I’ve noticed a fair amount of dicussion about the Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) varying from they’re scientific fraud, they’re overly optimistic, to the details are being hidden so the IPCC can’t be trusted. I haven’t actually paid to much attention to the details, since these RCPs just seem like possible scenarios, ranging from rapid emission reduction through to continuing to increase our emissions. Just because some are unlikely to actually materialise, doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t be presented.
Furthermore, it’s not really clear to me why the details matter all that much. From a physical climatology perspective, what matters is the emission pathway. How the system responds then depends on physics and chemistry, not on the underlying details (population growth, GDP growth, ….). These details may have some importance, but – as the figure on the right seems to show – the warming we will experience really just depends on which emission pathway we end up following.
credit : IPCC, AR5, SPM Figure 10
credit : van Vuuren et al. (2011)
The reason the emissions go down along certain pathways is because there is an assumption that we will develop carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies, that will allow us to continue using fossil fuels without emitting all the CO2 into the atmosphere. So, as I understand, even if we follow an RCP2.6 energy pathway, if we don’t develop such technologies, emissions will continue to rise. In fact, I think this is where some of the criticism is coming from. The argument being that such pathways present an overly optimistic scenario, allowing us to justify continuing to increase our emissions on the basis that we will develop some future technology that will save us.
Anyway, I’ve written this all rather quickly and have probably illustrated my own ignorance, more than anything else. As I mentioned in an earlier post, some of the criticisms of the RCPs just seem like the latest tactic to dismiss the scientific evidence associated with global warming. Some of it, however, does seem more informed, so I may well be misunderstanding some aspects of this. Hence, I thought this might be an opportunity to open up a bit of a discussion about the RCPs. I might learn something.
...and Then There's Physics 
The main issue with the RCPs is that they are incomplete without the SSPs, You can’t judge the plausibility of a scenario of carbon dioxide emissions if it is unaccompanied by a scenario of energy supply and use. You can’t judge the seriousness of climate change if you do not know whether it would affect a large and poor population or a small and rich population.
Although the RCPs have been around for half a decade, the corresponding SSPs have yet to be released.
ATTP – I think some details matter, if not at the most granular level. For example, it is useful to understand the methodology, and how key drivers are factored into each scenario. Key factors being (at regional and global level) … population growth; energy consumption per capita; carbon percentage (broken down by electricity, transport, etc.); CCS deployed; etc. presented in as simple a way as possible that is neither simplistic but also not so granular it defeats its pedagogic value. I don’t particularly want to start learning from tools or spreadsheets how it was put together.
Knowing that RCP8.5 is NOT an extreme outlier (so we should not worry our little heads over) but actually a realistic ‘business as usual’ scenario, is highly significant from a communications perspective. The RCPx.y labels are not helpful to the general public (being the projected 2100 W/m^2 value I understand). I do think that this is an area where the communication of IPCC could have been improved greatly, as it is such a key area. Its all there if you search hard enough, eg. for Technical Papers as part of AR5, but it feels like it is a little too hard.
Why, for example, does one need a document like “The Beginner’s Guide to Representative Concentration Pathways”, G.P. Wayne, Sceptical Science, v1.0, August 2013
Click to access RCP_Guide.pdf
I found it quite useful, but maybe an AR5 artefact should have done this job!?
There might be some gremlins in the Shared Socio-Economic Pathways (SSP).
The main problem for long-term climate change predictions is that economists are not able to make predictions. Admittedly that is also not that easy.
Richard,
I’m really not keen on another one of our pointless exchanges, but this seems like a strawman
The likely pathway presumably has to lie somewhere between RCP2.6 and RCP8.5, unless you think there is some chance of complete societal collapse or that we’re suddenly going to find a great deal of easily extractable fossil fuels that we don’t know about now. Hence the RCPs give us the physical climatological response to various possible pathways, ranging from rapid emission reductions to continued emission increases. The plausibility of an individual pathway seems irrelevant from that perspective.
Neither of these influence climate change itself, given a specific emission pathway. Right? What you’re arguing is that following a particular RCP might be fine if the population it would impact could cope, but not if that population cannot. Well, I don’t see how this follows. Since the GCMs don’t actually include the economic impact of climate change, I can’t see how the underlying information is all that robust. I would think that economists would need to do more detailed modelling to understand how the various factors would change along various pathways, and hence whether or not such a pathway is something we should avoid, or not. I thought this is what these things called IAMs were essentially attempting to do. Are you suggesting that they’re not really doing this? My understanding is that there are calculations that attempt to estimate the social cost of carbon and hence what price we should be putting on carbon emissions.
Victor. That word again: Gremlins. This is clearly a lapse in my education, but what Units are they measured in?
@victor
Gremlins are everywhere.
If you can’t predict economic activity, you can’t predict energy use, emissions, concentrations, and climate either.
The SSPs are scenarios, by the way, rather than predictions.
Richard,
After writing this, I did realise that I may have underplayed the significance of some of the details. As you say carbon percentage and CCS are crucial. If we don’t develop effective CCS, then some of these pathways become virtually impossible, I think. It would seem important to realise this and I think this is one of the criticisms that some are making. For example, there is no RCP in which fossil fuel sources do not contribute to an increasing amount of energy. Does this imply that a scenario in which fossil fuel sources contribute a decreasing amount of energy is implausible and what does that imply about CCS technology (we have to develop it?).
Any criticism of the science can be a tactic.
It’s irrelevant.
@wotts
The RCPs supposedly span the range of possible futures. How do you know the upper and lower bound are reasonable if you do not know the underlying assumptions?
We judge the seriousness of climate change by its impacts. Say you’re worried about butterflies. The impact of 2K warming on Pieris rapae is different in a pristine ecosystem and in an ecosystem disturbed by intensive agriculture.
Richard,
Again this seems like a strawman. The word “projections” is used for a reason. We’re not specifically trying to “predict” climate, what’s presented are scenarios. That we can’t predict which scenario is most likely and the precise consequences of that scenario does not change that we do have an understanding of what might happen given a certain scenario. In other word, we can understand what will happen if we increase our emissions, keep them flat, reduce them,…..
Steven,
I agree with the first, the second doesn’t seem obvious.
FWIW, the RCPs probably span the range of not-implausible futures.
My key point is that the RCPs are useless for impact and policy research without the SSPs.
Richard Tol,
Oh please, let’s not do this again. That’s a bizarre thing to say. I don’t need to know that they’re reasonable to recognise that RCP8.5 is a likely close to one extreme and RCP2.6 is close to another. The total proven reserves is something like 2800 GtC – RCP8.5 is just over 2000 GtC. RCP2.6 ends up with negative emissions and would require only emitting a few hundred GtC more. If you think these aren’t a reasonable representation of the two extremes of the plausible emission pathways, then carry on. I guess it’s because someone hasn’t done the definitive statistical analysis to convince you?
What is this. I’m no expert, but the title is SSP Database (Shared Socioeconomic Pathways) – Version 1.0.
@wotts
Proven reserves are no argument for 100 year time scale. Resources are much larger. A future with coal liquefaction and gasification would be very carbon-intensive indeed.
@wotts
That is the shell through which the SSPs will be made available. The SSPs are not there.
Yes, I realise that we could emit even more (although you might want to explain this to those who claim that RCP8.5 is implausible, like some of your colleagues on the GWPF advisory council). That, however, doesn’t mean that RCP8.5 isn’t probably on one extreme of the range of plausible emission pathways. Given the likely range of warming, I think that even your own work would suggest that the impact would be so severe that we would probably not be in a position to continue increasing our emissions.
Who has them? Is it a conspiracy? Maybe you should try to steal their emails and correspondence and then get a polemicist to write a book calling them dastardly and evil. That’ll show them!
(It may be that the thread eventually gets back on the track that ATTP clearly intended. But in the meantime…)
After all, what’s the point of modeling the climate effects of various RCPs if we don’t know for certain that over the next few decades the world won’t experience widespread and prolonged economic collapse, nuclear war, virulent global pandemics (also including hypothetical zombie apocalypses), or a giant meteoritic impact? Or on the cheerier side, the fleets of affordable nuclear fusion reactors that have only been a couple of decades away throughout most of my lifetime might finally show up over the horizon.
Best to hold off on things, wait and see a few more years, that sort of approach. And if policy makers ask for technical guidance and clarification, shrug amiably.
> I haven’t actually paid to much attention to the details, since these RCPs just seem like possible scenarios
Yes.
WMC,
I did wonder if you’d have views 🙂 To be fair, something I had not appreciated about the details was the reliance on CCS for the lower emission pathways. That would seem to be some detail worth being aware of.
2+2= 4
My tactic is to annoy you
or maybe
My tactic is to make a point
or maybe my tactic is to
change the topic.
regardless: 2+2=4
Steven,
Okay, I get your point. I don’t think it invalidates mine, though 🙂
when you consider annual emissions of carbon are rising still at between 1 to 3% per annum or 2.x ppmv per annum it does not take a genius to know that it has to go into reverse somehow so the issue is not only do we need to stop emissions from growing but we also need to start shrinking them. So far emissions globally have shrunk a little bit (down to 1.1% growth per annum last year) but its might not be deliberate by efficiency or renewable power means but just due to lower growth or economic or political policy.
These emissions pathways are realistic BAU scenarios especially considering our growing global population and demand for more stuff, use of resources etc. Mr Tol might wish to consider this a little more. Year is 2015 and emissions dont seem to be declining significantly enough yet, if ever.
I seem to remember a back of the napkin style calculation that Vaclav Smil once did about the scale of the operation which CCS would require. To capture 20% of the CO2 emitted in 2010 you would need to construct an apparatus which, in terms of the volume throughput it would have to handle, would need to be 70% larger than the oil industry, and let’s remember that the oil industry has the advantage that the oil it gets out of the ground yields a large energy surplus and can be sold for a profit. Then there would also be the safety concerns, and if people don’t like fracking and they don’t like nuclear waste storage I see no reason why anyone would be pleased to have large quantities of potentially suffocating gas injected into geological formations near them. Fact is we’ve got, what, a handful of working CCS plants, and the only ones which seem viable economically are the ones where the CO2 is used to help get more oil out of depleted reservoirs, which I don’t think is carbon neutral. I think people are way over optimistic about what it might actually achieve.
@wotts
I indeed point out, to anyone who wants to listen, that RCP8.5 is not the max (because I happen to know a bit about China’s interest in Fischer-Tropsch and UGC).
I don’t think there is a conspiracy — in fact, I was in the room so I’m pretty sure there is none. The people behind the SSPs will give you any number of reasons why they’re still not available.
Sam,
I think this is one of the reasons for the criticisms. We may well be being overly optimistic about the likelyhood of developing this kind of technology.
What @Sam Taylor said:
I’ve seen quite a few people criticising RCP8.5 for being over optimistic about fossil fuel usage, too. I think there might be some weight to that, but equally the japanese seem intent on trying to get methane hydrate extraction commercialised, and if that happens all bets are off. However I think anyone putting peak oil much after 2040 is somewhat optimistic, and a lot will depend on what oil price the global economy can bear. Anyway it’s not like it hurts to have it written down or not. I’ve certainly got plans for what I’d do if I were ever to win the lottery, despite never playing it.
I’m not overly worried about haber-bosch on coal deposits, though. Some eroi work has suggested that it’s a net energy sink ( http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/8/2/786 ), which I think would make it somewhat difficult to bootstrap or sustain for a particularly long time.
See the link below and navigate to the calculator and then select example pathways. You can select RCP 8.5, 6.0 and 2.6 and it will give you an idea of what is required for those pathway. The tool is also useful for exploring other potential pathways. It also made me realise how important diet and food production is in reducing GHGs.
http://uncached-site.globalcalculator.org/
HH,
Thanks, that’s interesting. What SSPs are not available, since that seems to go into quite some detail?
Just checking the global calculator and RCP2.6 is expected to have extremely aggressive CCS – somewhere in excess of 3000GW of electrical generation capacity by 2050. That’s the equivalent of the current installed capacity in the US, China and Europe combined. I can see why it could be considered unrealistic. In addition RCP 2.6 has extensive CCS on industry including 70%+ of all emission from steel production and at least 25% across all major industries.
ATTP,
As an admittedly challenged minor participant in these discussions there is something bothersome regarding this: ” As I mentioned in an earlier post, some of the criticisms of the RCPs just seem like the latest tactic to dismiss the scientific evidence associated with global warming.”
I don’t quite see it the same way, but certainly could be unaware of the ‘likelyhood’ evaluations of the scenarios presented. As evidenced by the current level of discussions on all topics climate the science is fluid, certainly the associated economic evaluations are also, and as we learn and respond to the known knowns and (hopefully) prudently implement policy towards risk and the unknowns then the ‘likelyhoods’ will vary tremendously.
The alarmist ‘teams’ utilize the worst case for harsher policy while the skeptical ‘teams’ counter. Seems perfectly normal and to be expected.
Danny,
Except I don’t think this is a fair representation of what is often said. For example, one could argue that there are two relevant parameters, climate sensitivity and the our emission pathway; one of which we have no control over (climate sensitivity) and one of which we do (our future emissions). Those who argue against a high emission pathway and in favour of emission reductions, are arguing that we shouldn’t be risking the possible impacts of these pathways. A sensible counter argument would be why we should be risking these impacts. Suggesting that the RCPs are fraudulent doesn’t seem to be a very compelling argument and seems more like the next tactic than anything else.
I’ve mentioned this before, but it’s appropriate for this topic.
The low end RCP2.6 is also the one with the fastest economic growth:
Accordingly, one way to reduce CO2 emissions is to enhance economic growth.
Why would this be?
One way of expressing this is formulating future CO2 emissions as:
CO2 = P * ( E / P ) * ( CO2 / E ) – U
where:
P is Population, E is Energy, and U is Uptake
E/P is the energy efficiency ( Energy per person ) and
( CO2 / E ) is the Carbon intensity per unit of energy
People tend to focus on Carbon Intensity, mostly through fuel choice.
But slowing population is strongly correlated with economic advancement:
And so is efficiency ( latest and greatest technology ).
In fact, for most ( but not all ) of the world, the trend of all four terms are negative.
African nations are an exception:
So, if you want to save the world, buy something African.
Can’t you read TE? Look up the thread and read what has been said about CCS in RCP2.6.
Repeating specious crap doesn’t magically transmute it into a worthwhile argument.
TE: CO2 = P * ( E / P ) * ( CO2 / E ) – U
Or simplified, the tautological
CO2 = CO2 – U
with the ‘net’ subscript omitted
Attp,
That’s why it was stated that addressing the known knowns (Mosh’s preparing for ‘yesterday’s weather as example) as a starting point seems doable, yet the discussion devolves in to policy towards the unknowns (or maybe better stated unsettled/unresolved) issues.
So “A sensible counter argument would be why we should be risking these impacts.” leaves open who gets to define ‘sensible’.
While I agree fully that the conspiracy/fraud terms are equally counter productive so much of the conversation and evaluation are ripe for continuation of the angst. Describing the scenarios as fraudulent is a lazy tactic. But equally, waving off the lack of certainties that any/all of the scenarios have by describing the skeptical evaluation as soley a tactic is equally lazy and in itself is also a tactic. (Only asking for fairness in the conversation).
Do we truly expect to continue ‘business as usual’ based on firmed up discovery? I don’t.
Danny Thomas
Many would characterise what you are asking for as false balance, I’m afraid.
2+2= 4
My tactic is to annoy you
or maybe
My tactic is to make a point
or maybe my tactic is to
change the topic.
regardless: 2+2=4
——————————
Mosher continues his Willard meld.
Can’t you read TE? Look up the thread and read what has been said about CCS in RCP2.6.
Repeating specious crap doesn’t magically transmute it into a worthwhile argument.
Fortunately, the data supports it.
Fisher-Tropsch (hydrocarbons) like Haber-Bosch (ammonia) needs at least an order of magnitude better catalyst to be seriously considered.
BBD,
How so? It’s equally (to my mind) hand waving to attribute higher value to a set of scenarios with as broad of a range and time frames as these as it is to wave off their ‘likelyhood’. Until all sides of this conversation come to some middle ground each is to be expected to dig in their respective heels. How many years has the conversation been ongoing, and what has been the approach and ensuing results?
I’m a minority as an independent and middle grounder (Breakthrougher?). And a believer that continuing to do more of the same while expecting different results is well……. proven counterproductive.
If you see it differently I’m open to further education as I’m a science weakling and relative newcomer. However, I’ve been around for a while so do have some experience.
TE
Only if you ignore the CO2 footprint of industrialisation and focus on the post-industrial emissions trajectory.
Danny Thomas
What exactly do you define as ‘middle ground’?
BBD,
Good question. It’s the area of the conversation which (from my perspective) has benefits towards the potential addressing of GW issues while taking in to consideration the economic side and it’s impacts. One example is improvement of land use practice (some 20-30% of AGW?). Another is transition from less coal use to natural gas. Another is improved efficiencies. Further renewable research. More scientific study. Etc. (w/o turning this in to a full blow treatise)
Here’s my thinking. Elimination of fossil fuels is an impossible task under current standards. Our entire world’s economy is built on transportation using FF’s. And use of FF’s under the more extreme RCP’s “scenarios” indicate danger with caveats that we do not understand the climate systems as much as we’d like to think we do. Alarmists need to accept some level of moderation is likely ‘sellable’ to the most strident skeptic. And those same skeptics should accept that some level of ‘risk management’ under unknown scenarios is prudent. And until both sides give a little ground, the battle continues as it has for what, about the past 3 decades?
Your turn?
Danny,
I’m not quite following your argument, but here is one point to consider. All RCPs assume more fossil fuels and more coal. In the absence of CCS that would seem to suggest all RCPs would lead to increasing emissions. Increasing emissions carries risks. An argument in favour of doing so would require some argument for why taking these risks is worth it. I haven’t seen a compelling argument for doing so.
Danny Thomas: Why do you think natural gas is clean? Its on par with coal.
Click to access Howarth-EtAl-2011.pdf
Danny – in the World Bank ‘Decarbonizing Development’ report, they see Decarbonizing transportation as a actually a priority, and as Elon Musk has pointed out, the turnover of vehicle stocks would make this a realistic goal within a relatively short period. If we can have electric cars why not electric lorries (trucks)? Just because transportation is dominated by FF is not an argument for this remaining the case.
ATTP,
“An argument in favour of doing so would require some argument for why taking these risks is worth it.”
Because the entire world’s economy is built on transportation utilizing FF and there are large unknown’s surrounding the climate system, man’s impacts, and especially associated harms vs. the known harms economically for extreme methods to eliminate FF.
RCP’s are scenarios. Possible w/o taking in to account future tech advances which will need to be implemented no matter as FF’s will not last perpetually.
Policy based on RCP 8.5? What is the likelyhood that scenario will unfold? I think it’s very unlikely. We’re a relatively reasonable species and have modified and remodified our surroundings as we learn.
Calling out skeptics views as invalid using that some have stated these scenarios as ‘fraudulent’ does not take in to consideration that these are only possible scenarios and are not facts, so this approach is equally a tactic as it is for a skeptic to call them fraudulent, IMO.
Danny,
Yes, but this is simply an argument for the status quo.
Of course, but that doesn’t change that the RCP senarios tell us something of what will happen if we do follow that emission pathway.
Again, this doesn’t change what would happen if we did. I also don’t think there’s any such thing as policy based on RCP 8.5. There are arguments in favour of acting to reduce our emissions so as to avoid following a high emission pathway. Ideally, those who object to these arguments should be presenting arguments as to why we should be accepting the risks associated with such a pathway.
I didn’t say that skeptics views were invalid and noone said these scenarios are facts. They simply bracket the likely range of emission pathways. I fail to see how presenting a reasonable range of emission scenarios is equivalent to others claiming that they’re fraudulent.
Richard,
Time is an element of the conversation.
Where is the research which shows the environmental impacts of the transition away from FF? There are how many vehicles of all types which currently exist which will need to by dealt with. Will they be recycled, abandoned, both? (Take a look here for example: http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/habitat/artificialreefs/documents/0605finalreefguidance.pdf)
What is replacement? Electricity? How is it generated? Solar:http://www.solarindustrymag.com/issues/SI1309/FEAT_05_Hazardous_Materials_Used_In_Silicon_PV_Cell_Production_A_Primer.html) (There are hazards everywhere). What are the efficiencies?
I’m not by any means suggesting our compass should not be pointed this direction. FF will not last perpetually in their current state and will eventually require replacement. But much of the alarmist orientation is drastic and immediate. This kind of approach leads skeptics to ‘fight back’ all the harder.
(getting so far off topic but I think it’s important for both sides to understand the other)
Danny Thomas
And:
These statements are suggestive that you regard the impacts of warming as potentially over-stated by ‘alarmists’.
Most here are likely to disagree and not to regard themselves as alarmist for doing so.
If someone is innately hostile to emissions reduction policy, then down-playing the potential risk of warming is exactly the wrong way to get them to the table to agree that yes, emissions policy is an urgent necessity.
anoilman,
Never said Natural gas was clean. There are different evaluations of each and assuming based on your moniker that you know more so than I. But there is a transition taking place more away from coal (in the U.S.) and towards natgas.
“When talking about climate change, not all fossil fuels are created equal. Burning natural gas, for instance, produces nearly half as much carbon dioxide per unit of energy compared with coal. Natural gas is thus considered by many to be a “bridge fuel” that can help nations lower carbon emissions while they transition more slowly from fossil fuels to renewable, carbon-neutral forms of energy.”
Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/natural-gas-really-better-coal-180949739/#bLZ9DvcVrqT2yChQ.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
Following your last:
The problem does require immediate action. Physics doesn’t negotiate. However, I think your use of ‘drastic’ is moot.
Danny,
I think the standard way this is addressed is to consider the costs associated with emitting CO2 (the externalities). You estimate this cost (current estimates are in the range of 10s of dollars per tonne) and add this to the cost of energy. This then means that you’re putting a “proper” price on carbon and the market can decide what is optimal. If a new technology is developed and is cheaper we will expand our use of that. If not, we pay the price and keep emitting CO2. This is probably the most commonly accepted mechanism for dealing with emission reductions. The explicit goal isn’t to reduce emissions (the goal is to properly price the cost of emitting CO2) but the end result would – given that we are innovative – probably be to reduce emissions, unless there really isn’t any viable alternative.
BBD,
“If someone is innately hostile to emissions reduction policy, then down-playing the potential risk of warming is exactly the wrong way to get them to the table to agree that yes, emissions policy is an urgent necessity.”
Um, I don’t think I downplayed anything and I simply disagree. What I’m suggesting is that the entrenched status quo has a history of being ineffective. So what I’d like to see is a change in (as ATTP puts it) tactics. The RCP scenarios are what they are. In my short time in this discussion of climate, much like the politics (speaking here in the U.S.) it seems the sides come at it from the extremes (some 30+ years now?). To what has this lead? Further division. So how would it not be worthwhile for someone (one side or the other) to start from the middle and work outward? Is this pollyanna thinking? Maybe, but how effective have the current methods been? I’d suggested they’ve created further divisiveness.
Having spent a career in business realms involving negotiation here’s an example of what has been seen frequently. If one has a widget valued at $1,000,000.00 and another offers $1 for same negotiations have little if any chance of continuing as each see the other as unreasonable. This is the perspective from which I come to this issue. I hope this makes sense.
Danny,
Yes, but I think you should consider the possibility that (with regards to climate science specifically) one of the numbers is at least a reasonable representation of reality while the other is not.
“The question is not, ‘Is there going to be a tax on carbon?’ It’s, ‘Do you want a tax that you have a voice in and control, or do you want to keep writing checks after disasters that you have no control over?'” says retired Rear Admiral David Titley, who has advised some of the GOP presidential candidates and directs the Center for Solutions to Weather and Climate Risk at Penn State University. “That $60 billion relief bill for Hurricane Sandy that passed very quickly through a Republican-led House, did you get a vote on that tax? Because that’s a tax.”
@ Danny Thomas
Many of the likely or possible consequences of unchecked AGW are already starting to emerge (coastal flooding, extreme rainfall events, heat waves, wildfires, droughts and other agriculturally problematic events, marine fisheries impacted by warming waters, climate refugees disguised as conflict ones), and they make your stated costs seem relatively trivial. On a ~decadal scale some relatively low-hanging fruit would be:
– increasing electrification of land transport (heavy rail, light rail, automobile), possibly including intermediate steps via lower-power, more efficient IC engines or hybrid motors
– increased fuel efficiency of petroleum-based ships, aircraft, off-road equipment, and greater reliance on biofuels (though not grain-based ones)
– focus on the elimination of coal for electrical generation, reduction if possible for steel smelting & cement manufacture
– much better measurement and reduction of leakage of natural gas from well to final use
– improved ventilation and insulation of housing and commercial buildings in hot and cold climates
– improvements for short-term energy storage for intermittent energy sources (and mobile uses)
– steady replacement of fossil fuel power plants with distributed smaller scale renewable energy sources
– increased energy efficiency in lighting, computers, media devices, cooking and many other small-scale users of power
– renewed focus on nuclear fission power generation, if costs can be contained on new generation reactors
– gradual reduction in consumption of beef consumption and associated cattle ranching
Few of these are the sorts of steps that individuals or organizations would rush to do without the incentives of higher costs for fossil fuels (via one mechanism or another), regulations, or, to a perhaps underlooked extent, conscious moral choice. You could even call it fashion… who wants to be the last to build a coal power plant or construct a new coal mine if there are shiny new better alternatives, let alone the fear of ending up with a billion-dollar stranded asset?
ATTP,
It’s just a bit surprising to me that (as far as I’ve been able to find) there has not been an evaluation of that transition. It would be challenging (and well above my pay grade) but I’ve not found where it’s even been attempted other than the methodology which you’ve offered. And of course that method has been, what should I say, deemed less than acceptable to the more skeptical element?
You’ve told me before that you’re not much of a policy oriented guy and I respect your reasoning as sound. I personally find you reasonable and my only goal in entering this communication with you is the hope that someone with some level of stature much more than myself (as some guy commenting on a blog) will take on the unenviable of trying a different approach.
It ain’t gonna happen at the more skeptical nor the more alarmist sites.
Thank you for listening and the interaction. Hope I’ve not worn out my welcome.
ATTP,
Thank you. Made me laugh out loud.
Oh, and I assure you that I do, but when it comes to human interaction that is only a distraction and it does not matter in any way if progress is not made.
The point is not who’s “right” or who’s “wrong”. We’re all in this together. The point is can we progress? Can we via the current approach? To best answer this I’d say let’s look at the evidence and ask have we?
Danny,
I think this is extremely difficult, given that we don’t know what we will transition to. Nuclear, wind, solar, tidal, wave, some combination of them all in a regionally dependent manner. Hence the argument is that if you properly price carbon, the market will determine the optimal solution. Either we simply pay for emitting carbon, or some kind of viable alternative is developed, or – as is more likely – some combination of the two.
That’s what I thought I was doing when I started. It didn’t work out all that well 🙂
Not at all. I try to keep the antagonism to a reasonable level. I don’t always succeed.
Magma,
Please do not misunderstand me as I’m for much of that to which you noted. Going further, much of our (here in the U.S.) addressing of this issue lies in land use. Many, when they so those words, assume that means soley ag. practices but it can/should be equally applied to urban issues.
And yes, there are some apparent changes which MAY be attributable to AGW (not going to get in to the minutiae of those attributions or not) but frankly that’s further an outlier than what a fairly wise person (Steve Mosher) stated to me once that we need to more so prepare for yesterday’s weather. We’re wheel spinning talking about potential catastrophic future issues which may or may not be AGW associated when we are not yet ready for yesterday’s catastrophies (of all sorts). Until we can meet and agree on the obvious, then expanding outward seems less than prudent and not a valuable use of our energies.
ATTP,
“That’s what I thought I was doing when I started. It didn’t work out all that well :-)”
I’m a (relative) newbie and still have my windmills at which to tilt.
Still think much of this could be worked out with some nice lawn chairs, appropriate beverages, and some time.
Thanks again!
I’m quite sure that face-to-face would be very different from online, but am unconvinced that anything would be worked out. The discussions would simply involve people who disagreed more politely.
And:
One has to smile 🙂
Every major scientific institution in the world is riddled with extremists?
We should be told.
BBD,
Not exactly what I meant, but when I read the recent papers from V. Nieves vs that of. R. Karl then yes indeed there are some ‘extremes’ even in academia/professional sciences. Now whom is a novice who is under scientifically educated (if interested) person such as myself to believe?
How about Cook? Would you consider him extreme (if not a scientist?). Dr. Tol? Chambers? Hay? Maya? Curry? The A.P.S. (http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/upload/climate-seminar-transcript.pdf)? G. Schmidt? The list goes on.
Hiding under the auspices of “every major scientific institution” (this kind of appeal to authority is a falsehood…….apologies for the bluntness) is part of the problem and not part of the solution. While there may be a consensus of global warming and man causing it, there is not one on the minutiae.
Danny,
It’s late, but some of those names are even people who I would regard as climate scientists. I think it’s important to try and determine who is actually a relevant expert.
Yes, but that it is happening and that we are causing it is essentially the consensus position. That there isn’t agreement on the minutiae (which may be virtually impossible) is simply a standard part of the scientific process.
Danny Thomas
And:
Pointing to the scientific consensus on AGW is not a logical fallacy of appeal to authority. The logical fallacy arises when the authority referenced is inappropriate.
As non-experts, we reasonably defer to the experts. They, however, do not necessarily defer to each other. The result of the ongoing scientific dog-fight is the scientific consensus. Only the best science survives.
That is why there is no better source of information available to the rest of us than the scientific consensus.
Danny –
Why, when you refer to the two basic sides in the discussion, do you use a pejorative to describe one of the sides?
ATTP,
I agree that many (most) are indeed climate scientists or certainly with appropriate credentials to be within the discussion and yet they all have varying positions (Karl and Nieves being the most current and quite extreme viewpoints) and that was my point w/r/t the falsehood of an appeal to authority. When the authorities from Noaa and Nasa have such disparate analysis of a similar subset (oceans and temperatures) then again, whom is one to believe especially when a term such as ‘consensus’ is used in support of them both? (For the record, I think Nieves makes more sense as a scientific work as opposed to adjustment of multimillions of dollars of instrument records using state of the art technology, but what do I know?)
Joshua,
I try not to. I don’t perceive ‘alarmist’ nor ‘skeptic’ as pejorative but only descriptive of the associated ‘tribes’. As you know, I self label (since apparently labels are a requirement) as a lukewarmer and a middle grounder. Did I do so here in another fashion?
BBD,
Again, we don’t fully agree: “Pointing to the scientific consensus on AGW is not a logical fallacy of appeal to authority. The logical fallacy arises when the authority referenced is inappropriate.”
Alarmists have a tendency to say “but the consensus” when indeed exactly as I’ve referenced there is no full consensus from my view with the exception of a very narrow “warming is occurring and man is causing (some of) it”.
Nieves says hiatus/pause is a result of transfer of energy in the oceans (pacific to indian) and Karl says the brand new, state of the art Argo system if effectively not to be a trusted tool and no pause/hiatus in temperatures has ever existed. Can’t both be right, and yet the term ‘consensus’ is used as a ‘tactic’ and covering them both like a blanket. In my view, that’s a false appeal to authority.
Just like ATTP says the skeptical approach of calling the RCP scenarios ‘fraudulent’ is an overbroad (IMO) evaluation inconsistent with the reality, the use of ‘consensus’ is well ‘fraudulent’ on an equivalent level. Brushes which are too broadly used and the wrong tool for the application.
Danny –
=>> “I don’t perceive ‘alarmist’ nor ‘skeptic’ as pejorative but only descriptive of the associated ‘tribes’.”
In common usage, IMO, “alarmist” clearly has a pejorative connotation. It takes on an even more clear pejorative connotation in the climate wars (for example, how many on the “realist” side of the debate self-describe as “alarmists” as compared to “skeptics” self-describing as skeptics?)
And your explanation for why you use it is identical to the explanation that many give for using the term “denier,” (i.e., “it isn’t an insult, it is only an accurate description), or many other pejoratives used in these discussions. IMO, using that term is likely to undermine your goal of good faith discussion – and your failure to recognize the counterproductive nature of that term likely reflects a “blind spot” that similarly nets counterproductive outcomes.
Danny Thomas
Well, you are out of step with the current scientific understanding of AGW. If you are interested in the background, then Spencer Weart’s history of the evolution of the scientific understanding of AGW is an excellent place to start.
Context genuinely helps.
Joshua,
What is a preferred term? AGW’er? Well one can be a skeptic and still perceive AGW via other than soley FF’s (Me for example, starting with land use for multiple reasons and that’s equally anthropogenic).
