLS are ultimately what brought 100,000 bigwigs to Dubai for COP28 to demand the phaseout of the world’s best energy sources based on estimates of the role of anthropogenic forcings on the climate that are likely heavily overstated. Based on the political impact and economic consequences of its application, TLS is one of the most influential statistical methodologies in the world, despite experts viewing it as highly unreliable compared to readily available alternatives like IV.
Another reviewer said:
“TLS seems to generate always poor performances compared to the OLS. Nonetheless, TLS seems to be the ‘standard’ in fingerprint applications… why is the TLS so popular in physics-related applications?”
Good question! My guess is because it keeps generating answers that climatologists like and they have no incentive to come to terms with its weaknesses. But you don’t have to step far outside climatology to find genuine bewilderment that people use it instead of IV.
Conclusion
For more than 20 years climate scientists—virtually alone among scientific disciplines—have used TLS to estimate anthropogenic GHG signal coefficients despite its tendency to be unreliable unless some strong assumptions hold that in practice are unlikely to be true. Under conditions which easily arise in optimal fingerprinting, TLS yields estimates with large positive biases. Thus any study that has used TLS for optimal fingerprinting without verifying that it is appropriate in the specific data context has likely overstated the result.
In my paper I discuss how a researcher might go about trying to figure out whether TLS is justified in a specific application, but it’s not always possible. In many cases it would be better to use OLS even though it’s known to be biased downward. The problem is that TLS typically has even bigger biases in the opposite direction and there is no sure way of knowing how bad they are. These biases carry over to the topic of “carbon budgets” which are now being cited by courts in climate litigation including here in Canada. TLS-derived signal coefficients yield systematically underestimated carbon budgets.
The IV estimation method has been known at least since the 1960s to be asymptotically unbiased in the errors-in-variables case, yet climatologists don’t use it. So the predictable next question is why haven’t I done a fingerprinting regression using IV methods? I have, but it will be a while before I get the results written up and in the meantime the technique is widely known so anyone who wants to can try it and see what happens.
In other words, TLS is a curve fit.
Curve fits interpolate very well but they do not extrapolate well at all.
Depends on what the fit model is. Is it a physical causality, or a random mathematical abstraction?
the post-2000 CERES data suggests the answer lies in the clouds
Yeah, but the world is getting hotter very fast.
Impressive, George, no doubt your Science in Environmental Management degree in play. Any notable advances in landfill remediation these days?
Please Opine.
Snark appears after all arguments lose.
To date you’ve only presented an educational resume, George. Time to show some chops, gotta present a kind of counter argument before you can lose. The before essay lay before you, your pearl awaits.
“Time to show some chops, gotta present a kind of counter argument before you can lose.” Talking to yourself again, Karen?
Polly stumbling on the 110% proof again:
https://judithcurry.com/2023/12/16/climate-bookshelf-2023/#comment-997014
… your point? Try addressing the issue at hand, or is that too hard?
Is it really … or is it just the natural trajectory of the climate moving through space and time? We have no idea. In any case, hardly a reason to impoverish the poor and middle class by spending trillions and trillions of dollars based on conjecture about a real or imaginary problem that, in any case, we cannot control.
Is this your field?
If not why not ask someone like me to guide you?
Yeah, Mike. Follow the lemmings!
I’m no scientist by any means. But I agree with everything you say Mike.
“Yeah, but the world is getting hotter very fast.”
Source: Daily Climate, December 17, 2023.
Hereby I peer reviewed the source :-)
Why does there continue to be a migration to the southern US and coastal real estate? I guess hot is relative.
No, it’s education, and it is absolute.
You have to “educate” people to know what hot is. Is that right George JK?
Silly snark is an adolescent response.
George would you tell someone who lived in Michigan who planned to retire to a coastal region in CA they would be making a mistake due to the certain climate change? Be honest.
Yes, California has cliffs and mountains on the coast in most places.
It ain’t flat like the East Coast.
Scientific evidence not models please. Stickto the post. Where can you prove it wrong.
To GEORGE J KAMBURGOOFOFF
+0.1 degree C. warming a decade is “getting hotter very fast”?
After no global warming from 2015 to mid-2023?
With the most warming since the 1970s in the colder nations of the N.H., mainly at night (TMIN), and mainly in the six coldest months of the year. That’s good news warming!
Example: Warmer winter nights in Siberia since the 1970s.
And no warming of Antarctica except from ocean currents and underseas volcanoes affecting the tiny peninsula.
Because the permanent temperature inversion over most of Antarctica means that more greenhouse gases there cause global COOLING on most of Antartica.
Sorry if this climate science is over your head. Go back to being frightened about the future climate lika a good leftist.
+0.1 degree C. warming a decade is “getting hotter very fast”?
Decadal GMST is now about +0.2 C/decade (try to keep up). And yes, that is very fast in the absence of the switching off and ON of the AMOC by ice sheet collapse/instability.
https://mega.nz/file/omdizYYK#14vzHFCUn6qgx2CEor3vcXNlt_RSld7t2QMHqAu1_nA
After no global warming from 2015 to mid-2023?
(Isn’t that verbal cherry-picking by classical data truncation?) Actually exponential growth (consistent with statistically significant acceleration shown in the above graphic) in warming on climatic time scales. Don’t let your eyes be fooled by internal variability.
https://mega.nz/file/EmE3GTjC#oyp0jXeQHZNC_fWu9jnxX8kMMRKlwqY_C0RQX03PH9E
PS ~ I don’t believe name calling and insults ever win arguments – more a demonstration of insecurity in one’s position and an expression of Adler’s inferiority-superiority complex.
To Glamon 1950
The UAH trend is 0.14 degrees C. since 1979 which rounds to 0.1, not 0.2. If including the lack of warming from 1940 to 1975, the number would more closer to 0.1 by adding 3.5 more decades.
The 2015 to mid-2023 pwriod is data mining with a purpose. That 8 year period included the LARGEST amount osf manmade CO2 emissions in history with no net warming, proving that CO2 levels do not control the climate like the temperature control on a thermostat.
And the internet was invented for insulting strangers — just ask Al Goe who invented the internet.
” Don’t let your eyes be fooled by internal variability.”
I also don’t let my mind get fooled by your verbal claptrap.
Al Gore did not say he invented the internet, that is just more lies. But he did give it to us with his legislation, when it was previously for the military only.
Which level of the atmosphere would that be? RSS, which uses the same data source as UAH, finds 0.215 K/decade. Which substantially agrees with my analysis of the HadCRUT 5.0.2.0 data for GMST, compiled from six different sources. Don’t let your personal bias and cherry-picking of an outlier, without a specified data set fool you – it doesn’t fool me.
https://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html
OffTheCliffHeadfirst,
Being silly gets you nowhere.
RSS utilizes a model for its temperature series, UAH does not.
RSS made a huge arbitrary adjustment to oncrease the rate of global warming in 2015/2015 to better match the surface numbers, because leftists were not happy with RSS.
That was science fraud and means RSS should be ignored
UAH is compiled by VOLUNTEER Ph.D. scientists who do not appear to have a climate alarmist agenda.
The integrity of the data owners / compilers is just as important as the data itself.
What say you about the arbitrary elimination of most of the significant global cooling from 1940 to 1975 AFTER 1975? Also science fraud, I say.
Follow the money and one invariably finds the truth. The climate mafia, special interest groups, and politicians are making stupefying amounts of money on what is likely a stunning grifting operation. There is zero probability that they have any desire to find where the truth lies; much too inconvenient for their wallets.
I invested my money in a solar system and a cheap EV eight years ago, and it paid back in three years in gasoline savings alone.
Do you still pay for electricity and gasoline?
So was it subsidized or did you use your own money? Is it still being subsidized by the rest of us?
Subsidies for petroleum worldwide are well over five TRILLION dollars.
“Subsidies for petroleum worldwide are well over five TRILLION dollars.”
Per what per century? They are very low in the form of tax breaks for exploration. Saudi Arabia has subsidies.
Look it up: annual petroleum subsidies.
You won’t believe me.
Looks like you just confirmed my point. Justifying gouging the poor and middle class because someone else is doing it evades the fundamental injustice.
I am middle class and life mainly on Social Security, which is why we invested to get our monthly payments down.
Why do you need to denigrate others?
Rob, currently 7 trillion/year.
https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/climate-change/energy-subsidies#:~:text=Globally%2C%20fossil%20fuel%20subsidies%20were%20%247%20trillion%20or,due%20to%20government%20support%20from%20surging%20energy%20prices.
The word “subsidy” redefined again. Just like “free speech”.
ganon
As usual, your attachment is highly biased and misleading as it includes unreliable external costs.
Goerge
That number is inaccurate as it contains overstated damage to the environment.
Show me.
I don’t want a conservative “analysis”.
And your attachments aren’t anything at all. I trust the IMF analysis much more than your personal denials.
WHAT??
George J Kamburoff | December 18, 2023 at 2:12 pm |
Subsidies for petroleum worldwide are well over five TRILLION dollars.
George K – The claim of $5trillion is subsidies is pure BS. It is a leftist talking point with zero merit. I realize it is repeatedly reported , though repeating the claim doesnt make a false statement factually true. It remains a bogus talking point.
Are we supposed to believe someone so easily fooled by unsupported talking points understands climate science? A rhetorical question.
Look it up before answering in public.
I guess you are irritated someone gets free electricity and gasoline substitute from his investment.
Oh, you want to talk climate science? Can we start with Ocean Acidification, then move on to deoxygenation of surface waters on land and oceans, then move onto the slowing of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation?
Ready?
You made the accusation, now get to it.
George J Kamburoff | December 18, 2023 at 3:03 pm |
Look it up: annual petroleum subsidies.
You won’t believe me.
GK – See my comment above
I have delved into numerous reports of the supposed studies claiming huge subsidies for fossil fuels. Two common themes in those studies/reports
A) They completely distort any concept of a subsidy such as claiming a tax deduction for an out of pocket cash business expense is a subsidy
B) Rarely if ever is there any actual math showing an actual computation of the $ which are subsidies. Big numbers strewn about, but no actual detail.
Did you forget what you were taught in elementary school with math – “show your work”! Yet none of those studies show their work, yet individuals claiming superior scientific skills get fooled easily.
ganon1950 | December 18, 2023 at 2:48 pm |
Rob, currently 7 trillion/year.
https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/climate-change/energy-subsidies#:~:text=Globally%2C%20fossil%20fuel%20subsidies%20were%20%247%20trillion%20or,due%20to%20government%20support%20from%20surging%20energy%20prices.
Ganon & GK both get easily fooled !
Neither Ganon or GK notice the red flags in the fossil fuel subsidy studies.
Joe, trouble is they are supported, and your claims are not – you just resort to name-calling and somehow think that is a refutation. We don’t expect the willfully ignorant to believe the truth, it’s just entertaining to see how little they have to support their position.
ganon
Including external cost as subsidies is highly inaccurate regardless of the source. You appeal to authority not the merit of the point
ganon1950 | December 18, 2023 at 3:30 pm |
Joe, trouble is they are supported, and your claims are not – you just resort to name-calling and somehow think that is a refutation. We don’t expect the willfully ignorant to believe the truth, it’s just entertaining to see how little they have to support their position.
Ganon – Both you and GK are pretending to scientists with superior analytical skills – yet you dont recognize the lack of details. That is a serious red flag – yet both you GK overlook it in your zeal of promoting a bogus talking point.
Hazard to guess why they do not provide underlying detail for their computation?
When you trot out the false oil “subsidies” your credibility goes to zero. It’s one of the true identifying marks of a Climate Doomer.
Are you too scared to look it up yourself?
I strongly suggest it.
Show some chops? I already asked to discuss Ocean Acidification, the deoxygenation of surface waters on land and oceans, the slowing of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, among others.
Want to discuss them or not?
Not, I’ll bet. Sarcasm is not education.
That egregious lie has been posted here more times than I can count. Oil companies are mineral extraction, aka MINING, companies. They get exactly the same treatment as other MINING companies.
Subsidies are most often direct cash payments, usually from the government, and usually to distort free markets.
Yup, they distorted the oil and nuclear power markets for decades.
Try actually answering the question. Was your investment subsidized or not? If you used only your money, great! If not, you are part of the crowd gouging the poor and middle class. Own up to it.
Yes, of course, but with my MS in Environmental Management I did it while still assuming it would be a 10-15 year payback. Including the cheap EV brought it down to the three+ years.
Why don’t you do it instead of trying to find something with which to bash others?
Do what? Install excessively expensive and unreliable renewable energy while getting subsidies? The financials on that type of investment in Kansas are bleak. I also decline to participate in the subsidy grifting operation that, in my opinion, lacks ethics.
Because I have spent my 50+ year career in the energy business, I spend my own money on efficiency improvements with solid paybacks. The environment benefits as a happy byproduct. Saving the planet is not my objective. Saving my wallet is.
It pays back in Minnesota
What did you do specifically?
Let’s urinate for distance.
Specifically, I helped design, build, start-up, operate, and manage all types of power plants, including nuclear and combined-cycle power plants. Have a number of degrees as well as a number of recent patents involving advanced nuclear reactors. My small firm owns the technology behind several types of hybrid-nuclear power plants as well supercritical CO2 technologies for combined-cycle power plants. Alas, being a small business means we cannot get any Federal help – the cost share on tens of millions of dollars is financially fatal to any small business.
In any case, I have no intrinsic problem with deploying renewable energy. My problem lies with going completely overboard with expenditures that are not remotely justified. That includes going overboard with nuclear energy.
The planet would be better off with a balanced approach for producing and using energy.
Can I presume that your pay back was so quick in part because you weren’t paying the taxes to support the road infrastructure maintenance? In case you haven’t noticed, taxes are the major cost of gasoline.
Ocean acidification? A term co-opted by alarmists to scare the uneducated. The oceans are alkaline and probably always will be. The pH scale is based on the logarithm of the hydronium ion. However, it could have been based on the hydroxyl ion. What is physically important is the ratio of the two different ion species.
They are getting less basic, therefore acidification.
What would you call it?
George J Kamburoff | December 18, 2023 at 9:26 pm |
I’d call it what I learned to call it in my high school chemistry class about titration …
NEUTRALIZATION.
But “acidification” scares the un-knowing, so sure, go ahead and base your “science” on fear.
See below for a full discussion.
w.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/19/the-electric-oceanic-acid-test/
Your reference is invalid.
ganon1950 | December 18, 2023 at 9:29 pm |
Obviously, to anyone not desperate for nits to pick, he meant “the largest of the individual costs that make up the gasoline price”.
And if you weren’t someone who “makes stuff up” just to cause friction, you could have had a productive discussion about that.
But hey, you do you …
w.
Clyde Spencer,
” In case you haven’t noticed, taxes are the major cost of gasoline.”
I haven’t noticed that. Average gasoline taxes in the US are $0.57/gal. Where do you get gas for $1.13/gal? Oh wait – I get it – just a denier that makes stuff up.
Clyde Spencer,
“Ocean acidification? A term co-opted by alarmists to scare the uneducated.”
I guess you must be scared. Ocean acidification is a reality that is easily measured with a pH meter.
,“The acidity of the ocean has increased by about 25% since before the Industrial Revolution, greater than any other time within the last two million years. Given the speed at which humans are altering ocean chemistry, marine plants and animals may not have time to adapt or migrate as they did in the past.
Because of acidification, marine life face a two-fold challenge: decreased carbonate availability and increased acidity. Laboratory studies suggest changing ocean chemistry will 1) harm life forms that rely on carbonate-based shells and skeletons, 2) harm organisms sensitive to acidity and 3) harm organisms higher up the food chain that feed on these sensitive organisms.”
https://www.epa.gov/ocean-acidification/effects-ocean-and-coastal-acidification-marine-life
I would call it decreased basicity:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_(chemistry)
Rather than repeat what I have previously written, go here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/15/are-the-oceans-becoming-more-acidic/
Clyde Spencer,
I make a quick pass through your whatsupwiththat article. It seems you left out an essential part of the chemistry for the subject at hand: pKa for bicarbonate – carbonate is 10.1. The ocean at pH 8.2 is already quite acidic with respect to the dissolution of carbonate. A change of pH from 8.2 to 8.1 will speed up the dissolution by about 26%, all else equal. A drop to pH 7.9 will double the dissolution rate
Florida is on carbonate.
Willis Eschenbach,
Are you suggesting NEUTRALIZATION of the ocean? Now that sounds scary, and would be if it happened physically.
Your claim is hard to believe.
Please provide more details.
A new Nissan Leaf EV cost $29,000 in 2015. A 2015 Chevy Bolt cost $35,170. A 2015 Toyota Corolla cost $17,550 (auto trans)
The price difference between a new Nissan Leaf EV and a new Toyota Cori olla was $11,459
Did the cost of gasoline for a car like a Corolla minus the cost of electricity for a car like the Leaf really save you something in the range of $11,000 to $12,000 in just three years?
$11,500 would buy about 3833 gallons of gas at $3 a gallon, and at 31mpg for the Corolla, that would support almost 119,000 miles of driving, or almost 40,000 miles a year on the EV over three years
The average EV owner today drives only 9000 miles a year and the average ICE car owner drives 13,000 miles a year. 40,000 miles a year for three years in a row is unusually high.
The estimated driving range for the 2015 LEAF on a fully charged battery is rated by the EPA at 84 miles
The 2025 Chevy Bolt has a 238 mile range, but also cost $6000 more than a Leaf.
What say you?
If you do not have one, you are guessing, and poorly.
JTNCS,
Illusory superiority – thanks for the demonstration. Also, the typical false paraphrasing of a fool that can’t make a supported argument, just regurgitates his own personal opinions.
JTNCS: “You come back with the response that they do show the details.”
I never said they show the details, I said “They explain and justify any assumptions they make.”
You just make up stuff, regurgitate, and don’t have a clue about how to actually refute something.
JTNCS: “You come back with the response that they do show the details.”
Ganon statement I never said they show the details, I said “They explain and justify any assumptions they make.”.
Ganon’s comment – At 3.30pm 12.18.2023 ganon stated “ganon1950 | December 18, 2023 at 3:30 pm |
Joe, trouble is they are supported,
My response to Ganon – You claim to be a scientist?
What is your definition of “supported” or “explain and justify any assumptions ” without providing details?
Lights out at night?
JNTCS,
If you want the details, I guess you’d have to read the paper. You could start with the section “Measuring Fossil Fuel Subsidies”. If you disagree with them, fine, but you’d have to give substantive details – not personal opinions like yours to refute it. It is clear that you don’t like implicit subsidies (I don’t particularly either) but they clearly break them down. That is what I mean by support, explain and justify. You don’t have to agree with it.
ganon1950 | December 19, 2023 at 5:03 pm |
JNTCS,
If you want the details, I guess you’d have to read the paper. You could start with the section “Measuring Fossil Fuel Subsidies”. If you disagree with them, fine, but you’d have to give substantive details –
Ganon – you obviously havent read the reports/studies you are vehemently defending. If you had actually read the reports (and understood them) you would know they do not provide the details – they give bogus totals, but NO DETAILS
Read the reports with an open mind and demonstrate some level of honesty.
ganon1950 wrote | December 18, 2023 at 9:38 pm |
“The acidity of the ocean has increased by about 25% since before the Industrial Revolution, greater than any other time within the last two million years.”
citing some EPA page.
Wow that is really bad.. Of course there is some sea surface effect and it is well measured for the last 80 years with a decent global coverage.
The total amount of carbon in the oceans as well as the pH value is very well buffered and virtually unchanged!
It also happens to be 10x more than humans ever produced and the buffer is 1000x that amount.
This statement above is truly unscientific and wrong!
But of course, the surface pH changes together with the isotopic signature and the oxygen depletion proves without a doubt we are indeed burning fossil fuel!
There are easier and more accurate ways to get that information, but yes that is shown one more time.
The relevance to global warming and more specifically Ross´article about statistical mistakes for the attribution? Zero!
morfu03,
I didn’t write that. Do you understand the purpose of quotation marks, and a reference for what is contained within?
Aren’t we glad it is well buffered, on the in the middle of the plateau between pKa_1 and pKa_2 for H2CO3?
Most of the pH measurements probably were made in the upper ocean mixing layer, but it has clearly dropped by 0.1 pH units, which corresponds to a 26% increase in hydronium ion concentration. More importantly, The carbonate compensation depth (CCD) is very sensitive to pH. Perhaps you should study the CCD and its effect on various organisms before you ridicule comments that you clearly don’t know much about.
If you don’t like the EPA maybe something from NOAA (know what the O stands for?):
https://www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/ocean-coasts/ocean-acidification
Camber-off: Willis’ link works fine for me.
While it is your responsibility to fact check your citation and reflects on you if they are accurate, you are correct that you cited EPA and marked that correctly, I merely wanted to point to the post, because there is so much other nonsense written here, so things get difficult to find!
ganon1950 | December 19, 2023 at 7:38 pm |
“Most of the pH measurements probably were made in the upper ocean mixing layer, but it has clearly dropped by 0.1 pH units, ”
Could you please and very carefully define “it” in this context?
If you mean the near surface seawater, you are correct, but your intial post is still wrong!
and:
“which corresponds to a 26% increase in hydronium ion concentration. More importantly, The carbonate compensation depth (CCD) is very sensitive to pH. Perhaps you should study the CCD and its effect on various organisms before you ridicule comments that you clearly don’t know much about. ”
Looking at the (estimated) numbers:
1.5 trillion tonnes of CO2 estimated anthropogenic production over the last 200 years
40 trillion tonnes of dissolved CO2 in the oceans (in various chemical forms)
more than 4000 trillion tonnes of CO2 in marine sediments buffering that amount
shows how impossible your claim is! 1.5/40 simply cannot have a 26% effect (much less as the 40 is indeed buffered by the 4000+)!
Again, your citation from the EPA focuses on the near sea surface and makes a wrong claim about the oceans!
These days many alarmists are so worried about the golf stream changing. Please tell me how much CO2 this single ocean steam transports and how that changed over the last 100 years. Clearly that number is important for the carbon circle and relevant for the near surface CO2-measurements and atlantic CCD!
>> Perhaps you should study
Just the facts please! In this forum it is not common to start personal attacks when you loose and argument, please refer to C. Sagan ad hominem!
ganon1950 | December 19, 2023 at 7:38 pm | wrote
“I didn’t write that”
Of course you did! It was not your dog, me or some EPA spy!
Oh and look that part of my post you omitted:
>>> citing some EPA page.
a) I think it is good practice to cite the post you referring to, as there is lots of nonsense out there
b) do not cite my post changing their meaning
c) Please react to criticism! The total accumulated antropogenic CO2 is about 1.5 Trillion tons, the total amount of CO2 in the oceans is about 35x that amount (in various chemical forms) and that is indeed buffered by CO2 in the sea sediment which is more than 1000x higher.
There is no scientifically conceivable way, that the ocean´s hydrogen ions changes by 26%. It´s a sea surface effect!
d) How much CO2 is transported to the sea surface by the golf stream and how did that change in the last decades?
e) ” Perhaps you should study..”
Just the facts please! C. Sagan calls a personal attack after loosing an argument ad hominem, not a good thing!
ganon1950 | December 18, 2023 at 3:30 pm |
Joe, trouble is they are supported, and your claims are not – you just resort to name-calling and somehow think that is a refutation.
Ganon –
A) Trouble is that those subsidy studies are not supported. You would have noticed if you performed an elementary level of due diligence.
B) pointing out that you have been easily fooled by the easy stuff is not name calling – it is only pointing out that you were fooled and simply suggesting performing some level of due diligence so that you are fooled next time.
The subsidy studies are supported – just not by you, you’d have to read them. They explain and justify any assumptions they make. You are self-fooled (willfully ignorant).
ganon
You lie. Studies claiming that external damages are a form of subsidy are pure propaganda. You often attach such crap.
Rob,
The only crap here is what you write. I said “They explain and justify any assumptions they make”. External damages are not a form of subsidy; not repairing or paying for them is considered an indirect subsidy and explicitly stated. Too bad if you don’t like that.
ganon1950 | December 19, 2023 at 1:06 pm |
The subsidy studies are supported – just not by you, you’d have to read them. They explain and justify any assumptions they make. You are self-fooled (willfully ignorant).
Ganon – Suffice to say , I am vastly more knowledgable on the subject of the ” subsidies ” than you every hope to be.
You keep telling me to read the reports – I point to you that they dont show their computations, they dont provide the details. You come back with the response that they do show the details. That comment shows you either didnt read the reports or that you dont understand the reports and thus you zero ability to do the basic due diligence to ascertain the validity of the claims.
I’m not vehemently defending them. I’ve simply said that they have explained their reasoning. You, OTOH have cried BS because they haven’t provided full accounting details for the implicit subsidy percentages. You may not like their reasons for what they have chosen to include in the implicits, but that does not mean they have cheated on the math.
If you would like more details, you can download the full report at:
https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2023/08/22/IMF-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-Data-2023-Update-537281
If you don’t like it, complain to them; I’m tired of your substanceless denialism and insults.
Well put.
ganon1950 | December 19, 2023 at 6:16 pm |
Ganon – response
If you would like more details, you can download the full report at:
https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2023/08/22/IMF-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-Data-2023-Update-537281
If you don’t like it, complain to them; I’m tired of your substanceless denialism and insults.
Ganon provides a link to IMF publication with no details.
Third grade math – show your work ! Is that concept too difficult for an activist?
JTNCS,
“Ganon provides a link to IMF publication with no details.”
They have presented more than one detail, therefore your usual exaggeration makes you wrong.
Yes, asking for ALL the accounting details in a public publication IS asking too much. You make it very clear that you are not a scientist as you admit, and also a denialistic activist with no facts, just complaints.
“ Two and a half years later Allen and Tett have yet to submit a reply.”
“TLS is one of the most influential statistical methodologies in the world, despite experts viewing it as highly unreliable compared to readily available alternatives like IV.”
Meanwhile, $ trillions are hanging in the balance given the resultant public policy scenarios dependent on sketchy statistics.
I read the McIntyre Climate Audit posts about Mann, D’Arrigo, cherry pie, etc etc. where one paper was still in discussion 35 years later.
Meanwhile, $ trillions are hanging in the balance.
Thank you for this article.
Climatology is a serial abuser of statistics. D*** lies actually.
The CAGW predictions are data free
Statistics require data
That means statistics ate irrelevant for CAGW predictions
There are no historical data for CAGE because CAGW has never happened
There are never data for the future climate
Therefore, CAGW predictions are data free
With no data, statistics are irrelevent, and there is no science
Science requires data.
There is plenty of data for CGW. The source cause (A) is not so important.
Has anyone commenting understood the energy represented by factors not considered: 1) undersea Pacific volcanoes – have you heard of the “Ring of Fire”? and 2) solar energy beyond the “Total Solar Irradiance” favored by the IPCC, such as Coronal Mass Ejections, Solar Wind Flows, electromagnetic snaps between linked magnetic fields? It’s no surprise we see the Aurora, but we fail to realize the lights we see are just an indication of the energy falling into our polar regions. Is it any wonder why the nighttine temperatures in the Arctic have warmed, representing most of the “record hot” media reports we hear? Just like winter nights are not as cold after it’s rained, so is the Arctic “warmer” with the water vapor pumped into its atmosphere by subsea volcanic eruptions.
Yes, it is an interesting area of literature research. Have fun with it, and don’t be surprised when you find out that these things have already been considered by others.
Dr. McKitrick, how hard would it be for climate scientists to apply all three methods, OLS, TLS and IV and compare the results? Is this a Herculean task? Considering trillions of dollars and billions of lives on the line, I would think that it could be done for at least as long as there’s uncertainty as to how the effects of using the alternative methods.
Not hard at all. And there are many other things that should be tested for, such as omitted variables bias and endogeneity bias. These are absolutely routine specification tests in econometrics, which are never done in optimal climate fingerprinting.
Ross,
I have just completed a study of historic Australian land temperature data, with a look at various ways to seek attribution related to UHI. The treatment of variables is shallow, for a general audience and uses only OLS, but the data sets might be useful if needed for more research. If interested, sherro01 at outl**K dot com.
I look forward to your comparison of the OLS, TLS and IV methods.
Thank you, Ross, for the work you do. Also looking forward to your results.
If OLS usually underestimates, and TLS usually overestimates, than an average of the two should get one closer to the correct answer.
It was the myth of fingerprints.
The ocean doesn’t have “a” pH. The pH at various points in the ocean varies wildly. It depends on the season, the time of day, the location, the depth, local factors – even the flora and fauna can in some cases influence it.
And what many are unaware of is that calcifiers can, with the expenditure of energy, alter the pH at the growth-face of their shells. Most calcifiers have a range of pH that they are most amenable with, which I would guess reflects the ocean pH of their environment when they first evolved. After the carbonate has been laid down, it is commonly protected with a layer of chitin externally, and mucous internally. It is after the organism dies, and those two layers are no longer being replenished, that the shell starts to be dissolve, especially as it drops through the water column where the pressure is greater and the temperature lower, allowing more CO2 to dissolve, and consequently lowering the pH, allowing the calcite/aragonite to dissolve.
The situation is more complex than the EPA website that Ganon1950 provides, suggests.
Clyde,
When ion-specific electrodes were coming out in 1970 or so, I did a study of the response of some of them including pH when the fluid medium was a slurry, not a clear liquid. I looked at pure water slurries with various soils, then sea water studies with soils and seaweeds from low to high concentrations of solids.
The technology of electrodes might have improved since then. I have not kept up with this literature. I was using the best gear available then, from Orion Research, helped by Jane and Jim Ross, who were leaders of the art back then.
The outcome of the studies was that most mixtures caused a drift in the electrode response that was unpredictable as to sign and size and rate. The drift was serious enough to recommend against use of electrodes in the presence of solids.
I know that electrodes have mainly been replaced these days for studies of ocean alkalinity, but they still form part of the historical record.
I do not know if there is a modern body of information about solids interfering with ocean pH determinations. Many topoics in climate research remain fundamentally unresolved because Nature is complex; failing to include all confounding variables in research is a common problem that is a bit embarrassing, so it is commonly swept under the carpet. For example, the mantra that CO2 is the control knob for atmospheric temperatures by neglecting or under weighting other controls leads to a very costly, probably wrong outcome.
Good science admits the uncertainties. Poor science hides them
Geoff S
The average pH of the ocean has almost certainly increased as a result of more dissolved CO2 BUT the difference is too small to be confirmed by measurements.
thecliffclavenoffinance | December 19, 2023 at 9:38 am | Reply
The average pH of the ocean has almost certainly increased as a result of more dissolved CO2 BUT the difference is too small to be confirmed by measurements.
ganon1950 | December 18, 2023 at 9:38 pm |
Ganon’s comment (a reprint of a posting from the EPA.gov/ocean acidification) ,“The acidity of the ocean has increased by about 25% since before the Industrial Revolution, greater than any other time within the last two million years. ”
Cliff makes an excellent point – The EPA’s statement that the acidity of the ocean has increased by 25% may or may not be true. (not withstanding the misuse of the term “acidity”). However as cliff correctly notes, the tools to measure the change in Ph levels with any degree of accuracy as implied in the EPA’s statement simply dont exist. The ph levels vary too much by location and depth to reach a ‘global” average measurement of PH levels using current day technology (though we can get somewhat close) . However estimates of PH levels 50 to 100 years ago is at best educated guesses using extremely limited data.
Claims such as the one from the EPA are made without any acknowledgement of the limitations of the data.
You might be surprised how well it can be measured.
https://ugc.berkeley.edu/background-content/ocean-acidification/
ganon1950 | December 19, 2023 at 10:05 am |
You might be surprised how well it can be measured.
https://ugc.berkeley.edu/background-content/ocean-acidification/
ganon – you would be surprised how poorly it could be measured 50-100 years
use some basic due diligence
Look up Ocean Acidification and Dungeness crabs.
ganon1950 | December 19, 2023 at 10:05 am |
You might be surprised how well it can be measured.
https://ugc.berkeley.edu/background-content/ocean-acidification/
Ganon – the link you provided has absolutely zero discussion of measurement issues.
Measurement issues and limitations of measurements were the subject of both my comment and Cliff’s comment.
Any reason you chose not to respond addressing either my point or Cliff’s
JoeTNCS,
That is because there are no issues. pH is trivial to measure and there are all kinds of Buoys and oceanographic vessels making measurements, lots of them. Just look at the figure to see the kind data that can be achieved by a single station. I think you have no concept of how well science can measure things these days.
ganon1950 | December 19, 2023 at 10:54 am |
JoeTNCS,
That is because there are no issues. pH is trivial to measure and there are all kinds of Buoys and oceanographic vessels making measurements, lots of them. Just look at the figure to see the kind data that can be achieved by a single station. I think you have no concept of how well science can measure things these days.
Ganon – you seem to have extreme difficulty responding or understanding the comment. You rarely address the point being made. Go back and read my original point, and my comments to your erroneous responses.
You even went so far as to provide a link that has absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter, yet you somehow believe it refutes both my point and cliff’s.
did you bother to do any due diligence to cross check what you cited.
JTNCS,
I was responding to your comments, which were mostly deflection and denial of the known ocean acidification since 1950s, covering the time since CO2 levels went from 310 to 425 ppm. Also you don’t need a pH meter to know what the ocean acidity is. Knowing atmospheric CO2 concentration is sufficient, to understand what is happening. Direct measurements just confirm what can be deduced from chemistry. If you’re willing to look at something a bit more detailed than “EPA for dummies”, try this:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-55039-4
Bottom line, the ocean is acidifying, and how much is known quite accurately. Your feeble attempts at nitpicking don’t change that. Perhaps you are the one that should crosscheck your unsupported statements and provide references to support them.
ganon1950 | December 19, 2023 at 11:43 am |
JTNCS,
I was responding to your comments, which were mostly deflection and denial of the known ocean acidification since 1950s, covering the time since CO2 levels went from 310 to 425 ppm.
Ganon – 4th time – you havent come close to responding – as if you are intentionally being dishonest.
Read the original comment. Your gamemanship gets old.
The ability to measure “the global PH level ” 50-100 years ago with any accuracy doesnt exist.
You have yet to even remotely address that point.
Thecliff,
Could be, could be, could be . . . got anything substantive, not just unsupported personal opinion?
In case you missed it, read:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-55039-4
The claimed ocean pH change of 0.1 (30%) from CO2 emissions is not an accurate global average and could be nothing more than a rounding error or a measurement error.
The pH probably neutralized a little from more CO2 but that does not mean there are accurate measurements to prove that on a global average scale.
But the “authorities” are sure the average ocean pH, which they do not actually know, increased by 0.1 since pre-industrial.
The likely margin of error when adding various local measurements together, to create a fake global average, is at least +/- 0.1, so a claimed 0.1 pH change is statistically meaningless.
JoeTNCS,
Sorry I missed your comment earlier (there were so many):
“The ability to measure “the global PH level ” 50-100 years ago with any accuracy doesnt exist.”
You don’t have to be able to measure it accurately. It can be calculated accurately from atmospheric CO2 levels, ocean mixing zone temperature, and approximate total carbonate. All of which are available from ice cap and ocean sediment cores. See this reference (which I already gave):
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-55039-4
A critically important paper yet the majority of the comments bear no relevance to the issues raised. Disappointing.
A question from ignorance. Why are anthropogenic and natural forcings (ANTH and NAT) negatively correlated? What could possibly be the cause of that?
Ian,
The cause? Poor quality input data, poor research objectives, poor statistics. Geoff S
“Why are anthropogenic and natural forcings (ANTH and NAT) negatively correlated? What could possibly be the cause of that?”
Without knowing what NAT represents other than nature, the obvious answer to why it would be negatively correlated is that unexplained cooling automatically gets attributed as natural. (Aerosol is definitely notnatural.) And, we know that any warming is ANTH. But maybe I’m too cynical. And maybe the supreme court of Colorado is not politically biased in taking a particular presidential candidate off the ballot.
Ron, regarding aerosols being definitely not natural, have you ever considered dust storms and dried sea water micro-droplets as nucleation sites for aerosols. Both aerosols and CO2, CH4 and N2O can all be ANTH or NAT. And we definite know that increasing insolation from Milankovitch cycles, leading to warming and the end of ice ages (glacial periods) is definitely not ANTH. H20 vapor can be either, depending on the forcing that causes a temperature change. Also, most forcings are bidirectional so that they can be either negative or positive.
Yes, there are many sources of natural aerosols, the largest of which we both forgot which is volcanic. There is no logical reason that I can think of that any natural process should be correlated or anti-correlated with ANTH.
Milankovitch forcing is too gradual to give a signal in the sub millennial scale.
Ron,
Yes, forgot volcanoes. Yes, Milankovitch cycles are, on their own, too slow to cause (major) sub-millennial signals; however, their effect can be integrative, where they build up (temperature) to the point where they can trigger a non-linear feedback (reduced albedo, ice sheet collapse, CO2/CH4 release, etc.) that results in very fast (10s to 100s of years) processes. Most notably glacial-interglacial transitions.
Gannon, with glacial-interglacial transitions now you are talking about poorly understood feedbacks loops, not forcings. Actually, we don’t know that glaciations are spontaneous. I think there is a high likelihood they are triggered by asteroid strikes.
I hope we both agree that most people are unaware that geologically our current interglacial is very much in danger of ending. Let’s hope that CO2 will postpone reglaciation until civilization will develop technology to control of the climate. I think that will happen if we don’t screw up and have nuclear winter.
Ron, no, we don’t agree. Glacial-interglacials are not spontaneous, at least not over the last million years. While there is plenty of internal feedback, they are paced by Milankovitch cycles, particularly eccentricity and obliquity.
Because we are at a period of low eccentricity, in the absence of AGW, the next ice age was not expected for about 50,000 years:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1076120
Predictions of what the addition of AGW to this long interglacial warm spell range from extending to >100,000 years, skipping the next cycle, to catastrophe:
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1810141115
https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202346936
“Because we are at a period of low eccentricity, in the absence of AGW, the next ice age was not expected for about 50,000 years:”
Gannon, Milankovitch influence is mostly due to the obliquity cycle. Before the Mid Pleistocene Transition obliquity completely controlled the glacial cycle, which was ~41Ka, the obliquity cycle.
Anyone who is saying that interglacials with low eccentricity can be 50Ka long needs to point to one since the MPT. They also need to talk to all the scientists in 1977 who were saying reglaciation was imminent.
Most of the highest paid virologists in the world claim covid’s origin was a pangolin or racoon dog. Do you believe them too? The Andthentheresphysics blog of science consensus denizens all think these virologists, the “Proximal Origin” virologists, are correct and sincere.
Thanks Ian. I don’t know why the signals are negatively correlated. GHG and AERO are because aerosols have a net cooling effect, but that’s a separate issue.
“Why are anthropogenic and natural forcings (ANTH and NAT) negatively correlated?:
The right answer:”
WILD GUESSES OF WHY anthropogenic and natural forcings are believed to be negatively correlated are completely irrelevant when the natural versus manmade percentage split of causes of climate change are NOT YET KNOWN
That doesn’t seem like the “right answer”.
Ross has demonstrated in his paper that, in the models in question, anthropogenic and natural forcings (ANTH and NAT) ARE negatively correlated rather than “are believed to be negatively correlated” – as you state.
So, my question stands. “Why”? Or more accurately, what physical process could possibly explain that?
Maybe Geoff S is right that this is the result of randomly poor practice in the modelling process, but surely that would result in no correlation at all?
Ian, You are quite. We have 2 trolls who monopolise the thread and avoid any discussion of Ross’s paper.
Surely Judith its time to limit Ganon and Kamburoff to say 6 comments each, extending the number if they say something substantive about the subject of the paper
Those who cannot keep up want to hinder us all.
Censorship is the denial of reality.
George, I suggested a limit of six and more if you were on topic- that’s not censorship at all. Our host is much to tolerant of extreme “warmists” like yourself. You and Ganon have hijacked this thread to talk about anything, rather than Ross’s important paper. You have also denigrated the comments of many experienced people in this field, not all of them sceptics. The arrogance is breathtaking
Breathtaking, yet you can still whine.
John Hewitt
I concur with your comments
Yes it is frustrating. My field is accounting and Taxation.
Two prime examples of high jacking of the thread.
Fossil fuel subsidies are based on a near fictional concepts. Yet certain players vehemently defend the fictional claims with near zero understanding of the subject nor performing any level of due diligence to ascertain the validity or even the plausibility of the claims.
Same with renewables and LCOE. Lots of unrealistic assumptions, math and logic errors.
Yet they are vehemently defended because of the multitude of studies by advocates and peer reviewed by advocates and published in advocate journals somehow make those studies rock solid science.
Due diligence is not a strong forte of the activists.
John, I think you are presumptuous and off-base. Most of my comments are responses to comments made to, or about, me (like yours). Others are scientific analysis and references relevant to climate change. I try (not always successfully) to only snarl when snarled at.
If you’d like a comment on the paper: I’m all in favor of more robust analysis methods. It seems like TLS has definite applications in paleoclimatology where there is often more uncertainty in the abscissa (time) than the ordinate, e.g., chemical analyses. However, it seems that the larger estimation errors that can occur in TLS indicate it should be used with care. I tend to work on simple data sets with well-defined independent variables, and OLS with occasional data transformations, seems to be sufficient.
ganon1950,
Thank you for yor concession that you do not yet fully understand the paper by Ross McKitrick. Geoff S
Geoff,
I don’t think that is the concession I made; However, it is true – I have not used TLS and only have a passing familiarity with the general concepts. Despite what some here believe, I have no problem admitting when I don’t have familiaritywith, and good good understanding of, a subject that I have not used or studied. I have downloaded a few papers, so maybe I will understand it (and limitations) better with time.
Yes, your pious denials are valid. It was your de facto tag team partner that started the off topic drift when he said, more than once, “I already asked to discuss Ocean Acidification, the deoxygenation of surface waters on land and oceans, the slowing of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, among others. Want to discuss them or not?”
:Surely Judith its time to limit Ganon and Kamburoff to say 6 comments each, extending the number if they say something substantive about the subject of the paper”
You “extending” exception to the basic rule is not likely to be necessary.
Let me raise my hand and comment about ocean acidification.
Currently, when calcium carbonate settles on the ocean floor at depths lower than the lysocline and CCD, it is dissolved. The high CO2 content on the ocean floor at great depth dissolves CaCO3, and releases CO2 back into the atmosphere. For the past 250 million years, CO2 has been decreasing linearly (roughly), such that it would hit the zero point in about 50 million years. This is due to limestone deposits above the lysocline. When atmospheric CO2 gets lower, the depth of the CCD decreases, and when it gets low enough, the CCD reaches the bottom of the ocean, and limestone would start collecting there. When the lysocline reaches the bottom of ocean, CO2 levels there would be too low to dissolve calcium carbonate at all, and limestone would collect there in large amounts. This would cause more CO2 to be taken out of the air, and the jig is up for CO2 in the atmosphere. Sooner or later, around 50 million years from now, CO2 drops to zero and all life ends. The CO2 has been decreasing for 250 million years, but once the lysocline is gone, the rate at which it decreases would rise quickly until it reaches zero, and all life on earth would end forever. The best thing humans have ever done is put CO2 back in the air where it belongs. If humans had not arrived and started burning fossil fuels, life on earth would have been doomed. So yes, I’m a climate doomer.
Excellent comment about a very slow, very long term natural process.
You wrote
“The best thing humans have ever done is put CO2 back in the air”
I have been saying that since the 1990s, using the phrase “CO2 recycling” to describe one of the beneficial results of burning hydrocarbon fuels.
This true statement makes leftists go berserk, reminding me of walking past a monkey cage at a zoo clanging a steel water cup against the bars as you walk by. Not that I would ever do that again!
There is no climate emergency
There is not even a climate problem
The current climate is the best climate for humans and animals in 5,000 years and the best climate for C3 plants in millions of years.
More CO2 is good news
More warming is good news
Nut Zero is a waste of money
Data free predictions of CAGW doom are not science — science requires data
Climate change will not kill your dog
Fascism is not the cure for climate change.
Insulting a leftist a day will keep the doctor away, by lowering your blood pressure..
The ONLY correct long term climate prediction in world history was mine, from 1997:
“The climate will get warmer,
unless it gets colder”
Thecliff,
Look up “long carbon cycle” and “large igneous provinces. Maybe you’ll understand my comment regarding 100’s of millions of years time scales. But, I am glad that you do admit that currently (average) tectonic CO2 emissions are less that 1% of that from humans burning fossil fuels.
Linear extrapolation to zero is silly. CO2 concentration oscillates with the long carbon cycle, which is highly affected by tectonic plate movement.
And then collisions converted that excitation energy to molecular kinetic energy (heat).
The carbon cycle is seasonal and does not increase atmospheric CO2 year over year.
CO2 releases from earth’s core are 1% of total CO2 emissions. Irrelevant.
The emissions of CO2 from the carbon cycle during a year are offset by CO2 absorption during the same year, which most climate novices forget about
The joys of EV ownership.
On a frigid night in December 2022, Hans Guo was on his way home when his Tesla came to a complete stop. The dashboard showed another 18 miles (30 kilometers) of range, but there’s no arguing with a car that won’t turn on; stranded, Guo called for a tow.
Just as speed, terrain and tire pressure affect the range of electric cars, outdoor temperature does, too. Both heat waves and cold spells can wreak havoc on EVs’ lithium-ion batteries, speeding up (or slowing down) the chemical reactions that affect their charging capacity. But while extreme heat can break a battery down over time, range loss from the cold is only temporary. And there’s no long-term damage to the EV battery itself… however much running out of juice may traumatize the driver.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-12-15/how-to-keep-your-electric-car-battery-charged-in-cold-weather
My 2013 Model S has a battery heater.
And it runs off the battery, I suppose. Poor battery.
My 2013 Model S is eleven years old, and can easily outperform your polluter, the one for which you have to buy gasoline.
Every EN has a battery heater
I’ll out perform you on a long distance trip.
And what would that cost in gasoline?
I can do it for free. And the car charges overnight, too.
You ignore the cost to charge your car and the inconvenience of sitting around waiting for charging.
As I said, Much of the charging will be at night.
And I get free supercharging for my 2013 Model S for the life of the car. How much cost in gasoline?
Tesla supercharger stations are 130 miles apart, and after two hours I am ready for a fluid exchange and a walk while the Tesla is being topped off. Snacks and lunch and dinner are there as well.
All we have to do is triple the grid, circle the Earth 4 times with pipelines, and spend trillions more. Yep, we’ll be done by 2035. Sure we will.
Carbon Capture Needs Enough Pipelines to Circle Earth Four Times
The US goal to cut carbon dioxide hinges on transporting and burying more than a billion tons per year.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2023-green-revolution-needs-96000-miles-of-new-pipeline
Doesn’t seem like so much to clean up after one’s self. There are roughly 500,000 miles of gas and oil pipelines in the world and extracted over 135 billion tons (total) of oil from the earth – that’s a lot to catch up with and natural cycles/reservoirs aren’t handling it.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090507072830.htm
ganon says: Doesn’t seem like so much
LOL.
ganon – you haven’t a clue about the damages.
The benefits of more CO2 and warming may outweigh any negatives that may occur. Plants like CO2 and warmth. Animals like plants. Humans like both.
Drill, Baby, Drill ….
OPEC’s one-time nemesis — US shale — is rearing its head just months after the sector was all but written off as a threat to the cartel’s sway over worldwide oil markets.
Drillers from the Permian Basin in West Texas to the Bakken Shale of North Dakota have ramped up oil production well beyond what analysts foresaw, pushing output to a record just as OPEC and its allies put the brakes on supplies in a bid to arrest price declines.
This time last year, US government forecasters predicted domestic production would average 12.5 million barrels a day during the current quarter. In recent days, that estimate was bumped to 13.3 million; the difference is equivalent to adding a new Venezuela to global supplies.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-12-17/shale-oil-s-unexpected-surge-poses-threat-to-opec-s-bid-to-prop-up-crude-prices
Of what part of climate change are they ignorant?
They absolutely have our best interests at heart.
Pingback: Climate attribution method overstates “fingerprints” of external forcing • Watts Up With That?
Pingback: Climate attribution method overstates “fingerprints” of external forcing • Watts Up With That? - Lead Right News
Is it not interesting that leftists complain about oil and gas subsidies by claiming the depreciation allowed for all companies, called a depletion allowance for some industries, is falsely called a subsidy?
And they completely forget the tax on each gallon of gasoline with is much higher than the sales tax for other products in most states.
The state with the highest tax rate on gasoline is Pennsylvania at $0.576 / gallon followed closely by California at $0.511 / gallon. The highest tax rate on diesel is $0.741 / gallon again from Pennsylvania. Meanwhile, the highest tax rate on aviation fuel is Massachusetts at $0.359 / gallon.
The state with the lowest tax rate on gasoline is Georgia at $0.0000 / gallon since the state’s governor recently suspended the tax. Hawaii is the second lowest state for gas tax is Alaska at $0.0895 / gallon. The lowest tax rate on diesel is $0.0895 / gallon also from Alaska.
Pingback: Local weather attribution technique overstates “fingerprints” of exterior forcing • Watts Up With That? - Finencial
All these assessments are of little value if the dominating effect of the measured global increase in water vapor is not taken into account.
Water vapor has been increasing substantially faster than possible from just feedback. Analysis is documented at Sect 7 of https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com
Water vapor molecules have been increasing more than 5 times faster than CO2 molecules. The analysis for this is documented at https://energyredirect3.blogspot.com
Not as a percentage, which is the relevant parameter for LWIR absorption. For the 1.2 C increase in temperature, that has (mostly) resulted from a 50% increase in CO2, H20 saturated vapor pressure will rise from 0.273 to 0.289 kPa(GMST 15.0 ⇒ 16,2 C) only a 5.86% increase. Absolute molecule count doesn’t matter – it is the LWIR absorptivity.
It is not about the ‘absolute molecule count’. Read it again. It is the INCREASE in molecule count that is related to planet warming. The base of about 8000 ppmv got us the first 33 C. From Jan 1988 thru Dec 2022 water vapor increased by 381 ppmv while CO2 increased by only 70 ppm. WV increase has been 381/70 = 5.4 times faster.
Dan,
Sorry you don’t understand the photophysics.
It is relative change -> relative effect,
381/8000 = 4.7% (70/350 =20% for CO2) and that is due to feedback from CO2 heating in the water window, and is what would be expected for the ~0.7 C temperature rise. Good thing too, if it was just water vapor doing the heating there’d be thermal run away. Relative saturation of the H2O and CO2 absorption as a function of wavelength, but that’s for another time.
And that 33 C comes from the COMBINATION of water and CO2. Without the CO2, the water would be frozen, very low vapor pressure => down to 255 k; also all surface water frozen => much higher albedeo => still lower temperature (~ 190 K) C).
CO2 is a good thing, but like whiskey, there can be too much of a good thing.
Thecliff,
Did expect that I’d be giving you a star, but I did re: water vapor vs. CO2. :-)
Thecliff,
“There are no accurate measurements of the global average water vapor percentage, so your claim is data free, contradicts all climate scientists and is just plain silly.”
Satellites can measure all kinds of polyatomic gaseous molecular species in the atmosphere accurately. You are the one that is just plain silly, or ignorant – take your pick.
Ganon1950,
No, I understand the physics just fine. You are doing the math wrong. The % change in the total is not the thing to compare. The point is to look at just the count in the change. The totals refer to what the condition was before the change. The idea of thermal runaway is bogus. The compounding becomes negligible within a cycle. The math for compounding is 1+.06+.06^2+.06^3+.06^4+…
You have been misled about needing the warming from CO2 keeping water from freezing. Regardless of the initial source of warming or how small it is, water vapor molecules have been increasing about 5.4 times faster than CO2 molecules so the feedback from WV increase is much more than from CO2 increase. The idea that CO2 starts the increase and/or maintains it is without merit.
Essentially all radiation from about wavenumber 670/cm and lower is from water vapor. At about 2 km and higher, the outward directed radiation from water vapor can make it all the way to space. In this altitude range, energy absorbed by CO2 and other IR active molecules is redirected with respect to wave number via gaseous thermal conduction to replenish the substantial energy radiated to space by water vapor molecules. This essentially eliminates any warming from increased CO2 (or any other IR active gas that does not condense at earth temperatures) in the troposphere. Their radiation to space is insignificant and from the tropopause and above.
For nearly all of earth’s history CO2 has been much higher than now.
NASA/RSS has accurately (“rms errors of ~1.0 mm”) measured average global water vapor since Jan 1988. Average global Total Precipitable Water (TPW) anomaly measurements thru Dec 2022 are at https://data.remss.com/vapor/monthly_1deg/tpw_v07r02_198801_202212.time_series.txtme_series.txt
Description of how the water vapor measurements are made is at http://www.remss.com/measurements/atmospheric-water-vapor
Dan, I don’t see anyway to sugar coat this. I agree that the WV molecule number increase is roughly 4-5 times as much as the CO2 molecule number. But as I’ve told you before. That doesn’t matter. The absorptivity of the CO2 increases faster than that of of WV, particularly in the water window. I also gave you a much simpler version of the correct formula which comes formal integration of what you say has to be done numerically (it doesn’t – all that matters is comparing equilibrium WV pressure at the endpoint temperatures and normalize to “average” vapor pressure:
WVP(T1) = WVP(T0)*1.067^(T1-T0)
Example, as before, temperature anomalies from Hadcrut 5.0.2.0
1988: T0 = 0.282 C
2023: T1 = 1.061 C
T1 – T0 = 0.779 C
1.067^(0.779) = 1.052
The WVP increase for that 0.779 C GMST increase is 5.2 %.
In the meantime CO2 has increased by 20%.
For generalities, beyond weather forecasting, more accuracy isn’t needed because WPV varies so much with time and location.
Maybe you should actually read the reference I gave you that talks about the relationship of H2O and CO2, and how their interactions affect climate.
Pamgburn wrote
“Water vapor molecules have been increasing more than 5 times faster than CO2”
Total BS
CO2ppm up +50% since 1850
Temperature up about +1 degree C.
Water vapor up about +7% per +1 degree C. of average troposphere warming is the typical scientific estimate
There are no accurate measurements of the global average water vapor percentage, so your claim is data free, contradicts all climate scientists and is just plain silly.
To Mr. Gannon who faksely claims satellites accurately measure water vapor to create an accurate global average.
Your ignorance is showing, as usual.
With all the lov=cal measurements, scientists only clai the water vapor averages 2% to 3%. A very wide range
They do not claim 2.3% or 3.1% — just a broad range of 2% to 3% on average.
Why would scientists state an exact number for the atmospheric CO2 level, and an exact number for the monthly global average temperature … but for the global average atmospheric water vapor percentage the consensus percentage is stated as a large range of 2% to 3%?
THINK
Water vapor decreases rapidly with height as the atmosphere gets colder.
Nearly half the total water in the air is between sea level and about 1.5 km above sea level. Satellites do not orbit below about 160 km from earth’s surface.
THINK, yes – do so! I said satellites, not local measurements. Since humidity varies widely, including on a diurnal scale, there is no point is reporting to high accuracy. That does not mean they can’t measure it accurately.