I could agree has I used ‘catastrophist’ instead (and I think there are those out there also) but I don’t recall another term being put forth. I think denier has a different connotation than skeptic. A. Watts is a skeptic but there are certainly deniers on his site. On RC there are alarmists, lukewarmers, and most certainly catastrophists.
So what would you prefer?
Danny –
It’s your decision to use whatever term you like. The decisions you make in that regard can be perceived as a signal. You are using a term that i, and I would think many, in fact, I would think most, judge to have a pejorative connotation to describe those in one side of the debate. To underline my point, I would not say that Anders is an “alarmist.” not only is it pejorative, it is also inaccurate.
I have seen, in these discussions, alarmist “realists,” skeptical “realists,” alarmist “skeptics,” and skeptical “skeptics.”
=>> ” A. Watts is a skeptic but there are certainly deniers on his site. On RC there are alarmists, lukewarmers, and most certainly catastrophists..”
I have seen Anthony espouse positions that I think could accurately be described as alarmist positions, and I’ve seen him out forth positions that I think are quite un-skeptical.
Finding good terms in these discussions is difficult, but you might consider what it might signal to some of you use a pejorative term in a cavelier fashion.
BBD,
I’m familiar with Weart, and don’t perceive myself (confirmational bias?) as out of step at all. I may indeed not be in full agreement with the minutiae with the reasoning being that much is contrary.
What was it about how I’ve seen ‘consensus’ used in support of ‘climate scientists’ from the para which you quoted shows I’m out of step? Nieves and Karl as the current example I offered indeed see things completely differently, yet they’re both ‘climate scientists’ and covered under the ‘consensus’ blanket are they not (at least how it’s used in real life as opposed to how it’s intended to be used).
Would not the methodology used in the generation of the ‘consensus’ not have been seen to have been inclusive of the work by those two specific authors? Heck, even the IPCC has acknowledged the pause needing further understanding, and yet Karl says it’s a myth
Danny, I believe that all or least most of those organizations contain wording that climate change poses significant risks to our planet. That’s much more than simply stating that man is causing global warming.
Joshua,
I’m in moderation. Talking too much.
If there’s a problem with the term and an alternative cannot be proposed then what am I to do to identify the players? If I chose ‘realists’ for those who are highly concerned with AGW and equally used it for those skeptical of AGW how would that indicate differentiation?
I’m open to alternative suggestions. I don’t own a copy of a playbook. Neither term is intended as derogatory, only to indicate the varying tribes.
Hi Joseph,
By that statement are you indicating that the “consensus” statement also supports the statements of others? If so, you’re making my point quite well that how the ‘consensus’ was intended vs. how it is utilized are not one and the same.
“The unquantified definition: ‘‘The consensus position that humans are causing global warming’’
The standard definition: As stated in their introduction, that ‘‘human activity is very likely causing most of the current warming (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW)’’
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change
Danny –
Probably something you wrote tripped the moderation filter.
Nothing that I wrote has anything to do with any “playbook.” you only need to consider common use of language. No “playbook” necessary.
You wouldn’t need a “playbook” anyway, to stop using a pejorative term to describe millions of people who evaluate the risks posed by ACO2 emisions differently than you.
Since you don’t intend to be derogatory, I would suggest you avoid pejorative terms.
Joshua,
Which term do you perceive as pejorative? Alarmist? Skeptic? I don’t see either as anything but descriptive of positions.
You say “millions of people who evaluate the risks posed by ACO2 emissions differently than you.” Isn’t that intended to be a derogatory comment towards me? Hmmmm.
Note that I don’t state that alarmists or skeptics are wrong. I do state my position, and indicate where it’s different in some cases from both sides. And I’d state with stronger certainty that my position is well different from catastrophists as well as deniers.
Danny
“So what would you prefer?”
Concernists
some folks are concerned about AGW. U seem unconcerned
Its a far more neutral term.
Let see those who believe in the status quo of climate science and its history..
Traditionalists
And other folks are unconventionalist
>ATTP: doesn’t mean that RCP8.5 isn’t probably on one extreme of the range of plausible emission pathways.
Is it though, without CCS it seems that RCP might be more in the middle ?
Steven,
Thanks for that, but what makes you think those labeled as ‘skeptics’ (or lukewarmers) are unconcerned?
I’m not at all unconcerned, but I’m less than alarmed (and subject to changing my mind).
Status quo? For me, there is none. From my anecdotal recollections of being told in the 70’s of the coming ice age (even on my Teevee), to the transition to warming (using Al Gore’s cinema), to the settled science of today that is far from settled (See Karl vs. Nieves as recent), to the new coming ice age due to waning solar activity?
Is alarmist inaccurate and really inaccurate, or reasonably descriptive? Have we not seen some both accurate and inaccurate projections associated with the climate conversation?
A while back, a learned lagomorph said he was not concerned, he was scared shitless. It was perhaps in a slightly different context, but thinking about RCPs scares me a lot.
I think I’ve said before that the likelihood of needing a lot of Bio-energy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) in order to achieve RCP 2.6 worries me, as it’s not clear how feasible it is that this will happen (especially the CCS bit), and I wonder how much land will have to be given over to bio-energy for this, and how much this will increase global hunger. Surely we need global action on climate change now, to minimise the risk of needing those kinds of dreadful trade-offs later? (although if anyone can show that BECCS won’t take up much land and/or won’t have much impact on food production / food prices, then that would be great…)
Given how things are progressing, for a while I’ve wondered whether RCP 2.6 should be subtitled “Let’s have a look at what you would have won”; this unfortunate phrase was uttered frequently at the end of a 1980s British gameshow where the hapless contestants, having gambled away all the prizes they had already won for a chance to win the mystery star prize, and having failed to win the star prize, were made to endure seeing what that prize was (usually a car or a speedboat).
I digress. I reckon we need meaningful global action to build a low carbon future starting now. I don’t think we want to be gambling with something beyond RCP2.6 (and perhaps beyond RPC 4.5 or higher).
Danny –
=>> “Which term do you perceive as pejorative? Alarmist?”
I though I had been pretty clear, but I guess not.
In common usage,”alarmist” is a pejorative.
=>> ” Skeptic”
Although it can be used pejoratively, the term is not pejorative in common usage.
As I have indicated before, the simple fact of how people self-describe should,give you an indication of which terms will and won’t be considered derogatory. Why do you use the term that one group generally uses to describe themselves and a term that the other side rarely uses to describe themselves (and is very often used in a clearly pejorative manner by their “opponents,” along with “warmunist,” “eco-zealot,” etc., etc.?
==> “I don’t see either as anything but descriptive of positions,”
To repeat…that is the same explanation that people give for using the term “denier.” what do you think about that explanation as a rationale for using “denier?”
You think that “alarmist” is an accurate term to describe millions of people because they assess the risks of ACO2 differently than you. I think that there are millions of people who are not alarmists, but have a different assessment than you of the risk of ACO2.
=>> ” Isn’t that intended to be a derogatory comment towards me?”
How so? Why would it be derogatory towards you to note that you have a different assessment of the risks of ACO2 than millions of other people. I also have a different assessment of the risk than millions of people.
=>> “Note that I don’t state that alarmists or skeptics are wrong. I do state my position, and indicate where it’s different in some cases from both sides. And I’d state with stronger certainty that my position is well different from catastrophists as well as deniers.”
I’m not sure why that is relevant to your use of a pejorative.
Danny –
It occurs to me that one useful window for this kind of discussion may be to consider synonyms. I suggest that you consider many of the synonyms for “alarmist,” and whether if,someone used them to describe you, you would consider the connotation as pejorative.
How about “chicken little?”
Joshua,
Based on your concern, I’ve actually looked up the term’s definition. I was ignorant of the usage in many cases (but not all) having a negative connotation. My impression was that it meant one who spread alarm (but see that it’s often, but not always) followed by terms such as exaggerated or unwarranted in the definitions provided on line.
So what is the preferred self label by those who are more highly concerned about the state of the climate and it’s potential associated harms vs. those who are not as highly concerned?
And while we’re at it, do you spend equal energy chastising those who use the potentially equally pejorative term of skeptic (as I have done) as well as the term denier on the side of those who are more highly concerned? Indeed, I find that you have used both the term skeptic and the term denier yourself.
Awaiting your answers. Even the term ‘denizens’ can have a pejorative context depending on the tone of the user so I’ll look forward to your equal treatment (including yourself) of others who use those kinds of terminology in those fashions.
Danny –
If you question the pejorative nature of the term, and don’t consider using references to be an appeal to authority, look for synonyms. Chicken little is a good one.
How are the terms that I use relevant what terms you use?
Danny –
How are the terms that I use relevant to your rationale for thevterms you use?
Danny –
=>> “Based on your concern…”
I fear you have over-evaluated the importance that I place on your use of terminilology. I am not “concerned” by your use of a pejorative for millions of people. It’s your decision to make, and, and no one is materially harmed contingent on your choice.
Joshua,
Apparently my choice was offensive to you, so in order to be less offensive I’m asking what would be acceptable. This doesn’t have to be that hard. I’ve explained I’d not intended to be offensive and didn’t believe the terms I’d used were. You expressed the concern and in a few moments of research of your own usage I found you used the same terms that you complain that my use was pejorative.
I’m not asking for rationalization, I’m asking what you’d find acceptable especially since you have used the term skeptic yourself (I didn’t bother to look for the term alarmist).
I have zero problem (and no one else other than you has ever brought this up to me in my short about 9 months of experience in climate oriented blogging) with the terms I used. You apparently do.
Joshua,
Then why, may I ask, did you waste the electrons bringing it up?
Have a great night Joshua.
Danny –
It isn’t offensive to me. I’m not an alarmist – so I don’t identify with that pejorative when it is used. If someone uses that term for me, it only show their ignirance
Anyway, I don’t get offended by judgement passed on me by people who form judgements about people they’ve never met, based on some blog comments.
Why would the terms I use be relevant for explaining your rationalization for using a pejorative term to describe millions of people?
Danny is a newbie… he got caught in an endless Joshua loop: I am become dearth, deployer of words.
Goodnight, Danny –
I had a long drive up to Maine, where I was the passenger most of the way. Our chat helped to pass the time.
Howard – thanks for your contribution. Invaluable, as always.
Why the overthinking of the RCPs? The regional and global impact on temp is a constrained guess and the impacts on humans and ecosystems are mostly unknown. Based on the uncertainties and the poor prospect for improving the granularity of the models in time to design the exact perfect response. Secondly, we need to face the fact that it will be impossible to turn the carbon ship south in 25-years. Therefore, it seems most prudent to plan emission and pollution reduction hoping for a low sensitivity RCP6 with a targeted sea-wall and water storage adaptation plan B for a possible high sensitivity outcome.
Throw the repugs a bone: tax breaks for carbon reduction instead of a carbon tax.
It’s time to kick cranks like Lewandowski to the curb, ignore the deniers and their enablers (if you don’t respond, they won’t come), lose the high hat and talk turkey.
“tax breaks for carbon reduction instead of a carbon tax”.
And how will we pay for that? Right: by increasing taxes to all.
Danny,
I don’t think these two papers are as inconsistent as you seem to think. I haven’t had a chance to read them both again, but Karl et al. simply showed that the surface temperatures may have risen faster in the last decade or so than previously thought and that the trend may now be statistically significant (which is not a good test anyway, I don’t think). Nieves et al. showed that the upper layer of the ocean has been gaining more heat than in previous decades and may explain why the surface has warmed more slowly than expected. These aren’t necessarily inconsistent.
Howard,
Yes, kind of what I was getting at.
T-rev,
I don’t think there is any CCS associated with RCP8.5 (I think). Without CCS, then the lower RCPs would have higher emissions, but I don’t think it would lead to RCP8.5 becoming an even higher emission pathway.
@wotts
Wouldn’t it be good if you could just look up what they had assumed about CCS? (and nuclear, and coal, and electrification of transport, and vegetarianism, and, and, and)
Richard,
I presume you’re making some point about being thorough, which is a bit ironic given that you’re making it. The different energy sources is shown in the last figure in the post. RCP8.5 uses more fossil fuels and more coal than any of the other RCPs. I don’t think I need to look up the assumptions about CCS to be pretty sure that if it isn’t implemented, RCP8.5 is not going to suddenly become a middle emission pathway (relative to those considered). This doesn’t even seem all that complicated. Is it not obvious to you?
Richard,
Alternatively, maybe you’re suggesting that you can’t actually do so, which seems odd given that I’ve found numerous sources showing the different assumptions. Here’s one for RCP4.5, and here’s a presentation with a figure showing the assumptions for RCP2.6. Admittedly, it does say the potential amount of future CO2 removal by BECCS is uncertain.
Actually, you can adjust things with the Global calculator that Hyperactive Hydrologist mentioned earlier. You can select various emission pathways and then adjust what is assumed, including assumptions about CCS.
If you want to know more about CCS, there are some details in these two links.
Very interesting. Danny clearly has either not read any of the science, or if he has read it he’s not understood it. But clearly he’s read something and it’s been enough to have fed his denial. Based on his understanding, or lack thereof, he seems—evidenced purely by what he writes—to have formed a very self-righteous opinion and clearly projects his own failings onto those he sees as lacking the clarity of thought he’s confident he possesses. While other, highly knowledgeable people are full of uncertainty (why else would we discuss the RCPs?), Danny’s mind is made up.
If you think this is unfair, Danny, do tell us where the doubt and uncertainty is in your mind.
Danny,
Thanks for that, but what makes you think those labeled as ‘skeptics’ (or lukewarmers) are unconcerned?
%%%%%
What makes you think that I think that?
Steven,
Well, the evidence is that you stated I appeared unconcerned and as a self labelled lukewarmer perceiving myself as more concerned than those self labeled as skeptical and more so than deniers I deduced it.
Danny Thomas
Have you read the book? Yes or no. Please be specific.
What qualifications do you have to disagree with the science? Please be specific.
You are out of step because you deny that there is a widespread scientific consensus and because you think there are substantial natural drivers of modern warming when in fact it is entirely anthropogenic. What you wrote was very clear evidence that you are badly confused:
The scientific consensus on AGW is unaffected by Nieves and Karl. The not-pause is an irrelevance. The consensus is: more CO2 = more warming and >2C = bad things. That’s the science. Then we move on to policy.
And please stop calling people alarmists. It is indeed pejorative as Joshua has painstakingly shown. I am no more an alarmist than you are a sceptic.
Did you just say that you are a lukewarmer, Danny? I find your syntax a little difficult to follow sometimes.
johnrussell40,
I wouldnt’ say it’s unfair, just inaccurate. While it’s true I don’t understand all the science (don’t think there’s anyone who interacts publicly who does understand it all) I assure you I’ve read a ton of it. And, I’ve read a fair amount of the writing of those who do understand it better, on both sides (do you read both sides to gain perspective?).
How can one be “self rightous” about science? Have I not suggested that based on the science the approaches to policy over the last about 30 years or so have been ineffective and we should change those modes of operation to gain greater progress. From this observers view, that’s more of a moderational approach than the entrenched self righteous extremes working towards a meeting of the minds as opposed to continued separation and greater angst. But it’s up to you to decide.
So to be more fair, please tell me where you see doubt and uncertainty. I don’t see from this note that you have any at all. I see a bunch and am happy to discuss and open to learn. Attp has been patient with me elsewhere which has led me to visit his offering here.
The only perspective gained by reading ‘sceptical’ commentaries on the science is that they are all wrong, all the time.
I’m heading out for the afternoon. Danny’s new here. Let’s cut him a little slack and at least give him a chance.
ATTP,
I wish to apologize for this thread taking off on so many tangents and becoming so much about me. If I may be so bold, I’d like to request an open thread so the conversation may continue as I feel that there is much to be gain by me (still about me?). And, maybe, just maybe, there might be some change to the perspectives of others if there is any value to my contribution?
To be clear, I’m not in any way feeling cornered and ganged up on. Being in a ‘bullpen’ can be a great learning experience and you’ve been patient and willing to teach me in our previous interactions.
I’m working today (for the next 5 days) so the responses will be intermittent but I’m willing if others are.
“Steven,
Well, the evidence is that you stated I appeared unconcerned and as a self labelled lukewarmer perceiving myself as more concerned than those self labeled as skeptical and more so than deniers I deduced it.
Huh? I said U seem unconcerned. If you are a lukewarmer then youd be an unconcerned traditionalist. where’s the problem?
BBD,
I don’t wish to leave your questions unanswered and have asked for an open thread as we’re so far off topic and I feel badly about this.
I’ve read much of Weart on-line but there are hundreds of links imbedded and I’ve not gotten thru it in it’s entirety.
I apologize for my poor syntax. Yes, I consider myself a lukewarmer (since we must have labels).
Qualifications are sparse. Biology in college within an education track independent studies (broad based with much liberal arts). No physics, no statistics (serious weaknesses for the topic of climate). I’ve also read Russell, Pielke Jr., Papers? Ugh. Dozens. Chambers, Karl, Nieves, Hay, Maya, Cook, Orakes (?sp), (Trying to build a base and be current with leaving catching up for some time later that based on volume may never come). SKS, RC, Climate, etc., WUWT, a bit of Dr. Spencer’s, now here. I’m about 9 months in the discussion. Blogs are used as a resource to find the literature. One can only read so much and still have a life.
It’s concerning that you group all skeptics as wrong all of the time (they are not any more than those more climate concerned are always accurate) w/o context but will leave that for later.
Apologies for the Alarmist term (and did not address directly towards you but only use generally), do you prefer another description? More climate concerned doesn’t flow, but I can try to transition to that. I despise the more derogatories that skeptics use and hate the denier term as well but in cases it’s apt.
Finally, “The scientific consensus on AGW is unaffected by Nieves and Karl. The not-pause is an irrelevance. The consensus is: more CO2 = more warming and >2C = bad things. That’s the science. Then we move on to policy.”
Agreed that this is the intent of the use of ‘consensus’ but that is not tactically how it is used, and that’s part of the problem. Just as the generalized use of skeptic & alarmist, ‘consensus’ is misapplied as a blanket appeal to authority covering all AGW oriented so called climate scientists.
If I must admit that alarmist is misapplied, then you equally must admit to the misapplication. We both know it occurs.
Thank you for the interaction and for your approach. It’s appreciated.
Steven,
If I were unconcerned, why would I be investing so much of my energy? I’d say the evidence (and you and I have met in several blogs and I’ve quoted you repeatedly) says otherwise.
I extrapolated from what you stated. Just like you’ve apparently extrapolated my lack of concern from what I’ve said. If you have questions about what I think, hopefully we can get them answered (assuming you’ll pose them) in an open thread which has been requested.
Regards
“If I were unconcerned, why would I be investing so much of my energy? ”
simple, you maybe bored, you may like to argue, plenty of reasons
That is why I said “Seem” unconcerned, but I was unwilling to extrapolate.
Why did you miss that word?
Steven,
Or maybe you like to argue. I didn’t miss ‘seemed’ and when I pointed out that I wasn’t unconcerned you reinforced your comment by labeling me and UNCONCERNED traditionalist.
When I stated I wasn’t unconcerned prior to that, how did you miss that?
Mirrors work.
So now Danny plays the ‘open-minded’ card. And I see he sidesteps my request for him to outline his doubt and uncertainty. Danny, I’m full of doubt and uncertainty (and it’s what this thread on RCP is about). We can’t proceed unless you respond, for otherwise we have to assume you think you have all the answers and are thus closed-minded.
Danny, we’ve all looked at WUWT, Climate Etc, Bishop Hill etc.,—some of us have even commented there, and been abused for our trouble 🙂 —and we’re all knowledgeable enough to see they’re rife with contrarian thinking, contradictions and glaring great holes in what’s written there. If you think there’s anything to be learnt from them about climate science then I’d suggest you’re deluding yourself. If you can’t spot the ridiculous errors on those ‘skeptic’ sites then you can always follow sites like Sou’s Hotwhopper (e.g.: http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/08/putting-foot-to-floor-with-willis.html). Provided you comment in a genuinely questioning way and don’t come at it from the standpoint that you know better than Sou, you might even get away without being ridiculed.
“The only perspective gained by reading ‘sceptical’ commentaries on the science is that they are all wrong, all the time.”
Ross McKitrick, criticisms of Jones/trenberth assertions in Ar4 .McKittrick was right, Thorne corrected the mistake in Ar5 and asserted what Ross held about the lack of evidence.
This is a famous incident and was even covered by the inquiries
who could not decide whether to blame jones or trenberth.
“McKitrick and Michaels (2004) and de Laat and Maurellis (2006)
assessed regression of trends with national socioeconomic and geographical
indicators, concluding that UHI and related LULC have
caused much of the observed LSAT warming. AR4 concluded that
this correlation ceases to be statistically significant if one takes into
account the fact that the locations of greatest socioeconomic development
are also those that have been most warmed by atmospheric
circulation changes but provided no explicit evidence for this overall
assessment result. “
Danny T
Sorry, this is a physics blog, and the facts are not up for negotiation. The ‘sceptics’ are fundamentally wrong and they have no scientific counter-argument to the mainstream scientific position on AGW.
This I’m afraid includes lukewarmerism (where lukewarm is defined as ‘too little warming to worry much about’).
* * *
Steve
McKitrick’s ‘contributions’ are essentially not just worthless, they are counter-productive. This is in dazzling contrast to Jones and Trenberth.
Danny,
I’ve never really had an open thread and have been rather reluctant to have them. It’s been hard enough moderating the normal posts.
There’s an interesting discussion of McKitrick & Michaels (2004) here.
Oh, it seems that McKitrick & Michaels (2004) is the famous used degrees instead of radians paper.
BBD
“McKitrick’s ‘contributions’ are essentially not just worthless, they are counter-productive. This is in dazzling contrast to Jones and Trenberth.”
You were wrong. Jones was wrong. he was right.
The issue wasnt the VALUE of his contributions which are slight, the issue was
your summary decision to ignore everything a skeptic wrote.
peter thorne is smarter than you. He decided that on this narrow issue Ross was correct.
peter is right. you are wrong.
Its simple.
here is what you wrote
‘“The only perspective gained by reading ‘sceptical’ commentaries on the science is that they are all wrong, all the time.”
McKittrick wrote ( and I did as well ) that Ar4 had a mistake.
He was right.
Thorne, thankfully, has more brains in his pinky than you have in your head.
So he corrected the mistake.
Its simple.
you were wrong.
If you had said, you dont read skeptics because in general their contributions are rarely worth the effort .. Then you would be right. But you didnt write that.
instead, you wrote something foolish.
Stop doing that. Danny is here and he might think that all of us are idiots
Technically, I agree with what Steven is getting at. However, since we’re being pedantic, this is clearly wrong 😉
To be fair to BBD, though, even though McKitrick might have been right about something, doesn’t mean that his overall contribution is a net positive. Quite remarkable that he’s now the Chairman of the GWPF’s Academic Advisory Council….oh, wait a minute….no, it’s not.
For Danny Thomas and the endless argument about what skepticism is. Climate denial has been labeled skepticism for a reason, but unskeptical “skeptics” have closed their minds to anything with which they disagree while greeting with open arms anything they want to believe. That is advocacy or magic thinking, however you want to put it.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2010/feb/22/climate-change-sceptics
“Do climate change sceptics give scepticism a bad name?
“There is a crucial difference between scepticism and non-belief in the face of overwhelming evidence”
I’d suggest you go over to http://www.skepticalscience.com but no doubt you’ve been told it’s untouchable and biased. Still, it has well documented and supported answers to all the common fake skeptic memes
Big fossil has a lot of money and has created a parallel universe (and hijacked the US Congress and others; Cameron/Osborne appear to have been bought in too), but the place to start learning is to honestly acknowledge you don’t know and go to the best experts, as you would in any other subject. Imagine going to the doctor whose opinion you want to hear for a health problem! Or the minority vote on any mechanical thing you depend on, whether it be your plumbing, a bridge, or your computer. You wouldn’t, would you?
Steven
‘Sceptics’ write crap. It is a net negative contribution to scientific understanding and so best ignored.
Stop defending the utterly indefensible. It makes you sound nutty.
Just in case this goes over your head again, Steve, let me express it another way:
I ignore the ‘sceptic’ stuff because it has no value. See that?
Why do you continue to defend these pernicious, politicised clowns?
ATTP
Yes, I thought that McKitrick paper was the infamously borked degrees with radians balls-up too. But I admit, I did not have time to check.
Maybe if one is dedicated enough one might find a gem written on a sceptic blog that is correct and is of value. The problem is the amount of time one must be prepared to waste wading through the treacle-like substance surrounding it. So no one can be blamed for ignoring that gem and writing off the lot as denial bunk.
As an exercise try writing a simple scientific fact about climate on a sceptic blog and see the response you receive. Go on; anything: say, “CO2 is a greenhouse gas”.
john,
Been there, done that, still somewhat amazed by the responses.
“… still somewhat amazed by the responses.” Bet you’re glad that nothing amazing happens here, huh?
mwgrant,
I make no claims about my site.
aTTP – no prob. You do not. Just could resist the setup.
M-dub –
Are you ever amazed by what goes on over at Judith’s sometimes?
And btw….
In case anybody wants to watch how this amusement ride travels from the mountain top to the top of the mountain. … Just wade into
Starts around 29. Gets to John Mashey is condescending. Lol. Make some popcorn. Lots of funny stuff.
Then he went off on Gavin Schmidt on Climate eatschitera.
Joshua
Are you ever amazed by what goes on over at Judith’s sometimes?
Seems like’ yes’ and/or ‘no’ works! That is, there are things said that amaze me, but I am no longert amazed at the fact that ‘things that amaze me’ are said–there, here, and on many blogs.
The following is OT on this RCP thread but I’ll give you a short answer for now.
Your earlier question: How do you envision that* taking place?
————-
* “A reasonable set of alternatives and outcomes need to be characterized to inform the decision. ”
Short answer: It is hard for me to envision that it can take place in the present dug-in atmosphere. But IMO it is a goal worth pursing. BTW in another IMO there are a number of approaches to explore, but at this time ‘the how’ is a less difficult problem than arriving at the point where it can even be considered. [aTTP–consider this single-tome OT response as a courtesy to Joshua.]
==> “Seems like’ yes’ and/or ‘no’ works! That is, there are things said that amaze me, but I am no longert amazed at the fact that ‘things that amaze me’ are said–there, here, and on many blogs.”
I feel you.
==> “Short answer: It is hard for me to envision that it can take place in the present dug-in atmosphere. But IMO it is a goal worth pursing. BTW in another IMO there are a number of approaches to explore, but at this time ‘the how’ is a less difficult problem than arriving at the point where it can even be considered.”
I feel you there, as well. IMO, progress will only come at the point where there really isn’t any ambiguity in the signal to noise ratio in the evidence within a short-term frame of reference (which I would imagine isn’t likely on a scale of less than multiple decades). Participatory democracy/stakeholder dialogue could work if there weren’t so many people so heavily invested in a scorched earth, zero sum gain paradigm….but if the word was a different place then things could be different.
Of course, there is always the possibility that the scale of change will occur at a rate at the high end or probabilistic projections of the impact from emissions – but as far as I understand the science, that isn’t likely to happen. What makes it particularly interesting to me, and disturbing also, is that most likely I won’t be alive to find out whether there will or won’t be high impact outcomes from ACO2 emissions, and if they do occur whether it is in spite of efforts to prevent it or because efforts were not enacted soon enough.
BBD,
“Sorry, this is a physics blog, and the facts are not up for negotiation.”
Sorry backatcha, because unless you are unaware when one is involved in a conversation/research on the topic of climate it involves much more than physics. The quote above is straight out of the playbook from WUWT where I’ve taken it on the chin for my “warmunist” thinking (hmmm, kinda the opposite of here huh?) and then a tirade ensues about some non science topic. Those kinds of generalizations make me wanna call folks who say them………….well………..alarmists. So if that’s truly how you feel along with all skeptics are all wrong all the time then it’s not my mind in question here any longer.
I’ve not responded, and yet the same has occurred here as at WUWT as evidenced by Susan (no offense intended—just providing evidence) commenting on big fossil oil and a bought congress.
(Susan, I will respond just home for a quick bite for lunch).
Look, I don’t want to fight with anyone. I’ve seen this same type of ‘tactics’ at RC and WUWT. I don’t expect that to continue here based on my personal interactions with ATTP at “gasp” a skeptic site.
So, BBD, I’d like to continue to interact but if you’re closed minded what’s the point?
Your disparagement of RC is unwarranted. I was there.
Danny,
Comparing RC and WUWT is not great. RC is a site where the posts are written by people who are genuine leaders in this field. WUWT is ….. not. I appreciate that comment threads on climate sites are not always ideal, but RC is pretty good. You seem to suggest that you’re not that familiar with the scientific evidence, in which case you could try to focus on that specifically.
Seriously aTTP, he’s here to waste your time and then maybe he’ll run over to Climate Etc. and trash you just like he trashes RC. He’s a gimmick. A trick.
I did the math on Mt. Loa, and we got plenty of time but I’m here to learn and W would never have a beer with alarmists.
Joshua, good well-worded response–both paragraphs–on ‘short answer’. Glad we squeezed it in.
@JCH That was a very interesting diversion there. It would seem that Danny is on a quest to find proof that anthropogenic global warming is real (quote from Real Climate)…
Numerous people on RC tried to guide him, with an amazing display of tolerance and even understanding, but seeing as that was November 2014 and it’s now August 2015, it seems he hasn’t moved on an inch.
Danny. There is no definitive, irrefutable, and uncontroversial proof. All there is is multiple lines of robust evidence that adds up to a highly convincing balance of probability. All those who responded to you on RC gave you recommended reading. Have you read it all? Or have you wasted your time reading websites run by those in denial, like WUWT?
If you won’t accept what knowledgeable people on RC have told you then your only option is to gather all the evidence and interpret the data yourself. But from what you’ve written on RC, you don’t have the background in science to do that. So your last hope is to be willing to accept what every major scientific body on the planet says about human caused global warming ( http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/).
Or, because there’s no middle ground, do you prefer to believe there’s a conspiracy?
RC = bad people
CE = people with whom one can have a beer
How’d that work out last time?
Danny T
I’m struggling to see how being receptive to the best available information makes me ‘closed minded’.
Johnrussell40,
Just got off work and having a bite while seeing I’ve gotten a bit behind. So starting from here as it’s the earliest to which I’ve not replied.
” If you think there’s anything to be learnt from them (WUWT, Climate etc., Bishop Hill) about climate science then I’d suggest you’re deluding yourself.”
Well, let’s see. WUWT seems to be a bit highly politically charged, but several folks here (so far) have commented there and do indeed visit so at least there are things to consider as opposed to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Some is propaganda, sure, but that happens elsewhere.
Climate etc. is much more moderate. Our friendly JCH (who’s disparaging me here), our own ATTP, Steve Mosher, Joshua, Joseph all find some value in spending some time there. JCH has some impression of me but never bothers to ask me directly. Busy with his guitar I suppose. (I do enjoy this site the most. The strong denier element I don’t interact with. I challenge the more climate concerned the most, and frankly appreciate that Dr. Curry offers a broad base of things to consider and son of a gun………..she’s an authentic real live climate type).
I’ve visited Bishop Hill maybe a half dozen times and Sou’s maybe 3. In fact, Sou ridiculed me before I’d ever visited by taking a comment of mine from Climate and using it. But if ya don’t have anything original to use, why not copy/paste/abuse. Makes for a blog I guess.
R.C. provided some reading materials and tossed me out like a bad stepchild. Sorry, that’s how it came across to me. Have I read it all. Don’t recall. Everywhere I look there’s another place to look……it’s the internet.
Doubts. Yep, lots of them. I doubt folks who don’t accept when one states they’re at the start of a journey and are told they should be at the end. That’s the R.C. approach and was WUWT’s also. Engage, enlist, if not indocrinated then discard. I called B.S. and moved on.
My current list: albedo’s, sensitivities, cloud/water vapor and modeling, understanding of Antarctica/Arctic, Attribution of GW and man’s contribution (heck, some think it’s more than 100% of the current warming which means the “coming cooling” predicted {it wasn’t called projected then} of the 1970’s may have been spot on?). Actual Sea temps and does heat (energy) actually sink?, What is the total carbon sink/source of the planet sans man? What is the global temp (Mosh can’t tell ya and he works at it every day ……but he’s improving the methodology…….note: trends are important), what will be the harm from warmth, what is the sun’s contribution (pretty confident it’s all of it now question is how), Oceans baby oceans? Impact of aerosols, confidence levels and why aren’t they standardize and utilized when available…………………I’m gonna stop here this list is enough to start.
Hope I’ve addressed your concerns and answered your questions.