Since you continually whine, “there is no data”, which really means you haven’t looked for data; here is data for satellite water vapor accuracy:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2021EA001796
thecliff,
Water vapor is a transparent (to visible light) gas that, molecule for molecule, is more effective at absorb/emit of earth-temperature infrared radiation (IR) energy than carbon dioxide. From Jan 1988 thru Dec 2022 NASA/RSS accurately measured and reported monthly the global average water vapor as Total Precipitable Water (TPW) anomalies. The anomaly data are reported at https://data.remss.com/vapor/monthly_1deg/tpw_v07r02_198801_202212.time_series.txt The anomaly data is added to a base value of 28.73 for a nominal value of about 29 kg/m^2. The slope of the measurement trend is 0.03942 kg/m^2/yr so the trend from Jan 1988 thru Dec 2022 is 0.03942/29 = 0.001359 or about 1.36 % per decade. Given that at ground level average global water vapor is about 0.8% or 8,000 ppmv (parts per million by volume), the average global increase in water vapor molecules at ground level in 3.5 decades is about 0.0136 * 8000 * 3.5 = 381 ppmv.
From Mauna Loa data the CO2 increase in that time period is 420 – 350 = 70 ppm. Per ideal gas laws, ppm = ppmv. With that, water vapor molecules have been increasing 381/70 = 5.4 times faster than CO2 molecules. Thus, regardless of the initial source of warming or how small it is, water vapor molecules have been increasing about 5.4 times faster than CO2 molecules so the feedback from WV increase is much more than from CO2 increase. The idea that CO2 starts the increase and/or maintains it is without merit.
Dan,
BTW, your basic formula is fundamentally incorrect. It double dips, with the F factor (fudge?) already implicitly contained in the the (T(n) -T(n-1)) term.
Sorry Dan, you are wrong. You gave a Taylor expansion formula. The formula for compounding is (1-cycle increase)^N, i.e. (1.06)^N where N is the number of cycles, e.g. 1.06^10 = 1.79. Since you make such an egregious math mistake while claiming to understand the physics, is appalling. I didn’t bother to read further – IMHO, you disqualified yourself. I haven’t been misled, rather you lack fundamental understanding of physics and mathematics.
No. The math is correct for the feedback effect which is the compounding we are talking about. The equation you gave is for compound interest, not relevant.
Dan,
We already went through those numbers. I have no problem with 381 ppmv increase for water vapor. and 70 ppmv for CO2.
The problems is that the number of molecules doesn’t matter for absorption of radiation. What matters is the change in absorptivity which is proportional to the relative change in concentration. By your numbers, this is 4.76% for H20 and 20% for CO2.
I haven’t changed my position.
OK, I understand what you mean by “compounding” = feedback self amplification. However,
“Water vapor is a transparent (to visible light) gas that, molecule for molecule, is more effective at absorb/emit of earth-temperature infrared radiation (IR) energy than carbon dioxide.”
That is not true, water vapor is responsible for roughly 1/2 of earths greenhouse effect, yet by your numbers it is (8000ppmv/420ppmv) =19 times less efficient at absorb/emit as the combination of other GHGs.
https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/3143/steamy-relationships-how-atmospheric-water-vapor-amplifies-earths-greenhouse-effect/
gannon1950,
You are not hooking up.
The 8000 ppm WV got us the 33 K temperature increase over what the temperature would be with no GHG. CO2 contribution is insignificant because of what happens in the troposphere. CO2 only participates at the tropopause and above and the radiation still available there is reduced by the increased absorption by increased WV in the troposphere. Also, energy absorbed by CO2 in the troposphere is redirected wrt wavenumber to replenish energy radiated to space by WV. This is explained at https://energyredirect3.blogspot.com
Dan, I’m not interested in an explanation from a “blogspot”. I’ll go with NASA, NOAA, and innumerable peer reviewed papers and textbooks. Despite “doubters” doubts, Earth’s energy balance is very well understood, and supported by a great deal of scientific evidence (actual measurements). Thanks for your thoughts anyway.
Dan,
The 8000 ppmv (average) WV got us about 1/2 of the 33 C above the mythical atmosphere free earth. CO2 provided enough heating such that there was positive feedback from increasing the WV concentration. If CO2 increases were to stop, things would eventually reach a new equilibrium. However, increasing CO2 causes an exponential increase in WV partial pressure (1.07)^dT, where dT is the temperature change in degrees C. It is not possible to separate the effects of water vapor from that of non-condensable GHGs, as you try to do – there are too many interlinking feedbacks, and the system must be examined as a whole to obtain a reasonable understanding.
gannon1950,
I see you still don’t see how to calculate WV increase from surface temperature increase. It is path dependent so you must use numerical integration with the monthly data.
Water vapor started increasing way before CO2 and has been increasing substantially faster than possible from just planet warming (the result of all feedbacks and forcings). The WV increase from planet warming is calculated by numerical integration. WV increase depends on temperature and on area weighted average is closer to 6% / K. I used 6.7% to be conservative. The method is documented at Sect 7 of https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com
The file for calculated change in WV is generated in EXCEL where each row contains:
WVn = WV(n-1) + (Tn – T(n-1))* R * (WV(n-1) + F)
Where:
WVn = calculated WV in month n, kg/m^2
Tn = temperature anomaly in month n, C°
R = effective rate of WV increase resulting from feedback of temperature increase, 0.067/C° (= 6.7 %/C°)
F = added to avoid circular reference of (WV(n-1)+WVn)/2. F is calculated as an increase to each month equal to half a month at the final slope. This requires iteration.
For HadCRUT5 [31] as of Dec 2021, F = 0.029835/24 = 0.00124 kg/m^2/month. Slope at F = 0 is 0.0298342. Effect over 34 yr = (0.0298355 – 0.0298342)*34 = 0.000044 kg/m^2
Average global Total Precipitable Water (TPW) anomaly measurements by NASA/RSS thru Dec 2022 are at https://data.remss.com/vapor/monthly_1deg/tpw_v07r02_198801_202212.time_series.txt
A base value of 28.73 kg/m^2 is added to the anomaly values to get the total TPW.
Using the average global temperature data from HadCRUT5 (it’s the highest), this gives the highest possible WV from just feedback. The actual measured WV is 34% more than this. About 90% of the human contribution to this ‘extra’ WV comes from increased irrigation.
WV molecules have been increasing more than 5 times faster than CO2 molecules.
The government even tried to hide the measured increase in WV for a while (they deleted the web site) until they realized that it was available on the waybackmachine and have since reported the data through Dec 2022. It will be revealing to see whether they provide data through Dec 2023.
I don’t see any way to sugar coat this. You have been falsely indoctrinated. The major journals won’t accept anything that doesn’t support the consensus. The government has been pushing the false story about CO2 because it helps their efforts to get us to buy EVs. The UN wants one world governance and governments are scaring everybody as that makes them easier to control.
All the “less basic” vs “acidification” is as silly as saying “it’s not getting warmer, it’s just getting less cold”. Use the endpoint of where things are going as the proper descriptor.
As Willis pointed out, the only end-point is neutrality, where the hydronium and hydroxyl ions are equal in concentration; i.e. there is a 1:1 ratio of the two species. There really isn’t an exact end-point for the minimum or maximum concentrations. The very definition of an alkaline (basic) solution is that it is capable of neutralizing an acidic solution, which is a solution with more hydronium ions than hydroxyl ions. The addition of more neutral solution is not capable of making another neutral solution either acidic or basic, unless there is a chemical reaction that removes one of the ions. It just increases the volume of the saline solution.
Temperature has one end-point — absolute zero — and is open ended in the other direction.
It one is in Antarctica and the temperature changes from -80 deg F to -75 deg F, it is probably more informative to say that it is “getting less cold.”
Clyde,
Neutrality is not an endpoint, it is a middle point.
There are no exactly defined extremes because the ionic dissociation varies, primarily with temperature. Whereas, neutrality is defined as equal concentrations of cations and anions. The pH of 7 serves as an end-point of the upper range of acidity, and the lower range of basicity.
Clyde,
Semantics. pH 7 is simply the point where H+ ions are at a concentration of 10E-7 moles/liter, and pH in general is simply -log[H+]; it says nothing about composition other than that.
Ross McKitrick,
1. Allen’s response to your critique in the Global Warming Policy Foundation discussion boils down to “The signal of human influence on climate is now so strong the fine details of the approach you use to estimate it barely matter.” You do attempt a rebuttal to this rebuttal, but are only able to say “some papers attempting three-way (natural, greenhouse-gas and aerosol) optimal fingerprinting yield anything but a clear signal.” That falls far short of showing that the identified signal is spurious. I will stay tuned.
2. I do of course support mathematical rigor. For that reason I ask you to comment as a statistician on the paper by Koutsoyiannis, et al. on “hens and eggs, temperature and CO2” featured on this blog in September. Are you OK with the data smoothing? Are you OK with throwing out data which has an unphysical sign, or does that just underscore the fact that the data you keep is noisy? Are you OK with making a startling statistical inference “CO2 cannot cause temperature rise” without assigning any confidence level to the statement? Yes, this is a test to see if your loyalty is to rigor or if it is to a particular point of view on cliimate issues.
David Andrews,
1. I have shown across 3 papers that Allen’s method yields results that are biased and inconsistent, with the bias towards false positives. Allen responds Yes, but look at how many positives we get. Some rebuttal.
2. I haven’t looked at DK’s new work yet. I have my own time series paper under review which touches on similar issues. So, as before, stay tuned.
No. Allen responds
“The signal of human influence on climate is now so strong the fine details of the approach you use to estimate it barely matter.”
and you do not rebut that effectively.
David Andrews | December 19, 2023 at 5:19 pm |
No. Allen responds
“The signal of human influence on climate is now so strong the fine details of the approach you use to estimate it barely matter.”
and you do not rebut that effectively.
David – Does such an arrogant statement deserve a rebuttal?
I gave you a plus because you addressed the subject of this article by Ross McKitrick, whereas most other comments were off topic. A plausible reason is that few commenters understood the material that Ross presented. What an awful display of poor blog etiquette. Geoff S
Did you note that Ross McKitrick claims “I haven’t looked at DK’s new paper yet”? Then how does he know that his own new paper addresses similar issues? Wouldn’t he want to understand a similar paper? Do you think he is endorsing DK’s analysis, or just unwilling to criticize any analysis which gives the answer he wants? Is RMcK really the champion of rigor and integrity he claims to be?
David Andrews | December 21, 2023 at 9:13 pm |”Is RMcK really the champion of rigor and integrity he claims to be?”
David – certainly more of a champion of rigor and integrity than the lead author of mbh98
geoff – my apologies , I am one of the offenders.
Unfortunately human nature takes over when so many posts when so many posts over hype the manufactured consensus.
This article is an example of a person with good credential pretending to be a scientist and wasting our, and his, time.
This is comedy, not science.
There are many causes of climate change of the list of usual suspects, plus some unknown causes / feedbacks.
No one knows exactly what each climate variable is doing
No one knows the correct split of manmade versus natural climate change variables.
The climate models only “know: what they are programmed to “know”. They are programmed to scare people, except the Russian INM model.
They make inaccurate predictions, so they don’t know much,
To analyze climate models that make wrong predictions is a folly.
Science starts with a theory
Then data collection
Then analysis of data quality
Then analysis as to whether the data are useful and accurate enough to prove the theory
The IPCC theory that global warming is almost entirely manmade is wild speculation.
There are no data to prove that.
Evidence so far suggests a mix of manmade and natural causes of the warming since 1975, with some variables needing a lot more data availability:
Global average cloudiness and types of clouds, in days and nights, and global average water vapor percentages by latitude.
Without all the needed data, the question of how much warming is natural versus manmade can not be answered.
There are insufficient data for any statistical analysis.
This study is meaningless mathematical mass-turbation.
Bad data + Good statistics
= Bad conclusions
This isn’t your field. What is?
Your field is claiming to own a $60000 2013 Tesla S (197 inches long) with a pitiful 160 mile range (40kWh battery, unless you pay $10,000 to $20000 more, versus similar sized ICE such as a Toyota Avalon (195 inches long for $36,000
The 2013 Tesla S costs $24,000 more a 2013 Toyota, and you claim an EV payback in three years versus a comparable ICE car..
I believe you are exaggerating or perhaps lying.
I suggest you not call me a liar.
Do you have a professional field? why do you dodge the question? I think newspaper delivery is an honest occupation.
George, you’re a poser; not an adept one at that.
You’ve continued to present boastful challenges; bizarre “intellectual” threats towards denizens. I’m curious how your many times you plan on drawing lines in the sand while delivering nothing of substance, about anything. You’ve expressed that you have expertise on certain topics, yet when experts invite discussion on topics of interest to you, you’re nowhere to be found. I’m pretty sure I know the reason why.
GJK: “Oh, you want to talk climate science? Can we start with Ocean Acidification, then move on to deoxygenation of surface waters on land and oceans, then move onto the slowing of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation?…Ready?…You made the accusation, now get to it.”
You had nothing to say when Spencer opined on one of your favorite topics of interest earlier, Ocean Acidification, more than once, crickets:
https://judithcurry.com/2023/12/18/climate-attribution-method-overstates-fingerprints-of-external-forcing/#comment-997106
TheCliff,
“There are no data to prove that.”
That is correct, but meaningless since science doesn’t prove anything. A hypothesis is made, experiments producing data are carried out to test the hypothesis. The data may either confirm (not prove) or disprove the hypothesis. If enough tests of the hypothesis by independent testers fail to disprove it, it becomes an accepted theory.
“Without all the needed data, the question of how much warming is natural versus manmade can not be answered.”
That is also true and also meaningless for the same reasons; Science cannot give an exact number for anything, rather it can provide a prediction with a (statistical) uncertainty based on the available data. Currently, the scientific theory estimates that (approximately) 110 ± 30% of observed global warming comes from human activities (they also provide some cooling). If you don’t like it, denial is not disproof; non-believers are free to develop their own hypothesis about the cause of warming, and subject them to the rigors of the scientific method and testing by independent bodies. I have seen a number of these alternate hypotheses, many here on this blog; I have seen none that have survived the independent analyses/testing (both logical and experimental) to become accepted theories that can dethrone AGW theory as the reason for currently observed warming.
‘I have seen none that have survived the independent analyses/testing (both logical and experimental) to become accepted theories that can dethrone AGW theory as the reason for currently observed warming.”
My prior post went FAR over your head as you were too busy nitpicking the word “prove” that communicates better than your recommended “confirm”
Te exact causes of the warming since 1975 are unknown.
The correct answer is NOT “AGW”, so whether you like the theory or not is irrelevant.
The correct answer is
We do not know.
I hereby challenge you to name all variables included in AGE. CO2 emissions are just one. If you refuse, we must have a duel.
“Currently, the scientific theory estimates that (approximately) 110 ± 30% of observed global warming comes from human activities …”
ONE researcher has suggested that. As I recollect, he didn’t offer an explanation for why natural variability decided to take a holiday.
Clyde, you can find TWELVE peer reviewed papers that result in the (average) conclusion of 110 ± 30% of observed global warming comes from human activities at:
https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=57
If you’d like a more detailed explanation of how they get to these numbers, see:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans/
TheCliff,
The correct answer is: You do not know because you choose not to. You don’t speak for anyone else.
TheCliff,
In other words, you can’t offer another theory or natural effect that can be shown to be a significant fraction of the warming that has happened over the last 50 years. Thanks, I’ll go with the accepted theory until somebody comes up with one that is demonstrably better.
As for your challenge, seems a desperate whataboutism deflection. And I can’t name ALL the parameters (although I could probably name the important ones), so I refuse.
Gammon
When challenged to name manmade causes of climate change other than CO2 emissions, you evaded the question.
The various manmade and natural causes of climate change are climate science 101, on the first hour of the first day of class. You must have been sleeping?
Not one scientist on this planet KNOWS the exact causes of the post-1975 global warming and not one KNOWS the ECS or CO2.
It takes great intelligence and courage to say “we do not know” when THAT is the correct answer to many climate science questions. Which leaves you out.
Actually, I did say don’t know and, indeed, can’t know. However, we can have a very good idea and I explained how it works in detail. Sorry, it is beyond you.
No, you didn’t challenge me to name the causes of AGE, you asked for all the variables. It is not becoming to misrepresent yourself, claiming you asked as simple question when you actually asked a very complex one.
Off the top of my head: Anthro – GHGs: CO2, CH4, N2O, CFCs HCFCs, HFCs, tropospheric ozone, water that human activities inject into the stratosphere, and a myriad of very minor chemicals.
That’s it for specifically AGE. For ACC in general you can add particulates: general, black carbon, NH3, SO2 => ammonium and sulfate aerosols. Land usage, agricultural practices, transportation (land and sea), deforestation, mining, water cycle disruption (dams and overuse).
Probably more, but that’s what comes to mind.
I stand corrected. There appear to be others besides Schmidt that make the claim of 110% anthropogenic influence.
Unfortunately the numbers intoxicated by 110% proof are disproportionate to the sober these days. D*mn the pushers.
Why the US should NOT spend trillions on green unicorn hallucinations.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/global-debt-by-government-97-trillion.jpg
Another take on Allen:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2205.10508.pdf
Another related paper:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac14ee/ampdf
that’s the paper I referred to
Thank you!
George J Kamburoff I suggest you explain about ocean acidification. You told us “Oh, you want to talk climate science? Can we start with Ocean Acidification…..”
So I started with ocean acidification, and you had no reply. Let’s try again. Here is my argument starting with ocean acidification in case you forgot. Please rebut:
Morgan Wright | December 19, 2023 at 5:46 am | Reply
Currently, when calcium carbonate settles on the ocean floor at depths lower than the lysocline and CCD, it is dissolved. The high CO2 content on the ocean floor at great depth dissolves CaCO3, and releases CO2 back into the atmosphere. For the past 250 million years, CO2 has been decreasing linearly (roughly), such that it would hit the zero point in about 50 million years. This is due to limestone deposits above the lysocline. When atmospheric CO2 gets lower, the depth of the CCD decreases, and when it gets low enough, the CCD reaches the bottom of the ocean, and limestone would start collecting there. When the lysocline reaches the bottom of ocean, CO2 levels there would be too low to dissolve calcium carbonate at all, and limestone would collect there in large amounts. This would cause more CO2 to be taken out of the air, and the jig is up for CO2 in the atmosphere. Sooner or later, around 50 million years from now, CO2 drops to zero and all life ends. The CO2 has been decreasing for 250 million years, but once the lysocline is gone, the rate at which it decreases would rise quickly until it reaches zero, and all life on earth would end forever. The best thing humans have ever done is put CO2 back in the air where it belongs. If humans had not arrived and started burning fossil fuels, life on earth would have been doomed. So yes, I’m a climate doomer.
Yeah, I replied. I told you to look up Dungeness crabs and Ocean Acidification.
I look for explanations.
Oh, CNN says so. Tell them it’s impossible to dissolve Dungeness crab shells because they are 5 kilometers above the lysocline. Tell them they need to guess again, and they need to try to find a better lie this time.
Stop being so nasty. What is your problem?
Look it up for yourself and find it is in science journals and publications.
“A new NOAA-funded study has documented for the first time that ocean acidification along the US Pacific Northwest coast is impacting the shells and sensory organs of some young Dungeness crab, a prized crustacean that supports the most valuable fishery on the West Coast.
Analysis of samples collected during a 2016 NOAA research cruise identified examples of damage to the carapace, or upper shell, of numerous larval Dungeness crabs, as well as the loss of hair-like sensory structures crabs use to orient themselves to their surroundings. “
NOAA funded, they lied.
It’s impossible for sea water above the lysocline to dissolve any CaCO3, no matter how much the alarmist pretend it does. And how the heck does this newly acidic ocean water dissolve “sensory structures.” Doesn’t that reek of BS to you? We’d all have to stop swimming to avoid losing our sensory structures. Think how this news will affect the vacation industry in beach resorts around the world, if people started having their sensory structures dissolved. Bad news all around.
Morgan,
I don’t know about crabs, but you can look and see what NOAA has to say about oysters, corals, pteropods and probably anything else with aragonitic – carbonate shells.
Morgan,
https://www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/ocean-coasts/ocean-acidification
George J Kamburoff | December 19, 2023 at 10:36 am |
There’s lots of nonsense posted about ocean neutralization, falsely called “ocean acidification”.
Here are my two analyses of the question of Dungeness crabs and neutralization. I’ve fished commercially for Dungeness, so I’m not a novice on the question.
Enjoy.
w.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/01/31/the-solution-to-dissolution/
and
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/02/02/dungeness-crabs-redux/
Willis,
Got any references from unbiased peer reviewed journals, written by someone that understands chemistry and the pH, temperature, pressure, and salinity influences on the solubility of various forms of CaCO3? Here’s a reference that might help you write something scientific instead of sensational denialism.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/347906795_Electrochemical_carbon_dioxide_capture_to_close_the_carbon_cycle
In particular see figure S.1, and surrounding solubility equations.
ganon1950 | December 19, 2023 at 11:23 pm |
Ganon, if you think that something I wrote is wrong, there’s one and only one way to demonstrate that:
• Quote my exact words that you think are wrong, and
• Show (demonstrate, not claim) exactly where, how, and why it’s wrong.
That’s how science works, not by handwaving, but by specific facts and logic. The sad truth is that your snarky remarks are a useless joke. Here’s a primer on how to conduct a scientific debate.
Regards,
w.
https://rosebyanyothernameblog.wordpress.com/2019/03/10/agreeing-to-disagree/
Willis
There’s lots of nonsense posted about ocean neutralization, falsely called “ocean acidification”.
There is a difference is between “acidic” and “acidification” (the difference between a state and the time derivative thereof). Your statement falsely implies that pH is an endpoint where the process stops. However, if it will make you feel better, I’d be glad to call it “debasification” until it passes through pH 7.
On average, the pH of the ocean is decreasing and it is basic. There.
Sorry I misread. The mixing layer of the ocean is basic but the pH is decreasing – getting more acidic. It also gets less basic (more acidic) as you go deeper. About pH = 7.3 at 1000 meters in the North Pacific.
Outside of the opinions that are outside those of dead and dying Old Europe and America’s government-education complex, scientific skeptics, for example, have compared climatology pseudoscience to the ancient science of astrology to prey upon the ignorance and superstitious fears of others.
What does outside of outside mean? Nevermind, got a quote for that comparison?
“Morgan, sorry you feel you need to continue to make a show of your ignorance of high school chemistry. ”
This, coming from a guy who says:
“It also gets less basic (more acidic) as you go deeper. About pH = 7.3 at 1000 meters in the North Pacific.”
In fact, it gets less acidic as you go deeper. Typical pH goes from 7.3 at 1000 m up to 7.4 or 7.5 in the benthos. Solubility of CaCO3 goes up as you go deeper, but this is due to increased solubility in water with increased 𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙪𝙧𝙚, not because of a decrease in pH. If you’d like me to explain why this is, I’d be glad to, but I doubt you’d be able to understand 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕙𝕚𝕘𝕙 𝕤𝕔𝕙𝕠𝕠𝕝 𝕔𝕙𝕖𝕞𝕚𝕤𝕥𝕣𝕪 behind it.
The pH of 7.3 at a depth of 1000 meters still won’t dissolve CaCO3. It won’t even dissolve sensory organs. So the article is a lie, or a religion, one or the other. Or maybe pseudoscience like the ancient science of astrology.
I’m going with religion. When this many people all believe the same lie, it’s a religion.
Do you understand “transition”? Do you understand the difference between aragonite and calcite. Do you know the solubility of calcite (the most insoluble form of CaCO3) does not magically switch off and on at the lysocline? Do you know that calcite has a solubility of 32 mg/liter at pH 9, 160 mg/L @ pH 8, 500 mg/L @ pH 7? Do you know that small changes in pH can drastically move the lysocline and carbonate compensation depth? Do you know that you are not a crab?
Did you know anything about calcium carbonate solubility when you claimed NOAA lies and proceeded to identify with a crab?
I’m still waiting for somebody to explain the acidity of something which has no acidity at all. A pH of 7.3 is not going to cause me to bring out the Pepto Bismol. Did you know that 7.0 is neutral? Ocean acidification should be called ocean neutralization. I wondered when the ocean will become neutral enough to dissolve the sensory structures of gaggabooga crabs whatever the f they are. But thanks to you and the evangelists of the Church of the Witnesses of Great Climate, now I understand…you don’t need any acidity at all to be acidic. just lie about it and take a few billion dollars from Joe Biden’s “Inflation Production Act.”
Did you know there is a difference between a salt’s solubility and its ability to avoid precipitation? Well, there is also a difference between its solubility and whether a solid salt will dissolve in a 1000 years, especially mineralized salts, the extreme being gem stones. You see these things first hand when working in a lab and trying to dissolve and precipitate according to handbook figures.
Morgan, sorry you feel you need to continue to make a show of your ignorance of high school chemistry. pH 7 means that there are 10^(- 7) moles (6.023×10^16) H+ ions per liter of water. Secondly, it doesn’t take acid to dissolve things (consider salt ). Joking about it to cover your ignorance is not impressive, more like sad. I’d have you look at the paper I referenced for Willis, but at this point, I am quite sure you don’t have a chance of understanding it. It seems you come from the church of “I don’t understand simple science, and I’m proud of it”.
Gannon, when I was young I used to think there was something called simple science, but now I realize that all science is very hard. Some experiments can be made to be simple but understanding all the complexities of life and nature will continue to occupy us for many more generations. Solubility is not simple science.
Ron,
All science is difficult when it is new, that does not mean it is not understood. Solubility of carbonate in the ocean is well understood because it has been studied in detail and pH, temperature, pressure, and salinity dependence are known.
I agree, not only is science difficult when new, all endeavors are difficult before they are understood, (or when they are mistakenly believed to be fully understood). It’s easy to use scientifically gained knowledge to make new predictions but they are still unknowable for certain until rigorously tested. Then on top of that you have integrity issues and bias.
Here is an article today by Matt Ridley, who was dared to question establishment science dynamics, not only on climate science but on the origin of covid.
From a psychiatrist: Theodore Dalrymple:
“– When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity.–“.
I like this piece more; same source:
“A society of emasculated liars is easy to control.”
But don’t think its limited only to climate science. The demand to ‘declare your faith’ (in whatever it is) is the weapon at hand. Boardroom tactics.
It is time to look elsewhere and retool.
Earth is warmer than Moon, because Earth rotates faster.
– At the same distance from the sun, Earth receives 28% less solar energy (higher Albedo), but Earth rotates
very much faster…
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Pingback: Climate attribution method overstates “fingerprints” of external forcing | ajmarciniak
ganon1950 says:
“Morgan, sorry you feel you need to continue to make a show of your ignorance of high school chemistry. ”
This, coming from a guy who says:
“It also gets less basic (more acidic) as you go deeper. About pH = 7.3 at 1000 meters in the North Pacific.”
In fact, it gets 𝙡𝙚𝙨𝙨 acidic as you go deeper. Typical pH goes from 7.3 at 1000 m up to 7.4 or 7.5 in the benthos. Solubility of CaCO3 goes up as you go deeper, but this is due to increased solubility in water with increased 𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙪𝙧𝙚, not because of a decrease in pH. If you’d like me to explain why this is, I’d be glad to, but I doubt you’d be able to understand 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕙𝕚𝕘𝕙 𝕤𝕔𝕙𝕠𝕠𝕝 𝕔𝕙𝕖𝕞𝕚𝕤𝕥𝕣𝕪 behind it. Hint: The solubility of CO2 increases with increases pressure. (please, wipe that puzzled look off your face).
MW
Please try not to confuse Mr. Gammon with facts, He is already very confused.
Remember that changing the brainwashed mind of a leftist Climate Howler Global Whiner is tougher than trying to teach your cat geometry.
Keep up the good comments.
This article is a perfect example of why the economics profession’s reputation is in the toilet. Economics has devolved into mathematical mass – turbation. For the US, as an example I follow, US economists, as a group, have never predicted as recession, Not even once.
Here a Canadian economist puts on a climate scientist hat and completely wastes his time and ours, examining wild guesses of the causes of global warming. No one on this planet knows exactly what each climate change variable did to the climate in the past 48 years of global warming. But we have a lot of official guesses stated with great certainty they do not deserved.
There are no data.
Statistics require reasonable accurate data.
With no data on the exact causes of post-1975 warming, these statistics are totally worthless.
The author concludes:
“based on estimates of the role of anthropogenic forcings on the climate that are likely heavily overstated.”
We already knew that in 1988 when the IPCC was formed to blame global warming on manmade CO2 emissions. This became very obvious in 1995 when the IPPC stated, with no data, their arbitrary conclusion that all natural causes of climate change were just “noise”.
If we were not sure in 1988, it became very obvious in 1995, that manmade causes of global warming were intended to be overstated for political reasons. The IPCC conclusion about natural causes of climate change came first, Then the IPCC did what they could to “prove” the politically acceptable to leftists conclusion. Which consisted mainly of the IPCC ignoring all contrary data.
Science + Politics = Politics
Wild guess “data” + Statistics
= Wild guess “data”
Making the lives of US citizens miserable because of CO2 emissions is ridiculous. Go control China, you Climate Doomer control freaks.
The amount of bank financing going to mining coal, the dirtiest fossil fuel of them all, remains at surprisingly high levels. Most of it is coming from China.
A new report from researchers at BloombergNEF shows that all funding for coal projects and coal-exposed companies needs to drop precipitously to limit the chances of global temperatures rising more than 1.5C by midcentury.
Banks arranged about $120 billion of financing for coal projects last year, equal to about 13% of all the financing arranged for fossil-fuel projects, according to BNEF. That ratio needs to fall to just 1% at most by the 2040s to limit the impact of climate change, BNEF’s research shows.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-12-20/coal-financing-is-still-booming-led-by-china-lqdnwy4p
Leftists want power and control
The CO2 boogeyman is their strategy to create fear.
People in fear demand that their government “do something”
“Do somethings” is wat leftists have l0ved to hear for over a century.
Their lates “do something” is Nut Zero
It will fail to stop the rise of atmospheric CO2 (which actually beneficial, not pollution)
But Nut Zero will assist the rise of leftist fascism. Leftists love to tell everyone how to live. They are vermin, but you can’t set traps for them.
https://honestclimatescience.blogspot.com/
Here is a relevant paper from 9/23.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/36/20/JCLI-D-22-0681.1.xml
Thanks again. I’ll have to look at this, particularly how they ensure a TLS coefficient is unbiased.
In spite of – OH NOES – “CLIMATE CHANGE” (aka Global Warming) people are **** GASP **** expected to live LONGER!!!
But as I dug into its scientific papers, as well as reports from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the United Nations, it was the data about kindergartners that stood out. According to some models, half of today’s 5-year-olds in the wealthiest countries are projected to reach 100. Despite gun violence and epidemics of obesity, diabetes and opioids—and accounting for disparities in race, gender and income—life expectancy in the US is still going up.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-12-20/we-re-not-ready-for-a-society-where-living-to-100-is-common
Life expectancy is a prediction
An educated guess
Not based on data
Extrapolated from past trends with educated “adjustments”
A meaningless prediction except for insurance companies and their actuaries.
The average age of death is a real number based on all cause mortality data.
Since life expectancy is a data free prediction, statistics are irrelevant.
Statistics are only useful for reasonably accurate data. Not for predictions that could turn out to be far from reality.
Mr. McKitrick. In Allen, M. R., & Stott, P. A. (2003), if 4 climate models are sampled, the variance is divided by 4. This would make sense if, for example, the length of an object is measured 4 times; in this case the same dimension of the same object is measured 4 times, not different model runs (even if it’s the same model) which were started with different initial conditions. Perhaps the variance of the climate model measurements should be calculated as a simple mean. I’m questioning the validity of treating the measurements of a given climate model statistic in the same space and time as if the measurements are measuring the same quality.
What is your opinion on this question?
I didn’t frame the variance properly for the measurement of a piece of wood, but I think you would get the idea.
I guess I could see combining the variances of 4 runs, 10 times each in the usual way as that is measurements of the same “object”. But if variances of different climate models are combined, is the object measured the same?
JIm2,
Yes it would be similar to measuring the length of a piece of wood multiple times with a tape measure and with a laser distance measuring device, and then finding the weighted average and combined uncertainty by standard statistical methods.
For climate models, many groups try to measure “the same thing” with different model implementations, and statistical analysis is performed on the group of results. You can read about it at:
https://wcrp-cmip.org/
I’m not seeing the answer to my questions there, ganon. Could you highlight the answers in that rather expansive web site?
Even in the case of a single climate model, would the variance of runs of different initial conditions be considered a measurement of the same “object”?
There are no climate models
There are only computer games
They “predict” what they are programmed to predict
They are programmed to make scary global warming predictions because that is what the computer game owners want predicted
Accuracy is irrelevant
The Russian INM climate model is the only one that tries to be accurate.
But there are really no real models, not even the Russian INM computer game.
A real model requires a detailed and correct understanding of EVERY climate change variable. That knowledge is far in the future, if ever.
Even with such knowledge, the ability to predict the future climate may be similar to the ability to predict whether or not it will snow in London on January 1, 2025.
If climate is a chaotic system, then accurate 50 to 100 year predictions are probably impossible
(1) Computers predict whatever they are programmed to predict
(2) Computer predictions are not data
(3) Without data, there is no science. Climate confuser games are climate astrology used by smarmy leftists for climate change propaganda.
If you can’t understand (1), (2) and (3), then you do not understand climate science.
JIm2, I’m not sure what you are looking for. I wouldn’t expect a “lesson” the on statistical analysis. I’d try the “About CMIP” tab at the top for a general description of how the various models are organized to measure the same “object” (same starting point parameters, and same time frames) and how the results are compared and consolidated. Next, I might look at the tab/subtab, CMIP data/CMIP Model and Experiment Documentation.
Here are a couple of papers that might help you understand the results of the process:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-16264-6#Tab1
https://iwaponline.com/jwcc/article/14/6/1831/95169/Performance-evaluation-and-ranking-of-CMIP6-global
Also, here is an 18-slide Power Point presentation from the organizing body.
https://www.wcrp-climate.org/images/modelling/WGCM/CMIP/CMIP6FinalDesign_GMD_180329.pdf
Hope that helps.
The concept isn’t using different climate models to describe the same object, the climate.
Rather, is it reasonable to consider different climate models the same “object” in terms of the statistical properties. To the point, is is reasonable to assume the variance of the errors in variables to be the same for each differently formulated model.
JIm2,
I don’t know, but I would guess that they are all given the same set of initial parameters, cell by cell, and perhaps with specified uncertainties, but how those uncertainties are propagated internally is probably up to the different modelling groups. [disclaimer: this is pure speculation].
The working assumption is that the variance of the errors on the model-generated temperatures (not the variance of the temperatures themselves) is the same for all runs, all models and observed temperatures. Under that assumption, if a signal is constructed as an average of multiple runs it makes sense to adjust for the number of runs as is customarily done. But if the variance of the errors on observed temperatures is different from that in climate models this adjustment isn’t adequate. But the data set doesn’t contain enough independent information to estimate the correct adjustment.
Thank you, Mr. McKitrick.
Thanks for your essay, Ross.
Earlier another essay was presented describing how temperature leads CO2: Causality and climate:
https://judithcurry.com/2023/09/26/causality-and-climate/#more-30527
You may be unaware of the paper referenced, or you may not have had a chance to review the science presented; otherwise, I’m curious about your take, how your analysis dovetails with that science. Hopefully the question isn’t too oblique, relatively spealing. Thanks
I haven’t looked at that paper yet. However reverse-causality between T and CO2 is already established in the ice core data, see https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/env.2373 (they don’t state it in the abstract but it’s there, see summary at https://climatediscussionnexus.com/2022/09/14/everybody-knows-the-ice-core-record-shows-that-co2-controls-the-climate/ So it’s not an unreasonable stretch to suppose it might show up on shorter time scales too.
The paper claiming temperature changes lead CO2 changes was written by a statistics person who knew nothing about climate science
He was ignorant of the fact that CO2 can be a climate change feedback and a climate change forcing at the same time.
The feedback process is weak and very long term,. The forcing process is moderate and short term,
(A) More CO2 in the atmosphere will result, as a feedback, from oceans warming (from any cause) About a +17ppm increase per +1 degree C. of ocean warming over 50,000 years in the ice core era)
(B) More CO2 in the atmosphere from manmade CO2 emissions will increase land temperatures rapidly, although less rapidly for oceans because of their high thermal inertia.
Some conservatives use evidence of (A) to claim that (B) does not happen. They are climate science ignorant, just like the author of the claptrap “study” you mentioned.
I gave Ms. Curry a hard time in the comment section of that article, for including such a ridiculous “study” here.
Some conservatives are so biased in favor of hearing that CO2 does nothing, or almost nothing, that they can be very gullible,.
Just like most leftists are very biased and very gullible to “studies” that make fake claims about how CO2 will kill your dog, or whatever the latest CO2 boogeyman hoax is.
Thecliff: “He was ignorant of the fact that CO2 can be a climate change feedback and a climate change forcing at the same time.”
You think the authors were ignorant about feedback and forcing? Isn’t that a bit harsh?
I guess it is then fair to include a paper based on information flow analysis that establishes that current warming is caused by CO2 increases, not the other way around:
“On the causal structure between CO2 and global temperature”
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691
And, there are a number of papers with more traditional approaches, but higher resolution ice-core analyses, that show in the last glacial-interglacial transition, CO2 slightly preceded, or was essentially synchronous, with temperature rise.
morfu03,
” what is “it””. Per NOAA:
“In the 200-plus years since the industrial revolution began, the concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere has increased due to human actions. During this time, the pH of surface ocean waters has fallen by 0.1 pH units.”
So “it” is pH of the ocean’s surface layer, I presume a global average. If you would like more detail (please don’t consider it an ad hominin attack) I’d suggest reading, “Surface ocean pH and buffer capacity: past, present and future”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-55039-4
as for:
“1.5 trillion tonnes of CO2 estimated anthropogenic production over the last 200 years
40 trillion tonnes of dissolved CO2 in the oceans (in various chemical forms)
more than 4000 trillion tonnes of CO2 in marine sediments buffering that amount
shows how impossible your claim is! 1.5/40 simply cannot have a 26% effect (much less as the 40 is indeed buffered by the 4000+)!”
The marine sediments do not buffer until they are dissolved, They will move into the long carbon cycle. So we can ignore the 4000 trillion tonnes of solid carbonate.
As for the 40 trillion tonnes of dissolved CO2: How much of that is in the upper mixing layer? A clue: the average depth of the ocean is 3682 m, while the average depth of the mixing layer is 200 m. Thus, with an even distribution, there are only about 2.2 trillion tonnes in the mixing layer. It is actually less than this because carbonate concentrations increase in depth (higher solubility with lower pH, lower temperature, and higher pressure – all significant.). Let’s be generous and say 2 trillion tons, and then roughly 30% of anthropogenic CO2 (0.5 trillion tonnes) is absorbed into the mixing layer). Just offhand, I’d say that a 26% increase in hydrogen ion concentration (CO2 + H20 -> HCO3(-) + H+), is not (your) “impossible”, but quite reasonable, and agrees with the measurements. As I have said, we are quite lucky that the buffering is there, but it is not infinite.
As for the “ad hominin attack”, I don’t consider suggesting reading material, for things you are not familiar with, to be an attack. If I was “snarky”, I apologize, it has become reflexive around here.
morfuo3,
““I didn’t write that”
Of course you did! It was not your dog, me or some EPA spy!”
No, I didn’t write it, somebody at EPA wrote it. I posted it and cited the source. I retract my apology for being snarky – you deserve it. And I didn’t cite you, I quoted you – if you don’t like being quoted, maybe you shouldn’t write anything.
As for the rest of your misunderstanding and incorrect calculations: you have already said those, and I have already responded to it (above). Good luck with your studies of chemical buffering and solubility – I wish you better understanding.
ganon1950 posted | December 18, 2023 at 9:38 pm |
“The acidity of the ocean has increased by about 25% since before the Industrial Revolution, greater than any other time within the last two million years.”
Now ganon1950 writes:
ganon1950 | December 20, 2023 at 12:45 pm | Reply
” what is “it””. Per NOAA:
So “it” is pH of the ocean’s surface layer, I presume a global average. If you would like more detail (please don’t consider it an ad hominin attack) ”
No, you wrote quite enough already!
I am glad I could assist you seeing the error in your ways.
It wasn´t too hard after all .. just about 100 posts of you all wrong and what you call “snarky”!
(I really hope that you do NOT want the make the argument that what you “posted” initially is the same as what you define now..)
>>>> misunderstanding and incorrect calculations
I see my numbers relevant for your initial statement are unchallenged, so the misunderstanding and incorrectness is entirely yours. If you think it is okay to change statements or rules mid-debate, I am ready for you playing coins tosses for huge amounts of money according to my changing rules – such behavior shows a very limited understand how science works!
I said,
“Most of the pH measurements probably were made in the upper ocean mixing layer, but it has clearly dropped by 0.1 pH units, which corresponds to a 26% increase in hydronium ion concentration.”
The EPA quote said the same thing, except they said “about 25%”. If you don’t understand the difference between pH and concentration, I have already given the formula.
The global AVERAGE pH of all the oceans can not be calculated accurately even though local measurements are accurat.
ESPECIALLY in the1800s.
Therefore, the claim that ocean pH changed by 0.1 in the past 173 years can not be proven with measurements, no matter WHAT accuracy is arbitrarily is claimed by the lying authorities.
You have to learn to be more skeptical Gammon, and not accept every government claim as the gospel. Being gullible can make a person into a useful idiot.
The same government has been predicting global warming doom since the 1970s, yet the actual climate has improved every decade.
You are acting as a trained parrot of government bureaucrats,
The same ones who made the significant 1940 to 1975 global colling disappear AFTER 1975, because that global cooling was inconvenient data for their global warming from CO2 narrative
If you act like a typical leftist and believe everything your Bribe’em government tells you, without question or independent thought, then you are a gullible old fool. Which you are.
No, it is much simpler than that!
As I mentioned repeatedly ganon1950 and his EPA citation just confuses the complete ocean with the near sea surface ocean.
He changed his tune since then, basically conceding to anything I wrote!
Not manning up to state that his original posting:
ganon1950 posted | December 18, 2023 at 9:38 pm |
“””
The acidity of the ocean has increased by about 25% since before the Industrial Revolution, greater than any other time within the last two million years.
“””
was completely wrong.
morfu03,
Yes, I clarified several times that the EPA statement was about surface pH. If it upsets you so much, I hereby dissociate myself from the EPA statement because they did not specifically say “the surface mixing layer”. I clarified this with a reference to a NOAA article. I also note the entire ocean column beneath the mixing layer is more acidic (less basic for those that don’t understand the terminology) than the mixing layer.
ganon1950 | December 24, 2023 at 8:12 pm |
morfu03,
Yes, I clarified several times that the EPA statement was about surface pH.
Ganon – you only admitted it after you got caught. Same with numerous other comments you have made – It gets old
JTNCS,
I didn’t get caught with anything – the EPA did. And I made the correct supposition about it when questioned and gave another reference that was explicit about something I thought was obvious.
The only thing that is getting old is your nitpicking and complaining about my comments.
Your ganon1950 | December 20, 2023 at 12:45 pm | posting
“So “it” is pH of the ocean’s surface layer, I presume a global average.”
reads like a very strong agreement that your original posting on this topic:
ganon1950 posted | December 18, 2023 at 9:38 pm |
“The acidity of the ocean has increased by about 25% since before the Industrial Revolution, greater than any other time within the last two million years.”
was very wrong!
(Your apparent ignorance about the importance of the sediments is a side note) Why did this take so long for you to see it? My posts were spot on from the beginning:
“””
Wow that is really bad.. Of course there is some sea surface effect and it is well measured for the last 80 years with a decent global coverage.
The total amount of carbon in the oceans as well as the pH value is very well buffered and virtually unchanged!
“””
Morfu03,
Why do you use non-quantitative terms like “virtually unchanged” – is that akin to saying a change of 0.1 pH units is virtually nothing, or a change of 26% in hydrogen ion concentration is “virtually nothing”?
Morfu03,
Similarly, “very well buffered” does not mean infinitely buffered. If you had read (and understood) the other reference I gave:
“Surface ocean pH and buffer capacity: past, present and future”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-55039-4
instead of looking for way of making attacks on me about a quote from the EPA, you might know how buffers and pH work for the ocean – carbonate system.
.
And no, the EPA statement was not “very wrong,” it is your statement that the pH value is virtually unchanged that is “very wrong.” In fact the change is quite easily measured, as is shown by the ALOHA station measurement over the last 35 years, and is most definitely not “virtually unchanged”.
Ross McKittrick,
Thank you for your essay.
Statistics? This thread was more fund when we were talking about Dunganoobia crabs.
A terrifying glimpse into Earth’s future: Scientists simulate a ‘runaway greenhouse effect’ – and say it could turn our planet into an uninhabitable HELL in just a few hundred years…
https://trib.al/FdcTrbG
Quite possible, the slow carbon cycle, which has kept the Earth in the “Goldilocks zone” for so long, might not be able to keep up with a fast, large increase in CO2. Even the Tibetan Pots LIP that caused/contributed to the Permian–Triassic extinction event 252 million years ago had CO2 growth over tens of thousands of years. Hate to be a “doomer,” but it seems to me that mitigatation and sequestration are more important than adaptation, although some adaptation is already needed. Ignorance is not an excuse.
This article somehow seems appropriate to our discussions of ocean acidification:
“Ocean acidification and the Permo-Triassic mass extinction”
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274722965_Ocean_acidification_and_the_Permo-Triassic_mass_extinction
CO2 was headed down until the planet got a useful injection from fossil fuels combustion. It was getting close to the point that plants would begin to die. IIRC, that’s around 210 ppm?
Jim2′
Actually, CO2 has been quite stable for 10,000 years, rising slowly from 260 ppm (near the end of last glacial – interglacial transition) to about 280 ppm in 1750 CE. Then, it took off with the increase of burning fossil fuels. It is now 422 ppm and increasing at nearly 4.7 ppm/year.
I understand you need to deny, but you should wake up to what paleoclimatology has to tell us. You should also stop making up stuff as part of your need to deny.
https://berkeleyearth.org/dv/10000-years-of-carbon-dioxide/
Take a look at the charts here. CO2 had been trending down until fossil fuels came along. The plants threw a party! And to this day, they party on.
https://geography.name/what-is-the-evidence-for-climate-change/
That slight drop around 1650 CE of about 5 ppm from ~285 to 280 ppm also shows up in the 10000-year analysis I referenced. Figures you would pick a data set the stops circa 1930 and doesn’t show the additional 110 ppm since then. Makes that little dip look twice as big as it really is compared to current values.
Gammon
The CO2 level was never stable. It had been declining for 4.5 billion years, threatening to end most life in a few million more years.
But then humans began recycling carbon that had been sequestered underground in coal, oil and gas.
Burning these fuels was, which account for 92% of global primary energy consumption, was, by far, the greatest ecological act by humans since we showed up on this planet.
We have saved C3 plants from CO2 starvation in a few million years if the long term CO2 level decline had continued.
Since hydrocarbon fuels are used for 92% of global primary energy, it seems obvious that billions of lives depend on those fuels and the products made from them. Prbbabky a majority of the eight billion people
I know this science is way over your head, Gammon, but could interest other readers.
thecliff: “Burning these fuels was, which account for 92% of global primary energy consumption, was, by far, the greatest ecological act by humans since we showed up on this planet.”
Great perspective. Humans blundered into fertilizing the world; three cheers, and a big CO2/water vapor exhale! Bitter doomers may boycott by holding their breath.
Polly:”CO2 has been quite stable for 10,000 years, rising slowly from 260 ppm (near the end of last glacial – interglacial transition) to about 280 ppm in 1750 CE. ”
Sure, per end of last glacial—rising heat released CO2. Rising temperature led to rising CO2/methane/decreasing albedo. As glaciers shrink, exposed tundra warms, CO2/methane is released.
An initial slow release of CO2 during the first 10k years, post glacial, from 260 ppm, to 280 ppm; this rate of change isn’t surprising.
Put an ice cube on a countertop at room temperature and watch its rate of melt; it melts very slowly at first, but as its surface area decreases the rate of melt increases. The last 10% of the ice cube melts rapidly.
A very big ice cube on tundra will initially melt slowly. 20k years ago Earths surface area of ice was massive, NY was under 2 miles of ice. As temperature rose, so did CO2 and methane, albedo decreased, slowly at first; but an ever rapid rate of change was inevitable.
The initial slow rate of CO2 increase, to faster, isn’t the question; the rate of temperature increase as causation is. Obviously there are many other mechanisms in play, but the rate of CO2 increase since the start of the big thaw isn’t remarkable, calling CO2 “the” control knob is ridiculous. Yes, humans have contributed.
In context, the rate of change you blabber about, Polly, was baked into the cube, err globe. The rate of change will increase until it doesn’t—per reverse causation, via any number of potential events.
Technology moves faster than climate. Technological rate of change is hotter than all the above, it’s certainly quicker than the doom prognosis; which is why doomers are in such a hurry to destroy global capitalism before technology destroys their half-baked, fear mongering ideas.
junglepanties,
“The initial slow rate of CO2 increase, to faster, isn’t the question; the rate of temperature increase as causation is.”
That is correct, temperature had slowly been decreasing globally (with small regional “wiggles” like the MWP and LIA) since 8000 years ago (there weren’t any “big ice cubes” left) due to decreasing insolation in the Northern Hemisphere (and it is still decreasing). That was until the start of the industrial revolution when CO2 and temperature started increasing in tandem and very rapidly, at least on geologic (or non-glacial) climatic time scales. At this point, it is pretty obvious that since the end of the LIA (~1850) CO2 emissions have been driving temperature increase. This does not mean CO2 can’t be a self-feedback or feedback to other climate forcings.
Polly, glaciers were still receding just prior to the start of the industrial age.
Okay, you think the transitioning between climatic conditions is instant, there’s no lag.
Maybe glacial recession has been wavering at near peak melt, and still is, per ice cube analogy.
Christos why would you recommend claptrap like that Mail article and make a complete fool of yourself?
I was expecting a satire post but you come across as completely serious.
You must know that earth’s CO2 level is believed to have been at least 10 times higher than today, at one time, with NO runaway warming
In fact, it is probable that CO2 was MUCH higher when Earth first formed 4.5 billion years ago, and had been in a downtrend until the last century when humans began recycling sequestered CO2 by burning coal, oil and gas.
Which will prevent the CO2 level from continuing a decline that could have ended most life in a few million years by killing off C3 plants by the CO2 level falling below 150ppm (Reached 180ppm in the ice core era, the lowest in history)
Runaway global warming is BS and proven to be BS by 4.5 billion years of earth’s history
Thank you, cliff!
“Christos why would you recommend claptrap like that Mail article and make a complete fool of yourself?
I was expecting a satire post but you come across as completely serious.”
–
Yes, I am serious even when I am sarcastic.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
cliff,
“You must know that earth’s CO2 level is believed to have been at least 10 times higher than today, at one time, with NO runaway warming
In fact, it is probable that CO2 was MUCH higher when Earth first formed 4.5 billion years ago, and had been in a downtrend until the last century when humans began recycling sequestered CO2 by burning coal, oil and gas.”
–
Yes, that is right,
I think Earth was 4,5 billion years ago a gases planet like Venus.
Earth is of almost the same size and gravity Venus has. They are called for that the sisters planets.
–
They have one major difference though. Venus’ orbit is much closer to the sun, than Earth’s orbit.
Venus was always very hot planet, so it couldn’t hold water vapor in its atmosphere, because of H2O being a lighter gas.
At high temperatures the H2O molecules the much higher kinetic energy gradually “pushed” them out of the Venus’ atmosphere, out to the open space…
–
Earth, on the other hand, had lower temperatures, Earth formed liguid water oceans. Earth dissolved CO2 in its oceanic waters.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
If ya don’t like the “claptrap” article in the Mail, maybe read the original paper in Astronomy and Astrophysics:
https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202346936
Thank you, ganon
Why am I promoting the hypothesis that the dominant variable determining a planet’s temperature is their rate of rotation?
–
The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon, it is a planet average surface temperature amplification factor.
–
The EM energy comes from sun. There is the “energy in =energy out” the equilibrium energy balance axiom to be met.
So, there is the Solar flux (S), surface Albedo (a), and the solar irradiation accepting factor (the spherical shape and roughness coefficient (Φ) ) to do the job.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
ganon, thank you for good article:
“Temperate planets are similar to the Earth with surface condensed water and a thin atmosphere, while hot planets have an extended water-dominated atmosphere with high surface temperature, up to a few thousand Kelvins (Turbet et al. 2019). The inner edge of the HZ is determined in part by the runaway greenhouse process.”
–
“Temperate planets are similar to the Earth with surface condensed water and a thin atmosphere,”
https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202346936
Similar to the Earth … a thin atmosphere…
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
Maybe “thin” mechanically (not that thin – try standing in a 150 kph wind), or “thin” in depth with respect to the planet’s diameter, but it is not necessarily optically “thin” – that depends on the atmospheric composition. For the Earth, the presence of water vapor, CO2 and CH4 make it optically “thick” for upwelling BB-LWIR. I have explained that many times, I’m sorry you refuse to understand.
It is absolutely clear to everyone now, there will never be a runaway greenhouse warming effect on Earth’s surface.
–
Aren’t you happy about it, ganon? This is wonderful news, isn’t it?
–
https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202346936
Christos,
Never is a very long time. I don’t believe you.
ganon, the article you referenced says so.
https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202346936
You believe what is said in the article, aren’t you?
No, they didn’t say that. (a text search is easy). You may have paraphrased, or stated your personal interpretation, but the article did not say that.
Christos,
If fact, they do show that it can happen if average surface temperature reaches ~310 K. (Figure 1. red lines). And keep in mind that the sun’s irradiance is increasing in the long term, and “never” is a long time.
Of course it overstates something that cannot exist. Let me share this bit of poetry with you (by Bing Chat)
http://whtitsnotco2.com/heatcreepwaltz.jpg
Since, you comment, not responding, and your link doesn’t work, no idea of what you are talking about.
This is not the end of the thunderstorms in Australia. The forest will green up, and the eucalyptus trees will get rid of the competition with the help of fire (to which the trunks of eucalyptus trees are resistant). All this is a testament to the remarkable stability of Australia’s climate, because eucalyptus trees have adapted so well to it.
https://www.blitzortung.org/en/historical_maps.php
You can see wild fires on this site:
https://www.windy.com/
Jim – interesting graphic – Real time. At 4pm CST on 12.21.2023. there is very little wind across the western US and Western Canada, very little wind across all of mexico and very little wind across the SE US. Not nearly enough wind ( or solar across the US due to the rain) which devastates Jacobson claim of 100% renewables.
See also
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/gridmonitor/dashboard/electric_overview/US48/US48
The EIA realtime data adds historical data which shows the wide swings in electric production by source. Multiple days with significant down turns in electric generation from renewables. Germany has similar website. the entire month of august 2023 was serious case of wind doldrum, Same doldrum in Dec 2022. virtually no hope of keeping the lights on much less having heat during a similar december using 100%
renewables.