Susan Anderson,
It would not matter if I’d been told SKS was “untouchable”. I’ve been there. The framing of this comment is the kind of “indoctrination” or rejection I found at R.C. It appears, based on your wording, that you presume I’m a member of the Borg and either be assimilated or die. You have me wrong. I strongly rise up against BOTH sides when they approach with this type of “tactic” (as ATTP has stated about the ‘tactics’ against the RCP’s). It does indeed occur on both sides as evidenced here. Many of you may not even realize you do it, but here it is.
Big oil? Hell, big business has done that forever. Coke is accused of it right now. And there are no clean hands as Sierra Club has been in bed against big coal. These are the views of ‘realism’ and not skeptcism. Is congress impacted by money. Likley. But why wasn’t this addressed when the Dems had power there?
So much of this is just “look squirrel”. And both sides do it.
JCH,
Yep. That link involves me and was my very first foray in to a climate blog. Thank you as it reminds me to include the Marshall book which was suggested to me.
So what? I had questions, still do, and maybe even more. It wasn’t me that originated the term “settled science”. Whomever did is either less educated than I, a propagandist, or just lying.
The beauty of the internet is it’s a living document. I own that that was my words, but what about the responses. I’ve not bothered to reread it all. Gavin was just a bit of an a$$, but I suppose you’ll support that with a 97% consensus that as a climate scientist he was right?
Are you trying to indicate that all those on that site, and any other more climate concerned site is somehow ordained to be loved/honored/obeyed and any not so are not? You spend quite a bit of time at Climate, Etc. you own self dontcha?
My dispargement of RC is my view. You’ll just have to live with that. I’m not specifically referring to those who author papers, but some commenters. (with additional apologies to ATTP).
And just to be clear, my lifetime buddy from high school (well more than 30 years) and I have had more than one beer together and he’s a bit of an alarminst!!!!!!!! You think you know so much more than you do.
JR40,
Tiring of my own words. I’ve never indicated ever to anyone any sort of conspiracy about anything climate. In fact, I’ve called B.S. on a few who have.
The rest has been addressed elsewhere.
BBD,
“I’m struggling to see how being receptive to the best available information makes me ‘closed minded’.”
What makes it the best, and how would you know if it’s posted at a skeptical site if you don’t bother to look? (Not being willing to look with open eyes EVERYWHERE is strong evidence of a less than open mind). If I told ya I wouldn’t look at ATTP’s would you consider me closed minded? Yet here I am, and I’m taking what ya’ll are addressing my way.
You’re coming across as a “the science is settled” person and it just ain’t. It, on balance, has a strong lean, but it’s no where near settled. If it is, please take one segment of solar energy from point of origination to it’s final manifestation in a measurable form, through all possible pathwyas of that which is known as “global climate” here on good old earth. Thank you.
Okay. I’ve addressed all that which you guys wished to direct my way. Out of respect for ATTP can we divert away from my ignorance, incorrect thought process for not having reached an end to a journey which I started last November, and can we address some meat of the matter?
M-dub –
Thanks. I actually thought what I wrote was fairly incomprehensible (not helped by posting from a phone), so I’m glad that it wasn’t a complete waste of time.
Danny Thomas, you have so changed the meaning of what I said that you make it clear you are only here to argue and label, not to learn. Please go back and read the Guardian article I referenced. Here’s an extended extract, since you seemed to be so eager to make me an “example” of what you’re complaining about and change what I said that I doubt you took a look.
All this time you’re expending would be better spent studying the material than pretending that WattsUpWithThat is similar to RealClimate, or that Gavin Schmidt doesn’t know what he’s talking about and isn’t extremely careful and polite about dispensing information. HotWhopper is not always polite but she is brilliant and funny: she takes a lot of trouble going over the detail of phony skeptic material to demonstrate what’s wrong with it..
http://www.hotwhopper.com/
Others try to comment at denier blogs to weigh in for reality, but usually end up censored and/or disgusted; that’s why the worst comments go to something often called the “borehole”. It is hard work to try to explain the truth in a way that is acceptable to people who won’t listen, but it seems worthwhile to come to try to edge in some facts and logic from time to time. That’s not a sign that WUWT provides value, it’s a sign that it is worrisome how much traction all this falsehood has gained.
Dr. Schmidt is quite moderate, too.
hmmm, sorry, the “borehole” I referenced is at places like RC, not WUWT. But it gives me a chance to use one more quote. In a time of clear and present danger, this stuff is in the way.
“Marginalised, alienated and put upon: climate science deniers are not innocent”
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/08/marginalised-alienated-and-put-upon.html
Out comes the science is settled. It just can’t get worse, but it will.
Here’s my Gavin story.
I’m a C student. For whatever reason, my son is amazingly bright. So the question became, what do I do with him? I had to find role models. So I found this exceptionally smart and helpful guy on the internet, and I borrowed him as a role model. I had my son read his articles and especially his in-line comments. And pretty soon my son decided it would be really cool to be a scientist with NASA. He agreed that to reach that level of accomplishment he would have to work hard and go as far in his education as it is possible to go. I stole Gavin Schmidt as a role model. Once my son had made those choices, I let him go back to reading kid’s stuff. I think it is important to let kids have a childhood.Me, I kept reading climate blogs including RC. There is nobody you can learn more from than Gavin. His comments are rich.
How did it work out? My son is now a resident physician in a technically oriented medical specialty at the #-1 teaching hospital for that medical specialty in the world. 10 of the most sought after seats in medicine, and he sits on one of them.
Danny Thomas said to BBD on August 16, 2015 at 2:13 am,
“You’re coming across as a “the science is settled” person and it just ain’t.”
The science as to what is causing the warming over the past one and a half centuries is settled beyond all reasonable doubt. It’s from the ever-increasingly powerful greenhouse gas effect time over that entire period. See my comment here
in which I present three graphs, most importantly a graph of a 60 year running mean (60 year moving average) that is clearly tracking along a never-ending positively accelerating curve that is still even as we speak still positively accelerating. The only thing that can explain this never-ending positively accelerating curve over this entire period is the ever-increasingly powerful greenhouse gas effect over this entire period. How do we know this?
We can change the total amount of heat in a system by a change in one or both of two variables:
(1) The incoming heat flux (the heat input rate), which for the climate system has two subsets, which are about a) the amount of heat falling onto Earth from the sun (measured via solar output) and b) the percentage of that heat that is absorbed rather than reflected away (measured via planetary albedo).
(2) The outgoing heat flux (the heat output rate), which for the climate system is about the amount of heat that is trapped rather than radiated away into space (measured by the greenhouse gas effect).
The sum total of the reputable refereed literature in its ongoing aggregate says that (1) can’t even begin to explain the track of the never-ending positively accelerating curve over the entire time period in question of the graph of the 60 year running mean. That is: Has there been a sufficiently severe never-ending change in the incoming heat flux over all this time in a single direction to cause the never-ending positive acceleration we see in the 60 year moving average since the 1800s? No. More specifically: Has the solar output been going up and up and up nonstop all this time? No. Has the planet’s albedo been going down and down and down nonstop all this time (allowing a higher and higher and higher percentage of heat from the sun to be absorbed)? No. (Note: I use “albedo” as a general term to cover the cooling effects of increased reflected light or the warming effects of decreased reflected light via changes in the surface, clouds, and aerosols.) And so by the process of elimination, (2) must be the explanation, and this is confirmed by the fact that yes, there been a sufficiently severe never-ending change in the outgoing heat flux over all this time in a single direction to cause the never-ending positive acceleration we see in the 60 year moving average over all this time – the greenhouse gas effect been going up and up and up nonstop all this time.
What gives this “yes” answer for (2)? CO2. Anything else? It seems it must be “no” – there is no other candidate that can fit being a cause over this long a time frame of the ever-present positively accelerating global warming that has been going on since the late 1800s as shown by that graph.
To quote myself from the comment above:
“It seems clear that this has been repeatedly strengthened by a number of studies over the past few years that have shown the models do very well when other factors are taken into account, including those very recent studies that take into account oscillations up to 60 years in length (and hence some relevance of such as I keep promoting, that 60 year running mean covering over close to one and a half centuries) by Marotzke and Forster (2015) with their 62 year runs and Steinman, Mann, and Miller (2015) with their NMO (more general than either the AMO or PMO, which denotes the multidecadal oscillations within the PDO) and its oscillations of roughly a half century in duration.”
Danny Thomas said on August 16, 2015 at 1:36 am,
“…man’s contribution (heck, some think it’s more than 100% of the current warming which means the “coming cooling” predicted {it wasn’t called projected then} of the 1970’s may have been spot on?).”
This may be a reference to the idea that 110% of the warming since 1950 was caused by human activity, and if so, it shows a lack of understand of what that 110% attribution actually means. To explain what it actually means, in this comment
I present two graphs, one of them a probability density function created by Gavin Schmidt and the second one from the IPCC report showing to what degree various causal factors were trying to warm or cool the planet since 1950. To quote myself, putting that 110% attribution statement in a way that is more understandable to the person on the street:
“One of the things these two graphs taken together says is that there’s a high probability that 100% of the observed warming was caused by human emitted greenhouse gases and that the warming would have been roughly 10% worse had it not been for some human influences trying to cool the planet.”
Note: These latter human influences trying to cool the planet include air pollution working to increase albedo slightly, causing a slight increase in the amount of heat from the sun reflected away, which means even more nails in the coffin of the idea that condition (1) via an ever-decreasing albedo explains that track of an ongoing positive acceleration over the entire time period of one and a half centuries of that graph of the 60 year running mean.
Finally, this note: In Lovejoy (2014), there is an approach that without the use of a GCM contributes to the falsification beyond all reasonable doubt of the idea that this ongoing positively accelerating warming over the last one and half centuries shown by the graph of the 60 year running mean is just a natural fluctuation that has nothing to do with CO2. Here is a commentary about this approach by the author of that paper:
http://www.livescience.com/44950-global-warming-natural-fluctuation.html
Is Global Warming a Giant Natural Fluctuation?
Shaun Lovejoy, McGill University
April 18, 2014 03:30pm ET
[Quotes:]
“Examining the theory that global warming is only natural, I showed – without any use of GCMs – that the probability that warming is simply a giant natural fluctuation is so small as to be negligible.
…
It turns out that the resulting relationship between global temperature and the CO2 proxy is very tight: The proxy predicts with 95 percent certainty that a doubling of CO2 levels in the atmosphere will lead to a warming of 1.9 to 4.2 degrees C. This is close to the GCM-estimated range of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees C, which has been essentially unchanged since a 1979 U.S. National Academy of Sciences report. This new method also estimates that the temperature since 1880 has risen by between 0.76 and 0.98 degrees C, compared to an estimate of 0.65 to 1.05 degrees C cited in the International Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5, 2013).
These ranges are so close that they help confirm the method. Beyond that, the differences only serve to fine-tune estimates of the magnitude of the 125-year temperature change.
The key, second part of my study uses data from the year 1500 to estimate the probability that this temperature change is due to natural causes. Since I am interested in rare, extreme fluctuations, a direct estimate would require far more pre-industrial measurements than are currently available. Statisticians regularly deal with this type of problem, usually solving it by applying the bell curve. Using this analysis shows that the chance of the fluctuation being natural would be in the range of one-in-100-thousand to one-in-10-million.
Yet, climate fluctuations are much more extreme than those allowed by the bell curve. This is where my specialty – nonlinear geophysics – comes in.
Nonlinear geophysics confirms that the extremes should be far stronger than the usual “bell curve” allows. Indeed, I showed that giant, century-long fluctuations are more than 100-times more likely than the bell curve would predict. Yet, at one in a thousand, their probability is still small enough to confidently reject them.
But what about Medieval warming with vineyards in Britain, or the so-called Little Ice Age with skating on the Thames? In the historical past, the temperature has changed considerably. Surely, the industrial-epoch warming is just another large amplitude natural event?
My result focuses on the probability of centennial-scale temperature changes. It does not exclude large changes, if they occur slowly enough. So if you must, let the peons roast and the Thames freeze solid, the result stands.
In its AR5 report last September, the IPCC strengthened its earlier 2007 qualification of “likely” to “extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.” Yet skeptics continue to dismiss the models and insist that warming results from natural variability. The new GCM-free approach rejects natural variability, leaving the last vestige of skepticism in tatters.
Within minutes of the Climate Dynamics study going live, the Internet started buzzing. The great majority of the pickup was professional, with embellishments from various news sites. However, I also received aggressive emails, many from the Watts Up with That? (WUWT) site, which comments on climate change from a skeptic’s perspective. The majordomo of this deniers’ hub is the notorious Viscount Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, who – within hours – had declared to the faithful that the paper was no less than a “mephitically ectoplasmic emanation from the Forces of Darkness” and that “it is time to be angry at the gruesome failure of peer review.”
Beyond the venom, however, the actual criticism amounted to little more than a disbelief in the quantification of error bars on estimates of century-scale global temperatures, even though this estimate was published a year ago and is of little importance to the conclusions.”
For anyone interested:
the RCPs were developed as a common set of forcing pathways for the models. The scenarios that accompany them were published scenarios that were available at the time and were not developed for the RCP process. This means that any particular set of assumptions (e.g., regarding CCS) is not a necessary condition for producing any particular pathway. Other mixes of assumptions could achieve the same pathway.
Roger,
Thanks, this was my impression. As far as the GCMs go, all that matters is the actual emissions, not the assumptions made to generate that emission pathway.
I will admit, however, that I hadn’t appreciated how much the low emission pathways were assumed to rely on CCS, so although it might be possible to achieve the same emission pathway with another mix of assumptions, it becomes increasingly difficult for a low emission pathway.
Cumulative CO2 emissions determine the state of the climate. We may not know the minutiae of the precise sensitivity, or how that warming will impact the local weather, but the broad magnitude, and sign (if not reversed by gremlins) is settled. Surface temperature, sea level and ocean acidification are locked in consequences of emissions. The causal linkage is ineluctable physics.
An argument has been made that such projections of climate change for a given cumulative CO2 emission is meaningless and arbitrary without specifying the type of society that is generating those emissions and responding to the subsequent climate change imapcts. But the causal relationships are much less well defined, and such theoretical formalism is unwarranted as well as obstructive.
For RCP scenarios that involve similar or increased CO2 emissions, the BAU projections, there has to be a global industrial and financial system that can extract, transport and utilise ~100million tons of fossil fuel a day. That requires massive industrial infrastructure. The biggest ships, largest vehicles and longest pipelines built by man are all involved with FF use.
For BAU or increasing RCP8.5 emissions that massive global system has to be maintained and expanded in the face of rising sea levels and deteriorating agricultural systems. Perhaps the high end emission scenarios can be exceeded by rapid exploitation of brown coal, fracked gas, tar sands, shale oil and methane clathrates in an attempt to make all the concrete needed to raise sea walls and elevate harbours and docks to adapt to a rising sea. The increased extraction of FF might also be a response to food shortages as intensive farming systems with a high input are adopted in response to fall in yields from climate change.
However emissions that are much lower than the RCP2.5 pathway are also possible. If climate change and other geo-political problems combine, drought and flooding cause famine, religious/nationalist conflicts go nuclear/chemical/biological in the next 25 years and sea level rise degrades most major ports and harbours. The four horsemen ride out, the global industrial and trade system fails, only the rich or those with local resources have fossil fuel, famine and pestilence half the global population along with war and civic collapse with migration.
Rich enclaves, (the 1%) develop new technology, smart local grids and generation as a response to the failure of the fossil fuel supply industry. The rest return to virtually pre-industrial subsistence agriculture.
Within 10 years CO2 emissions effectively cease, or at least, return to 1890s levels.
There may be a feedback, the amount of CO2 emissions is dependent on a highly developed global trade system. But the stability of that system is threatened by the climate change it can cause. While direct climate change damage to the agricultural or civic infrastructure is the only factor likely to change policy, and this constrains the upper emissions pathway, it is all to easy to pessimistically expect the very long term effects of present emissions to increase the potential for
future emissions to rapidly fall to zero however initially successful adaption may be, as a result of the second scenario.
Roger,
If this is the case, what is it that Richard Tol is complaining isn’t yet available?
As far as I am aware (please correct me if my assumption is wrong) none of the scenarios take into account positive feedbacks from the carbon cycle. This is one of the reasons that we should adopt the precautionary principle. The other reason is that the uncertainty over when the worst impacts of climate change will occur is huge. For example, the current GCM and RCM are very bad at projecting the change in extreme rainfall and drought on the regional scale.
HH,
I think that is correct as I think these models consider only fast feedbacks (water vapour, clouds, …). Earth System models may be starting to consider some of the slower feedbacks but these aren’t – as I understand it – being used to generate these scenarios.
Because the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways are still under development and are out for review. Five of these are being built but a good part of them are done. They aren’t ready for modelling quite yet, but the story lines have been available for a while. Just not the final numbers. Anyhow those SSPs won’t be the last word, either and are constrained by the tools they are being built with.
These SSPs are really for integrated assessment modelling and joint mitigation and adaptation work. Your point that the RCPs show climate risk themselves without the narrative storylines I think is correct. Richard was saying that we can’t do risk properly without the socio-economics. That’s not totally true, but not having socio-economics is an issue. However, the fact that multiple storylines can produce similar results and the same storyline different results if it reaches a bifurcation point (e.g., radical new technology in one and not the other) should also not be forgotten.
We need to make the policy decisions now on the basis of the risk info we have now. This particular research effort into integration RCPs and SSPs is not moving as fast as we need. It will be useful though for making decisions into the future, but not for whether or not act. That can be decided on what we know now.
HH – yes, to a point. There is some feedback but not the full uncertainty. A colleague is working on this and we have a paper in review on it.
Roger,
Thanks, that’s really clear and I hadn’t appreciated the relationship between the RCPs and the SSPs.
I think this is a very important point
and I certainly agree with this
“We need to make the policy decisions now on the basis of the risk info we have now.”
This is very logical and fits my view exactly. There’s no room for optimism where existential risk exists: the sensible approach is to play it safe.
Danny T
Please read my comments. I explained at the outset why the scientific consensus is the best available information.
Last two paragraphs.
We already have. The ‘sceptics’ are fundamentally wrong and have no scientific counter-argument to the consensus position. This includes the unsupported claim that sensitivity will be low enough to avoid dangerous outcomes without significant policy intervention.
@ BBD: Enough time wasted. It’s now clear DT loves to hear himself talk and fill up this space with empty word games – his posts on RC and CE fit the same pattern. I regret responding to him in good faith earlier; he’s trolling.
It is as it ever was. Insults and dug in heels are the norm. No amount of self reflection is even on the table. The error was mine in making the attempt. In the climate conversation world, it just cannot happen. I deserve all blame for all things. There were not some number of comments addressed my way to which I responded. It was only me, and me only.
Attp, thank you for your allowing the attempt. I should have known better. The terms ‘echo chamber’ does apply on both sides.
Should you chose to just delete all off topics that would be fine with me as I know I’ve seriously disrupted your posting of RCP’s.
With apologies and my regards.
You are the one with the dug-in heels. There is no echo chamber here. There is not one at RC. There is one at Climate Etc.
Roger Jones, HH and ATTP (on SSP’s): Very interesting. Thank you.
JCH, “You are the one with dug-in heels” “There is no echo chamber here” (Evidence to the contrary to both of your false statements, JCH)
BBD: “These statements are suggestive that you regard the impacts of warming as potentially over-stated by ‘alarmists’.
Most here are likely to disagree and not to regard themselves as alarmist for doing so.
BBD:”The only perspective gained by reading ‘sceptical’ commentaries on the science is that they are all wrong, all the time.”
JohnRussell40: “We can’t proceed unless you respond, for otherwise we have to assume you think you have all the answers and are thus closed-minded.”
Susan Anderson: “Big fossil has a lot of money and has created a parallel universe (and hijacked the US Congress and others; Cameron/Osborne appear to have been bought in too)”
JCH: “Seriously aTTP, he’s here to waste your time and then maybe he’ll run over to Climate Etc. and trash you just like he trashes RC. He’s a gimmick. A trick.”
JR40: “Or, because there’s no middle ground, do you prefer to believe there’s a conspiracy?
”
Then Magma starts with the insults. (Same as it ever was).
Yep, I’m the sole person who’s “dug in” and there is no echo.
Must be tough to maintain perfection, JCH, but I wouldn’t know. Maybe you can offer an on line class.
It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Shared Socioeconomic Pathways are based on methodological dogma from the economic and econmetric field that renders them irrelevent.
As defined in the literature, they explicitly exclude climate change effects on the SSPs :-
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-013-0905-2/fulltext.html
“The SSPs describe plausible alternative trends in the evolution of society and natural systems over the 21st century at the level of the world and large world regions. They consist of two elements: a narrative storyline and a set of quantified measures of development. SSPs are “reference” pathways in that they assume no climate change or climate impacts, and no new climate policies (Kriegler et al. 2012). The choice to define SSPs in this way was made in order to serve a methodological purpose… . Because SSPs do not include the effects of climate change and climate policy, they may not describe plausible assumptions for the future, but this is an intentional component of the design.”
Note the contradiction in the definition, they are ‘plausible alternatives’ at the start of the paragraph, but “may not describe plausible assumptions” at the end.
Looking at the 5 defined SSPs,
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378014001095
– glaring by its absence is any future pathway that plausably includes another finacial crash, political conflict and mass migration degrading the global trade system to the point where the world economy shrinks.
The closest seems to be SSP4, but that makes the implausible assumption that migration will be no more than medium in a world far more socially unequal, when levels of international inequality, and civic collapse are driving high levels of migration at present. The political fallout from such shared socioeconomic pathways that result in high migration is the rise of political forces exploiting fears of immigrants as seen in the US and Europe.
Perhaps a SSP that models a significant collapse in the world economy is regarded as alarmist. Or there is reliance on the Taintor model of societal collapse that asserts that a total failure of a nation is no longer possible as the rest of the world has an interest in bailing them out. Given the growing local examples of failed societies and the rise of a ‘Boko Haram’ mindset I think the absence of such a scenario, is implausible.
But not as implausible as extrapolating trends in population, wealth and education without any attempt to include the feedback from the climate change caused by that SSP on the plausibility of those trend assumptions.
Significant collapse of the global trade, financial and international governance system would almost certainly result in the lowest emissions of CO2 and result in the least climate change!
Danny T
There is no ‘sceptical’ scientific case. Fact. So acting as if there was one then tone tr0lling when people become exasperated by your intransigence is tedious. The person needing to change their position is *you*. Accusing other commenters here of mental inflexibility when this is pointed out is almost – but not quite – funny.
@ Magma
Yes.
@ jac
+ 1
BBD,
“The person needing to change their position is *you*.” Because if I don’t, I have no value, and therefore don’t deserve to be considered.
I get the message, loud and clear. Heard it b/4, b/4, b/4, b/4……………..(echo to infinity)
@-Danny Thomas
“I get the message, loud and clear. Heard it b/4, b/4, b/4, b/4……………..(echo to infinity)”
Perhaps the consistency of the message is an indication it is time to listen and heed it, not just hear and dismiss.
Danny T
Unfortunately, if you espouse ‘sceptic’ views, which lack any scientific support, then yes, you will not be taken seriously. If you want to be taken seriously, you must be serious.
I’ve been out all day, so have missed most of this. I’ve no reason to think that Danny isn’t being sincere, but I can also see why some are frustrated. Since I can’t see any good reason for continuing this, maybe we can just call this discussion quits.
izen,
Interesting, thanks. I have wondered about this issue before. It does seem as though the ideal would be to self-consistently evolve any economic model, but it’s not clear that this is what is being done.
Economists deploy the Ethical Fourier Transform.
http://smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=3831
Not exactly what I meant, but when I read the recent papers from V. Nieves vs that of. R. Karl then yes indeed there are some ‘extremes’ even in academia/professional sciences. …
I rather doubt that should Nieves and Karl sit down on some lawn chairs with some beverages, there would be any significant points of disagreement between them about the hiatus, and for a very obvious reason – not conspiratorial.
“Yes, I thought that McKitrick paper was the infamously borked degrees with radians balls-up too. But I admit, I did not have time to check.”
No. the radian problem was fixed. Lets say unlike some upside down Mann stuff.
The other errors in Ross’s paper ( which I’ve pointed out) have not been corrected.
1. Ross is wrong about UHI
2. Ross was CORRECT about the “mistake” in Ar4.
3. Thorne acknowldeged it.
4. Only a closed minded twit would ignore what Thorne said in Ar5.
Go figure. all sides screw up. that means me and you.
ATTP,
Thank you for the opportunity. Some items I think you’ll find of interest and hope to discuss more fully with you when the opportunity presents elsewhere. I’m convinced of MMGW, but am unconvinced that we’re aware of that which will take place in the next decade much less then next 100 years (and more). As a highly complex, non-linear somewhat chaotic system our climate is just not that well understood.
I happen to be for renewables (but think we need some time to perfect), my carbon footprint is probably smaller than 90% of your participants, I’m a lover of the out doors and have volunteered at our national wildlife refuges for over 5000 man hours (and my wife has also).
I think your denizens have no idea who I am, what I think, and spent almost zero effort to investigate. The visit was after all, an interesting experiment for me.
Best regards,
C’mon Steve, Ross has form with arithmetic blunders
Nonlinear and chaotic does not mean climate apples are going to fall up into the earth’s crust.
Steven
And you are still pissing on Mann why, exactly?
Even stopped clocks…
The ‘sceptic’ input to the scientific understanding of AGW has been a net negative.
Seepage etc.
==> ” I’m convinced of MMGW, but am unconvinced that we’re aware of that which will take place in the next decade much less then next 100 years (and more).”
Alls I can say is that I sure am glad that I do know that which will take place in the next 100 years, as well as in the next decade.
Danny Thomas said on August 17, 2015 at 12:01 am,
“I’m convinced of MMGW, but am unconvinced that we’re aware of that which will take place in the next decade much less then next 100 years (and more).”
In my comment
on August 16, 2015 at 7:31 am, I gave or pointed to (follow the links and citations) what I think are some definitive answers to some of your points (you addressed these answers not at all), and these answers cover this implied claim you just made that we’re unaware of what will take place over the next 100 years. The answers I gave or pointed to shows how we’re quite aware of what we can expect generally to happen over the next 100 years in terms of global average surface temperature given generally business as usual emissions, which is that with these generally business as usual emissions, there is no good reason to believe that global average surface temperature as measured by that graph in question of the 60 year running mean will not continue along an underlying positively accelerating track it so clearly has followed for a century and a half with generally business as usual emissions. (This 60 year moving average “weeds out” oscillations or fluctuations with cycles or “cycles” of up to 60 years in duration, and shows a ongoing positively accelerating global warming signal underneath all those oscillations or fluctuations with cycles or “cycles” of up to 60 years in duration, including the NMO, this underlying signal coming from ever increasing greenhouse gas effect and not from an ever decreasing albedo or reflection of solar energy [since this did not happen] or from an ever increasing solar output [since this did not happen]. I gave a link to comments that contain this and other graphs.)
K&A,
This recent reply and your earlier are two of 3 I’ve saved for further research and I thank you. I will look at them in depth when time permits (hopefully this Thursday). I should have acknowledged same earlier.
I hesitated about responding, but would point out that when somebody ignores the substance of what one says it is perhaps important to mention that the “gotcha” part (the rest was ignored and mischaracterized) is only the truth. I started this journey in the mid oughts and the construction of a supportive infrastructure and the money behind it, with huge emphasis on doubt and delay, and with massive financial support from political operators, is a matter of fact. So many people have researched this that using a summary instead of pointing to the backup and references is a way one hopes will allow us to move on to substance.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Climate_Change_Deniers
By now, in an ethical and scientifically literate world, it would no longer be possible to claim that contrarians are Galileos and Feynmans rather than Bozos or honestly say they are “skeptical”. These questions have been asked and answered many thousands of times. Keefe and Amanda, and ATTP, are more circumspect in their ways of pointing this out, but the time for continued doubt and delay is long past, and even a layperson (which I am) should be able to tell the difference. The arguments are stale and the insistence on false balance a way to snare the gullible.
So the conclusion of some that Mr. Thomas is not naive but stubborn and resembles a concern troll rather than an honest student wanting to discern the difference between the real thing and the many versions of deceptively altered material is a natural one, particularly if he is producing the same version of naive confusion and modified insult elsewhere. Yes, I agree that the namecalling is unhelpful and some more knowledgeable writers are too ready to join the fray. But as Hotwhopper points out, putting our only home at risk is no longer an ethical stance.
At this point the volume of evidence at every level and in every field is no longer a trickle but a torrent. Try the top level expertise.
As to personal actions, I believe many unskeptical “skeptics” own Priuses and use clean energy. It would be natural for any observant person to do so, regardless of their beliefs. In the end, politics does not trump nature.
In fact, my biggest hope is that business, insurance, and the military have caught on, having to be practical to do their jobs.
BBD “The ‘sceptic’ input to the scientific understanding of AGW has been a net negative.” I agree, although I think it’s good and fair to give credit where it’s due even if it is only due very rarely.
Rob Nicholls
Twice a day…
😉
> I think your denizens have no idea who I am, what I think, and spent almost zero effort to investigate.
Pick your own ClimateBall episode:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fjudithcurry.com+%22Danny+Thomas%22+Willard
Susan,
I’m glad you responded and hope to clarify what ‘I read’ as opposed to that which you may have intended to communicate. Of note, in rechecking I went back to see if this: “Big fossil has a lot of money and has created a parallel universe (and hijacked the US Congress and others;” had quotation marks or if they were presented as your words. I saw no quotation marks which is fine, but only tells one part of the story which is why I used them as I did. I’ve seen that kind of ‘echoed’ response before. That is honest, maybe could have been said more gently, but it is what it is.
When I first strayed in to this fray one of the first things that occurred to me was to ‘follow the money’ especially when I’d read that “big oil/fossil fuels” have corrupted the science. As I stated in brief in and earlier post THERE ARE NO CLEAN HANDS. To explain why I said this I offer: When your boss, the Potus, states GW is doing so and so well one best support that (to include asthma?), Big environment (Sierra Club) took money to support other FF vs. coal. Big universities of all kinds have made billions of dollars on big FF and indeed have utilized those same dollars to study climate. Smithsonian takes (gasp) Koch money and creates a presentation. Smithsonian takes FF money and the infamous Dr. Willie Soon used that funding as funneled through the Smithsonian and gets a sound public beating as a result. Renewable energy companies support renewable energy. Tom Steyer (Enuf said). (Note, in no way am I suggesting evaluation of or support of either side, just offering a point of view that big money is involved and heavily influences on both sides).
So I will ask your forgiveness for maybe not having been a bit less aggressive with the use of the quotation, but will at the same time say that (and I see this often in the climate fray) providing only a piece of the story which supports one side of the argument is less than comprehensive is a part of the problem so when one fills in or uses that in argument counter that is to be expected.
Oh, and if the Prius comment referred to me it’s also off base. Giant dually diesel pick up which hauls my home. But still I’d put my carbon footprint up against anyone here.
Please do google away. I own what I say. I’ll even admit to sometimes being a jerk (and calling willard one). Bet willard doesn’t have the gumption to say that about his efforts.
I only recall you calling me a “…”, Danny, so you’d have to own more than only what you say. A fitting conclusion for our exchanges at Judy’s.
In any case, it is not the time to rip off your shirt. You required something without providing the resource. I did, just for you.
You’re welcome.
Until next Friday,
W
Conspiracy ideation is a common affliction that cuts across the vast spectrum of idiotlogical asylums. Does the war against the other comfort the delusional paranoid ? Enquiring minds want to know!
Danny Thomas: Everyone in the west shares an equal footprint. Just because you choose to move a few deckchairs doesn’t mean you are free from the grid. I call it the Disneyland fantasy.
No man is an island,
Entire of itself,
Every man is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thy friend’s
Or of thine own were:
Any man’s death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in mankind,
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
John Donne
Oh, and willard, I notice that you chose the interactions with you and not those I’ve had with Jim D (one of the most well read on the site), Capt. Dallas (quite intelligent), JCH (acerbic but seems pretty intelligent), Dr. Curry, TonyB (climatereason—and British climate/weather historian), AK (a true reneawable zealot), Professional Engineers (who I believe is one), and so on.
So why are you only wanting to show a part of the story w? Ya know I think you’re a bit of a bu__tt.
Guess calling ya that struck a nerve for this to be so important to ya. This time, in a different playground, I toned it down a bit. But calling ’em like ya see ’em is all fair in C-ball as ya taught me there are no rules.
It’s all about that integrity with ya, huh?
DT writes: “THERE ARE NO CLEAN HANDS” — tl;dr: both sides take oil & gas money
This presented as somehow telling both sides of the story. Sorry. Fail.
OpenSecrets.org: Influence and Lobbying: Oil & Gas
Yes, the Eiffel Tower and my two-story middle class home are both buildings. If from that one judges them equal, then there is unlikely ever to be a meaningful dialogue. This is false equivalence or more strictly superficial equivalence. In either case it seriously misrepresents reality.