Ireneusz
A nice read about Australia bush fires
“BUSHFIRES – AN INTEGRAL PART OF AUSTRALIA’S ENVIRONMENT”
https://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/6C98BB75496A5AD1CA2569DE00267E48
This year the polar vortex will move over Siberia and Europe.
https://i.ibb.co/2Ph6cmg/gfs-z50-nh-f240.png
The Sun don’t shine in the Land of Fruits and Nuts.
California helped create the US solar industry, subsidizing rooftop panels at a time when the federal fight against climate change had barely begun. Now, it’s leading a sharp sales slowdown that’s threatening widespread adoption.
Installers are slashing jobs. Bankruptcies are mounting. And it’s not just mom & pops feeling the pinch. Solar equipment-maker Enphase Energy Inc., long considered a bellwether for the sector, announced this week it would cut its workforce 10% and close two contract factories, with Chief Executive Officer Badri Kothandaraman citing California’s woes in a letter to staff.
The shakeout follows a change in California regulations that scaled back the amount of money solar homeowners earn when they sell excess electricity to the grid — a shift that hit just as higher interest rates were making the systems more expensive. Research firm Ohm Analytics, which tracks the solar marketplace, found sales dropping 67% to 85% for the state’s private residential installers since the change went into effect in April.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-12-21/california-s-push-for-rooftop-solar-power-goes-dark
That’s OK, home installations of solar panels are the most expensive and least efficient way of using PV panels. Better to put them in solar farms and on the top of large “box” buildings, with optimized exposure and tracking mechanisms for maximum efficiency.
ganon1950 said:
“Quite possible, the slow carbon cycle, which has kept the Earth in the “Goldilocks zone” for so long, might not be able to keep up with a fast, large increase in CO2. Even the Tibetan Pots LIP that caused/contributed to the Permian–Triassic extinction event 252 million years ago had CO2 growth over tens of thousands of years.”
The rate of a few hundred ppm over hundreds of years is going to kill everybody? You think that’s fast? Every morning I step into my greenhouse and raise the CO2 from 422 to 2000 ppm in about 10 minutes and the plants love it, and humans don’t notice anything. Please show us what rate of increase it takes to harm life. Show all work. I’ll wait.
Already out of juice …
AMTE Power, a high-performance battery developer, has called in administrators in a fresh blow to Britain’s net zero industry.
The company warned in the summer that it was in financial trouble and had days to find a new backer or help from existing shareholders.
An investor pulled the plug on fresh funding after plans to build a new plant in Dundee were scrapped.
AMTE said in a stock market notice: “The board has no other options to secure finance in the time available and has therefore concluded that the company has insufficient funds to continue trading.”
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2023/12/20/scottish-battery-factory-goes-bust-in-fresh-blow-to-uks-net-zero-industry/
I hate public transit. It’s just a giant germ bucket. In some cases, it’s infested with violent slime balls. Nothing I want any part of.
If you’ve suffered the slights of US public transportation in recent years, brace yourself for more grief. Transit agencies across the country have been grappling with reduced ridership and revenues since the pandemic. By next year, billions of dollars in emergency aid is slated to dry up, making matters that much worse. Budget shortfalls are likely to affect millions of Americans who rely on public transportation every day.
Bloomberg reporter Skylar Woodhouse joins host Scarlet Fu to discuss overburdened and underfunded public transportation agencies—including some of the country’s largest—and the financial squeeze pushing them even closer to collapse.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/audio/2023-12-20/big-take-public-transit-in-us-is-about-to-get-worse-podcast
Ford Model T was successful because it was a fitting public transportation for a huge country with a very low population density. Newsom’s California High Speed Train to Nowhere, not so much.
ganon1950 said:
“Quite possible, the slow carbon cycle, which has kept the Earth in the “Goldilocks zone” for so long, might not be able to keep up with a fast, large increase in CO2. Even the Tibetan Pots LIP that caused/contributed to the Permian–Triassic extinction event 252 million years ago had CO2 growth over tens of thousands of years.”
The rate of a few hundred ppm over hundreds of years is going to kill everybody? You think that’s fast? Every morning I step into my greenhouse and raise the CO2 from 422 to 2000 ppm in about 10 minutes and the plants love it, and humans don’t notice anything. Please show us what rate of increase it takes to harm life. Show all work. I’ll wait.
There is a difference between your greenhouse and the world’s.
You don’t have to wait for the work, here ya go:
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1810141115
https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202346936
don’t like it – contact the authors and tell them what they got wrong.
If they want to illustrate the assumed attractor in relation to CO2, they should plot CO2 vs temp., not temp vs sea level.
Polly, the really scary thing is that technology will not evolve beyond today, nothing suggests otherwise; everything suggests 4.7 ppm/year, forever, and ever, and ever–we’re all doomed; doomed I say, unless we get to net zero within the decade! Give, or take.
Yours is unplugged sophmoric prognostication with a degree, or rot gut 110% proof ideological consumption (if considering science doesn’t sculpt politics); take your pick as a believer incapable of seeing a broader context, or otherwise one incapable of reasonable extrapolation based on demonstrable technological advancement.
If one can only prognosticate about CO2, above all, then they’re incapable of having any relevant, reasonable insight about anything beyond prescribed doom, the ideological contrivance POV.
I don’t have to contact them, they showed absolutely no evidence at all.
Saying it and showing it are 2 different things. My mother’s mother and father’s mother are both from Missouri. SHOW ME.
I read both papers and they said nothing about rate of CO2 rise. You just linked me to random papers.
Once again, show me how the rate of CO2 rise matters.
May have read them (I doubt it), but certainly didn’t understand them. CO2 role is creating enough temperature rise that water vapor increases (7%/C) until it dominates other green house gases and, because of a large liquid resevoir, it has a high feed-back rate, creates a near perfect GHE, and thermal run away. Why not in the distant pass – because the sun was not as hot. I do not necessarily believe it will, but one should be aware of the possibility and the mechanism. Unfortunately, your approach seems to be willful ignorance, denial, and dismissal.
Water already dominates other greenhouse gases, Einstein. But that has 🅝🅞🅣🅗🅘🅝🅖 to do with the
r͛͛͛a͛͛͛t͛͛͛e͛͛͛ ͛͛͛o͛͛͛f͛͛͛ ͛͛͛c͛͛͛h͛͛͛a͛͛͛n͛͛͛g͛͛͛e͛͛͛
of CO2, which is what we’re talking about.
Oh yes, it has to do with the rate of change of CO2 – they share the same atmosphere, but interact with different parts of the upwelling of BB_LWIR, Forest. H20 is self limiting through condensation and precipitation, CO2 is not, rather, at much lower concentration, CO2 has significant (~50%) control over the temperature, which in turn, controls the set point for H2O vapor condensation. And no, we’re not talking about CO2, we’re talking about climate change, it is much more complex than your simple-minded simplifications.
You still never explained why the rate of increase of CO2 matters. The atmosphere has always had ｍｕｃｈ more CO2 than it does now, obviously having 1500 ppm CO2 won’t do diddly squat, because it never did before, but you people keep saying the 🆁🅰🆃🅴 🅾🅵 🅲🅷🅰🅽🅶🅴 is what makes the difference. You have done nothing to show why that is.
Because it doesn’t allow time for adaptation.
What is going to happen to the climate that will not allow humans to adapt to the change in conditions.
I don’t think I said anything about humans.
And no there hasn’t “always” been more CO2 than there is now. Are you totally unaware? For the last 3 million years it has been LOWER than it is now.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide
https://www.hyzercreek.com/climate.htm
Check THAT out, Galileo
MW
I’m no Galileo but I did sample some of your paragraphs at random and you are very sensible.
I just might borrow some of your charts for my blog since most were easy to read.
This appears to be from about 10 years ago, and holds up very well. That is a sign of good science. It doesn’t go out of style.
I loved your responses to some of the comments.
I did not notice a prediction of ECS to four decimal places, a warning that climate change will kill your dog, or instructions for building an ark to fight sea level rise. These are very serious subjects.
Thank you that was very kind.
I have to wonder how long it will be before Germany sinks itself in the name of “green” energy?
Connecting Germany’s energy network to its growing list of liquefied natural gas import hubs is likely to cost about €4.4 billion ($4.8 billion), according to the country’s grid operators.
After Europe’s largest economy was crippled when Russia curbed pipeline gas shipments, Berlin fast-tracked the expansion of LNG terminals last year to open alternative supply routes. With three now in operation and three more to open this winter, the country still faces bottlenecks if it can’t quickly get the supercooled fuel carried by seagoing vessels pumped into onshore networks.
The latest development plan involves building 951 kilometers (591 miles) of new gas lines by 2032 and adding as much as 164 megawatts of compressor capacity, according to the report approved by energy regulator Bundesnetzagentur and published Thursday.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-12-21/germany-s-grid-needs-to-spend-4-8-billion-to-connect-lng-terminals
“Because it doesn’t allow time for adaptation.”
I just showed you that nothing has to adapt to anything when I jack the CO2 up to 2000 in my greenhouse. Nothing.
“And no there hasn’t “always” been more CO2 than there is now. Are you totally unaware?”
Yeah there has. Lots more, just click here:
https://www.hyzercreek.com/Co2part2.jpg
So you are totally unaware. Co2 has been higher, but it has not ALWAYS been higher. And your green house is, like you, is irrelevant.
Yeah, it’s always been higher than now. Earth is 4.6 billion years old, the past 3 million years counts as “Now”. Most people know the difference between million and billion. My chart only shows the last 550,000,000 years but before then it was 𝕨𝕒𝕒𝕒𝕪𝕪𝕪𝕪 higher than that, going back to 4.6 billion years ago.
My greenhouse proves nobody needs to adapt to anything. Having a CO2 of 2000 ppm makes no difference.
Most people know what “always”. CO2 has always been lower throughout the existence of humans. Can’t fix stupid. 2000 ppm will make a difference of about +8 C (14 F) in global average temperature. Of course, that is “no difference” to some that thinks all of human existence is nothing.
Most people know that human existence is nothing in geological time. Children know that.
And ohhhhh 3 degrees C per doubling of CO2? After 18 doublings we’ll have more CO2 than Venus but that’s only 54 degrees when Venus is 900.
let’s double 400 ppm eighteen times
800
1600
3200
6400
12800
25600
50000
100000
200000
400000
800000
1.6 m
3.2 m
6.4 m
12.8 m
25 m
50 m
100 m which is more CO2 than Venus has
So, Venus is 54 degrees warmer than earth. Right?
Something is really wrong with your 3 C per doubling.
Getting from 420ppm to 2000ppm CO2 at the current rise rate of +2.5ppm a year would take 6,321 years. Plenty of time to “adapt: if one actually needed to adapt.
Why 2000ppm CO2 in your greenhouse? Professionals use 750 to 1500ppm. I have never heard of 2000ppm or any study concerning such a high level. I hope you’re not growing wacky weed in there.
I agree with the concept, but a decimal error in your math: (2000 – 422)/2.5 = 631.2 years at constant current rate, but that is accelerating (the last year’s rise was 4.7 ppm). Plenty of time for technological adaptation for humans, not so much for migratory and genetic adaptation of other species.
Per NASA, “If fossil-fuel burning continues at a business-as-usual rate, such that humanity exhausts the reserves over the next few centuries, CO2 will continue to rise to levels of order of 1500 ppm.”
https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide/
Plants grow much faster with 2000 ppm than 750 or 1000. We have to get the 1000’s of daisies early for the daisy chain, no florist has daisies that time of year. They don’t use enough CO2 I guess.
Plants evolved when CO2 was 2000 ppm, today’s level is starvation mode.
Funny that you compare the past 0.05% of earth’s history with cyanide. The CO2 level of 180 ppm that we were hitting is poison to life on earth.
Did you know that the 180 ppm we hit during the last glacial period was unprecedented in Earth’s 4.6 billion year history? And not some cherry picked 800,000 year history, but 𝓪𝓵𝓵 4.6 𝓫𝓲𝓵𝓵𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝔂𝓮𝓪𝓻𝓼
Life on earth can’t survive without CO2. I suggest we put it back in the air where it belongs, and where it was originally.
That’s a hypothesis I did put forward some years ago. We are just one branch of apes engineered to extract the carbon from the coal seams and other hydrocarbons and put it back where it belongs. A sort of Genesis project. Like yeast in grape must, turning it into wine until the alcohol level kills it.
Enjoy life while you can. Before ‘their’ funds run out. That’s a new unconsidered input to the equation.
Spot on. I once suggested that we be compared to the growth curve of bacteria in a (covered) petri dish: they grow exponentially, which turns into a sigmoidal curve as resources are depleted, reach a maximum, and die off exponentially due to self poisoning, and lack of nutrients. We are just organisms on the petri dish of earth, and the best we can hope for is figuring out how to extend the growth curve.
ganon1950: I agree with you there. Especially “and the best we can hope for is figuring out how to extend the growth curve”.
But there’s a catch. Periodically Earth, like the scientist in the lab, gives a tweak to the petri dish to see if it works in controlling the infection.
The great scientist ‘first makes mad those he intends to destroy’. There is method in the madness.
“Ocean acidification is a global phenomenon that occurs when we burn fossil fuels, pumping carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere.” Thus is the story of a Dungeness Crab researcher who provides zero evidence to back up the claim and is clearly employed just to deliver another alarmist alarm. (Here in the UK we have our own and original Dungeness crabs and they are doing just fine thank you very much.)
This is what the CAGW encampment seem are so keen to get us so alarmed about and yet it is just their own hyperbole. Just like the ‘hockey stick mann’ they have no mind to back the facts up with clear unquestionable evidence because apparently ‘the science’ is already settled. They choose to ignore the fact that planet Earth has been much warmer than it is now and life thrived and survived including our ancestors..
Dr Curry has a story to tell about how alarmists work and it is not a pleasant one. Perhaps the alarmist visitors here need to start explaining the behaviour of their camp in trying to cancel their opponents on the subject of climate change rather than encouraging free speech everywhere on the subject and shut down their pesky media echo chambers.
When the CAGW believers prove carbon dioxide is the control then we will all be glad to see the evidence because, if not, then western society is going to have a very much worse future than it needs to have. We are heading for disaster by not burning the fuels we have at our disposal and lots of really decent people are going to needlessly suffer if we keep throwing money at alternatives that do not and will not work without major technological discoveries.
UK-Weather Lass | December 22, 2023 at 6:32 am | Reply
“Ocean acidification is a global phenomenon that occurs when we burn fossil fuels, pumping carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere.” Thus is the story of a Dungeness Crab researcher who provides zero evidence to back up the claim and is clearly employed just to deliver another alarmist alarm. (Here in the UK we have our own and original Dungeness crabs and they are doing just fine thank you very much.)
UK – you raise an interesting point. quick google search of Dungess crab and ocean acidification gets 100+ hits with all the hits discussing the problem located off the pacific nw coast. You mention that it is not occurring around the UK. If so, the problem seems to be localized and thus likely not to be Ocean “acidification”
Does anyone have any insight – other than the typical “global warming causes everthing”
Hi Joe, A very good guess would be runoff pollution from land inputs.
Polly laments he wasn’t born an ostrich, he always has his head in the dirt, as such he absolutely lacks peripheral vision—the ostrich wannabe activist he is.
Pacific coast up-welling of old, deep water enriched in CO2 from decomposition of the ‘rain’ of dead organic detritus. Look up the monitoring of pH at the Monterey Bay Aquarium intake to see how low the pH gets and how quickly it can change.
Clyde,
I would guess that the Monterey Bay Aquarium intake is not very representative of the open ocean average or variability.
Perhaps take a look at the data from the offshore “ALOHA” station in Hawaii, where the annual CO2 cycles and long-term trend can be clearly observed.
oops, link:
https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/climate-change?facet=none&country=~Hawaii&hideControls=true&Metric=Ocean+pH&Long-run+series=false
Polly, a 33 year measure of oceanic acidification surrounding the Aloha station; from the earliest measure of about 8.11 in 1988, to 8.04 in 2021, is highly unusual in an area of substantial vulcanism, can you elaborate?
Jungletrunks,
Sure, it is a near surface measurement and reflects the increase of atmosphere CO2. Keep in mind that 0.1 pH units corresponds to 26% increase in H+ ions. Similar to the 20% increase in CO2 (350 -> 420) ppm over the same period. ALOHA station is also north and a long way from the big island volcanoes kept clear of outgassing by northeasterly trade winds.
Jungletrunks,
ALOHA station is a long ways away from volcanic activity on the big island, and trade winds out of the NE keep it clear of volcanic outgassing.
Jungletrunks,
Not close to the volcanos, trades winds from NE.
Seems the demons have been eating my comments, but I’ll try again.
Jungletrunks,
ALOHA station is not near the volcanoes. Please tell me why it is “highly unusual” for upper ocean H+ ion concentration to track atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Ganon1950, you said, “I would guess that the Monterey Bay Aquarium intake is not very representative of the open ocean average or variability.”
And your guess would be right. What it reflects is up-welling from the Monterey Submarine Canyon. You were responding to my comment about up-welling, not open ocean behavior.
Polly: “ALOHA station is a long ways away from volcanic activity on the big island, and trade winds out of the NE keep it clear of volcanic outgassing.”
Hawai’i’s undersea volcano, Kama’ehu, erupted five times in past 150 years.
The North Hawaiian Ridge current moves from the vicinity of Kama’ehu northward, by ALOHA station.
https://phys.org/news/2023-08-reveals-hawaii-undersea-volcano-kamaehu.html
The North Hawaiian Ridge current:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=currents+around+hawaii&t=osx&iax=images&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F292606844%2Ffigure%2Ffig2%2FAS%3A667623465439250%401536185246982%2FMain-surface-currents-around-Hawaii-Main-surface-currents-around-the-Main-Hawaiian.png&ia=images
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/phoc/27/3/1520-0485_1997_027_0431_eafmot_2.0.co_2.xml
Jungletrunks,
You try sooo hard.
“Kamaʻehuakanaloa (formerly Lōʻihi Seamount), a submarine Hawaiian volcano located about 20 miles off the south coast of the Big Island of Hawai’i,”
A long way from ALOHA station, and the other side of the island ridge.
Regardless, doesn’t change the data.
Polly: “squawk”
Too bad you stopped at the first link I posted. A typical bird fixation mindset.
Polly, the next time you’re looking into that mirror you’re so fond of squawking about, try to understand that mashed beak you see is the result of you banging into that pane to kiss your own BS. You love kissing yourself too much.
BTW, Polly, one more link:
Hawai’i’s undersea volcano, Kama’ehu’s location is on the same side of the island chain as Aloha Station, in the path of the same northward current. Regardless, it’s not the only undersea volcano in the area:
https://www.usgs.gov/volcanoes/kama‘ehuakanaloa
Jungletrunks,
Typical response to being wrong, continued personal attacks and name-calling; no facts. If you bothered to look at your second post (and Fig. 7 of your 3rd post), you would see that water on the south side of the big island is swept to the south by the southern split of the North Equatorial Current. The northern split, North Hawaiian Ridge Current, never reaches the new volcanic activity from Kama’ehu, and doesn’t reaches ALOHA station, and that is shown by the data (which is what it is, regardless, and is not “highly unusual”).
Maybe you should stop being so angry about being wrong so much of the time; give yourself a break from the person attacks and insults, which just show insecurity and lack of intellect.
No more fowl morning. Off for holiday festivities.
Merry Christmas everyone, you too Ganon!
Merry Christmas to you too, Jungletrunks. Thanks for the entertainment.
“When the CAGW believers prove carbon dioxide is the control then we will all be glad to see the evidence because, if not, then western society is going to have a very much worse future than it needs to have.”
Proof is not available (science is inductive), but there is a whole lot of evidence, if you bother to look.
“Proof is not available (science is inductive), but there is a whole lot of evidence, if you bother to look.”
–
Interesting.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
It appears dead zones around the Pacific NW have been happening for millions of years. It is a feature of warmer climate, so given the fact CO2 does warm the climate to some non-very-well-characterized degree, it would contribute to the problem. But it is very likely CO2 isn’t solely to blame.
Dead zones formed repeatedly in North Pacific during warm climates, study finds
Over the past 1.2 million years, marine life was repeatedly extinguished in low-oxygen ‘dead zones’ in the North Pacific Ocean during warm interglacial climates
https://news.ucsc.edu/2021/06/dead-zones.html
Jim2,
I would agree with that, probably a combination of things, warming, pH change, deoxigenation, pollution, and maybe even a genetic aberration since a mating pair can produce over 100,000 eggs.
A lateral narrative. The warm 14 million square mile South Pacific Gyre has been a dark water desert, a dead zone, for a very long time. It lacks nutrient input.
I’ve promoted seeding it artificially, relentlessly, to create massive phytoplankton blooms—making the Gyre fertile again, but for the primary purpose of sequestering CO2. One thousand customized supertankers could be built for roughly $100 billion, plus infrastructure costs to fill them with the organics needed for seeding. A lot cheaper than the high risk trillions needed to get to net zero. It would cost about the same amount as what we’ve spent on the Ukraine war.
A seeding program could be turned off at anytime, it probably wouldn’t need to be as massive a program as I’ve suggested. The goal would be to slow that rate of growth of CO2, not decrease it. Though I’m not sure slowing it down is even a good idea, honestly. But one would think the gloomy doomer crowd would be all over the notion if they’re truly worried about CO2. They’re certainly not worried about bankrupting global economies. Which is why I think that warming is mostly a red herring, pardon the pun. There’s a much larger agenda.
More on seeding. Exxon, Chevron, BP; these firms individually, or as a consortium, could work with governments to spearhead a South Pacific Gyre seeding program. Exxon is already developing a portfolio of businesses to address climate change. They recently announced further investment—outlays for low-carbon projects will reach $20 billion by 2027. They’re currently building on lithium, carbon-capture and hydrogen portfolios. They recently purchased a pipeline to use for sequestration.
https://apnews.com/article/exxon-mobil-denbury-carbon-capture-acquisition-e88462a294693e4139b24d6030ac3c2d
The farce called “The Inflation Reduction Act” infuses nearly $375 billion over the decade for climate change-fighting strategies. It won’t do anything for inflation, but use the cash to develop a Gyre seeding program, a reverse psychology methodology for keeping inflation down by saving trillions.
Large oil companies know the business of building and operating supertankers, also how to develop and manage supporting infrastucture, inside and out. A seeding program would be a natural fit for any of the large oil companies, most have already invested heavily in low carbon, or sequestration businesses.
Partner with other nations; Australia, Japan, S. Korea. Parse a fleet of supertankers between nations to seed designated peripheral areas of the Gyre reasonably accessable for efficient operations. Develop a plan establishing the square miles for seeding needed to effect target “X” amount of atmospheric CO2. This is all low tech; mostly it’s a logistical, coordination, and funding problem—a no-brainer for the masses truly worried about atmospheric CO2. Full disclosure, I’m not; but I wouldn’t object to a carefully monitored seeding program if it keeps global economies treading water by saving trillions.
If you cause a plankton bloom, they will bloom, exhaust the nutrients, then die. This will cause hypoxia as the plankton decompose – aka dead zone. It ain’t easy being green.
Hi Jim, the whole point in targeting the South Pacific Gyre for seeding is precisely because it’s already a dead zone. It’s one of most lifeless deserts on the planet, in fact, according to science.
If you fight Mother Nature, you will lose.
As far as the overall health of the Dungeness crab goes, they will be fine as their range is much larger than the “dead zone”.
Dead zone:
https://modestfish.com/dead-zone/
Range:
https://crabbinghub.com/crabbing-in-southern-ca-is-sparse-try-these-spots-instead/dungeness-crab-range/
That’s a very strange theory Christos. Wait until the magic mushrooms wear off and read back what you wrote. You’ll never go back to that rainy dairy pasture on the wet side of Maui again.
Once again, Morgan demonstrates his ignorance of science and how it works, and feels he has to come up with ignorant taunts.
I wouldn’t say you are ignorant of science, or a science denier, I would say you are a science liar. You linked to a graph from NOAA which contains an obvious lie.
https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width_620_original_image/public/2023-08/ClimateDashboard_1400px_paleo-graph_20230829.png?itok=7E1YcAQ3
It points to a spot where CO2 was 300 ppm and labels it “highest previous” which is nothing but a lie. Why would they label it that way? Saying “highest on this graph” would never be necessary, we can see what’s highest on the graph. Who are they trying to fool by saying that the highest in 800,000 years is “highest previous?”
My problem with global warming alarmists is not that they are stupid, it’s that they are liars. Their motivation is communist Lysenkoism.
“It has been well understood for at least a decade.”
The amount of time that something has been ‘known’ is irrelevant. Astronomers and astrophysicists are still testing Einstein’s theories after more than a century. In fact, the longer it has been ‘known,’ the more suspect it is. Paradigms do not age well in areas of active research.
“A Quasi-Linear Relationship between Planetary Outgoing Longwave Radiation and Surface Temperature in a Radiative-Convective-Transportive Climate Model of a Gray Atmosphere”
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00376-023-2386-1
Clyde,
Yes, if you would check prior comments, you would find my comments to Christos explain that without considering advective heat transfer in a (not thin) atmosphere and fluid surface render his hypothesis of rotational “warming” insufficient to claim that there can’t be a significant GHE just because his simplified calculations say so. My comment to Morgan referred specifically to that theory, not whether it was complete or correct. And of course quasi-linear (your reference) also means non-linear, just that the non-linearity of Stefan-Boltzmann temperature differentials is damped by advective heat transfer that reduces said differentials as compared to a solid planet with no atmosphere and only vertical conductive heat transfer. Thanks for the reference, the abstract sounded interesting, but I’m not going to pay $40 for it (did you?).
Oh yeah, thanks for the lecture on how science advances. That was really helpful.
Morgan
> “That’s a very strange theory Christos.”
–
What do you mean, Morgan? What : “read back what you wrote.”?
What I wrote upset you so much?
You didn’t upset me at all, but to say the rotation of the earth causes it to warm is nuttier than a fat mongoose under a macadamia tree.
Are you comparing it to a person warming herself in front the the fireplace, first she warms her butt, then she warms her tiddies, I can understand. Or turning a steak on a rotisserie. But it sounds like you’re saying the faster rotation warms the earth. And then all that business about the albedo, which can’t possibly relate to the earth rotating.
Like I said, strange theory.
Morgan,
Christos’ hypothesis would more accurately be called the rotational “less cooling” theory. It has to do with the non-linearity of the Stefan-Boltzmann blackbody radiative flux equation. It has been well understood for at least a decade. Not a surprise that you are unaware and think it is strange. I would have to question who is sitting under the macadamia tree.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/09/errors-in-estimating-earths-no-atmosphere-average-temperature/
https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-1801-3-723
Thank you, Morgan.
” But it sounds like you’re saying the faster rotation warms the earth. And then all that business about the albedo, which can’t possibly relate to the earth rotating.”
–
Yes, exactly. Thank you again, Morgan.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
ganon,
> “Christos’ hypothesis would more accurately be called the rotational “less cooling” theory. It has to do with the non-linearity of the Stefan-Boltzmann blackbody radiative flux equation. It has been well understood for at least a decade.”
–
1). “the rotational “less cooling” theory.” No, it is not.
2). “the non-linearity of the Stefan-Boltzmann blackbody radiative flux equation.” Something has to do, but it is not the S-B law.
3). “well understood for at least a decade.” No, the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon, it is not yet well understood – not yet well understood by you, ganon.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
ganon,
> “Christos’ hypothesis would more accurately be called the rotational “less cooling” theory. It has to do with the non-linearity of the Stefan-Boltzmann blackbody radiative flux equation. It has been well understood for at least a decade.”