Kevin,
Yep, and if go to Hartland I find the opposite. It’s proving the point that I made which is a need for the ENTIRE story and that’s not what was shared. I’m not wishing to play dueling websites. It’s been done and leads nowhere. I was explaining my response. No if you feel better for trying to shoot down a guy you percieve a skeptical first let me tell you it’s been done. THERE ARE NO CLEAN HANDS (note the all caps, please). I took great pains to state that I offered zero evaluation, but because one does a little bit wrong and one does a lot more wrong which side is
‘right’? Please do tell.
Where I’m from, the get away driver is just a guilty as the guy who pulls the trigger in a bank robbery. NO CLEAN HANDS and thats is a poor attempt to vilify one side while giving a pass to the other. I prefer to vilify both and move on. You can chose differently.
Kevin,
Shoot. Forgot to mention (and you likely know) that Exxon may fund counter research but at the same time they have a climate change publication. Interesting that.
Kevin,
Since you offered the website figured I’d look around and low and behold: https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=Q11++
Exactly the point I’m trying to make. NO clean hands. The trend was truly surprising. Total dollars not equivalent, but that’s not the point. I was never making an equivalency argument. Of note, the more recent times indicate a HIGHER contribution by the environmental sector than oil and gas. This surprised me a bit. (It’s from your source and I make no endorsements).
Hope you learned something. I have. Now, can we move past this point or must we rehash what’s been gone over who knows how many times.
I can concede the point that there are those who’s self interest is at risk by the climate conversation do indeed influence the conversation financially. Can you concede that there are those who’s self interest is benefited by the climate conversation in contrast to those at risk and they too influence the conversation financially.
DT: Sorry, you criticize someone for only telling part of the story, then present another part of the story *AND* draw a conclusion: “… just offering a point of view that big money is involved and heavily influences on both sides” On the face of it this is simply false equivalence.
An accurate portrayal of the facts is that Oil & Gas industries, while contributing to both political parties, have overwhelmingly given their money to Republican candidates. In the last couple of election cycles that ratio is 5 or 6 to 1.
I doubt there is *any* industry or sector of the economy that fails to give at least a few dollars to both sides. It might be 99:1, but there’s still that 1! By your logic, if one Democrat running for dogcatcher in Topeka took $5 from a Koch subsidiary, then we could still proclaim NO CLEAN HANDS! It’s a meaningless, pointless, faux populist sentiment. It’s the kind of statement that Krugman’s VSP make. It’s not a path towards the truth, but a means to obscure it.
Kevin,
So my “false equivalency” is your “they do it so we can do it too”? False equivalencies are big college words but it’s still a 3rd grade mentality.
I’m in disagreement with them both.
Again, you can chose otherwise but in your very own source and in your example of $5 from a Koch subsidiary is still influence. Especially if that same dogcatcher only got $5 in total. If you don’t think influence is influence we look at things differently.My momma used to tell me, if your friend jumped off a cliff would you too (she never considered how big the fall)? Same is same. Wrong is wrong, not matter the size of the wrong. Presume it’s not okay for your kids (if ya have them) to steal a 5 cent piece of candy vs. a $5 dollar one.
> I notice that you chose the interactions with you and not those I’ve had with Jim D
I did no such thing, DannyT. I simply linked to a search at Judy’s where both our names appear. In some of them, your ClimateBall exchanges appear, incidentally.
Perhaps you can tell AT’s readers about your concern about (the media representation of) global cooling in the 70s? It involves both Jim D and many usages of the CAGW meme.
> In some of them, your ClimateBall exchanges
…with JimD, that is.
Oh, and your NO CLEAN HANDS is a common trick in the auditing sciences:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_hands
In some contexts, it’s an invalid argument. Look for tu quoque. Some of these contexts involve rational enquiry.
It’s nice to see that things are changing so dramatically, recently, in blog discussions about climate change.
The truth matters. The monofocus on the quote from me (now repeated again) misses the point, which is that it is true. The gotcha does not legitimize falsehood in the face of truth. It’s hard to find anything else to say. The truth matters.
Big fossil is one of the top funding sources for the fake infrastructure, which includes Heartland, the NIPCC, and a variety of popular blogs that do almost no original work and are internally contradictory, since they embrace anything that confirms their bias and are not interested in anything that contradicts it.
I should have heeded my instinct and remained silent. When my words are picked apart to mean the opposite of what they say, that is disgusting, but unfortunately nowadays people seem more eager to prove their politics than heed the all too obvious warnings reality offers.
I could go on explaining, but it only prolongs the conversation about irrelevancies. The truth matters.
As Joshua notes, things have not changed much, though I’d send the timeline back:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Being_Right
“The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (Eristische Dialektik: Die Kunst, Recht zu Behalten; 1831)”
Indeed 😉
@ Susan Anderson
Apparently not to everyone, equally.
Susan,
I never stated or implied that what you said was untrue. Very clearly, what I stated was that it only tells part of the story.
Yes, the truth matters. You may have heard that in legal proceedings there’s a statement which goes along the lines of :” the truth, THE WHOLE TRUTH, and nothing but the truth”.
You gave the truth as you view it, and I challenge that you didn’t give the “WHOLE TRUTH”. This is the root of the climate issue and both sides do it, and neither are happy when called out for doing so.
I’m not endorsing that it’s Okay for one side to do it and not the other, I’m saying it’s inappropriate for both.
Each side of this ‘debate’ only puts forth that which supports their own world view. And look where it leads us.
Prove my politics? Please do tell me what my politics is. I think you’re painting me with a brush from your mind and it’s off base.
Howard,
I didn’t event it, just used it. http://www.nature.org/greenliving/carboncalculator/
Tell it to the Nature Conservancy and copy us with the letter here, please.
Agreed Indeed!
And with whom lies the fault? Me? And soley? (Ask around here, or look at the tone and direction of comments and “most here would say”)(And the same thing happens on the extreme ends of the other side).
We all do this and none of us chose to recognize we do. Self interests and world views abound.
Sorry, ATTP.
Howard,
That should read “invent”.
Danny,
Nope. My comment wasn’t intended to be judgemental. Just an observation.
ATTP,
I don’t write well. I didn’t take your comment as judgemental whatsoever and if fact my reply was intended (poorly?) as an indicator that there are just ‘no clean hands’ and we should all look inward first. This is the reason I used the word “We” when stating “We all do this………” (including me).
I wish it was different. Each and every blog I’ve visited has varying imitations of being ‘echo chambers’. Some take offense even though it’s not intended, but this evaluation is indeed also a statement of observation.
Sigh.
Danny’s ripping off his shirt, yet again.
Just an observation.
Danny T
No, it isn’t. The root of the climate issue is that there is a large body of scientific evidence that points to increasing risk of harm as emissions increase and a vocal community of nay-sayers who deny this with no supporting scientific counter-argument. Instead, like you, they use misrepresentation, false equivalence and other rhetorical devices to create the appearance that they have a valid position when in fact they do not. You are a good example of this behaviour.
BBD,
The “Inconvenient Truth” was an interesting choice.
“Intellectual dishonesty
Some intellectual dishonesty can be subtle. For example, relevant facts and information may be purposefully omitted when such things contradict one’s hypothesis, or facts may be presented in a biased manner or twisted to give misleading impressions.”
Truth is important. So is “The whole truth” :http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Intellectual_honesty.
Again…….both sides do it. If you’re trying to indicate that one side does not that’s lacking in “Whole truth”.
Willard,
And your behavior is ever so helpful!
(See: “both sides do it”!)
All about that integrity, dontcha know?
Danny T
You continue in the same vein. First, you ignore what I wrote and then continue to ride your latest hobby horse around in circles hoping the noise and spectacle will distract from the inconvenient truth that there is no scientific counter-argument to the standard scientific position on AGW. Consequently, all so-called ‘sceptics’ are left with nothing more than rhetoric.
This is exactly what ‘sceptics’ do because they have no coherent scientific counter-argument to the scientific consensus on AGW. That you are apparently oblivious of the irony says it all.
BBD,
Didn’t ignore it at all, just didn’t get in to detail.
What we understand about the AGW theory is that CO2 is a GHG and man, thru his actions causes CO2 to be emitted.
What we don’t understand could fill a bookshelf: Sensitivities, aerosols, oceans, atmospheric water vapor, albedo (although I think we’re pretty good here), Carbon cycle and the associated changes due to MMGW, total harm, what land use changes could bring, …………………………I could go on, but think you get my point.
BBD,
“That you are apparently oblivious of the irony says it all.”
When I began this, I was fully ignorant. I am somewhat less ignorant, but still ignorant nonetheless. But I’m at least willing to state that I am. That those on the ‘more climate concerned’ side are not willing to do the same is well………ironic, dontcha think?
AGW projections (especially the more catastrophic ones w/r/t SLR, Arctic/Antarctic, missing the missing heat, etc.) have a less than stellar near term track record which leads me (and many others) to have doubts about the longer term projections.
I don’t know, is in fact, a valid scientific statement.
Danny,
on intellectual honesty of the “sides” a good measure would be to read some of the literature and judge it. Now, “sceptic” literature is a bit hard to come by, but my suggestion would be to try
1) IPPC AR5
2) NIPCC Report
Why not have a read of both and report back on the level of intellectual honesty?
Danny T
This is intellectual dishonesty. The truth is that we know enough to say, without equivocation, that very serious risk attaches to allowing emissions to continue to rise unchecked.
An intellectually honest review of the current state of scientific understanding will always return to this position. The rest is just contrarian rhetoric.
VTG,
I’ve read much of AR5. ATTP’s next post deals with much of the issues surrounding the details w/r/t certainties/uncertainties. There is very little evidence regarding the associated uncertainties when it comes to blog posters. You know better than I.
BBD,
Do you not agree there there is much miss w/r/t the certainties projected? There have been massive errors.
Danny,
No. What massive errors?
Danny,
so, have a read of NIPCC, report back on intellectual honesty
Danny T
Eh? What ATTP said. This is just rhetoric.
When we confine ourselves to science the contrarian position simply vanishes.
I just want to make the comment that the climate change debate takes place in the scientific literature and not on blogs. Climate research has moved well beyond what is causing climate change and is primarily focused on what will the impacts be and how do we deal with them. Yes there are many researchers still trying to understand the climate system but this is mainly to improve projections.
IMO blogs are just a way of disseminating scientific information, or in some cases misinformation. This is why it is very important to be sceptical (true meaning of the word) and check all sources when some one makes a claim. If there is no peer reviewed research to back it up then it is likely BS.
ATTP, VTG, BBD,
Massive errors as projected by those (presumably) covered by the consensus: SLR which would have Manhattan underwater by now (since revised). The Pause (which isn’t/wasn’t) not projected. Arctic gone (isn’t ice expanding just a bit and even aging?). Antarctic similar. Questions on sensitivities (guess this one’s TBD). Modelling (very immature in this process).
VTG asked about reporting back on intellectual honesty of IPCC. It would (to me) provide a much higher level of integrity for there to be acknowledgement of the evolutions of the science. IPCC projected an arc of surface temperature to increase on a scale similar to the increase in atmospheric CO2. It appears that what has happened is a lag (un-projected) with the energy manifesting itself in sea water temperatures and potentially having been found by Nieves and currently located in the Indian Ocean (as I understand it).
What I’ve seen occur is that once IPCC acknowledged the existence of the “hiatus” Karl comes along and via adjustments wipes out the validity of the ARGO buoy system and ‘those more climate concerned’ accept and almost rejoice (okay, that’s exaggerating) that the “hiatus” never existed. What I’d expect of a scientific community is for them to step back, recognize that the same body (IPCC) on which were “consensus’d” to rely having acknowledged the ‘hiatus’ should be given greater value in the conversation (as is used against those more climate skeptical) and folks saying “wait a minute here Dr. Karl”.
I saw the same thing occur with Hay and SLR. Some 90 years of historical records wiped out with a computer algorithm. SLR went from the IPCC reported range of 1.7/1.9mm/yr to viola` 3.2mm/yr. JCH is one who landed on that like flies on stink. However, had that algorithm say reduced the SLR to ……oh……….let’s say…………1.2mm/yr then can you just imagine the uproar.
How was subsidence factored in? What about the contribution of inland aquifers worldwide? Not a question one (that I saw), only ……………oh, there’s the expected sea level increase. Well I guess IPCC missed on that one, huh? (Or did they?)
Look, I’ve not followed this forever like many of you. Did not Hansen predict (or should I say project?) that SLR would rise catastrophically before? Then he does it again: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/james-hansen-sea-level-rise_55aecb02e4b0a9b94852e7f5
Of note: many climate scientists do not agree, and others call him an alarmist. Presume ya’ll have/will come down on them. (Right Joshua?)
Danny Thomas, I wish you well in your search for the truth about climate change. From your comments I’m not sure how new you are to all this. I think VTG’s suggestion of comparing IPCC’s 5th assessment report with a report from NIPCC is a really good idea for anyone who is trying to keep an open mind and who is struggling to understand where the truth lies in this debate.
A relevant Michael Tobis post re: Danny’s assertions…
http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2015/07/they-concede-nothing-they-cant.html
Keep squeezing that Uncertainty Monster for all she’s worth; even professional misinformers need to feel loved.
HH,
I’m not sure I’m in full agreement that the blogs are only of use for dissemination, but I agree it’s a great tool for doing so. An alternative is for folks such as VTG, Dr. Tol, ATTP and others (maybe you?) with high levels of qualification are able to conduct what I’d term as supplemental peer review.
Rob Nicholls,
I’ve honestly spent almost zero time on NIPCC. There is so much out there, so many suggestions have been provided, and I’ve been involved about 8-9 months with the caveat that a good friend (lifelong) has been more so involved more than a decade.
It may be just confirmational bias, but I truly perceive myself as being more open than most. So many are convinced and lock in to their position. I’m squarely in the middle and that has not moved much since MY beginning a few months back. I have (and do) visit both sides. Interestingly (at least to me) is that I take just as much heat from both sides as if I was ‘the enemy’ entering in to the home court of the other side. Just shows how entrenched this debate is.
Folks are pretty good at projecting at me what they think (not I think) I think.
Thank you for the comment.
Danny,
Your first paragraph in your latest is not, I fear, redolent of intellectual honesty.
To claim there was a consensus that Arctic Ice would be gone and Manhattan underwater by now is outrageously false and easy to demonstrate. Read IPCC FAR, SAR, TAR, AR4 to see the history of the evolving consensus.
I won’t waste my keystrokes addressing the rest of your post.
More to the point – criticizing Karl or the IPCC for a paper released after AR5 is ludicrous, as Karl is a re-analysis of existing methodology, not a consideration of data that the IPCC ignored. Hansen 2015, meanwhile, is a paper in final review that was co-authored by many who are well-known in their areas of expertise, and seems to be getting positive reviews (Journalist concerns re: multi-ton boulders that may or may not have been moved by storms notwithstanding).
I’m not familiar with the Hay/SLR “controversy,” but I suspect the conspiratorial overtones (“what about subsidence?!”) are similarly overwrought.
Danny,
Link. The most recent sea level rise estimates are regarded as conservative.
Two things. What are often presented are model ensembles which smooth out this kind of variability. Climate models are also known to be poor at making robust projections on decadal timescales. It’s possible for climate models to predict that a “hiatus” could happen, but difficult to predict precisely when. You’re essentially claiming that something noone would have suggested was actually possible is indicative of a massive error.
Link? Apart from a small number of examples, there were no serious suggestions that Arctic sea ice would be gone by now. You’re also confusing annual variability with long-term trends.
In what sense?
How is this a massive error?
Define immature, because this just sounds like nonsense.
Danny Thomas, your comment of 7.39pm has many points in it; I doubt whether anyone will have time to address all of them. http://www.skepticalscience.com/ and http://www.realclimate.org have, in my view, very interesting takes on many of these issues. I’ll just comment on one issue. With regards to Hay et al (accepted 2014, published 2015) and sea level rise: Hay et al’s estimated trend of SLR is just one of many published in peer reviewed journals. (see e.g. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/01/a-new-sea-level-curve/ ) and I’m not sure that Hay et al changes things all that much?
Danny,
You seem to be taking situations that, in my view, are examples of the complexity (and beauty) of the scientific method, and claiming they’re indicative of massive errors. Science isn’t clean and neat. People disagree. Papers are published that turn out to be wrong, or have flaws. That’s why we rely on an overall assessment of the evidence, not on individual pieces of work.
Finally, the assertion that “Dr. Tol” has the relevant expertise to offer “supplemental peer review” in ANY area of climate change (including economic/econometric) withers under the harsh light of his recent work. (Google “gremlins.”)
Danny, I believe you when you say you believe you are more honest than most. But in fact you are letting the insistence of unskeptical “skeptic” bloggers and their fans outweigh the quality of the information available. Try this:
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
On one “side” you have a large preponderance of expert opinion from a variety of disciplines over two centuries, becoming more uncontroversial about the simple basics of how heat-trapping greenhouse gas accumulation is affecting our planet in the last three or four decades. On the other “side” you have an embrace of anything and everything that creates the appearance of malfeasance on the part of the credible scientific community. They are particularly hot about the temperature record, which being collected in various ways over a long time and large area, have to be checked and calibrated, which can be characterized as cheating so easily.
It is a fact that industry has weighed in in a big way with financing of alternative think tanks such as Heartland and encouraged bloggers like WattsUpWithThat and ClimateDepot (Marc Morano, founded, started with Rush Limbaugh, graduated to engineering the Swiftboat attacks, and then to being Inhofe’s right hand man under the Republican majority, and executing the Luntz policy of creating doubt and delay). The lists and stories go on and on. In many cases, you can easily find the fossil funding for the likes of McIntyre and Michaels. One of the biggest movers and shakers of all this has been a guy by the name of Fred Singer, near the center of a great network of contrarians. This collection has come to look equal and opposite, but it is not. It is the best PR money can buy.
All of this is ancient history to most of us, who began by being curious and hopeful that the whole thing might go away, but with a lot of careful digging, found that the two “sides” were far from equal.
That they are equal is one of the chief PR ways of keeping the public from understanding our difficulties and acting to remedy them. This serves the paymasters who want to maintain the status quo and profits, and the gullible guy on the street just getting by who just wants cheap energy. Even this last, sadly, is being misled, as renewable energy is getting cheaper and subsidies are keeping the true costs of fossil energy hidden while they accrue to all of us in numerous toxic ways, not just warming but spills and byproducts, waste and such.
Yes, scientists depend on funding for their salaries and research, but the amounts are so much smaller than what is offered to those willing to advocate for fossil interests.
(Apologies to Dr. Tol [and to our host]. I regret and rescind that last post. I do not doubt Dr. Tol’s intelligence or ability.)
whimcycle,
No worries. What you said in your earlier comment is probably not strictly true, but……
Danny Thomas “Interestingly (at least to me) is that I take just as much heat from both sides as if I was ‘the enemy’ entering in to the home court of the other side. Just shows how entrenched this debate is.”
Unfortunately I’m not surprised by that; blogs on the issue are very polarised; blogs on both sides vary in tone; some are mainly friendly; some are mainly aggressive; commentors on blogs are mostly on one side of the debate or the other; commentors defend their views passionately and vociferously without having the time to go through all the reasons for holding those views; A lot of bad feeling has built up over a number of years in this debate. I can see how it seems like a symmetrical debate as a result.
That’s why I think it’s important to try to focus on the peer-reviewed science. I’m conscious that you will have been bombarded with suggestions, so I apologise for giving you another one…You might want to try building up a picture of the peer-reviewed evidence in a very specific area (e.g pick an area addressed by one part of one chapter of IPCC AR5 working group 1.) and then assess what the IPCC is saying and what blog posts are saying in the context of that evidence. I know from experience that this isn’t easy for non-climate scientists, and it takes time. (The 2 sites on the side of the mainstream scientific consensus which I recommended before might be helpful with this).
Peer-review is really imporant (although many blogs will tell you that the peer-review process is hopelessly biased towards the mainstream consensus on climate change, I really can’t see any evidence for that). Anyone can write literally anything on a blog, but getting something published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal generally takes a high degree of rigour which makes it a lot more reliable than what is said on blogs. (Peer-review isn’t perfect; sometimes bad papers slip through, and newer papers often refine and sometimes refute what older papers had previously said, which is why published papers have to be looked at in context; however, the totality of available peer-reviewed evidence is the best evidence there is available to us).
Best wishes.
SLR which would have Manhattan underwater by now (since revised). …
Message from the ranch. The is complete bullchit, and the people who keep repeating it are complete bullchitters.
Bullchit indeed. The detail is here.
Danny is cordially invited to reconsider his position on that particular misrepresentation (*not* originally his own; simply one he has chosen to repeat without fact-checking).
I saw the same thing occur with Hay and SLR. Some 90 years of historical records wiped out with a computer algorithm. SLR went from the IPCC reported range of 1.7/1.9mm/yr to viola` 3.2mm/yr. JCH is one who landed on that like flies on stink. However, had that algorithm say reduced the SLR to ……oh……….let’s say…………1.2mm/yr then can you just imagine the uproar.
How was subsidence factored in? What about the contribution of inland aquifers worldwide? Not a question one (that I saw), only ……………oh, there’s the expected sea level increase. Well I guess IPCC missed on that one, huh? (Or did they?)
It’s a very good paper. It solves some of the physical inconsistencies between lines of evidence, and it does not wipe out 92 years of anything. These inconsistencies apparently don’t bother you.
A recent paper on the SLR budget cited the Hay paper in a way I’ve never seen before, but the author called it out as being a significant new paper in the reference section.
I was wondering if any “skeptic” has every done anything to significantly change the view on any area of climate science? Where are all the studies showing positive impacts or questioning the many potential negative impacts that have been identified?
Danny, if you are honest most of the current science doesn’t support your position. Whether you want to call it a “consensus” or not.
Danny T
It’s always worth remembering that sea level rise (SLR) is not expected to be linear. So what is happening now and what happened during the C20th cannot be used to extrapolate into the future. This is because the main drivers of SLR will change over time. This produces the ‘non-linear’ response. Currently, thermal expansion (a warming ocean) dominates, but in future the accelerating contribution from (land) ice sheet melt / collapse will become the main driver. This is when the rapid non-linear (and unstoppable, because gravity-driven) SLR is going to kick in.
Okay. I’ll do the work and show ya.
Item one. Hansen and Manhattan (my memory was off and it was the West Side Highway. Quote from article with link at bottom:
“While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. I went over to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City and said, “If what you’re saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?” He looked for a while and was quiet and didn’t say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, “Well, there will be more traffic.” I, of course, didn’t think he heard the question right. Then he explained, “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.” Then he said, “There will be more police cars.” Why? “Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.””
http://www.salon.com/2001/10/23/weather/
More to follow.
Re: Arctic. From Al Gore, in his Nobel speech:
“Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is “falling off a cliff.” One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.
(Note: this speech took place in 2007)
Link: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/gore-lecture_en.html
Antarctica: (TBD) http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/16/us/antarctica-larsen-b-ice-shelf-to-disappear/
But how is this kind of headline and “warning signs” not similar to Al Gore’s prognostication?
Hay paper:
Click to access 0fc4ccc3.niveau-marin-20C3A8me-siC3A8cle.pdf
Which grew out of work they did with this paper:
Click to access Kopp_-_Geographic_Variability_of_Sea-Level_Change.pdf
And which lines up, I believe, quite nicely with this paper:
Click to access nclimate2635.pdf
And they’d better get used to this result in papers. It is not easy to get heat out of the oceans with elevating levels of CO2:
After extracting the influence of land water storage, it is shown that the GMSL has been rising at a rate of 4.4 ± 0.5 mm/yr for more than 3 years, due to an increase in the rate of both land ice loss and steric change.
whimcycle,
Overwrought? Have you read the words of fellow climate scientists including Michael Mann? (And I didn’t bother to include links to “skeptical” folks as I’m sure you’d find them to be truly “overwrought”.
“Michael Mann, a climate researcher at Penn State University who reviewed the paper at the Post’s request, commented by email that “their case is most compelling when it comes to the matter of West Antarctic ice sheet collapse and the substantial sea level rise that would result, potentially on a timescale as short as a century or two.” But Mann was more skeptical of other aspects of the work.
“Their climate model scenario wherein Greenland and Antarctic meltwater caused by warming poles, leads to a near total shutdown of ocean heat transport to higher latitudes, cooling most of the globe (particularly the extratropics), seems rather far-fetched to me,” Mann said. Nonetheless, Mann said, “Whether or not all of the specifics of the study prove to be correct, the authors have initiated an absolutely critical discussion.”
Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, an expert on sea level rise and the oceans’ overturning circulation, commented by email that “I agree that 2 C warming is dangerous and will very likely commit our home planet to meters of sea-level rise.” Rahmstorf had not yet had time to review the full Hansen paper Monday, so his comment was strictly about the danger of major sea level rise, not the other scenarios outlined in the study.
Rahmstorf has previously suggested that among past periods featuring higher seas, the Eemian may not be the best analogy for where the planet is headed, given that changes at that time were driven by planetary orbital cycles, rather than carbon dioxide emissions.
Kevin Trenberth, an influential climate researcher at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, was critical of the paper, calling it “provocative and intriguing but rife with speculation and ‘what if’ scenarios.” Trenberth objected in particular to the climate modeling scenarios used to study freshwater injection as ice sheets melt. “These experiments introduce a lot of very cold fresh water in various places, and then they see what happens,” he wrote by email. “The question is how relevant these are to the real world and what is happening as global warming progresses? They do not seem at all realistic to me.”
“There are way too many assumptions and extrapolations for anything here to be taken seriously other than to promote further studies,” Trenberth wrote.
Richard Alley, a glaciologist at Penn State University and an expert on the planet’s ice sheets, said that the study by Hansen and his colleagues was likely to prompt a lot of thought. “Many parts of the new paper are likely to stimulate much technical discussion and further research in our community, as we try to weave together the deep-time and recent history to provide useful projections for the future,” he said by email.
“This new paper is not ‘the answer,’” Alley continued. “Particularly, replacing the simple assumptions about doubling times of ice loss with physically based insights is a major focus of our field, but is not yet done and not likely to be ready really quickly.” Alley acknowledged that the IPCC’s sea level rise estimate “is well on the optimistic low-rise side of the possible outcomes,” and added that “the estimates in the new paper of freshening, and discussion of stabilization of the southern ocean and influences on precipitation, are interesting and important.”
Michael Oppenheimer, Albert G. Milbank Professor of Geosciences and International Affairs in the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University, commented by email that “If we cook the planet long enough at about two degrees warming, there is likely to be a staggering amount of sea level rise. Key questions are when would greenhouse-gas emissions lock in this sea level rise and how fast would it happen? The latter point is critical to understanding whether and how we would be able to deal with such a threat.
“The paper takes a stab at answering the ‘how soon?’ question but we remain largely in the dark. Giving the state of uncertainty and the high risk, humanity better get its collective foot off the accelerator.”
Thus, in light of these comments, it seems safe to say that the intellectual process of digesting the new paper has already begun. And while some researchers are already calling into question some of the more novel scenarios involving meltwater freshening, ocean circulations and storms, the work’s concerns about major sea level rise from melting ice sheets appear hard for scientists to rule out.”
Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/07/20/the-worlds-most-famous-climate-scientist-just-outlined-an-alarming-scenario-for-our-planets-future/
ATTP,
“People disagree. Papers are published that turn out to be wrong, or have flaws. That’s why we rely on an overall assessment of the evidence, not on individual pieces of work.”
Thank you. That’s an honest response.
Once again, I’m not in argument of the MMGW, but with the level of concerns. And I have issue with the appearance of ‘settled science’ (yep, just for you JCH) because it’s just not so. I won’t deny a preponderance but the matter of factism is unrealistic.
Thank you for the forum and discussion.
JCH,
I erred in location, but not in general content according to an old Salon article posted elsewhere in this thread. I wasn’t there, so cannot verify or deny, but it was reported and I used it.
Now, back to the ranch and the guitar! Watch we’re ya step.
BBD,
After just having visited your offered link and going back to the embedded link to the source (Salon) I found error message 404. If you wish to read the article for yourself, as obviously only one of us is a ‘fact checker’ (and it wasn’t you in this case) please see the functioning link I provided upthread.
Looking forward to your apology soonest.
Regards
JCH,
Your comment on Hay is as Bullchit as any I’ve ever posted. First, Hay modifed 90+ years of historic information downward which then created the “increased” SLR from the 1.7/1.9mm/yr which IPCC stated (what, you’re not gonna call that a foul?). Then, I saw no effort in the Hay offering to address subsidence and/or inland aquifer contribution (not sure any one has done that by the by, but could be in error there). Finally, the study was regional in nature (U.S. East coast). And you jumped on it (just like you’re defending here) like flies on bullchit.
Thanks for making my point. Had a freakin’ skeptic gone against IPCC (the masters of the universe on dominants of the ‘consensus’) you would have had a cow.
(Thanks for the ranch references) 🙂
JCH,
RE: Hay.
But, but, but, but, but…………IPCC!
(See what I mean, this is what I often get and what indeed I’ve gotten as feedback right here).
If anything is said that IPCC didn’t say it must be wrong UNLESS of course, it’s not.
And no matter the linkage, Hay still modified 90+ years of historic tidal records with the touch of a computer button. After having done so, zero evaluation was offered w/r/t subsidence and/or inland aquifer contribution.
Haff azzed effort and you’re completely in luv with it. Come on. I know you’re smarter than that. I’ve seen you in action.
“Reiss asked me to speculate on changes that might happen in New York City in 40 years assuming CO2 doubled in amount.” – James E. Hansen
So what does that mean?
Ya’ll. I’m sorry, but I can’t keep up with all of you and respond as fully as I should to the questions/suggestions which have been offered. I can keep trying, but what I hope to have accomplished is to make you ‘believe’ that I’m not just making stuff up and backing up my words (which I’m sure in some occasions will be inaccurate) with links sourced elsewhere.
If I’ve worn out my welcome, I’ll leave at ATTP’s request. It’s their playground and my privilege to play in it.
JCH,
I’m not doing your work for ya. I have no idea what your source is for that quote. I checked my link to the original Salon article from 2001 and it’s not there. It’s possibly a quote from today some many years later but I have no idea.
So, my scientific answer is, and ya can quote me, I don’t know.
I am a self-taught, amateur guitarist. I am an unapologetic Tony Rice clone. I play this guy’s stuff as closely and and well as I can. It’s fast and it is very challenging. In the past I did Robert Johnson and Merle Travis. For me, it beats playing golf:
Once I was in a guitar store out by the Dallas airport just killing time waiting for a plane to arrive. I was sitting on a chair picking a fiddle tune like the one in the video. A guy walked up behind me and said, “Yeah man, get it.” I turned around and it was Terry Bradshaw, the former quarterback of the Pittsburgh Steelers. He sat down and talked to me for at least a half an hour. He loves guitar. He talked about his divorce. He talked about his Mama. He talked about Hank Williams Jr. He talked. He also had stopped at the guitar store to kill some time while waiting for a plane to arrive.
I can pick.
BBD,
Last response for this evening. RE: “It’s always worth remembering that sea level rise (SLR) is not expected to be linear. CONT’D”
Not argument with the general post. if you’re referring to my issue with Hay, the comment included the thermal expansion but the northern Atlantic (mostly east coast) area is the area in which Hay focused so this would not apply as it’s one area of oceans cooling (see bottom of Key Points in right hand side at very bottom) http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/oceans/sea-surface-temp.html.
My issues with Hay are that 90+ years of historic tidal records were changed via a computer algorithm. JCH insists that paper “addresses inconsistencies” yet my perception is that it actually introduces others to include a lack of addressing supplemental water flows from inland aquifers which “historically” have likely change due to population growth as well as more intensive ag. practice. Additionally, the east coast of the U.S. has know subsidence issues and I do not see where Hay addressed those. I cannot state that Hay is wrong, but can state that this is one of those (poorly done?) papers that cannot be well evaluated due to it’s lack of content.
JCH & others, have jumped on this paper to indicate “it’s worse than we thought”. Well, I’d say the paper is and the information provided is too limited to be of scientific or academic benefit. And I”m a freakin rookie w/o scientific background of any real density.
Oh, and in case I didn’t mention it. I’d expect SLR to increase. Water from all that land ice (glaciers) gotta go somewhere.
As ATTP alluded to early in this post, the tactics against the RCP are in discussion. Well, dammit, the tactics like Hay, with JCH’s support, should also be in discussion. In this case, IMO, it’s not very attractive to science or those specific parties.
Danny Thomas said in various comments,
“AGW projections (especially the more catastrophic ones w/r/t SLR, Arctic/Antarctic, missing the missing heat, etc.) have a less than stellar near term track record which leads me (and many others) to have doubts about the longer term projections.”
…
“And I have issue with the appearance of ‘settled science’ (yep, just for you JCH) because it’s just not so.”
Sorry, but it is settled, as I said and demonstrated before.
“I hope to have accomplished is to make you ‘believe’ that I’m not just making stuff up and backing up my words (which I’m sure in some occasions will be inaccurate) with links sourced elsewhere.”
But what you cite are not studies in the reputable, professionally refereed journals. I’ll say more on this at the end of this comment.
You said in a much earlier post in reply to me, explaining why you’ve not replied to my two prior comments,
“This recent reply and your earlier are two of 3 I’ve saved for further research and I thank you. I will look at them in depth when time permits (hopefully this Thursday). I should have acknowledged same earlier.”
For the record, these two comments I gave are
on August 16, 2015 at 7:31 am
and
on August 17, 2015 at 2:46 am. In the first I gave or pointed to via links and citations what I think are definitive answers to some of your points.
I’m still hoping for a reply to these said answers, given that you’ve replied to most everything else.
While you’re doing this further research, see my comment
on June 6, 2015 at 8:48 am in the comments under “No “pause”?” I gave a mathematical analog *for purely pedagogical reasons* “to help the average, everyday person (who has had some high school algebra) understand not only that there exists a distinction between two ways of talking about the warming – these being short-term vs. long-term – but to understand the nature of this distinction and very importantly its implications”. I talk about one function tracking upward with and cycling around another function. This can be thought of as a mathematical analog for the kind of behavior that may be the case with the global average surface temperature, where it seems to track upward with and cycle or “cycle” in multidecadal fluctuations around model projections. Think about this carefully, since some of the arguments by you and those who reject mainstream climate science such as the one I first quoted above that this “pause” is evidence against the models are similar in nature to the mathematical nonsense of treating the “down” parts of the fluctuations in the curve given by the function h(x) = 17cos(x) + x^1.9 to be evidence against the fact that the function f(x) = x^1.9 gives the underlying upward accelerating curve around which h(x) fluctuates. (Use the Google search engine as a graphing tool to see these curves. And I call your attention again to the studies by Marotzke and Forster (2015) with their 62 year runs and Steinman, Mann, and Miller (2015) with their NMO, which I cited in my comments I link to – to see them, follow the links I give in my comments.)
It’s instructive to read what Rob Nicholls said on August 18, 2015 at 8:58 pm,
“…it’s important to try to focus on the peer-reviewed science…..Peer-review is really important (although many blogs will tell you that the peer-review process is hopelessly biased towards the mainstream consensus on climate change, I really can’t see any evidence for that). Anyone can write literally anything on a blog, but getting something published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal generally takes a high degree of rigour which makes it a lot more reliable than what is said on blogs. (Peer-review isn’t perfect; sometimes bad papers slip through, and newer papers often refine and sometimes refute what older papers had previously said, which is why published papers have to be looked at in context; however, the totality of available peer-reviewed evidence is the best evidence there is available to us).”
In other words, the reputable, professionally refereed literature in any science taken in its ongoing aggregate is the best humanity has as the final arbiter for what is true about the world in which we live, and it’s the best we have to keep those who reject science from taking over the world. One’s attitude towards this literature, whether one accepts it as said final arbiter or whether one rejects it as such, is a legitimate litmus test as to whether one really believes in science or really believes in something else.
Might one suggest that the prolific (some might say florid) narcissist is perfectly free to establish a blog of his own?
Danny,
you didn’t claim one person somewhere said those things, you claimed they were consensus.
They weren’t.
Indeed the exact opposite is true; Arctic Ice has declined much faster than predicted, and SLR projections have been revised up, not down.
Intellectual honesty would seem to require an acknowledgement.
Danny,
Did you read this link? Hansen claims he was asked what would happen in 40 years if CO2 doubled. Your salon article is a book review.
The science is pretty settled – in general, at least. Also (and this is something you really should show that you understand) people are concerned about what will happen if we continue to emit CO2 so that atmospheric concentrations keep rising. People aren’t simply concerned. It’s conditional.
I’ll also say that your examples are rather tedious. That you can find some apparent examples where things were said that may not have been strictly correct does not suddenly invalidate mainstream science. It’s not as if those who dismiss the risks associated with AGW don’t get anything wrong. If anything, highlighting what they get right would be easier than pointing out what they get wrong.
Danny T
Don’t take the piss. You didn’t even RTFL I sent you sufficiently closely to realise that it invalidated the bollocks claim you are parroting.
I think my patience with your shtick is running out.
@bill
Splendid idea.
This sort of nonsense grates on the nerves:
Do you not read what you write?
What is, if anything, even more annoying is that – once again – you completely ignored the substance of what I actually wrote wrt the yet-to-emerge non-linearity of SLR in favour of a confused, irrelevant ‘critique’ of a single re-analysis of historic SLR measurements.
That is exactly the same strain of intellectual dishonesty I had to call you out on in our previous exchange. Please stop it.
VTG,
Who’s in the “consensus”, from when to when, and covering what? Awaiting your detailed response so I’ll from this point going forward, know not to make that mistake again.
(Get the point yet? Consensus is used as a convenient blanket but it’s an amorphous non-entity).
The HAY paper is an an area of science that clearly could not be settled to much of a degree at all because there were contradictory lines of evidence. It’s not just the tide-guage record, none of which was thrown away.
Danny is literally claiming the Hay paper is unsettling because it will unsettle, if it holds up, prior SLR science on 20-century SLR. I can find no criticism out of the group of scientists who study SLR at the cutting edge, and, as I said, one of them calls it out in the citations of his review on the sea level budget as being a significant work.
And she has Mitrovica as a co-author, so the odds they missed subsistence and ground water, etc. are vanishingly small.
There are two papers the group has written that lead to the paper that so unsettles Danny. He does not want SLR science to be improved, that is clear.
In 1988, which I believe is when the conversation took place, Hansen would have had no way to know the outcome of the Montreal Protocol, so it is possible he was not just talking about CO2 doubling at an impossible rate – 40 years – to illustrate longterm consequences. The whole thing is just a cheap smear job, which is why it first showed up where it did.The only way to argue for any standing at all is to admit to being a smear-job artist.
Hansen’s 2015 paper is out there to be attacked. Just click send and your deadly blows will be published. On Climate Etc. they were predicting the Hansen paper would be shredded, but the journal would censor the shredders. Well, their efforts are right there to read.
BBD,
@bill
Splendid idea.
You don’t have to continue to respond. ATTP is allowing this conversation. You’re so closed minded I don’t think we’ll ever see any sort of middle ground.
If you feel my critique of Hay is confused then provide detail (like a big person would do, and like I did). Your vague critique of my critique is unhelpful.
As to your comment about SLR, did I not state my perception that I’d expect SLR to rise, and why?
Hay might be right, but as someone else said a stopped clock is right twice a day. Doesn’t mean the method is the best when calling something a time piece.
Danny
There *is* no ‘middle ground’.
And I object to being called ‘close-minded’ by someone who is apparently incapable of understanding that it is their own intransigence and poor topic knowledge that is the problem.
Some years ago, I was a contrarian, like you. Unlike you, I took the trouble to become better informed on the science and changed my position once I had a clearer understanding of the facts.
I repeat, you are in no position to accuse me of being close-minded, so I will ask politely, this one final time, that you stop doing so.
JCH,
“There are two papers the group has written that lead to the paper that so unsettles Danny. He does not want SLR science to be improved, that is clear.”
This is utter nonsense. What I stated is Hay missed two big items when ‘ADJUSTING’ historic SLR which introduce that which you claim the Hay paper improved. That is it increased the uncertainties. Don’t assume they didn’t miss those uncertainties. Show me where I’m wrong. I can’t find it. And wouldn’t you love to try to get me to eat one of your ranch crows while you’re strumming away in the background?
Come on man. If you’re improving your hay fields do you forget about dirt and water when you plant seed? Ya gotta cover all the known components as best ya can. You’re dug in, and unwilling to say that maybe you bought in too early on this one.
BBD,
You ask for my flexibility and show me none?
Please respond to the content of my post and we can move forward. W/o that choice you’re giving the appearance of close mindedness. Sorry, but that’s the observation. And again, you do not have to continue to respond. I owe others responses.
Danny Thomas
As for Hay et al. – you continue to ignore what I wrote, so let’s try again:
So Hay et al.’s re-analysis of historic steric SLR SLR is irrelevant to the point being made about future non-linearity in SLR driven by ice sheet dynamics (eg. Hansen et al. 2015).
Danny,
You seemed to imply here that Hay was some kind of massive mistake. Disagreeing with their analysis or it turning out to be wrong, is not normally regarded as some kind of massive mistake. Well, not one that would normally be used to tar an entire discipline. Science is meant to take risks, try new things, attempt new analyses. This is good, even if it turns out to be wrong. That’s how we learn.
I don’t know if someone has already highlighted this RealClimate post, but it seems like a perfectly reasonable critique of the Hay et al. paper.
ATTP,
I must be the worst author of blog posts on the planet. I have no problem with Hay as a step in the learning curve. Where the problem lies is with the giant hug (as evidenced by JCH) of acceptance w/o any consideration (that I’ve been able to find) for alternative reasons behind the indicated increase in SLR to include subsidence and water inflows from other than glacial melt.
ATTP, please take off you “defense of the ‘consensus’ hat” and put on your scientist hat and relook at what I’m saying. Even the RC post indicates how well Hay, in RC’s extention of ‘the hug’ reinforces the consensus of SLR. It in no way is a critique of the methodology. Maybe, the methodology is just fine, but from what I see there is no way to know. RC even states is a statistical reanalysis. Statistical reanalysis does not involve observation of actual evidence, and in fact Hay CHANGES some 90+ years of it! Whooopie!
I just don’t see how I’m not being clear.
I’m not tarring a discipline. I’m not denying. I’m not even denying SLR.
The original post about RCP’s (long ago forgotten?) had within the body of the discussion the term ‘tactics’. Well this is about tactics. Think about it. Were the tables turned and this was a skeptical discussion of SLR would you be okay with the conclusions presented based on this methodology, ESPECIALLY since the conclusions are counter to IPCC? This is a valid question and worthy of an answer from the blog.
Danny,
What alternatives Danny? If we add energy to the climate system, sea level goes up because of thermal expansion of water and because more energy means that some land ice will melt. If we continue to add energy to the climate system, sea level will continue to rise for these reasons. That’s why the RealClimate post ended with But for practical purposes, I don’t think it matters whether the rise from 1900 AD has been 3 centimetres more or less. I do not think this changes our outlook for future sea-level rise in any significant way.
I do find it a little irritating when people who – as far as I’m aware – are not scientists, tell me to behave more like a scientist. Also, I no longer understand what you’re saying. You appear to be doing a rather “skeptic”-like thing of suggesting that it could be something else, without any real evidence that this something else could explain the observations. Also, this doesn’t mean that it’s not going to do what physics suggests it would do.
ATTP,
“You appear to be doing a rather “skeptic”-like thing of suggesting that it could be something else, without any real evidence that this something else could explain the observations.”
Maybe so. But I think I did suggest that if one does not consider A) Subsidence, B) water inflows from other than glacial melt, then the evaluation of SLR is incomplete and therefore less than helpful, all after only a statistical adjustment of 90 years of observational data.
It appears that a critical eye (which I’m trying to improve) is only allowed when referring to a skeptical point of view. Alternatively, when a paper such as this supports the ‘expected’ SLR no critical eye to methodology is needed?
I don’t have evidence for the inflows nor the subsidence, but does the one who authored the paper? I don’t have any way of knowing yet I’m supposed to accept the conclusions? Sorry, that’s just a tactic of those more climate concerned and not (IMO) a valid scientific evaluation of the work. But it’s okay, as it supports ‘our team’. Sheesh.
We need to differentiate all anthropogenic contributions. If the SLR will continue, should we stop all emission leading to glacial melt and ignored the water use/subsidence then what have we gained? (Here I’m suggesting that inflows and subsidence would also be man caused).
I guess I’m just blinded. (Or maybe others are). Apologies if that’s irritating, but it’s a valid consideration, dontcha think?
Don’t be daft.
Hay et al. shows that C20th SLR might have been underestimated a bit, with the effect that the rate of recent SLR is actually greater in context than previously thought – in other words, it is accelerating just as the rather conservative IPCC projections suggest it will.
BBD,
Don’t you care why the SLR was off and what the cause of the rise may be? Or is that not important?
Danny,
As far as I’m aware, they do. What makes you think they don’t. Also, what other substantial water inflow could there be? Do we have evidence that large reservoirs of liquid water have suddenly emptied into the sea?
No, this is nonsense. The point is that a critical eye typically involves actually trying to determine the significance of what they might not have considered or actually determining that they didn’t indeed consider these things. Just saying “maybe”, isn’t really enough. Also, you keep claiming that no critical eye is needed when it supports the expectation, but this is not true.
No, you’re not meant to accept the conclusions. Whoever said you did? In fact, it would be unusual to simply accept the conclusions. Our overall understanding should be guided by the overall evidence, not one study. The point is more that you criticisms seemes to be based on a “what if they didn’t do it properly” rather than a genuine attempt at considering what they did. What you’re doing is doubting their result, rather than being skeptical.
I don’t fully understand what you’re even suggesting here.
Danny,
Not really. Science progresses. You don’t typically go back and see why an earlier paper produced a different result to a newer one. You go forward. You would normally continue investigating. You may discover that the earlier work was correct all along. You may discover the newer work is correct. You may discover that it’s all much more complicated.
As BBD said, the main result in Hay et al. is that it appears that sea level rise has accelerated. The actual rates are not substantially different, other than being a little slower in the early 20th century than other studies suggest.
Danny Thomas
You could try actually reading it instead of regurgitating misrepresentations you gleaned from contrarian blogs then you would know that the authors are fully aware of all the factors that so concern you:
Hay CHANGES some 90+ years of [actual evidence]
How does it do that?
w/o any consideration (that I’ve been able to find) for alternative reasons behind the indicated increase in SLR to include… water inflows from other than glacial melt.
The purpose of the study is to track historical changes in ocean volume. It isn’t interested in the cause of ocean volume change – other studies have looked at that.
subsidence
The treatment of subsidence in this paper is the same as previous studies which contributed towards the IPCC’s twentieth century SLR estimate, so is not relevant to any difference between the estimates. It basically involves not using tide gauges which show significant influence from subsidence.
You seem confused about the results of Hay et al., earlier referencing a change from 1.7mm/yr to 3.2mm/yr, which has nothing to do with this paper. 1.7mm/yr refers to the IPCC-assessed average rate of SLR in the 20th Century, or 1901-2010 specifically in AR5, found using previous historical reconstructions. Hay et al. suggest that these previous estimates overestimated this rate, reporting a 1901-1990 trend of 1.2mm/yr, probably about 1.4mm/yr for 1901-2010.
3.2mm/yr is the well-established trend from satellite altimeters, supported by multiple tide gauge reconstructions, for the 1993-present period.
Danny T
I appreciate that it is very difficult to reconstruct historical sea levels from tide gauges so I welcome every methodological improvement brought to bear on the problem. As for the conclusion – that increasing ice melt is causing the rate of SLR to accelerate – well obviously. What else did you expect? Later this century the WAIS is likely to start to collapse and then things will really get interesting.
Where do I give it a gigantic hug? You are delusional. Now, Eric Leuliette gave it a great big hug:
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: * Of importance
(15 *) Hay… This paper presents an analysis of the 20th century seal level record using a modified multi-model Kalman smoother (KS). The KS analysis exploits non-uniform patterns (“fingerprints:) in sea level attributableto the indiviual melting contributions from melting glaciers and ice sheets.
Danny,
as someone who on this thread has lambasted others for their lack of intellectual honesty, your every foray into various diverse topics appears to show a remarkable lack of it in your own contributions.
Your summary of Hay 2015:
Abstract of Hay 2015
You seem determined to write multiple readily demonstrable falsehoods. This is the third I’ve pointed out.
Hay 2015 did not wipe out anything. Hay 2015 did not change an estimate from 1.7 to 3.2. It changed an estimate from 1.6-1.9 to 1.2 ± 0.2
I’m beginning to wonder if you’re a Poe. If not, you need urgently to start checking your facts before presenting more false data.
And if you want to know how to behave with “intellectual honesty” you could do worst that study the carefully nuanced abstract of Hay 2015.
Danny T
What Paul S said.
Correction to earlier comment:
Sorry – only just spotted that.
Danny, re
Pretending need help to work out the difference between the overall consensus of a discipline and reports on individuals is not intellectually honest Danny. Particularly when those reports, like the ones on Manhattan and the Arctic are not a fair representation of the position of the people being quoted.
Intellectual honesty Danny, you brought it into the conversation. Time to start demonstrating it rather than demanding it?
Get the point yet?
Time to move on, and I would like to join in the suggestion that Danny form his own blog, since he has demonstrated that he is more interesting in “proving” he knows more than all those who have patiently taken the trouble to answer his various points, most of which are drive-bys that he has not thought through or researched. He’s not reading or following through on anybody’s answers, he’s too busy with his agenda of claiming everybody but him is prejudiced.
Now, I’d admit I’ve lost patience and the second half of what I just wrote is not kind, but it is evidentially obvious.
However, Danny, if you want to “make your bones” in science, I’d suggest dig further into what the various experts who have weighed in on the Hansen discussion paper have to say, for two reasons. One is that Dr. Hansen is one of the world’s finest climate scientists and has more wisdom in his pinky than any of your popular unskeptical “skeptic” blog authorities. He put these high-end speculations out in the public sphere for a reason.
Second, and this is important, please look up what the authorities you cited from the WaPo article on Hansen actually say about climate instead of providing a third-hand account of what a reporter selected from what they said about something else. Here’s the list you provide:
Michael Mann
Richard Alley
Kevin Trenberth
Stefan Rahmstorf
Michael Oppenheimer
Please do a search and look at the larger aspects of what they say. I talked with Mike Mann a couple weeks back and he for one would not appreciate the way you have twisted his meaning.
Not one of these guys is claiming what you imply; they were talking as scientists about a specific issue,. If I were to guess I would say they are all worried about the very extreme possibilities, worried enough to think if people know how bad the worst is, they will become despairing and apathetic, and want people not giving up hope.
This is what is so tragic (I’d say irritating and infuriating, but it’s all our futures that are at stake, including yours) about your stance and those who claim to want to know but close their minds to the vast majority of real expertise because they don’t want to know.
VTG,
Home for a quick bite of lunch.
So Al Gore’s words, from Al Gore’s mouth at Al Gore’s Nobel Ceremony stating the Arctic ain’t gonna be there by (NOW!!!!) ain’t good enough for ya?
And Jim Hansen’s words as were reported in 2001 (maybe accurately denied some years later in some SKS quickie but no way to know that is there?) aren’t good enough for ya? Neither you nor I know the questions that were actually asked and answered. If there was an issue with the report of 2001, then show me a rebuttal from 2001 (or I’ll take 2002). If not, that’s your intellectual honesty. I’ve shown it, you chose not to accept it, who’s the denier and being dishonest.
I stated what I read. Period. You are being so disingenuous for not acknowledging that it’s not worthy of communicating further with you.
Susan,
Final question. How did I twist the words of those listed? I provided direct quotes from the article and a link to same. Those were their own words or made up words represented as theirs by the article’s author.
Danny,
You claimed it was consensus that Manhattan would be underwater now. False.
You claimed it was consensus Arctic sea ice would be gone now. False.
You claimed Hay changed SLR upwards, by a factor of ca. 2. False.
You claim *others* are guilty of “intellectual dishonesty”!
You’re having a laugh. Every claim you make is risible and easily proved so with minimum research.
Sort your own house out.
Danny Thomas, I don’t think Jim Hansen’s words to a reporter or Al Gore’s words at a nobel prize ceremony are particularly relevant to the mainstream scientific consensus around climate change.
I think it’s more fruitful to look at the peer-reviewed, published science, and to see whether that science generally supports the consensus view or not. (I can understand that “consensus” is not easy to define…but a good starting place for what the consensus looks like would be IPCC’s AR5, acknowledging of course that anything publised after the cut off date would presumably not have been considered by the authors of AR5).
Danny,
Al Gore is a politician. Your James Hansen quote appears to be from a review of a book in which he was quoted. According to the skeptical science link I provided earlier, both Hansen and the author of the book suggest he was misquoted. Also, as VTG pointed out, Hay et al. did not increase the rate of sea level rise. If anything, they reduced it in the early 20th century, suggesting that it has accelerated more than we might have otherwise thought, but not that it’s faster – on average – than we otherwise thought.
aTTP:
Time to end this. Danny Thomas is too thin-skinned to question his own opinions, while attacking everyone else at length at the drop of a feather. I find it impossible to avoid providing him with weapons to dismiss my efforts to open his mind and the discussion is no longer dealing with your topic. Feel free to delete this note. Just a thought …
Susan,
I certainly don’t think there is much point in continuing this.
Does not the book, which was written, I hope, before the book review, fully back Hansen’a memory of the conversation? If so, that clearly thumps the Salon article. Steamrolls it.
We should have been paying attention elsewhere. We could have found 300 tons of Nazi gold!
Serves us right, if you ask me.
Attp,
I thank you once again for the opportunity. To the blog apologies for trying your patience. Wish you all the best.
There are a couple of folks that I’d like to reserve the right (with ATTP’s okay) to respond. K & A is owed a response and with permission (and having a bit of time of coming up) I’d like to do so and promise to be respectable. There may be one or two others. ATTP, should you prefer I end my involvement just respond with that request and I will honor your decision.
VTG, separate note to you, yes Al Gore is a politician but is the Nobel Prize winning ‘face’ of GW and those were his words. Take it up with him for the inaccuracy. (Who’s intellectually dishonest about the Arctic, me by quoting or Al Gore by stating?). They were not my words and only quoted by me. I’ll leave the rest alone as it’s only misspent energy. I assure you there is no ‘laugh’ in this for me. I’ve read literature for years, and only recently forayed in to academic papers. I agree time spent there (academic papers) is better than listening to Al Gore who apparently is not to be trusted on this topic as I assume we can agree.
Regards and awaiting ATTP’s note.
JCH,
I’m willing to leave it alone after this. I’ve not read the Hansen book, I’d only read the Salon article to which I referred. Should I be shot out on your ranch for having done only that?. Period. End of statement.
New statement. I must then assume you read the actual book and you can therefore provide a quote of the actual question and Hansen’s response from it and only it. Otherwise, then you are doing the same thing I did which is to read and respond to a summary. It’s just that your summary (from SKS) was different than the earlier summary (from Salon) which I saw. (Just guessing here, but thinking you won’t respond to this).
Danny,
Re your latest, not only are all three of your claims false, even the Al Gore quote does not back up a narrow claim that Al Gore was wrong.
The quote does not claim any certainty that the ice will be gone, merely that *some* studies show that it *might*.
That was correct, and your claim that there was a consensus that it would disappear is flat wrong.
You continue to make false claims. You continue not to acknowledge they are false when demonstrated. You fail to show any intellectual honesty whatever.
VTG,
Yep. That’s why good old Al’s last sentence in the paragraph emphasiized “Seven years from now”.
The entire para: “Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is “falling off a cliff.” One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.
Seven years from now.”
“falling off a cliff”
“one study estimated it could be completely gone in 22 years”
“Another new study………….warns it could be in as little as 7 years”.
Placing a bet, doubling down, then tripling. But you have a problem with me quoting his words! VTG, you’re being disingenuous.
Again I post the question to you: (from upthread) “Who’s in the “consensus”, from when to when, and covering what? Awaiting your detailed response so I’ll from this point going forward, know not to make that mistake again.”
And I remind you of my very specific words which initiated your vitriol: “Massive errors as projected by those (presumably) covered by the consensus: SLR which would have Manhattan underwater by now (since revised). The Pause (which isn’t/wasn’t) not projected. Arctic gone (isn’t ice expanding just a bit and even aging?). Antarctic similar. Questions on sensitivities (guess this one’s TBD). Modelling (very immature in this process).”
PRESUMABLY COVERED BY THE CONSENSUS. Very specific. Once you answer who’s covered by the consensus, I’ll know from whom to quote.
Try to be honest (if you’re capable) about what I’ve said, not what you want me to have said so you can strawman my discussion!
Danny,
I think this has gone far enough. I can’t see any point in extending this discussion any further.
ATTP,
Still playing catch up.
ATTP, I thank you for the opportunity and I respect your wishes. Apologies to those to whom I was unable to respond. I will read and absorb (specifically to K&A, Rob and Paul S, et al).
My regards.
ATTP,
One final point: (Hay)
Click to access 0fc4ccc3.niveau-marin-20C3A8me-siC3A8cle.pdf
Final para, pg#3.
We have revisited twentieth century GMSL rise using probabilistic techniques that combine sea-level records with physics based and model-derived geometries of the contributing processes. Our estimated GMSL trend for the year 1901-1990 (1.2+/- 0.2mm/yr) is lower than the previous estimates, indicating that the rate of GMSL rise during the last two decades represents a more significant increase than previously recognized. (final sentence not included)
A) 90 years of historic data modified via algorithm (methodology detailed in the paper) resulting in a change of historic SLR to a lower value and as a result;
B) Due the this modification of historic data the rate of SLR increased. Conversely, had the modification not been made the SLR increase would not have been the same. (By lowering the historic data, the trend is changed to indicate a greater SLR in the more recent decades from 1990-2014)
(These are the two points I’ve been making repeatedly w/o any making any indication of their accuracy)
How am I wrong? Is this not what this says?
Should you chose not to respond I understand, but this is why I stated what I did and how it’s been absorbed.
Danny,
The first time you mentioned Hay et al., you said
You were wrong. This is not what it says above. The 3.2mm/yr is the recent rate based on satellite measurements. Hay et al. have not changed this. Their results suggest that the long-term average is slower than other estimates suggest and that, hence, the recent rate indicates an acceleration. Do you see the issue? You quoted Hay et al. as viola making a significant increase to the long-term rate, and yet that is not what they did.
ATTP,
I thought you might have trouble making that one stick 😉
Because you misrepresented Hay et al. No, it did NOT say what you claimed and your argument fails.
Read the thread.
ATTP,
Okay. I mispoke. IPCC has 1.7-1.9mm/yr. Hay revised downward to 1.2+/-. Therefore the rate increased not from the IPCC reported range but from 1.2 to 3.2. This is what I intended.
So my interpretation is correct? By Hay reducing the historic record (which I also said) they therefore caused an interpreted corresponding rate of increase. I should get 1/2 credit for my (rather poor) commentary. (That’s what I get for flinging it off during short breaks instead of waiting till I had time to formulate the comment more properly by providing a quote from the paper).
Or, in other words, I should have said that as a result of the Hay papers’ modification of the IPCC stated rate of 1.7-1.9mm/yr to the Hay rate of 1.2 mm/yr to the current rate of 3.2mm/yr, the rate of increase was raised.
So the points stand.
A) 90 years of historic records and data contrary to IPCC were changed via algorithm.
B) this change caused the more recent rate (based on the 3.2mm/yr rate) to have increased.
Would that be more accurate and acceptable?
Thank you for your patience, and goodnight.
Danny,
That’s how science works. Just because we have a particular result doesn’t mean that other people can’t go and try something different. There’s nothing suspicious or wrong about what Hay et al. did. It might not be right, but it doesn’t imply anything with respect to how science should work. If anything, it’s an indication of exactly how science should work.
Danny,
Consider this figure. Sea level rose by about 5m in the 8000 years prior to the start of the 20th century. That’s less then 1mm/yr. It’s clearly accelerated. Whether it was 1.2mm/yr on average over the 20th century, or 1.7mm/yr over the 20th century doesn’t change that.
A) is factually incorrect – the records were not “contrary to IPCC”. It is also deliberately phrased to imply malfeasance and as such is, to use a phrase introduced by Danny, “intellectually
dishonest”
B) is also factually incorrect. Hay made no significant change to estimates of recent GMSL change
In order to help understand what Hay did, I quoted the whole abstract above. Despite that, Danny still seems unable to take the time to read and understand it.
Let’s consider what an “intellectually honest” summary of A and B might be
A) Historic sea level records are patchy and make it hard to quantify global changes. Hay et al have attempted a new analysis of the available data. As a result they suggest the rate of rise for most of the 20th century should be revised downwards somewhat.
B) This means that the estimates of current rate of rise, unchanged by this work, imply SLR is accelerating somewhat faster than previously estimated.
Can you see the difference in tone (not accusing anyone of fiddling anything) and fact (the facts are correct)
You need to work much, much harder on both facts and tone. In order to be “intellectually honest”
NO!
Read the thread FFS.
Can someone explain the difference to me between “intellectual dishonesty” and lying?
Joshua,
Edmund Burke, or more recently, Alan Clarke may be able to help your understanding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economical_with_the_truth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Clark
It’s not Hansen’s book. If you want to know what Hansen thinks sea level will do in the 21st century, and beyond, read his words in his published papers. Had you, you would have known the Salon article and the unthinking crap it inspired at WUWT, ETC. was cesspool material.
quotes from the book
Hmmm, so more evidence that what Hansen was referring to was what would be the case in 2030 if we had already doubled CO2, not what would have happened by now.
JCH,
“If you want to know what Hansen thinks sea level will do in the 21st century, and beyond, read his words in his published papers.”
I’m learning to do just that, but can’t unread. But there are bazzillions of other works which have value, a few of which have been suggested here and there is no way for anyone anywhere to catch up. I take suggestions and read them.
I may indeed be incorrect about the Hansen quote (I still don’t have the book so cannot verify). So if I was, then imagine my distrust on any alternative sources from either side trying to provide the “correct” version. Hell, I’ll wait till I see it with my own eyes, thank you. So thank you for the link, but some guy quoting (supposedly) I chose not to trust right now based on the experiences here that one shouldn’t trust anything but the source itself.
And if I am wrong it’s because I quoted a Salon article, not WUWT (you’re making an assumption here that I’m some sort of persistent WUWT guy………..I read very little over there…….it’s not my style). Look here and see if I’m alone: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=jim+hansen%2C+west+side+highway#
I guess you’ve never been mislead? VTG’s trying to convince me that Al Gore didn’t say what Al Gore was quoted as saying from a NOBEL PRIZE SPEECH, FERCRAPSSAKE! It’s B.S. (And thank you, but I’ll believe Al Gore and Nobel here not some guy professing to be tall!)
Finally, when I quote an article that directly quotes “climate scientists” about Hansen’s new work I’m accused of twisting those words here?
WTF!
ATTP,
“Whether it was 1.2mm/yr on average over the 20th century, or 1.7mm/yr over the 20th century doesn’t change that.”
And I’ve acknowledged that, have I not.
You did not address my questions and that’s your right and the continued tactic taken by those more climate concerned. It went against IPCC’s report, and is accepted like a warm puppy.
My points stand. I make no comment regarding accuracy. Issues are methods and that it’s counter to IPCC but accepted w/o question.
I thank you for your response.
Danny,
Hold on, let’s get something straight here. Your claim about Hay et al. was wrong, even though you claim what it actually said is what you were intending to highlight. It appears that what you claim Hansen said, is not what he said. I realise that you had a source, but it wasn’t the original and many people pointed out that he hadn’t said what it was claimed he had said. Your other piece of evidence is a politician giving a speech – the response to which should be “so what?”. I think you should really walk some of what you said back, before getting too worked up about how some have responded. Bear in mind that many have seen these same talking points presented time and time again and are probably tired of pointing out that they’re wrong.
Danny,
What was your question?
In what way did it go against the IPCC’s report and what makes you think it was simply accepted. I don’t know if it’s going to turn out to be reasonable or not. Time will tell.
I’ve about had enough of being lied about and insulted by Danny.
It is now painfully obvious that nothing anybody can say will get Danny to accept that he was wrong over and over again on this thread.
If anyone doubts this, they are welcome to read another endless recitation of Danny’s distinctive shtick over at RealClimate last year.
There is more of the same elsewhere, as Willard was good enough to demonstrate many miles ago.
Danny is here to ride his hobby horse, not to learn.
VTG,
Is in intellectually honest to avoid questions? (Your comment on tone is noted)
I asked before what specifically “consensus” covers to include whom, and time frames. Others here have suggested only up to AR5. I await your detailed response.
What does AR5 show:”. It is very likely that the mean rate was 1.7 [1.5 to 1.9] mm yr–1 between 1901 and 2010 for a total sea level rise of 0.19 0.17 to 0.21] m. Between 1993 and 2010, the rate was very likely higher at 3.2 [2.8 to 3.6] mm yr–1; similarly high rates likely occurred between 1930 and 1950. It is likely that global mean sea level has accelerated since the early 1900s, with estimates ranging from 0.000 to 0.013 [–0.002 to 0.019] mm yr–2. [3.7.2, 3.7.4, 5.6.3, 13.2.1–13.2.2, Figure 13.3] (http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter13.pdf) (Page 121, section 13-2, near top of page, heading “Past Sea Level Change)
What did Hay report contrary to IPCC? They REDUCED the historic record from the 1.7mm/yr to 1.2 +/-. Fact. This change leads to an acceleration in the calculated SLR based on the current 3.2mm/yr rate. Fact.