–
1). “the rotational “less cooling” theory.”
No, it is not.
2). “the non-linearity of the Stefan-Boltzmann blackbody radiative flux equation.”
Something has to do, but it is not the S-B law.
3). “well understood for at least a decade.”
No, the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon, it is not yet well understood – not yet well understood by you, ganon.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
ganon,
1). “the rotational “less cooling” theory.”
No, it is not.
2). “the non-linearity of the Stefan-Boltzmann blackbody radiative flux equation.”
Something has to do, but it is not the S-B law.
3). “well understood for at least a decade.”
No, the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon, it is not yet well understood – not yet well understood by you, ganon.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Jungletrunks,
Yes, glaciers are still melting, but it has been insignificant since the low-altitude, lower-latitude ice sheets (Laurentide and Scandinavian) were gone 8,000 years ago.
Link:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png
Sure, Polly. Glaciers were still receding in Scandinavia during the 18th century: specifically Spitsbergen, Norway.
Other periods of glacier retreat are identified regionally during the 5th and 8th centuries in the European Alps, in the 3rd–6th and 9th centuries in Norway, during the 10th–13th centuries in southern Alaska.
Like I already said, glaciers are still melting, but it is insignificant compared to the low-altitude, lower-latitude ice sheets that were mostly gone by 8000 years ago. It can be easily seen in the sea level rise data for the last 20,000 years.
https://mega.nz/file/h7V2VDzA#Ycs-SQt1Mwr_kSZ4qviOexJLSTA9oTgOUD3mpI3nsaQ
Polly, you truncated the discussion, its premise began here:
https://judithcurry.com/2023/12/18/climate-attribution-method-overstates-fingerprints-of-external-forcing/#comment-997460
Glaciers were receding, even during the LIA, and some were growing. Sure, “most” ice from the last glacial period melted long ago, as you stated. But that wasn’t the point, the discussion was about “relative” melt rate based on Earths remaining glacial surface area.
Roughly speaking, per ice cube analogy in the linked post, the last 10% of an ice cube melting at room temperature melts very rapidly compared to the first 90%, but it’s 100% of the ice cube during its last moments in time. The remaining glaciation on Earth is a fraction of what it was during the last ice age, but it’s 100% of the ice we have now, yet it’s rate of melt is faster, relative to it’s current size, than the 1st 90% of the last ice age glacial melt, where there was more density, as well as surface area.
” it’s 100% of the ice we have now, yet it’s rate of melt is faster,”
–
Exactly!
Jungletrunks,
You try soooo hard.
“But that wasn’t the point, the discussion was about “relative” melt rate based on Earths remaining glacial surface area.”
That’s sorta correct. (Actually about “big ice cubes” on the tundra). And the melt rate has been “relatively” small since the end of the Laurentide and Scandinavian ice sheets ~8000 years ago. You were wrong, and should learn how to admit it.
Christos, Jungletrunks,
Not Exactly; 90% of the ice we have left is in Antarctica, and it isn’t melting all that fast, as the sea level record shows. Yet, it probably will, starting with the WAIS which is more vulnerable to climate change.
Thunderstorms in Australia.
https://i.ibb.co/B6pkFkM/archive-9-image.png
Net Zero = Battery Zero. And millions of dollars down the drain.
In 2021, the Federal Transit Administration awarded a grant to Metro Transit to purchase zero-emission buses from a company that was ambitiously trying to decarbonize heavy-duty transportation vehicles across multiple sectors.
The company, Proterra, aimed to deliver those buses powered by Proterra batteries to Metro Transit this year. But earlier this year, the agency terminated negotiations with Proterra. Proterra, which also makes chargers for the vehicles they power, subsequently filed for bankruptcy.
Vendor issues are among one of the challenges Metro Transit, as well as other agencies statewide, face as they try to decarbonize their transit fleets. They’ve also encountered problems with operating them in subzero environments, as well as charging them. Though it appears some agencies remain committed to battery-electric vehicles, they are also considering using vehicles powered by other fuel sources.
https://www.minnpost.com/environment/2023/12/road-to-zero-emission-buses-proves-challenging-for-minnesota-transit-agencies/
Happy Christmas to everyone!
Happy Christmas to Dr. Judith Curry!!!
–
Christos
A large drop in the temperature of the Peruvian Current.
https://i.ibb.co/cbmcr0s/nino12.png
Dr. Ross McKitrick, if you read this, consider modeling the CO2 log-decay in the W/M^2 as CO2 concentration increases. It is a great way to debunk Michael Mann’s Hockeystick. 1) Independent variables that show a log decay will never cause a sharp upward variation in the dependent variable 2) In a time series, a log decay variable should approach a horizontal asymptote, not a contiued upward trend, and certainly not a sharp change in trend 3) Nothing about the quantum mechanics of CO2 can expain why Ice Ages start when CO2 is at a peak or end when CO2 is at a minimum 4) CO2 is 1 out of every 2,500 molecules, is it plausable that vibrating 1 out of every 2,500 molecules with the minute energy associated with 15 micron LWIR can actually affect the connect energy of the other 2,499 molecules? In the short run, CO2 and its W/M^2 are efectvely constant, yet temperture is wildly variable, in a cross sectional study, constants can’t cause variations. Basic econometrics easlily rules out CO2 as the cause of any climate change, expecially if the quantum mechanics are modeled properly. 15 Micron LWIR doesn’t provide much energy as is associated with a black body of -80C. It is hard to warm something by adding ice to it. Look at the atmosphere temperarture profile. It doesn’t fall below -80C because of CO2. CO2 puts in a temperture floor, it doesn’t lift the celing.
“is it plausable that vibrating 1 out of every 2,500 molecules with the minute energy associated with 15 micron LWIR can actually affect the connect energy of the other 2,499 molecules?”
Yes, and it can do it over and over again. It is mostly vibrational to translational energy transfer. A 15 um photon (absorbed) has an energy of 1.32 x 10^(-20) joules, while the average energy of a gas molecule at 300 K temperature is 6.2 x 10^(-21) joules. Thus, the absorption of one 15 micron photon by a single CO2 molecule can increase the kinetic energy of 2500 surrounding molecules by 0.2%, and since temperature is directly proportional to gas kinetic energy, the 2500 molecules surrounding the excited CO2 molecule are raised an average of 0.6 K. and, as said, it can do it over and over again.
ganon1950, 15 Micron LWIR has the energy of a -80C Blackbody. How can you vibrate something with so low energy that is can actually warm something above -80C? If your theory holds, you could warm coffee by adding ice to it, or warm a house by simply wrapping a home is CO2 filled bubble wrap. Other GHGs absorb far more of the LWIR spectrum and they have huge changes, and temperatures don’t change, and temperatures make huge changes when CO2 doesn’t change at all. One location can have a huge temperature variation from another location just a few miles away. Anyway, how did CO2 cause the rapid change in temperature on the Hockeyestick in 1902? What changed about the physics of the CO2 molecule? Why does a log decay result in a linear increase in tempertures?
ganon,
>”A 15 um photon (absorbed) has an energy of 1.32 x 10^(-20) joules, while the average energy of a gas molecule at 300 K temperature is 6.2 x 10^(-21) joules.”
–
co2islife,
>”15 Micron LWIR doesn’t provide much energy as is associated with a black body of -80C.”
–
The “15 Micron LWIR doesn’t provide much energy as is associated with a black body of -80C.” in plain language means “the S-B emission law doesn’t apply to -80C“.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“The “15 Micron LWIR doesn’t provide much energy as is associated with a black body of -80C.” in plain language means “the S-B emission law doesn’t apply to -80C“.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com”
Cristos, that is a 100% disingenuous response. It it pure 100% Sophistry. CO2 absorbs a small narrow band of IR, a narrow band between 13 and 18 Microns. That is a small precent emitted by a true black body. So yes, S-B Emission Law doesn’t truly apply BECAUSE MY STATEMENT OVERESTIMATES the amount of energy attributed to the CO2 molecule. My reference to a black body OVERSTATES the true anount of energy emitted by the CO2 molecule.
co2islife,
The energy of a 15 micrometer photon has nothing to do with a blackbody temperature of -80 C. The energy of that (absorbed) photon is given by hc/λ (It is not given by the peak wavelength of blackbody radiation at some given temperature).
However, at a climatically very important temperature of 288 K
(Earth’s current average), the 14.9 µm center of the CO2 bending mode resides at intensity about 70% of the peak of the blackbody curve, and the significant atmospheric absorption width (FWHM) extends from about 12.5 to 17.5 µm (see attached). As for the kinetic energy (RMS) of the molecules in the atmosphere that this vibrational energy can be transferred to is given simply by E = 3kT/2. Where k is the Boltzmann constant and T is temperature in Kelvin. Hope that “fleshes out” my prior explanation.
Note that if you are at -80 C, 0 C will seem quite warm.
Regarding Christos, I wouldn’t pay too much attention. It seems he thinks his intuition is better than the 150 years of work by a bunch of very smart physicists.
https://mega.nz/file/kzEQnDZI#8aYlEi5tVZPVRCA-lvRsuYkzQvFLhT3spH1ZNSQUr2U
co2islife,
No, the energy of a 14.9 µm photon (bending frequency of the CO2 molecule) = hc/λ. It really has nothing to do with the peak of BBR at -80C. Where it lies in the spectrum of blackbody radiation is at about the 70% point on the low energy side of the 15 C (average Earth temperature) BB curve. Its absorption width, as you point out is ~13 – 18 µm, and lies (partially) in a water vapor transmission window. Also, it mostly does not have time to re-emit that radiation; collision times in the troposphere are rapid enough that it is collisionally deactivated and turned into heat as already described. It absorbs 5-8% of upwelling LWIR and converts it to heat. This is enough to explain the observed warming, as previously described.
A picture is worth a thousand words:
https://mega.nz/file/oiFw2L5Q#X4IDVcax6wfGzbZoH6Oimexqm1SoxJf-V3kF1HN80qc
The small tail of the green shading to the left side of the green (line) CO2 absorption profile is very important: it is further into the water vapor window, and it is not saturated so that its absorption grows (nearly) linearly with continued increase in CO2 concentration.
Hope that helps
ganon,
> “Note that if you are at -80 C, 0 C will seem quite warm.
Regarding Christos, I wouldn’t pay too much attention. It seems he thinks his intuition is better than the 150 years of work by a bunch of very smart physicists.
–
ganon, what you have presented as an argument is the BLACKBODY emission curve at 288K>/b>:
https://mega.nz/file/kzEQnDZI#8aYlEi5tVZPVRCA-lvRsuYkzQvFLhT3spH1ZNSQUr2U”
Why do you present us the BLACKBODY emission curve at 288K ?
What whould you like to prove by that ?
–
Ok, Earth’s average surface temperature is 288K.
Earth’s surface doesn’t have uniform temperature 288K to be compared with the blackbody emission curve of 288K.
–
A planet average surface temperature cannot be referenced to any single temperature emission curve.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
That’s correct (and you are nitpicking). fully accurate treatment requires an area – temperature, emissivity integration. However, it will still look very much like the average temperature curve, slightly broader and slightly shifted to higher energy and dominated by the open oceans surface temperatures which lie in the restricted range from 0 – 30 C, where 288 C is in the middle of that dominating range. I’m not interested in doing the integration. The overall change in GHE is insignificant, particularly because the CO2 13-18 um band lies on the long, lower energy side of the BB peak, where the shapes are virtually indistinguishable over the temperature range covered.
No, YOU were wrong. You said Hawaii was rising, and that it was well known. Turns out, the Big Island is sinking by 2 or 3 mm a year. So, you tried to lie your way out of it by saying Hawaii was rising, turns out Hilo is sinking and yet the sea level rise there is much less than your ridiculous 3.9 mm.
You lose.
ganon,
> “However, it will still look very much like the average temperature curve, slightly broader and slightly shifted to higher energy and dominated by the open oceans surface temperatures which lie in the restricted range from 0 – 30 C, where 288 K is in the middle of that dominating range.”
–
Of course not! No planet emits at some single temperature curve.
Our Moon receives and emits 28% more solar energy (because of the lower Albedo, 0,11 vs earth’s 0,306), Moon receives and emits 28% more solar energy, than Earth.
Yet, Moon’s average surface temperature is ~220K.
–
A planet is not simply a warm body with differentiated surface temperatures.
A planet surface interacts with the incident solar flux.
–
It is very different from the averaging the not reflected portion of the incident solar flux.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, sorry you don’t understand.
Morgan. You lose. I (and you) referred to Honolulu, and I gave a reference to Oahu (the Island where Honolulu is) that shows it is rising. Your switch to Hilo, where there is known subsidence, is deflective avoidance – you were wrong and you lose.
ganon, what I don’t understand?
The matter emits EM energy.
–
It is not the matter’s job to absorb EM energy.
What matter does with the incident on the matter EM energy is to interact with it.
–
Only some part of the EM energy gets transformed into heat and gets absorbed in the matter’s inner layers.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, what you don’t understand is that using the average temperature is an acknowledged approximation. Doing a proper integration over the actual spatial-temperature distribution only makes very minor changes in the Planck curve, with respect to the CO2 14.9 um absorption profile, as I already described. It slightly increases the (spatial-temperature integrated) Stefan-Boltzmann outgoing flux (Holder inequality), but that only makes the GHE stronger than what it would be using the average temperature.
ganon,
> “It slightly increases the (spatial-temperature integrated) Stefan-Boltzmann outgoing flux (Holder inequality), but that only makes the GHE stronger than what it would be using the average temperature.”
–
Please explain, what has the “Stefan-Boltzmann outgoing flux (Holder inequality)” to do with the incident on the matter solar EM energy.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos. Matter both absorbs and emits electromagnetic radiation.
Christos,
Nothing, other than the absorbed radiation is what warms the matter to some (local) temperature, which, along with the matter properties, determines the Planck spectrum and S-B flux of the outgoing thermal radiation.
ganon,
> “Nothing, other than the absorbed radiation is what warms the matter to some (local) temperature, which, along with the matter properties, determines the Planck spectrum and S-B flux of the outgoing thermal radiation.”
–
ganon, the planet’s dark side cools by emitting to space IR radiation. The dark side’s surface heat is the energy source of that IR EM energy emission.
There are not enough thermal energy (heat) at darkside terrestrial temperatures to support the S-B equation emission demands for the darkside respective surface temperatures.
Thus, the outgoing IR EM energy flux from the planet darkside is much-much weaker than what S-B equation predicts for those local temperatures.
–
On the planet’s solar lit side an interaction of the incident EM energy with surface’s matter occurs.
Part of the incident SW EM energy gets reflected (diffusely and specularly)
Another SW part gets instantly transformed into outgoing IR EM energy, and gets out to space,
When SW EM energy gets transformed into IR EM energy, the transformation is not a perfect process, there are always some inevitable energy losses, which dissipate as heat in the interacting surface’s matter and gets absorbed in the matter’s inner layers.
–
The S-B emission law cannot be applied neither to the planet solar lit side, nor to the planet darkside.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Here is a blackbody calculator and you can clearly see that 15 Microns is the peak wavelenght emitted at -80C. I don’t see why there is any arguement here.
https://www.spectralcalc.com/blackbody_calculator/blackbody.php
There are some other facts to consider:
1) CO2 sublimates between -78.5 C
2) The Mesopause bottoms around -80C, which makes since becasue CO2 is the only GHG at that level
3) Atmoshere below -80C would precipiate out CO2, which doesn’t happen because CO2 absorbing 15 Micro LWIR is the energy to cause it to sublimiate
When I saw the number of comments, I assumed that this must be a very important post with some detailed discussion of the points that were raised therein. Statistics can be difficult and important. I was very disappointed to see that so many comments were ‘off-topic’ and a lot were Monty Pythonesque arguing for the sake of arguing.
rtcopnall … it is an important post. However, we have a few nasty folks who carpet bomb the site. Nothing new, actually. Eventually, people will just ignore them and they’ll go away. It’s a shame because anything of substance they might have to contribute is lost via their neuroses. Sort of a microcosm of society, eh?
Merry Christmas to you and to all! Thank you, Judith!
No they aren’t.
Pingback: Östliche Sahelzone ergrünt – KlimaNachrichten
Jungletrunks,
“Hawai’i’s undersea volcano, Kama’ehu’s location is on the same side of the island chain as Aloha Station, in the path of the same northward current. Regardless, it’s not the only undersea volcano in the area:
https://www.usgs.gov/volcanoes/kama‘ehuakanaloa”
So you can’t read maps, either. Kama’ehu is clearly on the south side of the big island, southwest of the undersea ridge that extends northeast from the east corner of the island, which splits the northern equatorial current before it ever gets to Kama’ehu. It is clearly not on the same side of the Hawaiian Ridge as ALOHA station (you just made that up). The ALOHA station data is still what it is and, like all your references, shows that I am right. How about you dig your hole a little deeper and name the other active underwater volcanoes on the north side of the ridge. Or, do yourself a favor, be quiet and walk away with your tail between your legs.
GAGME1950 – You come across as a most nauseating and puerile person – defensive, insecure and low class. Despite your high opinion of yourself, your knowledge is feeble in many areas, especially paleoclimate. I’m sorry I have to point these things out, especially at Xmas, but I speak for many here when I say that you will never gain any scientific respect using your present “tactics”. Think about it, instead of going into juvenile mode.
Thank you, O Great Walrus. While your comment was, perhaps, too harsh, it needed saying. I would be grateful if Ganon were to comment a bit less, well, a lot less. Or, if his comments were actually directed to the head post itself instead of being a constant repetition of stale alarmist arguments. Dr. McKittrick’s posts are technical, pithy, and always thought-provoking. Thread-bombing them is a regrettable tactic.
Great Blobrus, if I am attacked, I will respond in kind, that includes name-calling. I don’t really care about your evaluation of my scientific knowledge – you would have no way of knowing.
Great Walrus,
If you don’t like the way I presented the science to jungletrunks, it because I have to deal with crap like this:
“Too bad you stopped at the first link I posted. A typical bird fixation mindset.
Polly, the next time you’re looking into that mirror you’re so fond of squawking about, try to understand that mashed beak you see is the result of you banging into that pane to kiss your own BS. You love kissing yourself too much.”
I find your opinion very one-sided, and just adds to the crap I have to deal with – thus, I don’t really care about your thoughts or admonishments. If you’d like to comment on some of the science I present, I’d be glad to respond to that, but if all you have is name-calling, insults and personal attacks, I will respond to that too.
Polly: You’re still wrong. Kama’ehu is located 22 miles “east”, and slightly above the southern tip of the Big Island, it makes up part of the Hawaiian Ridge in that area. But this is not so relevant in broad context, for several reasons.
There’s a confluence of currents surrounding the southern most tip of the Big Island. Gases that don’t get pulled into the North Hawaiian Ridge Current (even if a little from initial dispersion following an eruption) will flow westward, then around, and along the southern coastal tip of the Big Island. The Hawaii Lee Countercurrent moves eastward pushing against the coastal current. This forces the coastal current northward, and into the channel separating Maui from the Big Island; this then feeds “into” the North Hawaiian Ridge Current. Either way, the current ends up feeding back into the North Hawaiian Ridge Current. The pattern of currents are clearly shown in the following graphic:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Streamlines-of-annual-mean-currents-at-a-depth-of-2-m-The-maximum-of-388-cm-s-is_fig3_225336408
Kama’ehu is just one volcano. Much of the Big Islands lava outgassing, that which flows into the sea, either on the surface, or through lava tubes will end up in the North Hawaiian Ridge Current, no matter which side of the island it emanates from— because of the circular confluence previously described. Volcanic outgassing will be transported by this circular current into the North Hawaiian Ridge Current, one way, or other.
It’s preposterous to believe that Aloha Station isn’t effected at all by volcanism.
Dear Morgan,
Christos’ hypothesis would more accurately be called the rotational “less cooling” theory. It has to do with the non-linearity of the Stefan-Boltzmann blackbody radiative flux equation. It has been well understood for at least a decade. Not a surprise that you are unaware and think it is strange. I would have to question who is sitting under the macadamia tree.
Your most humble servant, ganon1950
Dear Ganon1950,
1). “the rotational “less cooling” theory.”
No, it is not.
2). “the non-linearity of the Stefan-Boltzmann blackbody radiative flux equation.”
Something has to do, but it is not the S-B law.
3). “well understood for at least a decade.”
No, the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon, it is not yet well understood – not yet well understood by you, ganon.
–
Your most humble servant, Cristos Vournas.com
🅻🅾🅻 🅷🅰 🅷🅰 🅷🅰 🅷🅰 🅻🅾🅻🅾🅻🅾🅻
Merry Christmas
Merry Christmas
Your most humble servant, MORGAN WRIGHT
Christos Vournas,
Sometimes it’s hard to prove somebody is wrong using science, sometimes you just have to catch them in a lie.
“If you have to lie to win your argument, your argument is a lie”
And Ganon1950 lied
Your most humble servant, Morgan Wright
Morgan, to catch someone in a lie, you have to say what the lie is.
Thunderstorms in Australia.
https://i.ibb.co/Mhb5jvH/archive-5-image.png
Cold Humboldt Current.
https://i.ibb.co/NnXmMgH/cdas-sflux-ssta-global-1.png
EVs – thanks but no thanks.
Buick offered buyouts to dealers who did not want to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars on tooling, equipment and training to prepare to sell and service EVs as the brand goes all-electric by the end of the decade. Nearly half of Buick dealers take buyout rather than sell EVs”
https://www.autonews.com/dealers/buick-dealer-network-shrinks-nearly-half-through-buyouts
“ Car dealers tell Biden: Customers aren’t ready for electric cars”
“ What they’re saying: Customers cite a variety of reasons for avoiding EVs, Anderson and other dealers told Axios.
They’re too expensive, buyers have no place to charge at home, and public charging is too time-consuming, for example.
Dealers say some customers have even traded in their EVs, complaining their driving range was affected by towing a trailer or extreme temperatures. Tires on an EV wear out much faster, too, customers complain.”
“Reality check: Even with lower prices and government incentives, EVs remain prohibitively expensive for many.”
The question has become whether this common refrain turns into a crescendo.
Unless we become Stalinesque, the consumer will still be king.
https://www.axios.com/2023/11/28/car-dealers-electric-evs-biden
Why link us to an article behind a paywall?
I can read it.
Yep … I can read it, too.
@Morgan Wright – You can almost always find a story from multiple sources. Just sayin’.
The Climate Doomers are so frantic to sell these losers, they have resorted to this …
Electric car salary sacrifice allows you to save up to 60% on any electric car of your choice; you agree to deduct a portion of your pre-tax salary each month to cover the cost.
You will receive the best prices on electric cars available in the market, unrivalled protection against unexpected costs, and a trusted 5* service that goes above and beyond your expectations.
https://www.electriccarscheme.com/
Meanwhile, back at the watering trough.
Investors are backing off of electric vehicle (EV) charging companies, a key player in the Biden administration’s wider climate agenda, The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday.
Major companies in the industry— including ChargePoint, EVgo and Blink Charging— have seen their stock prices tumble over the past year as investors worry about their profitability, a sign of potential trouble for an industry that the White House is counting on to reach its aggressive longer-term EV targets, according to the WSJ. The administration has set aside billions of dollars to boost the industry, which it will need to thrive in order to develop a nationwide network of charging stations.
https://dailycaller.com/2023/12/26/investors-electric-vehicle-charging-stocks/
Why isn’t this plastered all over the main stream media? Try to find it.
BEIJING, Dec 24 (Reuters) – China’s capital Beijing has broken its record for hours of sub-zero temperatures in December dating back to 1951, after a cold wave swept swathes of the country and brought blizzards in its wake, sending temperatures towards historic lows.
Northern and northeastern parts of the country have experienced a record-breaking chill since last week, with some areas in the northeast hitting minus 40 Celsius and Fahrenheit and below, as biting cold air flowed down from the Arctic.
https://www.reuters.com/world/china/chinas-henan-province-hit-by-shortage-winter-heating-after-cold-wave-2023-12-24/
Coal and Crude are King and Queen of energy.
Refiners in India, the world’s third-largest crude oil importer, are seeking to boost supplies from the Middle East and other nearby nations as recent attacks on ships in the Red Sea raise the risk of longer shipping time and higher costs, according to people familiar with the matter.
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/energy/oil-gas/india-seeks-more-middle-east-crude-as-attacks-delay-cargoes/articleshow/106324602.cms
Jim2,
I seem to get a lot of flack for being off topic. So I have to ask, what do your daily news clippings have to do with Total Least Squares? And why haven’t you been called on it?
These would be the Etc. part. Even after today, I can’t come close to your prolificity. That’s probably why I’m not getting flack, I’m thinking.
Thanks Jim2. I would note that probably 90% of my comments are responses to comments directed to me, and usually deal with some aspect of climate (except for those that only contain name-calling, insults, and personal attacks, and no “climate etc.”). I would respectfully submit that there is probably another explanation.
ganon – Also, I tend not to get in handbag fights with people. I’m usually content to let people say what they want. After all, I’m not the Climate Etc. police.
Jim2,
Understood, I’d prefer not get into “handbag fight”, but I will defend myself. Unfortunately, some seem to think my more conventional views on climate change are a personal attack on their ethos, and respond accordingly. So be it, if nothing else it is entertaining.
It must hurt badly to be this stupid.
While a carve-out for the nuclear industry could be added in the future, the initial proposed rules made public by the US Treasury Department on Friday only allow hydrogen projects powered by clean energy sources brought online in the last three years to qualify for a tax credit of as much as $3-per-kilogram. That’s bad news for nuclear operators such as Constellation Energy Corp., which has a nearly $1 billion plan to produce hydrogen from nuclear power and has lobbied the Biden administration to allow the power source to count in the lucrative tax credit.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-12-22/biden-s-hydrogen-tax-credit-rules-deal-nuclear-industry-a-blow
While our government in the US wants to make us suffer for net zero, India and China burn coal to beat the band. When will we vote out the Climate Doomer id eeeee ots???
India Plans to Expand Its Coal Power Fleet to Meet Soaring Demand
Nation plans to add 88 GW of thermal capacity by 2032
Government envisages 63% more capacity than earlier plans
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-12-22/india-plans-to-expand-its-coal-power-fleet-to-meet-soaring-demand
So, you think we are idiots for trying to respond to climate change, just because there are third-world countries that are using all available methods to meet rising demand. I have a different take: some of us are smart, and don’t think the actions of
others are an excuse to lower ourselves to the lowest common denominator.
ganon …
China and India are not third world countries. Third world countries usually require international financing to build power plants. IMF and WB funds for coal and NG plants to take advantage of local/regional coal and NG resources are scarce.
Go try living in rural India or China if you don’t think they are 3rd world countries. Sorry to use the non-PC term. Compared to the North America or Europe, they are underdeveloped countries. And, of course, you deflect from my main point which is, what they do is not a valid excuse for us to do the same.
China and India develop their own infrastructure. Having regional areas that are less economically developed doesn’t make them third world. The USA instituted rural electrification programs in the 1930s, and that’s what some of these plants will be used for. On the other hand, many African third world countries need international funding to build infrastructure. Those funding agencies have severely curtailed financing fossil fuel power plants, even though many of those countries have the natural resources to fuel them.
I didn’t address your ‘main point which is, what they do is not a valid excuse for us to do the same’ because it didn’t address the fact that A-CO2 emissions from fossil fuel power plants will be rising for the next few decades, as two large economies/populations do not share your ‘main point’, which is a value judgement. You’re entitled to your personal values, but your not entitled to universal acceptance of them … even if you sincerely believe you are correct.
ganon
“….some of us are smart…”
“I know that I am intelligent, because I know that I know nothing.”