It is exactly as my (corrected) version stated, again making no statement of accuracy. I didn’t make accusations of fiddling in any way. I believe that was your bias seeping in. I did question how such a change in the observed historic data contrary to that which was reported by IPCC in AR5 could be accepted so readily seemingly w/o question from the more climate concerned.
Thank you and awaiting your reply with answers to my consensus questions.
After an IPCC report is written, a large number of things go against it. How is this surprising?
Danny
Your shouting and vitriol merely emphasise rather than hide the facts. Those being:
1. A single quote from any individual does note prove a consensus which you falsely claimed.
2. The quote clearly considers possibilities, not predictions, which you claimed.
3. I never disputed the veracity of the quote.
@ JCH
Yes, I keep coming back to this too. It’s as if Danny regards AR5 as the definitive version of ‘the science’, after which no further development is permitted. It is a bizarre attitude.
However, I suspect the *real* problem lies with the fact that Hay et al. shows an apparent acceleration in the recent rate of SLR. I don’t think he likes that result at all, which is what all this is about.
ATTP,
Re: “Hold on, let’s get something straight here……………….”
Yes, I erred in my original posting. Then taking time I corrected. My faux pas, and I’ve stated so. Then, I corrected my meaning in great detail and you’re not acknowledged same.
RE: Politicians. Understood, but once again I used “presumably covered by consensus (awaiting detail as to what consensus covers). And with that broad brush you chose then I also should not trust our President, the non published IPCC leadership, etc.
I’m not ‘worked up’. I’ve walked back and corrected my Hay error and that has not been acknowledged. I stand by the Al Gore comment as those being his words right or wrong unless one cannot trust Nobel.
That others have ‘dealt with the talking points time and time again” is not my challenge. I’m not ‘others’ and it takes time and effort to learn, absorb, and question. That ‘others’ are not capable of recognition of that should be a learning opportunity for them as well as it is for those of us newer to the discussion.
Why would I put in this effort here? Just to spin folks up (I’m not that guy–but when wrongly challenged as some have done I will stand up for myself)? Why would one subject themselves to stepping in to unknown territory as I’ve done here, at RC, at WUWT? I came to your house as my interaction with you at C.E. was positive (and I look forward to future). My fresh education here still has value (for me) although it could have gone more smoothly.
I addressed more fully the answer to your question about “In what way did it go against the IPCC’s report and what makes you think it was simply accepted.” in detail to VTG w/ references. The evidence for acceptance is evidenced within this thread and the link regarding Hay to R.C. which I presume you’ve seen. I’ve not seen anyone question that IPCC (consensus supported I have to presume) apparently was in error. It appears that no one else is bothered by that when IPCC is purportedly the voice of the consensus or that historic observations have been modified. (Again, no commentary by me about accuracy). I do appreciate that you’re not seeming to be in complete acceptance personally with a ‘time will tell’ response.
VTG,
My shouting was showing frustration. You have avoided and continue to avoid the questions (Intellectual dishonesty of your own?) about consensus therefore my frustration continues. I’m am uneducated as to what it’s supposed to support. Is Al Gore included (he’s not published that I’m aware). Still looking forward to your detailed edification.
Veracity of the quote? Well, the 7 year one was obviously inaccurate.
Also, is not the current IPCC number for the 20th century centered on 1.5mm?
Danny,
I’m still struggling to see what questions you’re actually asking. Is it significant that a study has come out with a result that differs from what was presented by the IPCC? No, not really. That’s kind of how science works.
BBD,
How do you define the AR5. Is it not considered “the definitive version of ‘the science’”? If not, what is it? I understand fully that the climate science is “unsettled” and a work in progress. But when the less climate concerned comments against this very report, the more climate concerned’s response is but ‘consensus’, and ‘state of the art’, and “science is settled ‘enough’ (your words I do believe).
Who picks and choses, and why?
About your comment that I don’t like the result. Well, I don’t. It’s evidence of man’s impact to our environment. It may (or may not) have negative ramifications. But it makes sense as melting ice leads to water and water has to go somewhere. Now you’ve made a strawman modification based on your assumptions (highly inaccurate, I might add). I’ve stated quite clearly what my issues are as being contrary to IPCC (the greatest minds and all). Maybe, just maybe, it’s that you’re mind is closed to the possibility that I actually meant what I said. If you don’t care for my pointing out the appearance of your closed mindedness then please modify your behavior to make me believe otherwise.
JCH,
I dunno? Is it? Link?
I provided the data in my response to VTG from AR5, direct quote, with resources and link. It’s my current understanding, but I’ve been proven wrong before.
Chapter 13 suggests 1.5 – 1.9 with a mean of 1.7mm/yr.
ATTP,
I understand that science is fluid. My questions/difficulty is that Hay went counter to IPCC (the consensus and all that) yet I see zero concern from the more climate concerned side that the IPCC was apparently wrong. Consensus of the greatest climate minds and an entire panel of world class climate scientists got result A, Hay got result B, and the more climate concerned have in no way challenged Hay (that I can find). It’s bothersome.
The Hay response is a microcosm of the climate debate. If a skeptical scientist questions an IPCC finding well BBD (a representative sample of those more climate concerned?) won’t even look at it as the source is a skeptic. Yet with Hay, RC (as example) folded it right in as further support to the preponderance of evidence of the more climate concerned w/o so much as batting their collective eyes as to the modification of 90 years of observational evidence. (Hope this makes sense)
ATTP,
” It is very likely that the mean rate was 1.7 [1.5 to 1.9] mm yr–1 between 1901 and 2010 for a total sea level rise of 0.19 [0.17 to 0.21] m.
Page 121, Past sea level change. http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter13.pdf
Danny,
Because noone judges a paper simply on the basis of being consitent with – or not – the IPCC. It’s the quality of the work that matters. Also, the IPCC is 1.5 – 1.9mm/yr between 1901 and 2010. Hay et al. is 1.0 – 1.4mm/yr between 1901 and 1990. Given that it closer to 3.2mm/yr now, this seems to suggest that they aren’t actually inconsistent.
Danny
Yes, in about 2012.
Things move on. It’s called ‘progress’. It is how scientific investigation works over time.
Careful, Danny.
Danny,
Yes, the average – according to the IPCC – is 1.7mm/yr between 1901 and 2010. The Hay et al. result is an average of 1.2mm/yr between 1901 and 1990. Now consider that from 1990 to 2010, the average was closer to 3mm/yr and you should be able to see that the difference isn’t as big as it at first seems. Also, if you look at the first figure in the RealClimate post it seems that the Hay et al. result suggest it has been slightly slower than other analyses, but the uncertainties overlap.
The IPCC does not do science.
Rate during 1901 – 1990 was
1.5 [1.3 to 1.7] mm yr
It’s always wrong. Show me a contrarian paper which isn’t either flat-out wrong or at the very best, highly misleading.
ATTP,
“Because noone judges a paper simply on the basis of being consitent with – or not – the IPCC.”
Ah. But it seems that it’s portrayed that way. Stated this way due to IPCC being portrayed as the be all/end all from one side and the evil demon from the other. And maybe, just maybe, that’s more of a statement of my indoctrination (from both sides) than anything else.
Only hoping that some clarity is forming regarding my perceptions. I recognize that ‘you all’ have gone thru all this before (if not specifically re: Hay), but ya’ll also need to recognize that there are many, many, many more like me who have not.
You stated early on w/r/t tactics and RCP but I’m not sure you’re aware that both sides (yours included) employ tactics all the time. Therin lies the reason for my request to VTG to provide details on consensus. (I’m confident he cannot because it’s amorphous and has a life of it’s own and is amoeba-like which makes it a problem in the debate).
Oh yes. That RC thread was a hoot.
Danny,
Do you accept that the different time intervals suggest that the Hay et al. result is not really all that inconsistent with the IPCC result?
BBD,
Reread this: “The Hay response is a microcosm of the climate debate. If a skeptical scientist questions an IPCC finding well BBD (a representative sample of those more climate concerned?) won’t even look at it as the source is a skeptic. Yet with Hay, RC (as example) folded it right in as further support to the preponderance of evidence of the more climate concerned w/o so much as batting their collective eyes as to the modification of 90 years of observational evidence. (Hope this makes sense)”
You say “it’s always wrong” (I don’t believe that you can show proof of that, but that’s a giant ball likely impossible to unravel and think would be better left unaddressed other than very generally, at this time). Well, my question to you then is the more climate concerned always right? Please provide evidence that you personally have questioned even one representation that comes from the more climate concerned side. (This is loaded against me as I don’t know you and have no knowledge of your history). One example is Nieves/Roemmich. Nieves almost calls them out :”A recent study based on Argo data pointed out that net warming continued unabated, despite heat between the top 100 m layer and the thermocline associated on interannual time scales (11). It did not, however, consider the redistribution of heat between these layers on decadal time scales, it’s geographic redistribution or how it might differ before and after the start of the hiatus in 2003.”
Then Karl says there was no “hiatus” and Nieves specifically states there was. Again, not getting in to accuracy but Karl adjusted observational data (ARGO) to align more closely with alternative methods. As with being bothered by Hay’s adjustment of observed evidence, I’m bothered by our (unknown millions of dollars) ARGO data being modified.
These are provided as evidence only that it appears that Nieves is ‘skeptical’ of Roemmich, and Karl would presumably be skeptical of Nieves (and vice/versa). And those are both good things as it allows the science to evolve.
Another so considered ‘skeptical’ scientist is R. Pielke Jr. And I found his “Rightful Place of Science” to be a quite valuable work. Yet due to the ‘skeptical’ label I’d have to venture that you’ve never read him strictly due to your proclamation that because he’s a ‘skeptic’ he must be wrong and you don’t even look at skeptical work. (Of note, it’s not a peer reviewed paper which you requested, but this does not mean it’s not a valuable academic piece).
Thank you.
JCH,
“The IPCC does not do science.” Agreed. It reports it. And Al Gore reports (as quoted from Nobel from 2008, and told to VTG) on science also and stated the Arctic may disappear in 7 years.
So? Are you saying IPCC is not reliable? They are reliable? They are moot to the discussion? What’s your point?
ATTP,
“Do you accept that the different time intervals suggest that the Hay et al. result is not really all that inconsistent with the IPCC result?”
By eyeball, w/o doing the math (which would probably take me all day), I see no reason to expect inconsistencies. And, just to be clear, I didn’t make any representations w/r/t accuracy only expressed concern on methodology as having modified historic observed (not calculated) evidence. Gives me pause (if you’ll pardon the phrase 😉 ).
Danny,
Roger Pielke Jr is a political scientist.
The IPCC documents are largely written by actual scientists. Al Gore is a politician. Do you now accept that Hay et al. (1.0 – 1.4mm/yr 1901 – 1990) is NOT inconsistent with what was presented in the IPCC documents (1.3 – 1.7mm/yr 1901 – 1990)?
Danny,
Yes, you did. You claimed people were accepting a piece of work that went against the IPCC. Not only have people not simply accepted it, it does not go against the IPCC. All you have left is Al Gore, and he’s a politician, not a scientist.
BBD,
Like a dog with a bone: “Oh yes. That RC thread was a hoot.”. (And you tell me to ‘be careful’)
That was my first foray in to the discussion. I was ignorant. I am still largely ignorant, but learning.
I was mostly ignorant that I could go to what I’d been told was a leading edge expert filled format, put my ignorance forth in a honest fashion and be taken in. Instead, I was told to go learn the ‘more climate concerned way, become indoctrinated, and then I could come back’. Sorry, I don’t work that way. I’m way to old, stupid, and stubborn to subordinate myself in that fashion. I, apparently unlike you, find that it’s best for me to take a look at both sides of a discussion and compare and contrast.
What was your first day at school like?
ATTP,
“The IPCC documents are largely written by actual scientists. ”
JCH,
“The IPCC does not do science”.
Danny,
“?????????????????????”
Danny,
The people who write the IPCC documents are scientists. That doesn’t mean that the IPCC does science. These are not inconsistent positions. The scientists who write the documents are consolidating all the available evidence, not doing new science specifically for the IPCC.
ATTP,
“You claimed people were accepting a piece of work that went against the IPCC. Not only have people not simply accepted it, it does not go against the IPCC.”
Wait. So are you stating that people do not accept IPCC? (See how that twist worked ATTP?)
Exactly what I said was: No indications regarding accuracy, IPCC’s figures were different. Fact. Hay modified history. Fact. Due to this modification calculated SLR rates increased.
Not inconsistent with does not mean the same as, and you know it. It’s offensive that you chose to try that at this point.
1.2 +/- .2 is not “the same as” 1.5 to 1.9.
ATTP,
“The people who write the IPCC documents are scientists. That doesn’t mean that the IPCC does science. These are not inconsistent positions. The scientists who write the documents are consolidated all the available evidence, not doing new science specifically for the IPCC.
”
Scientists who consolidate evidence (in papers/books for example) are doing science. “Not doing new science specifically for the IPCC”………….so based on this defintion, the peer reviewed work done by Cook to generate the consensus was not and is not science, right?
So define for me the IPCC.
Danny
There is no evidence that you have learned anything from your considerable immersion in the climate ‘debate’. You are absolutely resistant to correction and pre-convinced that your insights are of equal merit to expert scientific knowledge.
That is an utter lie. You were directed to quality resources and invited to learn from them.
Something that you very clearly then chose not to do. Now you have the fucking gall to pitch up here accusing the people who tried to help you of ‘indoctrination’.
Danny,
I’ve pretty much had enough
Fact, wrong. Hay’s result suggest that the SLR rates were slightly slower.
There is no such thing as “the same as” in science. Results typically have confidence intervals. If results from two studies overlap, then that typically suggests that the two sets of results are statistically consistent.
The IPCC rate for 1901 to 1990 is 1.5 +/- 0.2, which means that there is a 5% chance of it being below 1.3mm/yr. The Hay et al. result for 1901 – 1990 is 1.2 +/- 0.2, which means there’s a 5% chance of it being higher than 1.4mm/yr. That doesn’t appear particularly inconsistent to me.
False equivalence between contrarian bollocks and actual science.
Since you have no scientific background how exactly are you qualified to make this judgement anyway?
Danny,
Cook et al. did not generate a consensus; they estimated the level of consensus in the literature. No, it is not science. It’s social science.
The IPCC is an organisation that co-ordinates the writing of a set of reports every 7 years. Those reports are typically written by practicing scientists. The IPCC does not do science, it reports on the latest set of scientific results and trys to present some overview of our current best understanding.
I invited *you* to show me a contrarian paper that wasn’t either flat-out wrong or at best, highly misleading.
Tellingly, you opted not to do so.
The challenge stands.
Until you understand that Nieves and Roemmich were talking about different parts of the climate system you will remain confused and wrong.
Read carefully:
The troposphere is NOT the climate system, only a small part of it. Most of the climate system is the OCEAN.
It is correct and not in any way contradictory to point to a slowing in the rate of surface (tropospheric) warming and at the same time to a continued build-up of energy in the oceans.
Sort your head out and you will post less rubbish.
ATTP,
Since you made me think about it more:
Hay 1.2 +/-2 equals a range of 1.0 to 1.4. IPCC range is 1.5 to 1.9.
Using the extremes. 1.0 is not consistent with 1.9.
1.4 is more consistent with 1.5.
So the result is “it depends” on the tactic one wishes to employ and yours is unappreciated..
Your words: “slightly lower”, therefore means they are not consistent.
That is a more defined answer.
(Now who’s ‘worked up?)
Danny,
No, it is not, and this has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions. The IPCC range for 1901 – 1990 is 1.3 – 1.7mm/yr. You’re quoting the range for 1901 – 2010. Hay et al. is 1901 – 1990.
And Danny is fond of telling other people that they are close-minded.
ATTP,
From: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/unfccc/cop19/3_gregory13sbsta.pdf
Page 8. Top right hand corner next to chart. (I do not find the numbers you quoted and you’ve not provided a source).
Rate during 1901-1990 was
1.5 [1.3 to 1.7] mm yr-1
1.0 (Hay 1.2 +/-.2) to 1.7 is also not consistent.
Danny,
It’s in here. I’ll repeat what I’ve already said, but this is getting tedious. Hay et al. suggest a 5% chance of the 1901 – 1990 rate exceeding 1.4mm/yr. The IPCC numbers suggest a 5% chance of the 1901 – 1990 rate being lower than 1.3mm/yr. The overlap is sufficient that one would not normally regard these as entirely inconsistent. Clearly Hay et al. suggests that it is probably lower than the IPCC number suggest. That, however, is not something one would normally get terribly worked up about. Science progressed. Estimates change. Newer results give somewhat different estimates to other results. This is how it works, and how it is meant to work.
BBD,
The challenge stands. Not knowing your definition of contrarian so using “a person who opposes or rejects popular opinion,”
“Many researchers believe the steady rise in sunspots and faculae since the late seventeenth century may be responsible for as much as half of the 0.6 degrees of global warming over the last 110 years (IPCC, 2001). http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/SORCE/sorce_04.php
(This one’s a bit dated).
And maybe:”The nonequilibrium thermodynamic models we used suggest that the Sun is influencing climate significantly more than the IPCC report claims. If climate is as sensitive to solar changes as the above phenomenological findings suggest, the current anthropogenic contribution
to global warming is significantly overestimated. We estimate that the Sun could account for as much as 69% of the increase in Earth’s average temperature, depending on the TSI reconstruction used.5 Furthermore, if the Sun does cool off, as some solar forecasts predict will happen over the next few decades, that cooling could stabilize Earth’s climate and avoid the catastrophic consequences predicted in the IPCC report.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.406.9945&rep=rep1&type=pdf
(A little more current from 2008)
Are they accurate? Hell, I don’t know. Have they been rebutted. Also don’t know. Misleading? You tell me.
Danny,
That NASA piece is old and crap. I’ve already had a Twitter exchange with the people there who agree that it needs updating.
No, they’re not!
The latter one is Nicola Scafetta who just does curve fitting. It’s nonsense.
ATTP,
Here’s what I found “in here”, page 6, next to chart, top right hand corner.
And I quote:”Rate during 1901-1990 was
1.5 [1.3 to 1.7] mm yr-1″
You tell me “it’s in here” and that’s exactly the same source I quoted to you with a specific location so you could see it with your own eyes. You are not paying me the same courtesy and I do not find your numbers. Address the tedium, and tell me where you found the numbers.
And again, I’m not ‘worked up’ about Hay’s results. I question methods and wonder why you’re apparently so adverse to my issue with changing observed evidence with a 90 year track record.
.
Danny,
Page 6.
Because it is not observed evidence with a 90 year track record!
It’s more reliable than it is unreliable, but much of it is stale before the ink dries.
Last September 21 (2007), as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is “falling off a cliff.” One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years. … – Al Gore
Is this the quote? If so, what does “in as little as” mean? What happened to less than 22 years?
ATTP,
What? Nasa is crap? Why? Link to rebuttal?
And the more current work?
(The response was directed at BBD, but you stepped in and offered your evaluation so it’s fair to ask for more than just “Nasa is crap”, and “No, they are not accurate”)
Your patience is obviously thinning, but VTG should step in here soon and talk to you about tone.
Danny,
The NASA page suggesting that half of the 0.6 degrees warming in 110 years is crap, but I’m no longer interested. You’ve repeated various “skeptic” talking points, and now you’re onto “can’t it be the Sun”. No, there is no evidence that it can be the Sun. It might be time for you to stop using my blog to spread all sorts of already debunked ideas.
You haven’t made a single, substantive challenge to the methodology in Hay et al. All you’ve done is witter, endlessly and confusedly about it because it shows accelerating SLR and you don’t like that because it runs counter to your denialism.
Your main canard is the insinuation that the Hays et al. methodology is inferior to the tide gauge records as they stand but the whole point of the paper is that the data are contaminated by extraneous factors. This is an attempt to remove some of that contamination and improve our understanding of the recent history of sea level change. But to you, this is some heinous, alarmist crime against something or other.
It’s all too silly for words.
JCH,
RE: Al Gore.
Great question. Ask him. He started by indicating as little as 22 years. From 2008 that’d be about 2030 and may indeed be plausible. So why then, did he add the ‘punch’ of “as little as 7 years?
Well, I’ve just cycled 40 miles and it was much better than being embroiled in this mess.
Danny, you seem to be going on and on about how I won’t answer questions on the consensus.
My personal definition of current consensus would be the latest IPCC SPM, subject of course to any radical new data emerging since.
Hope that’s clear.
Danny,
Because there was a study that suggested this. That’s why he said what he said. It’s not complicated.
I won’t waste any more time on this thread, but to end on a humorous note, I was bloody pleased I wasn’t drinking coffee when I picked up this gem from Danny
Enjoy the debate everyone. I need to go and fabricate some data to avoid AR6 needing a revision. I’ll be back once I’ve convinced a few hundred others to do likewise with their data too.
Where’s this much-vaunted ‘sceptical’ curiosity that drives you to examine both sides of the ‘debate’ gone, Danny? Why haven’t you checked? Why are you throwing up papers you haven’t read or even googled properly as ‘evidence’ that all the ‘sceptical’ stuff is wrong?
Do your own homework.
ATTP,
From Hay: “For example, a tabulation of contributions to GMSL rise from 1901 to 1990 in the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5; ref. 7) of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) total
0.5 +/- 0.4 mm yr-1 (90% confidence interval, CI) less than a recent tide gauge derived rate of 1.5 +/- 0.2 mm yr-1 (90% CI) estimated by Church and White4 for the same period (the confidence range for this estimate is taken from AR5; refs 7 and 23).”
and
“We applied the approach to analyse annual records from 622 tide gauges included in the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) Revised Local Reference database15,24
and reconstruct the global field of sea-level change for each year from 1900 to 2010.”
and
“Given the relatively short duration of the altimeter record, the EOFs may be dominated by patterns due to interannual variability rather than the geometry associated with long-term sea-level change26,27. Jevrejeva et al.3 used tide gauge records to compute regional sea-level means and from these computed a global average”
then,
“In particular, we sampled the reconstruction at the locations of the 622 tide gauge sites,
imposed sections of missing data consistent with the PSMSL data availability15, binned the tide gauges into 12 ocean regions, and averaged across these regions to compute a GMSL curve.”
and
“Specifically, we applied the binning algorithm as described above but without imposing sections of missing data. The resulting mean GMSL rate estimate for 1901–90 was 1.0 6
0.4 mm yr21 plus,…………”
“To assess the robustness of our probabilistic reanalysis”
Finally,
“Previous analyses appear to have overestimated the mean GMSL rate over the twentieth century. The KS estimate for the period 1901–90 indicates that it is ‘very likely’ (probability P 5 90%) that the rate of GMSL rise during this period was between 1.0 and 1.4 mm yr21
That sounds like taking 622 tidal gauge records and taking those observations as compiled by Jevrejeva and modifying them to me. Is it wrong to do so? I make no representations.
No. In any kind of analysis you make assumptions about how to work with the underlying data. Deciding to do something different to what others have done (including those who first compiled the data set) is not wrong.
He cited two different studies. One in less than 22 years. One in as little 7 years.
This becomes Al Gore predicts 7 years and is a completely unreliable crazy alarmist.
Sorry, the problem is not with on this side.
ATTP,
Again, I was responding to BBD. How was NASA debunked? Handwaving was unexpected from you.You don’t even bother with the second.
Skeptical talking points? Wow. Now there’s a tactic. I supported as best I could. You still don’t address the source for your numbers about Hay so I’ll just assume you made an error and cannot face up to it. Hold yourself to the same standard you’re trying to hold me to.
JCH,
Yep, I’m sure it was some nefarious skeptic who hacked Gore’s speech and wrote those words then forced him to read them in such a world famous format.. You hold me to a standard and don’t hold Al Gore to the same? I suggest that he’s a bit bigger voice in this than mine.
Sure, there is nothing at all wrong with “your side”. Nothing at all!
Danny,
I’ve spent a great deal of time on this thread and am not about to start a discussion with you about why it’s not the Sun. There are endless resources that explain this. Try looking them up.
Danny,
No, it’s dishonest individuals who take a few words and quote them out of context! Read what he said again!
Unless he was lying about those studies, there is nothing wrong with what he said.
If you mention Al Gore again, I will simply delete your comment. Not only is he a politician and not a scientist, there appears to be nothing at all wrong with what he actually said.
Danny
For the third time, Read the thread.
I responded. Don’t just ignore that response and keep whining. It is intellectually dishonest.
And it wasn’t very impressive, was it?
So we return to the default position that ‘sceptics’ have talking points but no coherent scientific argument.
I went through some of the 2001 IPCC report and I can’t find any indication that it suggested that half of the 0.6C warming could have been from the Sun (as suggested by the old NASA link provided by Danny). What I did find was
BBD,
Scaffetta & West’s “opinion” piece appears to be a follow on from a peer reviewed work :http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2005GL025539/abstract.
My question is why should I accept the “opinion” piece you offered as opposed to the S & W opinion? Asking for sound reasoning. I truly do not know.
From yours: “The S & W hypothesis is a non solution because it is inconsistent with a range of observations (Hay was inconsistent with IPCC and 90 years of {622} tidal gauge records) and it invokes new and unproven physics (Hay was new and unproven and a statistical algorithm).
As it turns out, I’ve stumbled upon (due to your prompting) a good representation of how one with my level of education finds myself in the dilemma of whom to trust.
It’s not the sun Danny and I’m not going to waste my time ‘debating’ this with you. Read. I cannot do it for you.
ATTP,
“However, the overall trend in natural forcing over the last two, and perhaps four, decades of the 20th century is likely to have been small or negative ”
Thank you. In fact, this is what my level of understanding is towards how “more than the observed warming” can be attributed.
I’ve not gone thru 2001 IPCC’s report. I can’t keep up with the more current, and the offering to BBD was per his insistence so to clarify I in no way presented the NASA offering as factual/accurate. It was only done so for discussion purposes and was not presented as a skeptical talking point.
BBD,
Stop being such a jerk. I only offered this for discussion and when I did so I made no representations and asked for no debate.
I take it you have no answer for my question as to why a follow on from a peer reviewed (peer review being so all important) work being rebutted on some blog created by a non scientist as ATTP so strongly pointed out about Mr. Cook, a social scientist.
If you don’t have an answer then just say so!
Danny,
I didn’t say John Cook wasn’t a scientist. He has a degree in physics. I said the paper was a social science paper. Plus, the rebuttals are not all written by John Cook.
ATTP,
My error and apologies on John Cook. It appears he does have a BS in physics and some post grad work in solar: .http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2010/12/skeptical-science-founder-john-cook/ (interesting article)
But the rebuttal was written by Larry M, an anonymous blogger? My question to BBD standsas to whom one should trust and why?
You – IMO – need to work that out for yourself.
Scafetta refused to disclose his code and his results cannot be reproduced. So no confidence in S&W08
See Benestad & Schmidt (2009).
I’m not being a jerk, Danny. This isn’t about me.
If you troubled to READ the article I linked for you then you would see that it is essentially a review of a large number of published studies by scientists with relevant expertise. Since nobody agrees with S&W and their results cannot be reproduced and – disturbingly – they refuse to assist in resolving that problem, then it should be very easy to work out who to place your confidence in.
ATTP,
It’s what I’m trying to do and I’m finding myself “skeptical” of BOTH sides.
That’s not scepticism, Danny. It’s failure to explore the arguments put forth by contrarians in sufficient detail.
It’s quite easy to see that it’s not the sun by plotting sunspot number against global average temperature. They have been diverging since about 1980.
http://woodfortrees.org/graph/gistemp/from:1900/mean:12/offset:1/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1900/mean:12/scale:0.0015/offset:-0.01
BBD,
Thank you for the NASA link. It seems sometimes Nasa is a trusted source at least to you in this case. Earlier, i posted an admittedly older link supporting solar from NASA and ATTP called it wrong.
Mass media is untrustworthy as there are obvious biases.
When I read and noted here an article from Salon about Hansen and SLR, I got hammered. Same about the more current reporting on Hansen and WaPo (If I recall correctly).
Peer review is more solid, yet http://www.springer.com/gb/about-springer/media/statements/retraction-of-articles-from-springer-journals/735218 (No idea what papers or what topics)
and
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=194971
and
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00464-012-2171-1
and
http://advan.physiology.org/content/31/2/145.short
finally
http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
(Of note, most of these are oriented medically)
So the counsel to read the article while not unappreciated……………..
These are a few examples of why I say I’m seeking education. I’m not whining, as you phrase it. I am uncertain and certainly confused.
Apologies for the term jerk, I should not have said that.
They’re almost all biomedicine. You could read this.
ATTP,
Yep, medicine seems to be in the center of most of those links. Money!!!!!!!!!!
Side note since starting this GW/CC journey I’ve learned to be more highly skeptical of doctors and pharma!
Maybe I should get JCH to teach me guitar as a better hobby?
I play as well. But I’m not sure you would make a good student as you would presumably question music theory from the bottom up.
BBD,
I can play Azz!
I’m older, have a buddy who’s played all his life. I picked one up and decided I wanted to learn to read music. He tells me I’m to old, and I should just learn chords. I wanna read music so I can play anything I want.
Does that make me contrarian?
I cannot commit to being a good student, but I did okay in all my skoolin’. (Believe it or not!)
Actually, what ATTP said was this (my emphasis):
No, just hopelessly optimistic. Being able to read does not automatically confer the technical skill to play the piece.
if less than or in as little as based upon this thread, very aptly named
BBD,
We’ll my guitar skills (Mel Bay Book 1) is approximately equal to my climate skills if ya wanna take me on as a student. Maybe JCH can sub out for ya once you’re frustration level demands.
Sincere appreciation for the conversation. It’s not wasted energy.
JCH,
“Danny has faced long odds to reach hurricane status. El Niño — which tends to create strong wind shear that can tear Atlantic tropical storms apart”
Apt?
KeefeAndAmanda,
Reading through your compilation of 8/16 at 7:31am and just wanted to acknowledge your work and offer thanks.
I will state that I have basically no issue with the substance. I do have questions about a couple of tangents but think I’ve worn out my visitation with ATTP’s playground here. Not to pose them at this time, but so you’re aware of the work that I’m (trying) to do those questions delve in to the apparent northern hempisphere/southern hemipshere energy imbalances,
Additionally, the 110% attribution question you state human pollution (aerosols?) could be a contributing factor but it seems there could also be ‘natural variability’ additionally.
For now, if you have a link to Climate Dynamics please provide. A quick google search led to too much to wade through for today.
Mostly this post in in acknowledgement. I’ve also saved your others.
For those still willing to read my posts I know I owe others responses.
Regards,
Danny Thomas August 20, 2015 at 7:45 pm,
More confusion…
Paragraph 1 is a straightforward description of the context of the study.
Paragraph 2 is a brief summary of their reconstruction setup and aim – they used 622 historical tide gauge records in order to reconstruct a historical global sea level field using a particular analytical method.
The first sentence in paragraph 3 is describing a possible issue with the previous Church & White reconstruction – it used the relatively short altimeter dataset to relate tide gauge measurements with sea level trends where tide gauges aren’t or weren’t going back in history. Hay et al. are pointing out that this relies on patterns of sea level change through the historical record being similar to that seen in this recent period, which may not be the case.
The second sentence in paragraph 3 is a brief description of the previous Jevrejeva reconstruction method, which involved a fairly simplistic averaging procedure.
Paragraph 4 is talking about a test they performed of the Jevrejeva statistical reconstruction method on their own global field reconstruction – it has nothing to do with the creation of their own reconstruction.
Paragraph 5 – further testing of the Jevrejeva method, nothing to do with the creation of their own reconstruction.
Paragraph 5 is simply stating the trend result from their own reconstruction.
Specifically, what is it that you have a problem with here?
Paul S,
Thank you.
My intent by attempting to summarize the Hay work via those selections was not to cherry pick only that which supports an argument I propose but instead to provide a reasonable representation of the work. It’s challenging to provide a summary of an already summarized argument.
“My problem” is that the IPCC http://www.climatechange2013.org/contributors/chapter/chapter-13 put together a formidable group of world class minds who put together a report (presumably conservative……..and this entire segment of my argument is nothing more than a well supported agreement with those more climate concerned). This report established, based on a ‘consensus’ of scientific evaluation a likely (the scientific term) range. And Hay comes along and changes 90 years of actual evidence from 622 tidal gauges in order to calculate a different result.