Socrates
Bill, yes I seriously believe I’m correct, and I believe you are looking for scapegoats. China produces 3 times the renewable energy of the US, and is the world’s major manufacturer (and installer) of renewable equipment.
As for India, they barely produce half the CO2 emissions of the US, even though they have four times the population. I don’t even know why you include them in your behavioral justification.
Cerescokid,
Thanks for your thoughts, and making one of my many points.
And of course, you think that you know Socrates actually said that, but then you know nothing.
As to what I’m looking for: facts and hypotheses that seem to explain the reality of those facts, past and present. Honestly, I don’t have time for scapegoating. (Full disclosure: I have been called an old goat on several occasions.) When I read an article or post on here, and I read them all, I give everyone an opportunity to convince me/educate me of whatever it is they are saying. That includes you.
One point you did make in this conversation that is a good one: ‘… don’t think the actions of others are an excuse to lower ourselves to the lowest common denominator.’
Bill,
Thanks, good to know that something I say here is occasionally appreciated.
Stick with your ICEV. You will be happier and wealthier.
In the $1.2 trillion secondhand market, prices for battery-powered cars are falling faster than for their combustion-engine cousins. Buyers are shunning them due to a lack of subsidies, a desire to wait for better technology and continued shortfalls in charging infrastructures. A fierce price war sparked by Tesla Inc. and competitive Chinese models are further depressing values of new and used cars alike, threatening earnings at rivals like Volkswagen AG and Stellantis NV.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-12-22/bmw-tesla-and-other-electric-used-cars-are-proving-tough-to-sell
We need to put more CO2 into the atmosphere. It’s the best thing we can do:
https://www.hyzercreek.com/Co2part2.jpg
That straight line doesn’t really apply – it is trying to hide what is happening now in 100’s of millions of years of the past. You can worry about what might happen in 50 million years, I’ll worry about what happens in the next hundred or thousand.
https://assets.weforum.org/editor/36m3FnquTTKXIWrk5MCaLzKYk1A7bS8Q3aTrFUu7kxw.png
Right. So, you really don’t care about the planet at all. Thanks for proving what we already knew.
The planet will be fine. I worry about the organisms that live on it.
Thanks for your insult and proving what you are.
No, you don’t care about the organisms that live on it. That’s 🅴🆇🅰🅲🆃🅻🆈 what you don’t care about.
ganon
You seem to want human population reduction. An earth with 10 billion humans (expected population) will force many other species to be terminated. Per your logic, it is the number of humans not CO2 that is the issue.
Morgan, you can say whatever you want. It has nothing to do with reality, particularly as it pertains to me. I like your new font, it’s really cute when you use it to tell lies.
Rob,
I think it would be a good idea, and I expect it will happen one way or another.
Rob, per my logic, it is the number of humans multiplied by the ever-increasing per capita CO2 emissions. If we can learn/figure out how to live sustainably (other species included), I’m good with 10 billion or so. However, under current conditions and trajectories, I don’t see that as being very likely.
In 2021 55% of energy consumed was from coal. Only 7% was from non-hydro renewables. So much for all that HUGE amount of “green” energy used by China.
Note that installed capacity for solar and wind is a meaningless number when it comes to energy sources. The only thing that counts is energy PRODUCED, which for unreliables wind and solar depends on the weather.
https://www.eia.gov/international/content/analysis/countries_long/China/archive/pdf/china_2022.pdf
JIM2
Let’s cut to the chase relevant to climate change: CO2 emissions per capita by country (tons/year): USA 15.29, China 8.85, India 1.91.
As for renewables (excluding hydro-intrinsically limited and nuclear-nonrenewable). For primary production (all energy) US and China are similar 7-8% depending on information source. For electricity generation: China 29%, US 15.2%.
I freely admit that China and India are still increasing CO2 emissions, while the US is decreasing (modestly), they still have a long, long way to go to catch up. And considering, I still don’t understand using “but, but China and India …” as an excuse for not doing anything – business as usual – science has a pretty good idea where that leads, no matter how much the denizens here would like to ignore it.
ganon – Let’s cut to the chase. Show me in the formulas describing the effect of CO2 the “per capita” variable. I won’t hold my breath because it isn’t there. Physics don’t care about any “per capita”!! All that matters is total emissions.
China 11,396,777,000.00 t
United States 5,057,303,600.00 t
What we in the US do just doesn’t matter.
Source:
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions#global-co2-emissions-from-fossil-fuels-global-co2-emissions-from-fossil-fuels
The amount of reduction you advocate for the US to make is meaningless on the world’s CO2 emissions curve. Using electric vehicles make small changes. If the US emitted nothing it would barely change the world’s curve.
Jim2,
Funny, I believe in equal opportunity and responsibility for every person. Apparently you don’t.
And what about India, you decided to leave them out, oh yeah about 1/2 the US. So if what matters is the top two countries, you’re right – it is china and us.
Very quantitative Rob. If we made it to net zero (fat chance), the EU would probably get there first. and together that would be a 25% reduction, that is significant. But I understand, you are looking for the lowest common denominator excuse to do nothing – so don’t.
ganon writes-
“If we made it to net zero (fat chance), the EU would probably get there first. and together that would be a 25% reduction, that is significant. ”
What does significant mean to you? Does it mean changing CO2 concentrations from 550 ppm to 547 in 2100?
I am not for doing nothing only sensible things.
Rob, since prediction for 2100, maintaining business as usual (countries meeting commitments made in 2012), is 800+ ppm CO2 (1060 CO2e), which means about another 7 F in GMST, and another ~ 6 feet is sea level rise, I think it would be great if it could be held to 550 ppm. Problem is, it doesn’t just go away, even if emissions are cut back, they only accumulate a little more slowly.
China has a cut-throat, jack boot government who will abuse its people at the drop of a hat. Witness the welding of doors shut for the COVID lock downs there. It’s not a pleasant place, 3rd world or whatever. China has made threatening gestures towards us in the US. The last thing we should do is make China more prosperous. Let them burn cake.
ganon …
The per capita numbers you site for China and India will only become larger. That’s based solely on the fact that their economies are still growing. You earlier pointed out that India and China have vast areas of population that are ‘third world’. Economic development of those areas requires cheap energy, which is why they are building so many coal plants. The West has no control over what China and India do. However, we have tried to limit African nations from developing cheap energy for their economic development. If that effort fails, and I believe it will, then add to the per capita usage the +1billion people of Africa.
If you believe that yearly CO2 emissions are mostly anthropogenic, then until renewables are truly economically viable, it would seem logical for you to advocate smokestack mitigation for coal, NG and nuclear.
Bill F writes – “However, we have tried to limit African nations from developing cheap energy for their economic development. ”
Bill – the attempt to limit Africa’s development slides under the radar, though it is quite evident when drilling onto the detail of many of the net zero plans. For example the projected electricity use in most of the African countries in Jacobson’s infamous 100% renewable energy plans for 145 countries by 2050 has only modest increases in electricity usage. Increases in electric usage just slightly above the increase in population.
Bill,
“If you believe that yearly CO2 emissions are mostly anthropogenic, then until renewables are truly economically viable, it would seem logical for you to advocate smokestack mitigation for coal, NG and nuclear.”
I do believe that (along with much of CH4), and I believe that the biosphere and hydrosphere absorb about 60-70% of anthropogenic CO2, but “natural” mitigation can’t keep up, particularly as the ocean saturates and solubility decreases. I favor the elimination of coal because it is simply inefficient, and stack mitigation (sequestration) will only make that worse. I also realize I that I won’t see it in my lifetime. I also believe that that sequestration will be expensive enough that renewables (with various storage options) will become truly economically viable, if they aren’t already. I cautiously support nuclear expansion; however, I question the economic viability, if proper waste management and processing is considered.
Overall, economics is not my first concern. Sometimes it costs to “do the right thing,” besides, the only thing money is good for is spending it, preferably on good things.
joe … totally agree. As you peel the onion there’s much more to see. And … I never fire both barrels at once. ;-)
ganon … I would never argue against ‘doing what’s right’. However, oftentimes we find that doing what we think is right in one sense is quite wrong (according to our own definition) in another. A good example is joe’s point about African nations’ energy use above.
Bill, Joe;
I don’t think Africa should be ignored. It is a great place to spend money for energy self-sufficiency. The question is whether to help them “on the cheap” and do something that has negative impacts and that is not sustainable in the long term. I’d rather spend a bit more and help develop something with less impact and more sustainability. Since most of Africa is not heavily invested in an FF based infrastructure, it is a great place to start from the ground up, and “do it right”.
ganon … In terms of Africa and energy we’re talking two things: economics and values. For me, economics is the basis of everything. I realize that’s not your opinion. Second, values should never be imposed from without. I’m sure you’ll agree that Africa is not ours to do with as we wish. You can always present your case to them, but the decision is theirs and any withholding of funds because they don’t agree, I assume, would not put you in agreement with some of your own principles.
On the subject of economic importance, there are many more qualified on this blog to present that argument, not least Ross himself.
ganon writes- ” maintaining business as usual (countries meeting commitments made in 2012), is 800+ ppm CO2 (1060 CO2e), which means about another 7 F in GMST, and another ~ 6 feet is sea level rise,”
And you claim not to be a CAGW extremist? It is obvious that you are a believer of the extreme views of potential disaster. I think the term “Chicken Little” comes to mind.
‘ which means about another 7 F in GMST,”
Which climate model leads you to this conclusion?
JIm2,
“What we in the US do just doesn’t matter.”
Well, that’s just silly. What every single person does matters.
Nope. No EV for me.
How Electric Vehicles Are Losing Momentum with U.S. Buyers, in Charts
EV sales grew nearly 50% this year but have plateaued in recent months
https://www.wsj.com/business/autos/electric-vehicle-demand-charts-7d3089c7
Yeah, just look at that, in November it was way down to a low of only 42% year-over-year growth. How did ICEVs do over the same period?
Do you not read that EV’s (other than Tesla) are going unsold? They will sell when they are good enough.
I read Jim2’s link – it was only a graph, which I was able to read. I did read somewhere else that Teslas were down to 50% of the total (US) market, I take that to mean other makers (probably mostly Japanese and Korean) are still selling and increasing their market share.
Gagme1950,
6 feet of sea level rise? You must be huffing nitrous. This is the true global real sea level rise, 1.5 mm per year. That’s 1.5 meters per thousand years and it isn’t accelerating at all. Ignore all the papers on the subject, those are all lies. This is the truth:
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=1612340
𝖄𝖔𝖚𝖗 𝖒𝖔𝖘𝖙 𝖍𝖚𝖒𝖇𝖑𝖊 𝖘𝖊𝖗𝖛𝖆𝖓𝖙
Morgan
Let me preempt what ganon will say since I provided him awhile back with the same graph. He is not into observational data. His thing is satellite data which I explained is full of problems.
Regardless of what evidence we provide him, he has succumbed to the establishment narrative. Which means the only safe place in America will be Denver, the Mile High City.
Morgan, not only do you think name-calling, insults and lies make for refutations, you are ignorant and think the past is the future.
See the “NOAA 2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report”, Table 2.3: “Global mean sea level and contiguous United States scenarios, in meters, relative to a 2000 baseline” case – high (business as usual, which I specified): 2.2 meters (7.2 feet) in 2100 and 3.9 meters (12.8 feet) in 2150.
I think you are the one doing drugs of some sort. It allows you to cherry-pick old data and ignore up-to-date predictions. Perhaps you should stick with trying out new fonts.
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/hazards/sealevelrise/sealevelrise-tech-report-sections.html
Ganon dear, happy New Year to you. You read a lot, but you miss key points: what you refer to as predictions, are actually projections. There is an important legal distinction.
Thanks, George. I stand corrected, those were the “high” case (as I noted) projections, not “predictions”.
I believe the more conservative “predictions” are about 2 feet additional (after 2020) by 2100, and about 5 feet (2020 – 2150). Still bad enough. More details with probabilities and discussion are available in the report’s Executive Summary, Key Takeaway #3.
Happy New Year
Ceresokid,
You may read my response to Morgan. Every word of it applies to you also – except for trying out new fonts, but you might like to try that too.
ganon
You know what Morgan has provided is actual and factual. Of course, as we have discussed before, the debate centers on what will happen in 2100. No one knows. It doesn’t take a genius to recognize the tidal gauge data don’t reflect much of an acceleration, certainly not what some of the studies using satellite data conclude. I’m sure you remember the links to studies using tidal gauge data that found no or benign acceleration. The Kleinherenbrink study which I also provided you, using satellite data, concluded a much reduced acceleration.
Every time the nightmare scenario of SLR comes up, I can’t get past thinking about the 1983 EPA study which said GMSLR could be up to 12 feet. So, over 1/3 of the time has elapsed and SLR has gone up maybe 4 inches. What has changed to make anyone think that the assumptions used by EPA, which at this time appear to be an overestimate, are valid.
If indeed, the AMO warm phase has contributed to some of the rise the last few decades, and the analysis of the AMO is correct, then for the next few decades we should be experiencing some attenuation of the rate of change.
There are too many studies giving the AMO credibility for us to ignore what could happen.
Other than that, Go Lions.
I don’t think I’ve ever quoted the EPA on GMSLR. I think one of the keys is that many interpret “could be as much as, as soon as” to mean “will happen by”. An article of interest may be:
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3012/nasa-led-study-reveals-the-causes-of-sea-level-rise-since-1900/
And the associated article in Nature
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2591-3
Behind a paywall, but a lot can be gleaned from the abstract and figures/captions @ researchgate (where it is also possible to request an PDF from the authors).
One thing that I hadn’t considered is world-wide dam-sequestration that peaked in the 1960s – 70s, and we may be returning to rates indicative of increase in ocean heat content contributing to both Ice shelf melting and thermal expansion.
I don’t doubt that the AMO plays an important role, but keep in mind that it is a bipolar oscillation that is overlaid, and interacts, with global SST. It looks to me like is a bit past the peak of the positive phase and is interacting with the NAO. Will be interesting to see what the next 20 years brings.
https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/atlantic-multi-decadal-oscillation-amo
And, in the recent past, the sea level rise has also shown negative acceleration (deceleration). Thus, citing the most recent behavior does not guarantee that it is representative of long-term behavior. It just might be a coincidence that it is currently accelerating.
Clyde,
That “recent deceleration” was from the world-wide dam building and water sequestration in the 1960s-70s. It just “might be a coincidence” that it is accelerating now because of increased melting rates of Greenland and Western Antarctica ice sheets and well as thermal expansion of water that corresponds to the measured (accelerating) heat content of the ocean.
kid … just trying to follow along here. I’m sure you’ve posted it before, but do you have information on the acceleration rates for SLR for the past (say) 100 years?
Bill, you can find what you want at.
https://typeset.io/pdf/persistent-acceleration-in-global-sea-level-rise-since-the-3ffm203kgn.pdf
See figure 2. It gives the Sea level (anomaly), rate of rise, and acceleration since 1900.
ganon … thank you for the reference. I certainly may have missed it, but it seems that Figure 2C does not have an average for the full period of the data? There’s discussion of a 25yr period, 1991-2015, but not a complete average of the data?
Bill, I see a value of 0.06 +/- 0.01 for 1968 – 2015 (the plateau), but no average for the entire set.
ganon … thanks for checking it out. Just by looking … which isn’t something I’d hang my hat on … the whole series looks to be about .03mm. But, it would be nice to have the actual number. Either way, would you agree that it is much less than the .08mm source you sited earlier?
Bill
“There is considerable variability in the rate of rise during the twentieth century but there has been a statistically significant acceleration since 1880 and 1900 of 0.009 ± 0.003 mm year−2 and 0.009 ± 0.004 mm year−2, respectively.”
From Church 2011 which has been in IPCC report.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10712-011-9119-1
I think more recent reports have been affected by the AMO.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10712-011-9119-1
Bill,
I would agree that 0.03 is much less 0.08 mm/yr^2. But that is apples and oranges. I cited ~ 0.08 for the recent satellite era since 1992, not the tidal back data back to ~1910.
Bill
A more current paper by Kleinherenbrink 2019
“ We provide a new and more accurate estimate of the intra-mission bias, which leads to a much reduced GMSL acceleration over the whole record. Hence, the conundrum of an uncertain GMSL acceleration from altimetry is still unsolved, in spite of recent opposite claims, and in contrast to the expected effect of ocean warming and continental freshwater fluxes.”
“Note that the inability to state that an acceleration is present with certainty using satellite radar altimetry does not imply there is no acceleration at all. Its estimated value in this study is actually in line with the results of the 20th-century tide-gauge-based GMSL reconstruction by Dangendorf et al.17, notably 0.018 ± 0.016 mm yr−2. The uncertainties in the altimetry-derived estimate, however, cause the same acceleration to become statistically equivalent to zero at a 95%-confidence level. It should be stressed that, based on the decadal behavior of GMSL as shown in the same study, we need to be careful with comparing accelerations from records of different length.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-47340-z
Typical kid comment. Give the same reference twice with most recent data from 2009.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10712-011-9119-1
Obviously ignoring the rise and acceleration of the last 15 years.
Of course Kleinherenbrink is 2019. Always happy to link more recent studies.
Also, Houston 2021 with 0.0128 mm/2
https://meridian.allenpress.com/jcr/article-abstract/37/2/272/450977/Sea-Level-Acceleration-Analysis-of-the-World-s?redirectedFrom=fulltext
Thanks, Kid! Go Lions! … except when they get to the Eagles. ;-)
ganon … that was my point, in reference to what you last said. I don’t see the utility of taking the last 15 years of data when we have so much more. Figure 2C, that you provided, shows swings up and down over a hundred year period. I would be cautious telling the story from just the last 15 years.
Curious George,
Those aren’t predictions and they aren’t projections. They are lies and damn lies.
More green fraud, this time on a grand scale.
Nikola’s shares began a precipitous decline after Hindenburg Research, an activist short selling firm, on September 10, 2020, released a devastating report on the company. Hindenburg said that “we believe Nikola is an intricate fraud built on dozens of lies over the course of its Founder and Executive Chairman Trevor Milton’s career.
https://thequadreport.com/trevor-milton-e-truck-nikola-corp-founder-headed-to-prison
Gagme1950
This is what NOAA says
“The relative sea level trend is 1.54 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 0.2 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from 1905 to 2022 which is equivalent to a change of 0.51 feet in 100 years.”
Here’s the link again: https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=1612340
I wish I could find the link showing your most recent lab results at the detox clinic. You’re not clean.
What does Honolulu, where there is known land rise, have to do with global average sea-level rise? Nothing! Global sea level rise is currently at 3.9 mm/year and accelerating.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/150192/tracking-30-years-of-sea-level-rise
“The altimetry data also show that the rate of sea level rise is accelerating. Over the course of the 20th century, global mean sea level rose at about 1.5 millimeters per year. By the early 1990s, it was about 2.5 mm per year. Over the past decade, the rate has increased to 3.9 mm (0.15 inches) per year.”
This is consistent with the NOAA report already referenced. Read them both, stop cherry-picking data, and stop making an idiot of yourself with the stupid insults.
Along with the 3.9 mm/year the acceleration is ~ 0.08 mm/yr. If the acceleration doesn’t increase further (which it most likely will because of increased Greenland and WAIS melting) and if you remember your high school physics, LOL, (d = vt +(1/2)at^2) this corresponds to 527 mm = 20.8 inches of sea level rise for 2024 – 2100 and 44.3 inches for 2024 – 2150.
Have a
ESG biting the dust. Net zero depends on almost-free money. Too bad.
Global ESG Debt Set for Tepid Growth as High Rates Inhibit
Credit strategists tempering their 2024 issuance expectations
‘Now is just a difficult time,’ says Angel Oak’s Rob McDonough
The global sustainable debt market may struggle to surpass its high water mark again for a third year as borrowers grapple with additional labeling costs, higher interest-rates and heightened ESG scrutiny.
The share of overall bond sales labeled as ESG plunged this year to its lowest level since 2020, data compiled by Bloomberg show. The slide was most pronounced in North America, where ESG bonds made up just 2% of all sales.
Investors and credit strategists are tempering their expectation for a resurgence in 2024. Sustainable Fitch said it expects issuance to be muted if rates remain high. Bloomberg Intelligence …
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/esg/global-esg-debt-set-for-tepid-growth-as-high-rates-inhibit-sales
Industry in Germany has the Greens Disease.
The head of Germany’s industry lobby said the government may fail to phase out coal-fired power plants ahead of schedule because it lacks a strategy to provide incentives for the construction of new gas stations.
“It is extremely annoying that we could find ourselves in a situation where we have to continue operating coal-fired power plants for longer because there is not enough other reserve capacity,“ German newswire DPA cited BDI lobby chief Siegfried Russwurm as saying.
Russwurm represents companies such as industrials giant Siemens Energy AG.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-12-23/germany-s-coal-phase-out-plan-is-unrealistic-lobby-chief-says
What scientists don’t know:
1. How many species are there on Earth?
2. I’d go back 540m years to see the ‘biological big bang’
3. Could some of the smallest life forms help avert climate crisis?
4. What is the full biodiversity of the Amazon or Congo basin rainforests?
5. How do animals influence the functioning of Earth?
6. What will happen to the Gulf Stream?
7. Do universal rules govern how plants and animals evolve?
8. How many humans could Earth support?
9. Which species will adapt to the climate crisis — and which will not?
https://science.slashdot.org/story/23/12/27/199252/top-scientists-on-the-one-mystery-on-earth-theyd-like-to-solve
The idea of stakeholder capitalism is attributed largely to Klaus Schwab, creator and chairman of the World Economic Forum, who began spreading the idea in a 1971 study he co-authored called “Modern Company Management in Mechanical Engineering”. This top-down approach to shaping how wealth is created, and in whose hands it ends up, played well to a media educated in America’s Marxism-infused liberal arts colleges. And the business crowd loved it too. Suddenly, bland business conferences felt less like trade conventions and more like geopolitical summits. You weren’t merely investing in funds, selling widgets, or cooking up ever more optimised ads. You were saving the world.
…
But ESG’s recent victories are now starting to look pyrrhic. In 2022, Texas led a red-state boycott of BlackRock, announcing plans to pull more than $3 billion out of BlackRock funds. Since then, Republican state legislatures, including those in Florida, Kansas and Idaho, have passed laws that ban or limit the consideration of ESG.
In an even more existential blow to the ESG vision, money has become expensive. During the era of Zero Interest Rate Policy, there was enough cheap money, and enough margin, to sacrifice some of it for the sake of a good cause. But when money is tight, consumers are jittery, and investors running scared, companies take what they can get.
https://unherd.com/2023/12/have-we-reached-peak-esg/
it’s hard to imagine the reason for opposing investing in green technology. this is not government investment. this is private money! choosing to invest in green technology is an individual choice, no? i thought the right side was all about personal choice. in the end, either the investments will yield good returns or they won’t. why root against them? do you actually want solar to fail? in the end, we will run out of fossil fuels, regardless of whether agw is a gravve threat or not. so we should all be rooting for success of newer energy sources. right?
The government is spending trillions and is forcing others to spend even more trillions. When the government forces you to buy an EV, a non-gas range, a non-gas A/C unit, or forces you to buy a crappy dish washer but is “energy efficient”, personal choice is nowhere to be found except in the warped mind of Climate Doomers. You’ve got a lot of gall calling this individual “choice.”
And if the government forces companies to invest in “green” schemes, that also isn’t personal “choice.” It’s the jack boot of government on the neck of freedom of choice and the economy. You are sadly mistaken if you think I’m buying what you are selling.
DanB says:
……… this is not government investment. this is private money! choosing to invest in green technology is an individual choice, no? i thought the right side was all about personal choice……
𝑻𝒉𝒊𝒔 𝒊𝒔 𝒈𝒐𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒏𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒎𝒐𝒏𝒆𝒚, 𝒘𝒉𝒊𝒄𝒉 𝒊𝒔 𝒕𝒂𝒙𝒑𝒂𝒚𝒆𝒓𝒔’ 𝒎𝒐𝒏𝒆𝒚. 𝑫𝒊𝒅 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒉𝒆𝒂𝒓 𝒐𝒇 𝑩𝒊𝒅𝒆𝒏’𝒔 “𝑰𝒏𝒇𝒍𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑷𝒓𝒐𝒅𝒖𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑨𝒄𝒕” 𝒘𝒉𝒊𝒄𝒉 𝒘𝒂𝒔 𝒂 𝒕𝒓𝒊𝒍𝒍𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒅𝒐𝒍𝒍𝒂𝒓𝒔, 𝒎𝒐𝒔𝒕 𝒐𝒇 𝒘𝒉𝒊𝒄𝒉 𝒘𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒕𝒐 𝒈𝒍𝒐𝒃𝒂𝒍 𝒘𝒂𝒓𝒎𝒊𝒏𝒈? 𝑾𝒆 𝒉𝒂𝒗𝒆 𝒏𝒐 “𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒔𝒐𝒏𝒂𝒍 𝒄𝒉𝒐𝒊𝒄𝒆” 𝒊𝒏 𝒘𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒈𝒐𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒏𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒅𝒐𝒆𝒔 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝒕𝒂𝒙𝒑𝒂𝒚𝒆𝒓 𝒎𝒐𝒏𝒆𝒚. 𝒀𝒐𝒖 𝒎𝒖𝒔𝒕 𝒃𝒆 𝒌𝒊𝒅𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒈. 𝑨𝒓𝒆 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒌𝒊𝒅𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒈? 𝑰𝒇 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒂𝒓𝒆, 𝒊𝒕’𝒔 𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒇𝒖𝒏𝒏𝒚.
Rob Starkey,
I believe that extreme projections of climate change have a nonzero probability of occurring, and that they should not be discounted or ridiculed. Rather, one should be aware of the possibilities, be prepared for them, and try to minimize the probability of them happening.
I don’t believe in any particular model. I do pay attention to the various CMIP composite results and the projections they make. I think a scenario somewhere between SSP3-4.5 and SSP4-7 is most likely. Note that cumulative emissions 2005-2020 best match SSP5-8.5, but I would hope we could do better, despite the people that are in denial.
Is it possible that after the death we will go to Heavens or Hell depending on what we have done in our lifetime?
All those EVs in Cali will exacerbate the water problem there.
Firefighters use 36k gallons of water to extinguish flaming Tesla after ‘battery’ fire
Alabama firefighters had their hands full on Christmas after a chain reaction from an accident caused a Tesla’s battery to ignite.
A Tesla Model Y totaled from a fire on display
The Tesla’s driver was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol (Image: Facebook:@PineLevelFire)
Alabama firefighters needed 36,000 gallons of water to extinguish a flaming Tesla Model Y SUV that fully ignited on Christmas after its driver crashed on an interstate highway.
https://www.the-express.com/lifestyle/cars/122681/firefighters-gallons-water-flaming-tesla
Jim2, Morgan Wright,
The article that Jim cited is about private investment. not government investment. which apparently deeply offends you both. but let’s not falsify what the article is about. it’s about private investment. the government is not forcing private individuals to invest in ESG. once again, its’ not about government investment. or, to put it another way, this is about ESG investing, blackrock, which is a private company, etc. omg i cannot believe i need to say this.
The article is about ESG for which the EU and UK have already implemented rules. The US SEC is actively pursuing cases.
SEC Charges Goldman Sachs Asset Management for Failing to Follow its Policies and Procedures Involving ESG Investments>/i>
https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2022-209
So … maybe you don’t live in the Western World?
Did you read the article you linked to, or just the headline? the SEC complaint is that Goldman did not follow its own ESG guideline. Mutual funds must follow the guidelines in their prospectuses. This is about truth in advertising. The SEC is not enforcing ESG or imposing ESG on anyone. It doesn’t do that. It never has. Ever. Ever. Ever. Period. I worked in finance for decades. I dealt with ESG funds. I dealt with SEC regulations. I’m not interested in debating facts. This is a fact. More interesting is debating why you seem gleeful when there are challenges with renewable enery sources, since ultimately, we will all need them to work when fossil fuels run out.