Now I would expect the same type of response to the Hay work as I would expect to see if a so labeled ‘skeptic’ had said, in summary, IPCC is wrong. But nowhere, including the RC link provided upthread, do I see (how can I say this correctly) reasonable scientific skepticism or even a wait and see approach. Instead, as RC did, it’s accepted and folded in.
Dr. Church (& White’s) work has been cited some 1135 times according to google scholar. It has the standing of time (dated 2006). And Dr. Church is lead author of the W.G. and report. Heck, even Dr. Chambers 60 year sea level cycle has been pooh-poohed from those more climate concerned which seems reasonable as a relatively young (2012) concept. And Chambers has been around a while.
Hay has no standing (yet?) has been cited 28 times, and should be looked at skeptically lacking a more thorough level of evaluation. Yet, I don’t see it. It’s not at RC, it’s not here, and I come along and present my hesitancy and reasoning behind. What happens? I’m reminded of my lack of qualifications, kinda hammered on for having the audacity to question, and other than ATTP’s statement of ‘only time will tell’ not one single person has said……….hmmm……..this might be something to consider.
Now I understand that the minutiae of climate science is no where near settled and science builds on science. But what the heck, a new work comes along from an untested (if not likely brilliant) participant which runs counter to IPCC, modifies a long term historic evidence based record, and there is zero evidence of reluctance from one side of the debate? (The skeptic in me leads me to wonder why…….I’m no conspiracy theorist but when skeptics say things like “because it supports the ’cause’ I gotta be honest and a small corner of my small mind makes me pause before I toss that kind of thinking out.)
So that’s ‘my problem’ and is as honest and reasonable as I know how to be.
If you call yourself a “lukewarmer,” then you have already picked a side that you trust. Because there are very few scientists who don’t accept that man is responsible for at least some warming. So your “skepticism” seems to lie almost solely with what you call “alarmists.” If you are really “skeptical” of both sides, you would say you just don’t know who is right and I we would see you arguing with people at Climate Etc over their views.
Joseph,
I self label as a ‘lukewarmer’ or more clearly an in-betweener (but not sure there’s a really good label for me). You have seen me state specifically that I despise the labels as they are not good for the discussion. As those more climate concerned who elect not to even consider the arguments of so called ‘skeptic’ because of the source and not evaluating content so does the so called skeptical side not consider the validity of the ‘consensus’ side. And it leads to digging in and increased acrimony.
With whom, at C.E., would I debate? Those in denial are, well, in denial. Energy is better used elsewhere. Have you not, with your own eyes, seen that (I dare say) a preponderance of the C.E. denizens accept that GW is Man caused and they question largely the extent and associated harms while taking in to consideration that ‘it’s happened before’? I guess I fall in to that category and question the more climate concerned side as that’s the side who’s doing all the ‘pulling’.
My perception, right or wrong, is that the extremes on both sides are off base. Look, if you care to, at posts where I have stated there is a scale of from extreme concern to extreme denial. And surveys such as those conducted by Pew show a very low level of public concern. Why? IMO, there have been too many ‘false alarms’ (see Al Gore, with apologies to ATTP) as just one example. The ‘hiatus/pause’ is another all while CO2 continues unabated. The climate change process is a slow one, the science unsettled (sorry about that), and the conversants are unwilling to consider that the issue now thoroughly politicized comes across more as a left/right issue (at least in the US) and is just more of the same in that arena. This is the cause of the continuation of the dilemma. How many times have I quoted S. Mosher’s (as I consider it) common sense approach that we must first prepare for yesterday’s weather? IMO that just might work as a stepping stone towards greater things and in the mean time the concept has value today and is ‘sellable’ to the public! And, it’s middle ground which those here have espoused to be unreasonable and unworkable because “there is no middle ground”.
If I were king of the world, I’d bring both sides to the middle and work outward (leaning towards the risk management side).
As a relatively novice participant I have argument with both sides. My ‘belief’ is that if the more climate concerned side would ‘come to the middle’ (not asking for the science to be compromised in any way) then my ‘belief’ is that more folks would get on board with the issue. My further ‘belief’ is that a continuation of ‘BAU’ in the ‘climate wars’ has led us to where we are today and an expectation of a change in results (getting more people on board) based on the same behavior is crazy (to paraphrase and reapply a famous saying).
Finally, I frankly do not understand how others don’t see it the same as I do, but that may just be my personal bias getting in the way. I dunno.
We do not see it the way you do because you make huge mistakes. In your ALL Bore example, Gore could be said to present a range, leaping two scientific studies, of in as little as 7 years and less than 22 years. You insist on seeing one number. There is nothing anybody can do with you.
@Danny Thomas
You keep claiming that the Hay paper “runs counter to IPCC” or that it shows the “IPCC is wrong” which seems to be you central sticking point : why is everyone in the AGW camp accepting this paper if it overturns the IPCC findings? The answer is, as far as I am concerned, that it does no such thing. It refines the results with new methods and comes to a totally plausible and possibly useful insight into how to measure SLR which is slightly different from previous conclusions. It does not turn the whole field on its head and show that Church&White were wrong. It does not prove that there has been no SLR over the past century. It does not run counter to the summery of the previous science in the IPCC report, it (maybe) improves the measurement, it at least presents a good case for why Hay’s measurements are an improvement. I think your entire premise is faulty here and is leading you to incorrect conclusions.
The point I was making that those in denial don’t do science. So there is really only the “lukewarmers” and “climate concerened” according to your classification in the realm of science. And I wouldn’t characterize “climate concerened” as being extreme because that is the mainstream position. It’s the “lukewarmers” who are in the tiny minority or extreme.
JCH,
Thank you for being an outstanding representative example of exactly the point I was stating to Joseph about it being absolutely Looney Tunes to continue the same type of behavior and expecting different results (unless your goal is to alienate me and the millions of others like me).
You demand that I own my words at RC and here. I take that ownership. Yet, you give Al Gore a freakin’ pass. What was the point of Al Gore’s choice to provide a scenario in which the Arctic was ice free in 22 years and the modify that potential scenario to state it could be in as little as 7? What do you think the public perceives when they see Al Gore’s words, and is there an expectation that the public would hold Al Gore to the words which he chose to use.
Then, much later, Danny comes along and in reasonable detail indicates he’s a lukewarmer (in-betweener) and YOUR CHOICE is to do all that you can to ALIENATE Danny? You are an excellent representative example of THE PROBLEM. Keep it up, dude. You’ll make a lot of friends and influence folks to YOUR SIDE of the debate that way.
Scientists and those of that ilk have no business being in the GW/CC sales business. They (you) are unqualified!
I know it’s not a scientific publication, but it’s quite obvious that the book “The psychology of Climate Communication” would be an invaluable resource. But I fear you’d have zero understanding.
Figure it out. You’re not nearly as intelligent as you seem to think you are!
pbjamm,
I’m fairly certain that ATTP would prefer we not get back in to this discussion. The only note that I will make is that your choice of the words “maybe improves” is a big maybe and no matter it’s still a modification of the work of the IPCC and all that the IPCC represents.
Again, had one labeled as a ‘skeptic’ stated that IPCC was wrong, would the more climate concerned have been as accepting? I think not, and that is the heart of the point I’m making. To be more blunt, it’s a double standard.
You say “as far as your concerned”. Well just like ‘who am I to say’, who are you? This is not to spin you up but to provide perspective. Just to toss out an example, say Dr. Roy Spencer stated that IPCC was wrong, would the more concerned side have accepted the “maybe” improvement of the evaluation with a folding in or even wait and see approach, or because Dr. Spencer is considered a skeptic would the work have been ‘blown off’? (BBD wouldn’t even have read it). I think it’s an interesting question.
Hay, indeed, has implied that IPCC was wrong.
@Danny Thomas
“Hay, indeed, has implied that IPCC was wrong.”
Respectfully, no he has not. Science is not static. The findings of 10 years ago do not need to be refuted for science to move on, they only need to improve. If his findings improve the results then why would the ‘climate concerned’ not accept his findings? They certainly see no reason in rejecting them at this point. You can keep repeating the same thing over and over but it does not make it any more true. Wrong not binary, but a sliding scale.
Joseph,
I agree that those in denial don’t do science.This is why I don’t use energy to engage. What’s the point? At least, although underqualified, I try. And I do apply logic (also not always accurately).
You say that you don’t see those more concerned as extreme. Well on the scale, they are, with denier’s on the extreme other end. Lukewarmer’s are more in the middle. It appears you perceive the scale to run from concerned to luke and have misunderstood or maybe just mistated how I see it. I see it as Catastrophically concerned to concerned to luke to skeptic to deniers. Stated to provide a different perspective not to create another argument. But I want you to remember that I’m likely much more representative of the general public that the scientific community which shakes it’s collective head as it cannot comprehend that the general public doesn’t ‘get it’. Well folks think differently and many if not most are just not that analytical. And I, don’t get, that the scientific thinkers don’t ‘get it’ that folks don’t think like they do.
We (the general public) expect that when science puts together the greatest minds, packaged in a ‘consensus’ with a likelyhood rate of 97% (some use 98%!) accuracy there is no room for error. Science, packaged this way, then scratches it’s collective head when a pause comes along (it was not expected), or Antarctic ice doesn’t do as expected, or Al Gore (as a mouthpiece using a bully pulpit) says the Arctic may be gone in 7 years. Science holds itself to a higher standard. Science has cloaked itself in an expected near perfection rate (science might state it as “extremely likely”), and when science misses in the eyes of the general public that is not the fault of the public. The responsibility for that lies elsewhere. The reason I delved in to this world is due to science’s handling. I read much (always have) and when things don’t turn out as the prognosticators indicate I went……..wait a minute….maybe I should look more deeply. At least I should get credit for that. Much of the ‘general public’ are busy making a living, raising families, and doing other things and have turned their back on the issue (as evidenced in Pew survey’s …….if ya need a link, hollar).
Danny
But you have posted large amount of unmitigated crap on this thread (and elsewhere) yet seem to have absolutely no awareness that this pisses people right off.
That’s why you get a prickly reception. You are wrong, insistent and you refuse to admit error, which really rubs people up the wrong way, so eventually they tell you (in so many words) to eff off.
Moaning that people are being unpleasant when you are causing the problem just makes it even more annoying.
You urgently need to step back and think.
‘Lukewarmerism’ is denial dressed up in sciency-sounding verbiage. That’s another reason why you will get a hard time here.
There is exactly zero evidence that sensitivity is so low that the need for urgent, profound and permanent emissions cuts can be avoided. None. Sensitivity that low would be incompatible with palaeoclimate behaviour and with observed variability. So most people here regard lukewarmerism as a pose, a ruse by which denialist rhetoric is smuggled into the public discourse.
“Al Gore (as a mouthpiece using a bully pulpit) says the Arctic may be gone in 7 years”
Again, if Al Gore was accurately referencing a scientific study then what is wrong with what he said? Turns out it did not happen that way, so what? If it happens next year was he still wrong? Sure, but not as wrong as the guy who said 22 years. Wrong != Wrong in all cases. Some people are wrong-er than others and some are not even wrong.
pbjamm,
Whoa. Wait a minute. I didn’t say Hay should be rejected. Never said that, nor implied. In fact, repeatedly I’ve stated no representation of it’s accuracy. That’s above my pay grade.
Again, you’ve stated ‘if his (actually her) findings improve…………” and I agree. But we do not know yet. But as evidenced here, there seems to be complete acceptance (other than ATTP’s wait and see which is a reasonable approach). Show me one place where there is any sort of hesitancy (just asking for hesitancy, a pretty low standard) to the acceptance of Hay’s work with a leaning towards the consensus of the IPCC being the more formidable brain trust. I don’t see it, and I think we should see it. It seems to me Hay and Hay’s work should gain standing prior to it supplanting the work of Dr. Church and the entirety of the W.G. of the IPCC. This is exactly the argument that the consensus uses and I’m using it here. If you wish to argue against the IPCC then welcome to the world of a ‘skeptic’. The consensus is against you.
In turn, just because you, or others, repeat what you’ve said does not mean that the IPCC should be supplanted………….at least not yet.
> Is in intellectually honest to avoid questions?
Doesn’t this rhetorical question assume that all sentences ending with question marks are genuine questions?
BBD,
Unmitigated crap? Welcome to the world of gaining friends and influencing people.
I stand by what I stated about Al Gore, they are his words and he can/must live with them if I can/must live with mine. No double standard allowed.
I stand by what I read on Salon.com. I didn’t generate the work, only read and reported what I read. I still don’t have the original book (or a link……..when I looked on Amazon it showed as out of print). I do not stand by what others report, I rely on the report and go from there.
I stand by my comments on Hay. I made and corrected an error, but from that point on it’s good. I even asked ATTP (who has understandably tired of me) to provide the location of his numbers on the IPCC’s GMSL from 1901 to 1990 as the numbers I find quoted from IPCC differ from his. So maybe I’m not the only one who’s made an error in that discussion. The fact that there is not an agreement with my argument makes neither side right or wrong, it’s called a difference of opinion. That happens in life and ya’ll have to get over it. Hay presents results different than the consensus as reported in the IPCC AR5. That is a fact. Period.
I’m not moaning about a damn thing. I’m pointing out that behaviour is important. When I screw up and screw up I’ve addressed it as I’ve done here. That there are others here incapable or unwilling to do the same is their issue, not mine.
I guess you perceive that I’m the only one who’s in the wrong. So be it. I’ve erred. Has anyone else in the climate conversation on the ‘more climate concerned side’ done so either in content or behavior? Guessing you won’t reply with anyone on that side who’s done so leaving an indication that one side is perfect and the other side entirely wrong (and I think you’ve use that very generalization). Yep. The problem is soley with me.
Task for ya BBD, go back and count the probably 3-4 times I’ve specifically stated I goofed. Compare and contrast with the other side. Report.
Danny
For goodness’ sake stop this rubbish about Hay et al. and the IPCC.
Scientific progress is generally incremental Hay et al. may have slightly improved understanding since the AR5 report was compiled. Or it may be wrong, although nobody (especially you) has yet demonstrated that. And that’s it. There is no great conflict with ‘the consensus’ here. That’s just you desperately trying to create fake controversy, as ‘sceptics’ are wont to do in the absence of having a coherent scientific argument to prosecute. It is now way beyond tedious and you should stop.
I said “if it holds up”, which it appears to be doing. Church was already at 1.5mm. Lol. You just keep making stuff up.
You made false claims that AG represented the scientific consensus and he does not and did not. You made false claims that ‘huge errors’ had been made and you have NOT conceded that this was utter and complete bollocks. Etc ad tediam. This has been pointed out to you over and over again and you simply blank it. This is what I and others find irksome and intellectually dishonest.
That’s just self-serving bollocks.
ATTP
Did I not hear you say that you would delete any further crap about Al Gore?
BBD,
“‘Lukewarmerism’ is denial dressed up in sciency-sounding verbiage.” That’s your opinion. In my view, it’s B.S. and that’s yet another reason I will continue to rail against your ‘hard time’.
How about this: Definition of lukewarmer (http://www.collinsdictionary.com/submission/16141/lukewarmer)
person who believes in climate change, but not as a potentially catastrophic phenomenon.”
My definition is a variation. I have sufficient evidence that there is man caused global warming yet I remain as yet unconvinced that man has sufficient knowledge to indicate that that change will be catastrophic in nature based on that current level of knowledge. Therefore, I “believe” man should modify it’s collective behaviour based on reasonable cost/benefit analysis (Insert S. Mosher’s prepare for yesterday’s weather here) in the near term while in the long term continuing scientific study, research and implementation of renewable energy of as many sources as possible in order to reduce emissions and due to the need for eventual replacement of fossil fuels which will not last forever, modification of our land use/ag practices, and urban planning to mitigate transportation associated excesses.
You might have known that if you’d have bothered to ask instead of imposing your narrow definition on to me.
Keep calm, BBD, and be thankful for DannyT’s concerns about his favorite whipping boys and his peddling of the good ol’ CAGW meme.
What BBD said, there is no controversy here DT. Hays work has NOT supplanted C&W. Hay has not gone off the reservation and contradicted the IPCC. The IPCC used the best available evidence to create their report. This is new, as in coming later, as in it was not available at the time. Were the Egyptians wrong to build the Pyramids out of stone instead of concrete? NO! They did the best work they could with the tools and knowledge that they had. You are building a mountain out of nothing at all. This whole discussion is nuts and I am done (I hope).
Evidence, dear boy, evidence. Where is it?
You ignored the rest of what I wrote about low sensitivity being incompatible with palaeoclimate behaviour, but it is, and lukewarmers are skewered by this. Which is why you blanked it.
= person in denial.
@ willard
You missed one:
JCH,
What did I say. Hay was different that IPCC.
Keep making friends, influencing people, and reinforcing the more skeptical sides impression of the typical alarmist.You’re an excellent representation.
BBD,
= person in denial.
Nope. Definition of denial: a statement saying that something is not true or real
Nothing in the future is real, so unless you can prove the future…………….
You tell me to ‘stop it’ yet you continue egging this on. You say I ignore ‘the rest of what you wrote then you do the same’.
And just to be clear, quit moaning about Al Gore. JCH brought him back up, not me.
Get over yourself.
@Danny Thomas
>And just to be clear, quit moaning about Al Gore. JCH brought him back up, not me.
Wrong again
> man should modify it’s collective behaviour based on reasonable cost/benefit analysis
Lukewarmingly incorrect:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/mar/22/why-global-warming-skeptics-are-wrong/
Danny
Causality denial. More than a bit daft.
BBD,
Yes, but I’ve been out, so I missed that.
[JCH] – We do not see it the way you do because you make huge mistakes. In your ALL Bore example, Gore could be said to present a range, leaping two scientific studies, of in as little as 7 years and less than 22 years. You insist on seeing one number. There is nothing anybody can do with you.
[Danny] – You demand that I own my words at RC and here. I take that ownership. […] You’re not nearly as intelligent as you seem to think you are!
Willard,
Re: cost/benefit.
And what were MY further words? From where you left off: ” (Insert S. Mosher’s prepare for yesterday’s weather here) in the near term while in the long term continuing scientific study, research and implementation of renewable energy of as many sources as possible in order to reduce emissions and due to the need for eventual replacement of fossil fuels which will not last forever, modification of our land use/ag practices, and urban planning to mitigate transportation associated excesses.”
If I must own my words, I think you should at least be reasonable by citing all my words.
I didn’t cite Nordhaus.
Well, if I was making misguided CBA arguments, nor would I 😉
BBD,
Not clear. Do you think my argument is misguided, Steve Mosher’s is, or any CBA is (don’t see much need to as about Nordhaus’ view and your opinion as I think that’s clear but just to be sure are you saying if you were offering a non misguided argument you would cite him)? Or, are you saying that you’re aware of an alternative and if so, please post. I can barely read the written word and am completely unable to read minds.
> And what were MY further words?
Here are again the words that matter:
Also notice the adjective “reasonable” which acts as a weasel word wiggling the CAGW meme, which appears in Danny’s further words.
***
> I didn’t cite Nordhaus.
Danny’s claim is irrelevant and may indicate more shirt ripping.
I am the one who quoted Nordhaus. It helps me show that Danny’s “cost/benefit” might be suboptimal.
Willard,
You seem to have developed a fetish about me and my shirts and the ripping thereof.
Please detail what you would consider as optimal.
I do not want to make nice with nonalarmists. Their handiwork is out there for all to see.
JCH,
Um. We don’t use the term “alarmists”.
> You seem to have developed a fetish about me […]
In that case, dear Danny, it “seems” (what a useful trick!) that your proclivity toward your own subject came first:
> We don’t use the term “alarmists”.
Then Danny is not a member of that “We”:
Wait. Was the CAGW meme injected by Danny’s very first comment in this thread?
Fancy that.
Willard,
Obviously you’ve not been following along. Had you, you would have seen I used the term ‘alarmist’ right here and for the first time (that I recall) I was advised here that the term was deemed by some as offensive. S. Mosher suggested concerned, which I’ve tried to use since then.
Then, towards the end of a very high count number of comments, low and behold one I might have used the term to describe, the very Mr. JCH uses the term and i reminded him that that is just not done here as it’s unacceptable. Pretty certain BBD and Mosher will be along shortly to advise you of same.
Willard,
So is this “In that case, dear Danny, it “seems” (what a useful trick!) that your proclivity toward your own subject came first:” then a representative example of what you deem optimal?
It’s an interesting approach to addressing GW/CC, but okay, you’re allowed your opinion. Implementation by you will indeed be “a useful trick” but I’m sure you’ll manage.
> Obviously you’ve not been following along.
What an hour or a bit less can make:
Danny
That mind-reading thing doesn’t work for me, either. I’ve strained until the sweat popped out but I’ve no idea what SM will do.
Causality is an entirely different matter. And then there’s physics, and all that.
Danny
If climate sensitivity is, like rilly low, how come palaeoclimate behaviour is so jumpy?
How does that work?
Danny Thomas writes: “And Jim Hansen’s words as were reported in 2001 (maybe accurately denied some years later in some SKS quickie but no way to know that is there?) aren’t good enough for ya? Neither you nor I know the questions that were actually asked and answered. If there was an issue with the report of 2001, then show me a rebuttal from 2001 (or I’ll take 2002). If not, that’s your intellectual honesty. I’ve shown it, you chose not to accept it, who’s the denier and being dishonest.”
He later walks this back a bit but … then follows up recently with : “I stand by what I read on Salon.com.”
Now, it has been pointed out that the Salon article was an interview with an author of a book. It was not an interview with James Hansen. The author (Bob Reiss) is recalling a conversation from 13 years earlier. At best then, we have the Salon writer’s article on the 13-year old memory of an interview by a different person with Hansen. This isn’t even second-hand, it’s third-hand.
DT walks this back a little by saying he doesn’t have the book. Guess what? You can find excerpts on Google Books. Search the book for “doubled” and you’ll find an excerpt from Page 30: “With carbon dioxide doubled in the atmosphere from pre-industrial levels, Hansen said, the average number of 90-degree days in New York would jump from 15 to 48. In Washington, D.C., from 36 to 87. In Denver from 33 to 86.”
And search the book for “West Side Highway” and on the very next page we find: “Because the West Side Highway will be underwater … you might see Dutch engineers down there to build dikes.”
So, it’s clear that on page 30 he’s speaking of doubled atmospheric concentration of CO2 and the very next page we find the West Side Highway quote. And again, that’s not even *Hansen’s* words – it’s still a recount of an interview with him. But at least we have the direct 2nd-hand account, and not the third-hand Salon account.
You can also look elsewhere on the web and find Hansen’s own take – where he says that Bob Reiss apologized for getting it correct in the book, but screwing it up in the Salon interview.
It took me less time to find these resources than it has to write this comment. Obviously you weren’t very interested in getting at the truth yourself.
BBD,
Well wouldn’t it be safe to assume that since you and Mosher made the “alarmist” term with me, you would also do the same addressed towards JCH and Willard? I mean ya’ll wouldn’t want to give the appearance of one set of standards towards one person and not the same set of standards towards others, wouldya?
You can beat whack-a-mole, but what do you win?
Danny
Okay. Not so sure about that first comma myself so how about this:
If climate sensitivity is like rilly low, how come palaeoclimate behaviour is so jumpy?
How does that work?
BBD,
Re: Climate sensitivity. Good question and I have no idea of the answer because w/r/t paleo there are so many variables which are unknown.
And, I presume you’ve seen this: http://www.skepticalscience.com/questions-on-climate-sensitivity-answered.html
“Are estimates of climate sensitivity getting lower?
No.
Some high-profile papers based on the energy budget model approach have emerged recently, suggesting the values of climate sensitivity lies at the bottom of the IPCC’s likely range.
This week a paper by Judith Curry and Nic Lewis gave a value for TCR of 1.05 to 1.8 degrees Celsius, with a mid value of 1.33 degrees. This is similar to a paper last year by Otto et al. (2013) – both estimates are about 25 per cent lower than the IPCC’s middle estimate of 1.8 degrees.
Though this flurry of recent papers has attracted some media attention and plaudits from climate skeptics, their publication doesn’t mean scientists are “backing off” higher climate sensitivity, as some have suggested.
One criticism of the energy budget model approach that lies behind these kind of studies is that it doesn’t take into account the role of the oceans in taking up excess heat. Other estimates of climate sensitivity using climate models support the higher end of the IPCC’s likely range.
The IPCC considers all the different ways of calculating climate sensitivity, without making a value judgment about which is best. So as long as there is a body of literature supporting both ends of the likely range, it won’t be revising it any time soon.
It’s important not to oversell the significance of a single paper, or a collection of papers that use one of several available methods.
Pinning down climate sensitivity is an area of ongoing scientific debate. The hope is that new research can help narrow the range of uncertainty.
When a new study is published, on any scientific topic, it doesn’t override all that came before it. It simply adds to the body of literature.”
PINNING DOWN CLIMATE SENSITIVITY IS AN AREA OF ONGOING SCIENTIFIC DEBATE. Interesting quote, and not one I’d bet the farm against just yet! If Sks, IPCC/consensus can’t get it down pat I sure don’t trust that I can and really don’t trust that you can either.
But as with Hay, I must feel highly confident that both Otto and Lewis/Curry being peer reviewed and all must be accepted in to the fold, right? (Your response to this question I’d find to be of very high interest).
Hey guys, please DT have the last word. That’s all he wants. He doesn’t want to learn the difference between science and opinion and politics, or quality science and biased advocacy and propaganda. He just wants to demonstrate how unreasonable we all are, and how right he is. He doesn’t care if he has to ignore the content or if intelligence and expertise don’t fit his preconceptions, as long as he can find a few things to misrepresent to “prove” he’s right.
I was watching a show about a US TV program on the undead, and it felt all too familiar. Danny isn’t the first and he won’t be the last. Don’t provide him with fuel for the fires of his discontent, it’s not helping.
Susan,
Yep. You’ve pegged it! I was lying when I said I had doubts about both sides. My hope was only to have all FF burned, no need for land use changes, urban planning, renewables. Those were all lies, just lies. Excuse me, but now I gotta go cash this big coal check. It’s Friday and time to party and burn down a few more forests! You’ve got me all figured out. Zombies are coming. Zombies are coming.
That’s just about as ‘reasonable’ as the conversation gets, huh?
With apologies to Susan
Danny, you didn’t answer the question.
We know we are in an interglacial. We know that it was preceded by a glacial and that this flipping between climate states has been going on for ~2.4Ma with serious glacials for the last ~800ka. Jumpy, no?
So how does this work if the climate system is insensitive?
> Re: Climate sensitivity. Good question and I have no idea of the answer because w/r/t paleo there are so many variables which are unknown.
Interestingly, luckwarmism started as a bet on exactly that question. A random quote:
Another way to put it:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/on-the-consensus/#comment-113304
There are at least four open problems with such a position. First, the green line between Sky Dragons and more lukewarm chaps is yet undefined. Second, there’s no rational basis to bet under 3 if 3 is the mainstream position, assuming we (quite absurdly) reduce sensitivity matters to single number. Third, a low ECS entails something about the MWP. Fourth, should ECS be as lukewarm as can be, it does not follow that AGW will be a piece of cake.
***
Oh, and speaking of alarmism, how about someone who proclaims that If Humans use 3,000 Quads from coal by 2075, we’re ruined?
Many thanks!
BBD,
Re: sensitivity.
I think I did answer your question. I dunno. IPCC doesn’t know. Sks doesn’t know. I other words, we just don’t know that much about our global climate as a chaotic, non-linear system including it’s history. There are theories. (See previously linked Sks)
In paleo times (depending on what paleo time you’re referring to, or trying to vaguely lead me to react to) I’d say our ability to measure solar activity would have been limited not having yet invented sunglasses and all. Heck, we don’t know what caused the dryas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas but there are theories.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Older_Dryas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_Dryas
And previous interstadial periods were hypothesized to have been impacted by changes in oceans circulations, and possibly by influxes of fresh water.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dansgaard%E2%80%93Oeschger_event
http://www.falw.vu/~renh/14700trans.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24990748 “Here we show that the release of heat from warm waters in the deep North Atlantic Ocean probably triggered the Bølling-Allerød warming and reinvigoration of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation.”
So how does this work if the climate system is insensitive? (Your question)
My question is how did this work disregarding the sensitivity? Do you know? Does it involve continental movement? Are there changes in RH/albedo and what is the interconnection? Changes in solar activity involved?
Or more broadly, exactly how does our climate work?
JCH writes:”You can beat whack-a-mole, but what do you win?”
Obviously, nothing. I have heard rumors though of actual real live skeptics who actually Google these things on occasion to enlighten themselves. I figure it can’t hurt to lay down a marker and leave another link to accurate information.
Bad faith actors like TE and DT won’t ever change, but they’re never really the audience.
Kevin,
Nice. Bad faith actors?
So who is ‘the audience’. Believers (when a sale already is made, stop talking…….basic salesmanship 101)
“Don’t talk past the sell
After you close a deal, you need to learn to stop talking. I’ve seen people lose deals countless number of times because they keep talking after the potential customer is ready to become a customer. They do this by saying something stupid, which makes that person think twice.
Learn to keep your mouth shut after someone tells you he or she wants to be a customer. If you can’t, this is the best time to chit-chat about random subjects that aren’t related to politics or religion.”
Lukewarmers. Already believe in MMGW, but unconvinced of harms. (Potential for a market there?)
Deniers. Will leave for you to define and evaluate market potential.
Some folks will never learn.
BBD,
I don’t recall you answering my question, so my bad for the lack of follow up and hope to correct that here.
Do you, equally to your acceptance of Hay, accept Otto and Lewis/Curry and their estimates of sensitivity? Their work is A) not inconsistent with IPCC (requisit per ATTP’s acceptance of Hay)
B) is peer reviewed.
Thank you in advance.
Susan,
Re: “Yes, scientists depend on funding for their salaries and research, but the amounts are so much smaller than what is offered to those willing to advocate for fossil interests.”
Please see page 5 and 6
Click to access fcce-report-to-congress.pdf
vs.
“According to the report, a staggering sum of $125 million has been given to these organizations that deny climate change over the last three years. This money is used to fund industry-friendly groups who create and disseminate talking points, and support other public relations efforts and the right wing media echo chamber to promote climate change denial.”
as found here: http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/06/20/dark-money-funding-climate-change-denial
But the immediate above may be understating as Brulle has a peer reviewed study:
“Abstract This paper conducts an analysis of the financial resource mobilization of the
organizations that make up the climate change counter-movement (CCCM) in the United
States. Utilizing IRS data, total annual income is compiled for a sample of CCCM organizations
(including advocacy organizations, think tanks, and trade associations). These data are
coupled with IRS data on philanthropic foundation funding of these CCCM organizations
contained in the Foundation Center’s data base. This results in a data sample that contains
financial information for the time period 2003 to 2010 on the annual income of 91 CCCM
organizations funded by 140 different foundations. An examination of these data shows that
these 91 CCCM organizations have an annual income of just over $900 million, with an
annual average of $64 million in identifiable foundation support. The overwhelming majority
of the philanthropic support comes from conservative foundations. Additionally, there is
evidence of a trend toward concealing the sources of CCCM funding through the use of donor
directed philanthropies.
“http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-013-1018-7
Paper can be found here for free. http://drexel.edu/now/archive/2013/December/Climate-Change/
(see link at bottom of the page)
Now just to be clear, I am NOT against the spending of all those funds for climate related issues by the governmetn, just think that you need to take off your rose colored glasses and look at the numbers. $900 million for denial vs. $2.7 Billion for governmental financed research.
I’m not advocating for the denial, just think an honest perspective is appropriate.
> Some folks will never learn.
Hence the need to lukewarmingly rinse and repeat the very same Goldilocks story over and over again:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_three_(writing)
Between the CAGW meme and the Skydragon lands, there must be some kind of window just like mama bear’s porridge bowl:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
Stop getting played by honest brokering gimmicks, folks.
JCH,
“Where do I give it a gigantic hug? You are delusional.” (Re: Hay)
Finally found it here: February 28, 2015, 12:47 a.m. (Climate, etc.)
And I quote:”Hay and Mitrovica reduced it because it was wrong. Subsequent work will confirm this.” (You not only gave it a ‘giant hug’ you predicted it would be confirmed and at the same time indicated IPCC was in fact wrong!)(Joshua, where’s the stepping in and commenting on the irony?) (Ain’t google wonderful……….you gonna own your words like you expect of me?)
Link: http://judithcurry.com/2015/02/27/week-in-review-45/#comment-678971
Responding to my question here: “Why is 90 years of historic SLR modified by Hay from 1.6-1.9 mm/yr down to 1.2 mm/yr and “suddenly” the SLR is declared as “increasing”?”
Like Willard would say…….thank you for playing.