𝒈𝒂𝒏𝒐𝒏1950 | 𝑫𝒆𝒄𝒆𝒎𝒃𝒆𝒓 28, 2023 𝒂𝒕 12:19 𝒂𝒎 | 𝑹𝒆𝒑𝒍𝒚
“𝑾𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒅𝒐𝒆𝒔 𝑯𝒐𝒏𝒐𝒍𝒖𝒍𝒖, 𝒘𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆 𝒊𝒔 𝒌𝒏𝒐𝒘𝒏 𝒍𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒓𝒊𝒔𝒆, 𝒉𝒂𝒗𝒆 𝒕𝒐 𝒅𝒐 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝒈𝒍𝒐𝒃𝒂𝒍 𝒂𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒈𝒆 𝒔𝒆𝒂-𝒍𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒍 𝒓𝒊𝒔𝒆? 𝑵𝒐𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒏𝒈! 𝑮𝒍𝒐𝒃𝒂𝒍 𝒔𝒆𝒂 𝒍𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒍 𝒓𝒊𝒔𝒆 𝒊𝒔 𝒄𝒖𝒓𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒍𝒚 𝒂𝒕 3.9 𝒎𝒎/𝒚𝒆𝒂𝒓 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒂𝒄𝒄𝒆𝒍𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈.”
There is no land rise in Hawaii, known or otherwise, but that doesn’t stop you from lying and saying there is, and saying that it is “known.” Oahu sits on a solidified mantle hot spot, and doesn’t rise or sink the way continents do. The crust doesn’t even affect it, it sits on the mantle. It’s volcanically extinct as well, although that wouldn’t matter if it were active like the Big Island is.
The government can’t lie about the sea level there, because the shipping industry needs to know accurate tide information for merchant ships and cruise lines. Plus, the Navy operates there, out of Pearl Harbor, and how do you think the Admirals would feel about NOAA fudging the numbers for their climate change racket which makes billions for them?
No, the tide gauges in Honolulu are the gold standard of sea level, the satellite altimeters and other studies are just money-making activity for what Michael Mann calls “the cause,” but is more widely known as Marxism.
Geology of the Hawaiian Islands
Sinton & Sherrod (USGS) [in Encyclopedia of Geology (Second Edition) 2021, Pages 742-757]
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-409548-9.12513-8
“The burden of shield volcanoes depresses the ocean crust near the hot spot, creating the Hawaiian Moat. Greatest rate of subsidence today occurs at the Island of Hawai‘i, 2–3 mm per year along its coast. Flexural rebound occurs as volcanoes move away from the hot spot; the Island of O‘ahu shows the greatest uplift.”Slow subsidence resumes downstream from the flexure, leading ultimately to submergence of each island in the chain.
Seems USGS thinks you are the liar. And you are still desperately deflecting from explaining why a single tidal station is a refutation of global average sea level rise. Oh, that’s right – it’s Marxism.
Same reason they use Mauna Loa to measure global CO2. It’s out in the middle of the ocean with little disturbance from continents.
I chose Honolulu because it has the longest record, but Hilo is pretty long too, back to 1928, and it shows 3.1 mm per year with zero acceleration.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=1617760
That’s on the Big Island where your reference says the island is sinking by 2-3 mm which if you subtract 2-3 mm from 3.1 means Hilo has a sea level rise of 1.1 to 0.1 mm per year. That’s pretty negligible if you ask me.
I want to go back to my little grass shack in Kailua-Kona, Hawaii
Where the grass is sure a gas,
The Maui Wowie keeps me high, all day long
We don’t have snow upon the hill tops
But there’s enough to go around down below
And you can even fill your pill box
With uppers, downers, anyway you want to go
I want to go back to my little grass shack in Kailua-Kona, Hawaii
Where you can roll up the pad
And smoke the joint down to the ground
Then you plant all the seeds, grow a new batch of weed
And build another shack from all the stems and leaves
I want to go back to my little grass shack in Kailua-Kona, Hawaii
Where the hash is sure a gas, Maui Wowie keeps me high
So, you were wrong – thanks for that. Single (or two) tide stations are still not GMSLR, which is currently ~3.9 mm/yr with an acceleration of ~0.09 mm/y^2.
That’s pure Lysenkoism, dude.
I’ll take the Hawaii sea levels and ignore the satellite altimeters, which pretend to measure sea levels to the nearest mm when lunar and solar tides are in meters. Never mind that the satellite data is collected by the same government agencies that fund them.
Tell me why the sea level rise in Hilo is 0.1 to 1.1 mm per year.
Joe,
0.094 [0.082–0.115] mm yr –2 for 1993–2018 (high confidence). The full range of high-quality satellite measurements.
No need to cherry-pick, that’s more a denier’s ploy.
Morgan – not interested in your deflections. You’ve already made your fantasy thought processes and conspiracy theories clear.
Have a good New Year
OK so I trapped you in the corner and you have to escape by running. Why is the sea level rise so slow in Hawaii????
Morgan,
Deflections are not backing someone into a corner. Refusing to continue to play your games is not being backed into a corner. I gave numbers for GMSLR and its acceleration. You have not refuted them, you just deflected to a single location, and lied about its VLR, and then reverted to Marxist conspiracy theories.
In case you didn’t catch it – you’ve got nothing, and I’m not interested.
ganon
you misstated sea level rise. It is 3.5mm per year not 3.9.
https://sealevel.colorado.edu/
Rob Starkey,
No, you got it wrong. Your reference was the AVERAGE annual sea level rise since 1992. It also had an uncertainty associated with it (which you left out), 3.5 ± 0.4 mm. I quite specifically said CURRENT (not the average of the last 31 years) sea level rise of 3.9 mm (which is still within your uncertainty).
https://www.earthdata.nasa.gov/topics/climate-indicators/atmospheric-ocean-indicators/sea-level-rise
“Statistical precision = s.d./sqrt(n) ≈ 0.15 mm. ”
Dividing by the SQRT(n) is only justified for data that have the property of stationarity. That is, the mean and SD are constant over time. That means something like the diameter of a ball bearing in a temperature controlled room.
When the range of what is being measured varies with the weather (winds and barometric pressure piling up water and winds creating waves) and has a long-term trend, both the mean and SD vary with time. Selecting different start and end points will give different results. The precision of “≈ 0.15 mm” is not justified with what is obviously non-stationary data.
George,
What you would trust doesn’t really matter. I would only trust tide gauges if they are associated with a high resolution GPS. Ya know, uncertainties due to water withdrawal, earthquakes, subsidence, GIA, other forms of VLM, settling, construction weight depression, etc. So, for a good measurement, you’d be depending on satellites anyway. Then there is the problem of building tidal stations in the middle of the ocean. Satellites give a global picture (can tell where the water is moving) have more precision and are routinely calibrated against calibrated ground stations. I wouldn’t expect them to be exactly the same – Tide stations only measure along coastlines (satellites the whole world) and tide stations have to average between high and low tide, which are intrinsically separated by 6 hours and a ~1/4 turn of the globe with respect to the moon.
So you go ahead and trust the tide stations. I’ll go with the current system that uses both. It’s not an either or situation.
“Satellites give a global picture … have more precision and are routinely calibrated against calibrated ground stations.”
It appears that you are not familiar with how sea level is derived. It is based on the radar travel time between a satellite and the surface of the ocean. A major problem is that the altitude and speed of the satellite is affected by mascons in the open ocean. The return data are processed using a fairly coarse-resolution model of gravity. There is no land to use other than spot calibrations, which don’t help if the model doesn’t account for unknown mascons or changes in the known ones. You are assuming that there is negligible error resulting from using the gravity model to estimate the height of the satellite. Also, the shape of waves, which is rarely known at sea, can affect the estimate of the ‘average’ used. A rigorous analysis of the propagation of error from the numbers given in the engineering design specifications provides numbers larger than you are supporting.
Your ‘accelerations’ peaked in 2020, and have been decelerating since then. I suggest you read the following to bring yourself up to where you think you are on the topic:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/05/02/30-years-of-measuring-and-analysing-sea-levels-using-satellites/
Acceleratation from what date
2007?
2011?
2021?
Careful which cherrypick date you start with
1992, the beginning of accurate satellite radar altimetry. No cherry-picking.
“accurate satellite radar altimetry”
I don’t believe that the ocean surface is flat to a millimeter scale.
George,
I don’t believe the ocean is flat to a millimeter scale. I do believe that the average of a 30 x 30 km area can be measured to mm scale.
A method is described for mapping time-uncorrelated large-scale errors in satellite altimeter sea surface heights. Standard deviations of differences between pairs of successive measurements at track crossovers are computed, and the functional dependence of these deviations on absolute time difference is used to estimate the errors of individual measurements. This is first applied to all of ERS-1,2 altimeter data in the Pacific Ocean, yielding average errors of 3.2 cm in the deep ocean (>1 km) and 4.7 cm in the shallow seas (<1 km). The procedure is repeated for variable latitude bands, each with a full range of possible time differences, yielding a meridional profile of computed errors, ranging from 2.6 cm near the Antarctic continent (67–60S) and South Subtropical regions (25–5S) to 3.5 cm in the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (60–45S) and the Northern Hemisphere Subtropical and Subpolar Gyres. Finally, coarse-resolution maps of these errors are produced by subdividing the Pacific Ocean into latitude-longitude bins, each large enough to contain a sufficient number of samples for the functional fits. The larger errors are in Northwest and Subtropical Pacific, especially in South China Sea (4.3 to 4.5 cm) and off northern Australia (5.4 cm), while the smaller errors (2.5 to 3 cm) are in Northeast Pacific, central Tropical Pacific and near Antarctica in Southeast Pacific Ocean. These are lower bounds on altimeter errors, as they do not include contributions from time-correlated errors. We find that the computed error fields are not correlated with sea level standard deviations, thus disproving the notion that altimeter error variance can be scaled with the variance of sea surface height data.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233090350_Large-Scale_Errors_in_ERS_Altimeter_Data
Joe,
Yes, a single point measurement is good to about 5 cm.
Standard deviations for a total global run 80 – 90 mm, with about n=330,000 measurements after detected error removal. Statistical precision = s.d./sqrt(n) ≈ 0.15 mm.
It looks like variations between successive 10 day runs are usually less than 1 mm and about 0.5 mm for 6 run averages.
The raw data is publicly available (registration required), if you want to play with it.
https://www.earthdata.nasa.gov/
ganon
Every cubic meter in every ocean is different from the day before. I understand the theory of being able to know the height of the oceans but the known errors and uncertainties are almost endless. The assumptions and estimates and corrections are also endless. The knowledge gaps are endless.
I grew up on a small inland lake and at dawn the lake surface many mornings would be like glass. I have no doubt satellites could measure that to 1mm. The oceans aren’t small lakes. The surfaces are in constant turmoil not reflecting what they were the day before because of factors that are also endless.
Common sense should lead us to be very cautious about what can be known. Here is another example of believing that we can know more than is possible to know. The literature is full of studies concluding that we still have much improvement in the system of measuring the GMSLR.
Funny how y’all really have no understanding of statistical analysis. Fortunately, the people that make the measurements do and are able to measure both ocean mass (glacial melting) and thermal expansion sea level rise to an accuracy of about 1/4 mm on a yearly basis.
Then the satellite altimetry simply MUST agree with tide gauges. Only it does not. I would trust the more direct method more.
ganon
Let me help you with your grammar.
They guess at what the facts are. There fixed it for you. Statistical analysis of an ocean is guessing.
From this paper about exchange of water below the mantle
“Due to mantle convection and resultant partial melting and melt transfer, water may circulate deep into the mantle and return through Earth’s surface into the oceans.”
https://progearthplanetsci.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40645-020-00379-3
“ The effect of present-day mass redistribution on ocean bottom deformation is studied
A global mean ocean bottom subsidence of 0.1 mm/yr was caused by surface mass redistribution over 1993–2014”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017GL075419
More guessing
Cerescokid,
Thanks, I don’t need your help.
George,
“Then the satellite altimetry simply MUST agree with tide gauges. Only it does not. I would trust the more direct method more.”
No, they must not agree, if they do it is only coincidence or during cross calibration. Otherwise, they measure a dynamic ocean at different places and different times. One hopes that long term averages are consistent within uncertainties, and they usually are.
ganon
More sources of uncertainties and complexities.
“ Electronic path delays, oscillator drifts, time tagging errors, antenna phase centre uncertainties, orbit errors, errors in geophysical correction models, improperly calibrated auxiliary sensors and even software conventions may cause systematic errors of the altimeter range (the distance from the satellite to the instantaneous sea level), the most important parameter to monitor the global and regional sea level evolution. On average these errors include a constant range bias, a drift term or even geographically correlated error pattern all of them mapping directly to the sea surface heights. This underpins the importance of a careful calibration of satellite based altimeter systems. A calibration is an indispensable prerequisite to construct a long-term data record to investigate sea level rise and to study regional sea level variability.”
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/6/3/2255/htm
ganon
More reasons for questioning the statistical analysis.
“ We demonstrate that using satellite altimetry records to estimate global ocean volume changes can lead to biases that can exceed 15%. The level of bias will depend on the relative contributions to sea level changes from the Antarctic and Greenland Ice Sheets. The bias is also more sensitive to the detailed geometry of mass flux from the Antarctic Ice Sheet than the Greenland Ice Sheet due to rotational effects on sea level. Finally, in a regional sense, altimetry estimates should not be compared to relative sea level changes because radial crustal motions driven by polar ice mass flux are nonnegligible globally.”
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/31/13/jcli-d-18-0024.1.xml
“ Wave steepness from satellite altimetry for wave dynamics and climate studies”
Wave steepness can only be partially estimated.
https://rjes.wdcb.ru/v18/2018ES000638/2018ES000638.pdf
“Regional trend uncertainty has been reduced by a factor of ~2, but orbital and wet tropospheric corrections errors still prevent fully reaching the GCOS accuracy requirement. Similarly at the interannual time scale, the global mean sea level still displays 2–4 mm errors that are not yet fully understood.”
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10712-016-9389-8
kid,
“Regional trend uncertainty has been reduced by a factor of ~2, but orbital and wet tropospheric corrections errors still prevent fully reaching the GCOS accuracy requirement. Similarly at the interannual time scale, the global mean sea level still displays 2–4 mm errors that are not yet fully understood.”
Let me help you with that: Publication year 2016. Got anything current?
kid,
“A calibration is an indispensable prerequisite to construct a long-term data record to investigate sea level rise and to study regional sea level variability.”
Yep, they do that.
China is an existential threat to the US. It burns untold amounts of coal. We in the US need to do all things to make ourselves strong and not help China with its goals. We in the US need to use fossil fuels to OUR full advantage and otherwise stop hobbling our own industries and citizens with draconian, Climate Doomer regulations.
China will escalate its challenge to the US-led world order, using a rare Communist Party conference this week to map out a strategy to raise its profile and power on the global stage.
President Xi Jinping and other senior leaders pledged to raise China’s influence on world events “to a new level,” according to a government statement issued late Thursday after the conference.
“We must reject all acts of power politics and bullying, and vigorously defend our national interests and dignity,” it said, an allusion to what it sees as the US’ anti-China lobbying.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-12-28/china-seeks-more-global-influence-with-chinese-style-diplomacy
Another unsettling development. (If interested, you may have to conduct a search as the reference is behing a pay wall.)
Membership of the BRICS group of emerging-market nations is set to double, with Saudi Arabia, Iran, the United Arab Emirates, Ethiopia and Egypt to join its ranks on Jan. 1, South Africa’s envoy to the bloc said.
Current members Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa in August invited six other nations to become part of their group, pairing some of the planet’s largest energy producers with some of the biggest consumers among developing countries. Only Argentina declined the invitation after President Javier Milei, who took office this month, reversed his predecessor’s membership bid.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-12-29/brics-to-grow-as-saudi-iran-uae-egypt-ethiopia-join-ranks
If Climate Doomers were capable of critical thinking, they would ask themselves why models can’t predict even the weather. If they can’t predict the weather, how in h*** can they predict climate?
The onset of the two major climate events means the remaining months of 2023 in Australia are likely to be hot and dry, particularly in the eastern states.
Combined with the background warming of climate change, climate scientists have warned Australia could be in for a summer of severe heat.
“When [an El Niño and positive Indian Ocean Dipole] occur together, that tends to increase the severity of rainfall deficiencies,” BOM’s head of climate monitoring Karl Braganza said.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-19/bom-officially-declares-el-nino-underway-2023/102495394
First, because climate models and weather models are unrelated, other than both using the word “model”. Second because weather is chaotic and climate is not. Third because climate models have already proven themselves highly accurate, defeating the null hypothesis, and the skeptics, over and over, for the last thirty years.
Climate models can “fit” any hypothesis you like.
Jim2,
“Climate models can fit any hypothesis you like”. No. We both know that since the 1990s climate models made very clear predictions. we are now pretty close to right smack in the middle of the error bars. they not only accurately predicted warming, they accurately predicted the rate of warming.
Climate models “project” a wide range of outcomes, depending on the model and the initial conditions.
The CMIP model projections are exogenously driven via greenhouse gas concentrations, and therefore do not account for the direct responses and linkages between natural processes and human emissions and other climate-relevant activities. Further inconsistencies are attributed to the disconnected users and developers that develop the shared socioeconomic scenarios, and thus lead to difficulties in interpreting different model results, despite a common implemented scenario target (e.g., land use). Further, the collection of CMIP6 SSP-RCP scenarios was not produced by one IAM, but rather from a selection of distinctly different IAMs developed at institutes around the world. The emission and socioeconomic projections generated from these IAM scenarios are often not consistent with one another and could thus compromise any cross-scenario comparative analysis of climate policy benefits, climate-related impacts, transition risks, and sustainable development consequences. Second, global climate model outputs are prone to errors/biases that can be caused by a range of factors, including limited spatial resolution (large grid sizes), simplified thermodynamic processes and physics or incomplete understanding of the global climate system. The use of biased climate model outputs in impact models (i.e., crop models for agriculture, water resource models for hydrology) or local-scale climate impact assessment can often lead to unrealistic and distorted results. Third, the ensemble size of projections from the participating climate/Earth-system models are limited in providing quantitative insights on ‘risk’ or the probability of variables of interest.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-023-02708-9
Jim2,
That clip was the justification for their work. I find it entertaining when some people complain about GCMs and RCPs, when most of those complaints are already addressed by ESMs and SSPs. I also find it entertaining that some people think that the variance in results of a large assemblage of different models shows that “they can’t be trusted” when in actuality it provides a statistical assessment of the composite (average) model results (which should be better than any given model) and the uncertainty therein.
Here is the abstract of the work actually done to address some of the past deficiencies that you have cherry-picked with your selected clip.
We present a self-consistent, large ensemble, high-resolution global dataset of long‐term future climate, which accounts for the uncertainty in climate system response to anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and in geographical patterns of climate change. The dataset is developed by applying an integrated spatial disaggregation (SD) − bias-correction (BC) method to climate projections from the MIT Integrated Global System Model (IGSM). Four emission scenarios are considered that represent energy and environmental policies and commitments of potential future pathways, namely, Reference, Paris Forever, Paris 2 °C and Paris 1.5 °C. The dataset contains nine key meteorological variables on a monthly scale from 2021 to 2100 at a spatial resolution of 0.5°x 0.5°, including precipitation, air temperature (mean, minimum and maximum), near-surface wind speed, shortwave and longwave radiation, specific humidity, and relative humidity. We demonstrate the dataset’s ability to represent climate-change responses across various regions of the globe. This dataset can be used to support regional-scale climate-related impact assessments of risk across different applications that include hydropower, water resources, ecosystem, agriculture, and sustainable development.
As DanB pointed out, the central tendencies of the model ensembles have been quite good for the last 40+ years, and they are only getting better and more detailed. The hardest part is predicting societal response because that is pseudo-science, very different from the physical science, albeit complex, of climate change. That is why there are SSPs that run the gamut between very unlikely at both ends of the spectrum. They should not be viewed as predictions of what will happen, but rather as guidance for where we’d like to go. I’m all in favor of continued improvement in that guidance, rather than rejecting it because it can’t tell you what will actually happen.
So, in essence they shoot 10 different brands of 18 inch shotguns loaded with buckshot from 100 feet away, then claim to have hit “the” target when in reality they could have hit 20 dispersed targets. I’m not impressed.
Jim2, for someone who claims to have a chemistry degree, I’m not impressed with your understanding of statistical analysis and uncertainty, nor the nonsense analogies that you seem to think are rebuttals.
So among his other talents, ganon is a climate model expert. Of course he is.
Climate moves very slow. A couple hundred years, or thousands, of climate moving in a slow grind in one direction is what climate does.
Activists use near-term captured data for activist reasons (30 years captures a meaningful climate data point). A few years, or a decade of heats waves, bad storms; all good enough for activists to bet the farm on.
Models that predict the future based on an already demonstrable multi-decadal trend presents activists with a seemingly logical, undeniable proof. Continuation! It’s obvious because it can be seen. It presents a direct injection of motivated reasoning for activist junkies. Though climate moves in cycles of indifference beyond the human lifespan.
I trust the model describing the path to bankruptcy. Show me a model that predicts the next arbitrary surprise that climate holds for us, then call me impressed. There’s nothing impressive in describing a continuation of the same ole climate, but to define that as proving model accuracy after a couple decades of proof is a joke; when juxtaposed to the hoary slog of climate.
Jim2,
Nope, I’m not an expert on climate models, and you are clearly even less of one.
Trunks,
Climate is the expectation value of weather. Any time frame longer than weather prediction capability can be used. The 30 years is simply a standardized reference period for “recent” climates, specified by the World Metrological Organization – there is no requirement that it be used.
Also “climate” does not necessarily move slowly in one direction. It moves in both directions and over a very wide range of speeds. Right now, it is moving towards warming … fast.
“Right now, it is moving towards warming … fast.”
The post disagrees with your conclusion.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2023.101774
I don’t pretend to know how climate models work in detail. I do know they are complex and they can’t reproduce the physics at small scales. So because of that, approximations have to be made or other data based on real measurements have to be used. Any model output resemblance to real weather or climate may be only because the model was tuned using those methods.
The global mean sea level (GMSL) has risen by 3.3 ± 0.2 mm.yr−1 (68% confidence level) over 1993–2021. The wet troposphere correction (WTC) used to compute the altimetry-based mean sea level data is known to be a large source of error in the GMSL long-term stability. The WTC is derived from the microwave radiometers (MWR) on board the altimetry missions. In order to improve the long-term estimates of the GMSL, we propose an alternative WTC computation based on highly stable climate data records (CDRs) of water vapor derived from independent MWR measurements on board meteorological satellites. A polynomial model is applied to convert water vapor to WTC. The CDR-derived WTC enables reducing the low frequency uncertainty of the WTC applied to the altimetry data, hence reducing the uncertainty of the GMSL trend estimate. Furthermore, over 2016–2021, the comparison of MWR-based with CDR-based WTC shows a likely drift of the Jason-3 MWR WTC on the order of −0.5 mm.yr−1 that would lead to an overestimation of the GMSL trend from 2016.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2022JC019378
I fail to understand why this apparently convoluted modeling is used to define GMSL. Satellite altitudal calibration and its drift is based upon direct measurements of tidal gages. That should be as accurate as possible.
Christos,
(1) The dark side emits, the light side absorbs, reflects and emits. The emissions on both sides are governed by local temperature and emissivity.
“Another SW part gets instantly transformed into outgoing IR EM energy, and gets out to space”
(2) please explain this instantaneous transformation of SW to IR (clue – it doesn’t; the absorbed SW raises the temperature until the blackbody outgoing LW energy flux is + heat retained by inward conduction is equal to the incoming and absorbed SW flux, reaching equilibrium and constant temperature.
IS this “instantaneous transformation of SW to LW something they teach in Greek schools, or is it just something your intuition told you?
(3) Also, please explain how the IR “gets out to space” without a large fraction of it being absorbed (and collisionally converted to heat) by CO2, CH4, and water vapor.
These things are very well understood. It is unfortunate ( and a waste of my time) that you refuse to accept some of these basic facts.
ganon,
“(1) The dark side emits, the light side absorbs, reflects and emits. The emissions on both sides are governed by local temperature and emissivity.”
I would rather say “reflects, emits and absorbs”.
–
“(2) please explain this instantaneous transformation of SW to IR (clue – it doesn’t; the absorbed SW raises the temperature until the blackbody outgoing LW energy flux is + heat retained by inward conduction is equal to the incoming and absorbed SW flux, reaching equilibrium and constant temperature.”
It is not clear what you are saying.
–
“(3) Also, please explain how the IR “gets out to space” without a large fraction of it being absorbed (and collisionally converted to heat) by CO2, CH4, and water vapor.”
Why you do not question the incident SW reflection too?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I took the sea level rise data from Swinoujscie, Poland, which has tide gauge data going back over 200 years to 1811, and I made a graphic projection of Gagme1950’s prediction of 6 feet of sea level rise by 2100, and added it to the graph.
https://www.hyzercreek.com/Gagme1950.jpg
I hope people are duly alarmed.
Heavy rainfall in California will bring heavy snowfall in the Sierra Nevada.
https://i.ibb.co/rccctPQ/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-12-30-095146.png
High water and dangerous rip currents have been besieging much of the West coast from southern California to Oregon since Thursday, caused by a series of powerful storms that have been making their way ashore from the Pacific Ocean.
Though hazards will lessen for Northern Californians on Saturday, coastal areas of central and Southern California will keep being battered by extreme surf, which could reach about 25 feet in impacted areas.
Some waves slamming into California’s Bay Area may peak at 40 feet – about the size of a telephone pole – and others are expected to hit 28 to 33 feet.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/30/weather/california-oregon-waves-flooding-saturday/index.html
Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #581 • Watts Up With That?
Here’s something new about climate change signatures, not just the mathematical treatment.
Greenhouse Gas Forcing and Climate Feedback Signatures Identified in Hyperspectral Infrared Satellite Observations
Abstract Global greenhouse gas forcing and feedbacks are the primary causes of climate change but have limited direct observations. Here we show that continuous, stable, global, hyperspectral infrared satellite measurements (2003–2021) display decreases in outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) in the CO2, CH4, and N2O absorption bands and increases in OLR in the window band and H2O absorption bands. By conducting global line-by-line radiative transfer simulations with 2003–2021 meteorological conditions, we show that increases in CO2, CH4, and N2O concentrations caused an instantaneous radiative forcing and stratospheric cooling adjustment that decreased OLR. The climate response, comprising surface and atmospheric feedbacks to radiative forcings and unforced variability, increased OLR. The spectral trends predicted by our climate change experiments using our general circulation model identify three bedrock principles of the physics of climate change in the satellite record: an increasing greenhouse effect, stratospheric cooling, and surface-tropospheric warming.
Geophysical Research Letters
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2023GL103947
“Global greenhouse gas forcing and feedbacks are the primary causes of climate change”
Another example of science becoming political.
I didn’t see anything political (that would be, what should we do about it?) What does Rob think are the primary causes of current climate change?
Your motivated reasoning supports the specific notion so you can’t or won’t see it. Does Jupiter’s climate change do to GHGs or because it is a chaotic system?
I predict ganon is a democrat, and no I’m not republican.
I think science that you don’t like is “political”.
“decreases in outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) in the CO2, CH4, and N2O absorption bands and increases in OLR in the window band and H2O absorption bands.”
Why wouldn’t an increase in OLR in H2O absorption bands be a positive feedback, decreasing climate change? As the troposphere warms and the H2O emits from the troposphere in bands that CO2 can’t absorb, problem solved. No global warming.