DT writes: “So who is ‘the audience’. ”
Umm .. already answered. I wrote, “I have heard rumors though of actual real live skeptics who actually Google these things …” Instead of feeling a need to immediately write a defensive response you may wish to actually read what is written. Understand it. Examine your prior statements. Modify your beliefs to new facts. Admit errors publicly when you’ve made accusations publicly.
My post clarifying the Salon article regarding Hansen was for ‘real live skeptics’ — not the fake variety and not bad faith actors. I knew you wouldn’t admit error (I’ve heard crickets on that score). So bad faith actors are those who pretend to be ‘reasonable’ and just want to learn. one realizes fairly quickly in conversation that they already have their minds made up. They don’t research publications, they quote-mine – usually taking quotes out of context without really understanding anything about the subject. They only cite the peer-reviewed literature to find outliers – not consensus beliefs.
You’re Cinderella. The glass slipper fits.
Agreed, it’s a hug.
It balanced the sea level budget, which had been, until their work, out of balance. Which is why Eric Leullette, cited multiple times by Chef Hydro on Climate Etc. as the man for sea level, likes it so much.
MODELING SEA-LEVEL CHANGE USING ERRORS-IN-VARIABLES
INTEGRATED GAUSSIAN PROCESSES1
BY NIAMH CAHILL∗, ANDREW C. KEMP†, BENJAMIN P. HORTON‡,§
AND ANDREW C. PARNELL∗
University College Dublin∗, Tufts University†, Rutgers University‡
and Nanyang Technological University§
We perform Bayesian inference on historical and late Holocene (last
2000 years) rates of sea-level change. The input data to our model are tidegauge measurements and proxy reconstructions from cores of coastal sediment. These data are complicated by multiple sources of uncertainty, some of which arise as part of the data collection exercise. Notably, the proxy reconstructions include temporal uncertainty from dating of the sediment core using techniques such as radiocarbon. The model we propose places a Gaussian process prior on the rate of sea-level change, which is then integrated and set in an errors-in-variables framework to take account of age uncertainty. The resulting model captures the continuous and dynamic evolution of sea-level change with full consideration of all sources of uncertainty. We demonstrate the performance of our model using two real (and previously published) example data sets. The global tide-gauge data set indicates that sea-level rise increased from a rate with a posterior mean of 1.13 mm/yr in 1880 AD (0.89 to 1.28 mm/yr 95% credible interval for the posterior mean) to a posterior mean rate of 1.92 mm/yr in 2009 AD (1.84 to 2.03 mm/yr 95% credible interval for the posterior mean). The proxy reconstruction from North Carolina (USA) after correction for land-level change shows the 2000 AD rate of rise to have a posterior mean of 2.44 mm/yr (1.91 to 3.01 mm/yr 95% credible interval). This is unprecedented in at least the last 2000 years. …
Danny
Climate agnosia is just denial in a mask.
What I am trying to get you to acknowledge is that palaeoclimate variability would be physically impossible if the climate system were insensitive to radiative perturbation.
As for all the crap ‘sceptics’ spin about ECS, the second point is that multiple lines of evidence point to it being above 2C and probably close to 3C, which leaves zero wriggle room on the question of policy. Unabated emissions will lead to >2C and potentially very dangerous consequences.
* * *
Jumpiness of glacial climate states is evidence for relatively high sensitivity and positive feedbacks. There is no evidence at all for wildly varying solar output.
A gentle hint: don’t start bullshitting me about palaeoclimate. It will end badly.
* * *
Lewis uses a simplistic methodology which is biased low. Do some reading. No confidence in NL.
If you want to understand how the climate system works, please read a textbook. I highly recommend Ruddiman, which deals with every question you raise and much more besides. Second-hand copies are easy enough to find online – go for the second edition. There is a third edition, but the difference isn’t great and you will save money by opting for 2nd ed.
Danny,
I must admit that I’m rather confused about your position. One minute you’re suggesting that you don’t really have the expertise to understand this topic all that well and that you’re interested in understanding it more, the next you’re making strong claims about what we can and can’t do and making claims about specific bits of research. It doesn’t seem all that consistent.
BBD,
NL/simplistic/biased low………….but, but, but………..not inconsistent and peer reviewed and (maybe) advance the science. (Like that argument in support of Hay was ever the real reason)
Doesn’t matter, you answered the question and the answer is (unfortunately) what I expected it to be. And it was as disappointing as it could be because I didn’t want to believe it.
Willard will be here shortly to talk with you about ripping off your shirt re: paleo.
Have a great day!
Danny,
Nic Lewis’s work is entirely reasonable pieces of scientific work. However, there are a number of reasons why it may well be biased low. His prior peaks at 0. He uses the lowest plausible system heat uptake rate for the modern period, and about the highest plausible for the early period, he uses temperature datasets that may be underestimating our overall warming. This doesn’t mean that it’s wrong, simply that this may explain why his estimates tend to be lower than other estimates.
ATTP,
I too am confused about my position. It vacillates (with a leaning towards concern or I wouldn’t put out the energy). It’s why I’m here. I’ve delved elsewhere. Probed to gain understanding of the science as well as the psychology. Put out notions. Made mistakes. Offered perspectives and differing positions. Been forced (this is good) to look more deeply (those that I’ve tried to evaluate more deeply, I tread if un-elegantly, in to more technically).
It’s not consistent because there are inconsistencies from my view. Inconsistencies exist in the science (from my level of understanding), and predominately in the positions of those who expound on them. When I say I wish to learn about the technical side and find an inconsistency such as the treatment of Hay vs. the treatment of Lewis/Curry & Otto (they each fit the same criteria as indicated as being necessary by those here yet receive a differing level of acceptance), then I lack trust in the evaluations/presentations and will admit that that then filters over in to other areas of the arena. (Maybe my human failing, or maybe the human failing of those participating and it happens from both sides?)
I truly appreciate you allowing this to happen. I have learned and that is a result of your efforts and work in creating this space (and especially your tolerance). As before, my highest regards to you. You may not, but I look forward to future interactions with you. (Good news for the blog, my work week begins again later this morning).
ATTP,
RE: Lewis.
Thank you. Please tell this to BBD. Lewis/Curry are considered ‘skeptical’ so are apparently unworthy of equal consideration with work such as Hay even though both are peer reviewed, not inconsistent with IPCC (Hay is more inconsistent as it’s outside the reported range and Lewis/Curry are within) and (maybe) advance the science.
(An example of the inconsistencies in handling which leads to a lack of trust).
I’ve noted that no one has addressed Otto.
Best!
> ripping off your shirt re: paleo.
This shows a misunderstanding re: shirt ripping. All Danny does re: paleo is play squirrel.
Shirt ripping is a kind of reverse ad hominem. It is a way to redirect the conversation about oneself. Some call it victim playing. For instance:
This time, Danny dressed his shirt ripping with sarcasm.
***
I note that Danny has not addressed his misinterpretation of a misinterpretation of Hansen, and that he failed to address AT’s point, which is, to repeat:
His “I’m here to learn” and “but so is science” selling tricks don’t bode well with peddling talking points and raising concerns about salesmanship.
Nevertheless, please let’s be thankful for the concerns Danny peddles.
Otto et al. is simply a variant of Lewis & Curry. In what way were you expecting it to have been addressed?
ATTP,
Re: Otto.
Value and acceptance to the body of science? Otto’s not, from what I know, considered a skeptic and treatment seems important. And if Otto finds independently similar to Lewis/Curry why doesn’t it give support (or vice versa)?
Hay has had no equal that I’m aware of, but is newer (younger?).
Danny,
They all exist. They all have value. However, Lewis & Curry, and to a lesser extent Otto et al., are still outliers. That doesn’t mean they’re wrong, but also doesn’t mean that they should simply be accepted. The main problem is that it is generally accepted that it is difficult to understand how ECS can be less than 2C (given our understanding of the radiative properties of CO2 and the feedbacks). Given the inertia of the oceans, the TCR is probably around 70% of that (so, no lower than around 1.4oC). Also, the best estimate for anthropogenic forcings is around 2.3Wm-2 which is 62% of a doubling of CO2 (3.7Wm-2). We’ve warmed by about 0.85oC. Hence a ballpark figure for the TCR – given this – is 1.4oC and that’s assuming that the observed warming matches the forced response and that the response will remain linear.
> Re: Otto.
Let’s get back to when “but Otto” has been peddled into this thread:
The “And, I presume” signals a switch, a switch I prefer to call a squirrel. This switch was followed by Lewis, Otto, and other lukewarm talking points. Just like “look, squirrel!” to a dog, “what’s up with this scientific tidbit?” acts as a decoy for customers of scientific information.
***
I’ve noted that no one has addressed Danny’s knowledge of “there are so many variables which are unknown” re: paleo.
I also note that Danny’s “re:Otto” fails to address both his misinterpretation of a misinterpretation of Hansen, and AT’s point about the various knowledge shifts behind the concerns he peddles.
Danny, how can you be so certain about the risk of harms when most of the current scientific evidence indicates that there are substantial risks?
And I will add if you are not certain about the risks, what good will the actions you propose do if the negative consequences do come to pass. Tell everyone well we (the lukewarmers) got it wrong (sorry) but at least we chose certain steps that everyone could agree on?
Danny
Similar methodological issues to Lewis. Please read. Also are you by any chance confusing transient climate response with equilibrium sensitivity?
Finally, please see Otto’s remarks on the fact that even lower sensitivity estimates offer no comfort for mitigation sceptics:
Fifteen years. And it will keep on warming because this is only the transient response.
Oh, and:
As willard has explained, that wasn’t a shirt-rip.
You, however, have persisted in refusing even to acknowledge the thorny problem for lukewarmers, which is that palaeoclimate variability is incompatible with very low sensitivity to radiative perturbation. This means that lukewarmerism is incompatible with reality.
Joseph,
Those are good and fair questions. First, we must define risk and that is a an exposure to danger. Well, okay, then we must evaluate the level of danger (this is where I’m not confident we have a known known) and how much we are willing to be exposed to that level. And as with any action, there are certain benefits to taking on that danger and levels of hedging against them.
There is no apparent agreement on the level of danger (thinking collectively and not one side or the other). So with that lack of agreement what is doable vs. the alternative dangers (harms) which will be undertaken. (Do we decide to lead to the deaths of millions of children in the future vs. the deaths of millions of children today……….and depending on whom I’m talking with I’ve been accused of being personally responsible for those deaths…………extreme, but you get the point).
I’ve not said do nothing. If the scale is 100 being alarm and 0 being total denial I’m more in the 60% or so range. That’s action against what might happen with a hedge against what might not).
Addtionally, as I consider myself a pragmatist and have spent much of my life in entrepreneurial endeavors my risk tolerance may be greater than others. And this world is made up of folks with ranges of risk tolerance so part of my thinking is what can be implemented to that diverse of a group, and once we do then why would an enemy of ours (thinking U.S. and Isis as example) just set fire to oil/coal much like the images of Kuwait pre Gulf War I.
And keep in mind my personal action. My personal action has lead me to reduce my carbon footprint and I’ll put it up against anyone here. And those who’ve said our footprints are all the same are fooling themselves. Mine and the Koch brothers are not even in the same zip code. And if we don’t accept personal responsibility, who are we to demand it of others? Frankly, I see that argument as a personal cop out. If 300 million folks reduce their personal impacts I just have to expect there would be an effect……..but that’s just me.
So, having answered, would it not be fair for me to ask the same of others here as to where they lie on the scale?
Joseph, you told me you know little about science also so your reliance is on the word of others. I don’t know your age or experience level, but my life experience has led me to question. But, I do drive car, fly in planes, swim, walk in the woods where bears are, handle snakes when others won’t, and so on.
Um, yes, there is. It’s >2C.
Which I have to say is a bit arbitrary and <2C would seem to be sensible in the light of the Eemian and (looking at ~400ppm CO2), the “Mid-Pliocene Warm Period.
> So, having answered […]
To what question? What was the answer again? How are all the arguments by anecdote related to it?
BBD & Willard,
“Um, yes, there is. It’s >2C.”
Not if you ask a denier who says there is NO global warming. Not if you ask the general public. Not if you ask Inhofe.
Reread the specific framing on the statement segment. I’ve made it easy and cut and pasted below.
“There is no apparent agreement on the level of danger (thinking collectively and not one side or the other).”
Thinking collectively………..
This is a representation, a discussion point, a perception. That’s all. Ask Joe Blow on the street or a member of the Ted Cruz election team and see if they’ll agree with your assessment. Ask a farmer in Africa or a shepard in India.
So for discussion sake (unless you are aware of a global survey of of every member of the some 7.3 billion folks out there…………………)
and Willard,
If you don’t like my answer then you address Joseph yourself.
Danny
So what? No credentialled expertise there.
The information is coming from science not right wing ideologues and the general public.
Physics doesn’t surf.
> If you don’t like my answer […]
I don’t know what’s your answer, Danny. All I can see is this:
What is this supposed to answer? Here’s the first question asked by Joseph:
It makes little sense to confidently proclaim that AGW carries no great risk, and to lukewarmingly backtrack and say that it all depends on how we define “risk” and “exposure to danger.”
Here’s the second one:
I note you don’t answer that one.
***
As for your argument that we ought to ask Joe Blow on the street or a member of the Ted Cruz election team before we get an “apparent agreement,” I duly submit that you’re clinging to a very narrow conception of what’s an apparent agreement over AGW risks.
TL;DR — you’re relying both on relativist (“it depends upon definition”) and subjectivist (“agreement is a matter of perception”) gimmicks to peddle anecdata.
BBD,
Well your world may only be within science, but I assure you if you’d look outside your world there are a few billion others who are not in there with ya.
You think “the information” is coming only from science. Wonder what the $900 million per year in Brulle’s study is being used for. Fishing trips or visits to a casino?
Danny Thomas : Please re-read the name of this blog. The uninformed opinions of laymen is irrelevant to the science. It can, unfortunately, be very relevant to the politics of action but that is an entirely different matter.
pbjamm,
While you suggestion is not unappreciated, please take your own advice and re-read the question(s) posed by Joseph which lead to the response I made. To make it easy, Joseph said: “And I will add if you are not certain about the risks, what good will the actions you propose do if the negative consequences do come to pass?” I believe I answered that (in wordy fashion) by indicating that my hope is we find something ‘doable’. Continuing the same behavior and not achieving that which is doable would be worse, IMO.
And as a side note, the “uninformed opinions” of laymen such as Inhofe who is in a position of great power is very relevant to the science if he’s in control of the purse strings, dontcha think?
As suggested to Willard, if you don’t care for my answer (and even if you do) you are more than welcome to answer it yourself.
And for further edification: blog
bläɡ/
noun
1.
a regularly updated website or web page, typically one run by an individual or small group, that is written in an informal or conversational style.
> You think “the information” is coming only from science.
Danny said something about mind probing earlier.
***
> Wonder what the $900 million per year in Brulle’s study is being used for.
Peddling talking points with the best salesmanship money can buy.
Sometimes, the peddling comes free, e.g.: I believe I answered that (in wordy fashion) by indicating that my hope is we find something ‘doable’. This is supposed to answer the question
You can’t make this up.
***
I note that Danny’s “$900 million for denial vs. $2.7 Billion for governmental financed research” has not been addressed yet. It deserves due diligence. Suffice to say for now that directly comparing salesmanship with doing science might conflate independent variables.
And for further edification:
Salesmanship
: the skill or art of selling
: ability or effectiveness in selling or in presenting persuasively
@Danny Thomas
You apparently only read the first of the two sentences I wrote because I directly address the issue of influence the uninformed can have on political action. I see no connection to the question posed by Joseph, I was responding to your two comments preceding mine which were directed at Willard and BBD. I also have not the slightest idea why you felt the need to define blog, this is not 2001. I feel this thread is so far off course now there is no hope of finding our way again.
Let’s make this easy on Danny, shall we?
He seems to argue that one should evaluate risks on the basis of where the middle ground (perceived as such) between the extremes is. Therefore, if we gang up and claim – without any scientific evidence, because who cares, right? – that we’ll see warming of about 15-20 C, he’ll assume a position of what he today will view as great alarmism.
pgjamm,
Or maybe I only responded to the first two sentences.
Look, when I first started it was pounded at me that WUWT was a ‘science site’ while I read about so many non science topics as to make that statement appear silly. Then I get your advice here to re-read the name of the blog. Well the name has zero to do with the comments. And ATTP himself (not complaining, this is his toy but making an observation) refers quite early to ‘tactics’.
I commented off topic. Some spoke of counter funding, some music, some…………whatever (doesn’t really matter) so your comment that this (in so many words) is strictly a science site was found to be entertaining.
This is why I put up the blog definition. It’s informal, and this bucket of worms has gone on so many tangets (not all by me) for the ‘this is a science site’ simply does not apply to this thread.
Please provide what you consider a more appropriate answer to Joseph’s question if you chose to do so.
Oystein,
That’d be a great course of action for those outside the science and those funded by the counter movement to generate a greater divide. You can try it, but I don’t think it would turn out well.
I remind that the science has no room for error due to the pedestal on which it’s placed itself.
Reading this thread, I think your last sentence is.. utterly misguided. And it probably shows, if you have an open mind, why you’ve been (correctly according to what you’ve written) been identified as a contrarian in this thread.
Science has room for errors. Saying it doesn’t is basically an appeal to end science. If that’s your position, fine – if it isn’t, you shouldn’t write such garbage. Because garbage it is.
Secondly, science hasn’t placed itself on a pedestal. Rather, if your sentence is to be taken at face value, people like yourself has placed it there in order to make an easy target to attack. Because I’ll guarantee you no-one here sees science as error-free. Rather, there is a view that owing to the nature of science, it will be self-correcting. Different approaches will be tested, new data will be found, better methods will be worked out – and all the while, we know the results aren’t error-free. The end result, then, is that science progresses. And because of that, we use it as a guide – because it’s the best we’ve got.
But that’s hardly the same as placing it on a pedestal, and in this thread no-one has (as far as I’ve seen) claimed it is – people have merely claimed, like I do, that it’s the best we’ve got, that you need to understand what it says in order to critisize it, and that you’ve not really (seemingly) made an effort to do so.
As far as I’m concerned, that makes you rather uninteresting. And so I’ll not pursue this discussion. You might self-identify as a lukewarmer, but content-wise, looking at what you write, you are more of a contrarian. And you haven’t so far been very good at showing an open mind. Sorry.
Danny
This is where you are going wrong. Scientists are effectively unanimous in pointing to great danger in exceeding 2C.
Deniers deny the risks.
You are creating an absurd false equivalence (nb: logical fallacy) between science and ideologically-motivated denial.
Subverting democracy for short-term financial gain.
Oystein,
Look. I’m not the one who chose to use terms like “the greatest minds” and a “”97% consensus” of same. That was science. So science will have to live with the ramifications of that choice. And my words, counter to what you apparently perceive, was that study should be funded, continue and advance. Trying to twist that in to me suggesting the science end is nonsense on your part.
I am a contrarian to some of the views of those more climate concerned, but did I not say I’m more concerned than not? You see to wish to portray me as some sort of enemy and yet I’m more closely aligned with those more climate concerned than those in denial. What I’ve written addresses a very small percentage of the very large entirety, so an alternative view of one who’s looking more broadly might lead one to suppose that there is much more agreement with the theory of MMGW. But that’s your bias showing thru. I know I’ve shown mine. We’re human, and it happens.
Now the perception of uninteresting, that I can see.
Bollocks. I do wish you would stop making things up for rhetorical effect. The rest of your comment is virtually unintelligible.
Danny,
The 97% is not science, it’s an analysis of the science. It indicates that a vast majority of scientists and scientific publications endores the consensus position that most of the warming since 1950 has been anthropogenic. There’s also nothing surprising about this.
My bet is Nieves and Karl are in ~97% agreement on the hiatus.
BBD,
You say scientists are effectively unanimous, which is a great example to Oystein as to why I say that there is no room for error.
Deniers do deny the risk and in fact deny that GW is occurring. I, do not deny that GW is occurring, but I do question our ability to see in to the future to the extent that it’s portrayed. It might be right, but it might not. We don’t know how the ‘pent up’ energy will manifest just yet. We didn’t expect it to manifest itself in to warmer pools of water (as far as we know now) in the Indian Ocean as an example (indicating a lack of understanding of 70% of this planets natural control system). And we’re not yet sure if, when, and exactly how it will be released leading to warmer air temperatures. We’re not sure that presuming it does release and the RH increases as to what the resulting climate response will be (increased precip makes sense but will it increase snowfall leading to increased albedo?). Our climate systems seems to have had a history of bounds. CO2 levels have varied (I think you alluded to this w/r/t paleo). Methane (MM and natural) has seeps and sinks (some just now being determined). What part do volcanoes and aerosols play? How will the carbon cycle change? What will be the net benefits vs. net harms (we think we know some of the harms).
I could go on, but these are some of the indications of the unsettled science (as I understand them) and I’m not sure opening a fresh can of worms is beneficial at this point.
> Or maybe I only responded to the first two sentences.
Or maybe Danny’s answer to the first two sentences was a “side note” that is actually in violent agreement with pbjamm’s last sentence, which makes the rhetorical question it contains a bit moot.
That Danny has still not addressed his misinterpretation of a misinterpretation of Hansen is not a maybe.
***
I note that Danny has yet to admit that lukewarm salesmanship is a contrarian stance that peddles the lowest bound justified disingenuousness can expect, considering the actual Overton window of ClimateBall.
> I do question our ability to see in to the future to the extent that it’s portrayed.
You can only see the past, Danny. You can’t beat the speed of light. Even Mr. T, whom you’re trying to peddle in with your “but uncertainty” switch, boxes more slowly than that.
There are lots and lots of things we do not know about the Indian Ocean. So he picks up the football and runs in the wrong direction.
Danny,
There are some things we do “know”. Without some form of technology, mammals cannot survive if wet bulb temperatures exceed 35oC. Even at wet bulb temperatures lower than this it can be extremely dangerous. The maximum wet buld temperature the planet has experienced – as far as we’re aware – is 31oC. It increases by about 0.7o for every 1oC of warming. If we follow a high emission pathway we run the risk of eventually having regions of the planet that are effectively uninhabitable for mammals. That seems like a fairly clear risk to me.
Also, we may not know precisely how we will warm, but we can produce plausible estimates of how we will warm. That we don’t know it precisely does not mean that the estimates are likely to be horribly wrong.
Climate agnosia is denial in a mask, Danny. As I have already pointed out.
Here’s the TL / DR:
There are uncertainties but we know enough.
I’ll also repeat what I’ve said many times before. Climate change is very likely irreversible on human timescales. That there is a chance that there could be some benefits is not a good argument for carrying on a we are, given that if the negatives do outweight the positives (as many regard as likely) we won’t be easily able to reverse what we’ve done.
I note that raising concerns about risks is to be found in level 3 of the Contrarian Matrix:
I also note that raising concerns about scientific uncertainty is level 2:
> That there is a chance that there could be some benefits is not a good argument for carrying on a we are, given that if the negatives do outweight the positives (as many regard as likely) we won’t be easily able to reverse what we’ve done.
Hence Joseph’s second question.
But “doable.” Cue to similes of the Honest broker’s Iron Law.
With due respect to our host and moderators, I think it’s time to bring in Sou and the Hot Whoppery. Danny Boy’s position is clear, his arguments are weak and repetitive, and here we are.
“I’ll also repeat what I’ve said many times before. Climate change is very likely irreversible on human timescales. That there is a chance that there could be some benefits is not a good argument for carrying on a we are, given that if the negatives do outweight the positives (as many regard as likely) we won’t be easily able to reverse what we’ve done.”
Man will never fly.
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/540706/researcher-demonstrates-how-to-suck-carbon-from-the-air-make-stuff-from-it/
AT says Climate change is very likely irreversible on human timescales.
Moshpit hears Man will never fly and switches to level 4, e.g..
Oh come on, Steven.
Steven,
I don’t think that really rebuts what I was saying. That we may develop something that can do what we currently regard as difficult isn’t really an argument for not seriously considering the risks associated with what we’re doing now. We didn’t throw ourselves off cliffs hoping that someone would invent a way to fly before we hit the bottom (well, not many people did), we waited until it had actually been developed before we started flying.
This thread, lead by Danny Thomas, has gone all over the climate change spectrum of conversation. It has been very much like a light version of the common “anything but carbon” goose chase. in this case it has been “anything but agreement”. It all started with the false premise that Hay’s paper went counter to the IPCC and showed they were wrong abut SLR. As far as I remember this was never resolved but merely sidestepped and we were off to another tangent. Not very constructive.
@Steven Mosher : I generally find your input to be helpful and constructive even if you rub some of the other people here the wrong way, but this carbon sucker has a fatal flaw. What use is a solution if people refuse to acknowledge the problem? It is the same for all the “future technology will solve this so there is no need for mitigation/action/sacrifice now” arguments and has been beaten to death in other discussions.
pbjamm,
An apt point to remind ourselves of Willard’s contrarian matrix.
If Danny would come up with solid cites for the arguments he has put forward, it would help the Matrix a lot, and I would acknowledge his contribution to it.
The Kemp paper adds reinforcement to Hay, and their I believe their work, while published later, preceded that of Hay. And Eric Leulette is clearly taking Hay as significant.
I still think the IPCC number that applies to Hay is 1.5mm 1900 to 1990. They’re not that far apart.
I think the Cisiro paper also lends support to Hay.
I think Hay is in very good shape.
As for the implied Nieves and Karl disagreement o the hiatus, looks to me like they are pretty much in agreement.
BBD,
Ya know, you whine a lot. Bollocks? Science hides behind the social science (ATTP’s term) of the Cook work. There has never been a topic with so much need to have so much propaganda. I didn’t make the rules, and I don’t like them but when I see them I’m will and do tell it like it is. That you don’t care for is is your worldview issue, not mine.
And the $900M Counter movement in no way subverts democracy. undermine the power and authority of (an established system or institution).
“an attempt to subvert democratic government”
synonyms: destabilize, unsettle, overthrow, overturn
Influence, yes. But once again your worldview gets in the way.
Now, does it attempt to ‘subvert’ the science of GW/CC. Maybe you’ve got an argument there.
Bitch at Tom Steyer if you think that kind of activity is subversive and I might, (might?) take you seriously.
JCH,
Nieves/Karl. Why dontcha email and ask ’em. You usually suggest others do that.
Nieves”It has been well know that XBT’s suffered instrumental bias…….Argo has not suffered from this bias so the argo based system DOES NOT require this adjustment) Paraphrase and capitalization mine. Supplemental materials page 3, bottom.
Karl adjusts the hiatus away, and Nieves specifically calls the hiatus amazingly, a hiatus.
Let me know what they say.
ATTP,
” not a good argument for carrying on a(s) we are”
When did I ever say that? You have me confused with someone else.
Danny
False claim and silly too, as other bunnies can read.
False claim. Ridiculous, too.
False claim. I don’t go around trying to establish a false equivalence between science and ideologically – driven denial, so my worldview is not the problem here, QED.
False claim. My worldview is not the problem here, and covert lobbying by vested interest distorts public policy. This can reasonably be described as subverting democracy.
You sound like you are running out of steam.
BBD
“You sound like you are running out of steam.” Bollocks! And, a false claim and ridiculous, too!
It seems ya got it all figured out BBD, so let’s hear it. Detail your plan, tell us the acceptance level and when, who’s gonna finance it all, what it will accomplish, when, and what we will happen if we don’t follow it perzactly!
Just home for lunch, but will check back later. Should take you long.
That has to rank as among the silliest things you have posted here, Danny.
You should consider cutting your losses.
* * *
It seems that not only did I use the correct word but that you are engaging in highly selective quotation to make it appear as though I mis-spoke. That’s intellectually dishonest.
Danny,
Maybe, but it appears the your view changes from one comment to the next.
Danny,
No, it doesn’t. What are you talking about?
Go look at RealClimate…
They both say warming of the globe never stopped.
> [T]he $900M Counter movement in no way subverts democracy. undermine the power and authority of (an established system or institution).
The expression “Counter movement” may not represent very well reactionary interests.
Some argue that this reactionary movement has already subverted democracy:
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746
How is right-wing populism still a thing might very-well be the most important problem this century has to solve. It is still an open problem. Studying Danny’s salesmanship might help solve that problem.
Which is why we ought to be thankful for Danny’s concerns.
@Danny Thomas
“Science hides behind the social science (ATTP’s term) of the Cook work. There has never been a topic with so much need to have so much propaganda.”
(Sorry if I mess up the video link. Never tried this before so not sure of the syntax)
pbjamm,
Just put the youtube link onto it’s own line with no html tags and it should work automatically.
Danny,
XBTs and ARGO floats are used for vertical ocean temperature profiles. They are not used at all in constructing the ERSSTv4 sea surface temperature dataset documented in Karl et al. 2015, therefore I can guarantee that Karl didn’t adjust any ARGO data. Will that help you sleep better? 😉
Paul S., is it not obvious that the Nieves paper cannot have any significant issue with Karl over a hiatus issue? Imo, they are not at odds.
Of course, my goal is to keep him awake.
Yes to that.
BBD,
So YOU’RE the conspiracy theorist? Is that what you’re saying when you double down on subversion being the proper term for the use of $900 million dollars by the counter movement?
Really? That’s what you MEAN to say? Really? The goal is to undermine, destabilize, unsettle or even overthrow the government? Really?
Ha. And JCH calls me delusional. There are no losses for me to cut, BBD. I think maybe you’ve gone overboard and have no life ring in sight.
ROFL that that’s what you REALLY meant to say.
ATTP,
“When did I ever say that? You have me confused with someone else.
Maybe, but it appears the your view changes from one comment to the next.”
Interesting assertion. I have not stated anywhere in this entire discussion that BAU is what I professed. Nowhere. Never said it at RC, nor at WUWT, nor at Climate, etc. I will send you a $50 dollar gift certificate to your favorite restaurant if you can quote me on that. Need I remind of the challenge to compare carbon footprints on the link provided upthread?
I think, that what I see that has happened is that you have superimposed what you think I am over what I actually am. So take the challenge and either you should correct the statement or enjoy dinner on me.
“Steven,
I don’t think that really rebuts what I was saying. That we may develop something that can do what we currently regard as difficult isn’t really an argument for not seriously considering the risks associated with what we’re doing now. We didn’t throw ourselves off cliffs hoping that someone would invent a way to fly before we hit the bottom (well, not many people did), we waited until it had actually been developed before we started flying.”
Your claim.
‘ Climate change is very likely irreversible on human timescales. ”
Very likely: 90-100% per the IPCC
Human timescales: I take that to mean 2300..
Here is what I point at: I point at a technology in the lab today that is scaleable and that
looks promising; Here is my bet. I bet by 2300, by 2100 even, that we will have developed
a technology that can remove c02 from the air. And you are betting 10:1 against that.
Its not a matter of REBUTTAL its a matter making bets.
Second, Even though I think it is a 50/50 shot that we will develop the technology, I would STILL
seriously consider the risks .
You want to bet on global agreements. There is a risk in that called compliance
I dont mind betting on that, but I would hedge that bet with investments (bigger investments ) in technology
NOT BECAUSE i see less risk from carbon than you, BUT RATHER because I see risks in the mitgation approach that you’all havent taken seriously for 20 years
I note that Danny addresses AT’s 7:52 comment, but not 7:59 comment.
I will also note again that Danny has not addressed his misinterpretation of a misinterpretation of Hansen, and that he failed to address AT’s point, which is, to repeat:
***
To hold that we must do something about AGW that would be (paraphrasing):
(1) doable,
(2) dependent upon some kind of CBA,
(3) consistent with the lukewarm conviction that AGW carries less risk than the scientific establishment currently holds,
(4) uppercut by Mr. T,
(5) sold using a salesmanship that would be agreeable to Inhofe and some unnamed billions of individuals represented by free-market think tanks all around the world,
might not be quite different from BAU, considering that BAU already meets most of these criteria, and assuming that escaping BAU without a carbon market might prove quite disagreeable to everyone, including the 1% of the 1%.
***
Here’s a one-page solution to the AGW problem:
http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/06/28/196355493/economists-have-a-one-page-solution-to-climate-change
Everything else is mostly ClimatBall.
“As the top 100 meters of the Pacific goes, so goes the surface temperatures of the planet,” said Patzert, a climatologist at JPL. With the surface layer of the ocean being cooler for much of the study period, those waters had a moderating effect on air masses and weather systems on the continents. However, ocean and air temperatures have started to rise swiftly in the past two to three years, which suggests that the cool phase of the PDO and the warming hiatus is over. …” – Nieves
I’m delusional? How many times have I stated almost exactly the same thing Nieves is saying in the above quote? I coined the pause is going paws up; as in: like a dead barnyard animal – long before Nieves and Trenberth came around to this. I also say things like, in the General Franco sense, the pause can still fog a mirror. Barely alive; kiss it goodbye.
Nieves says future hiatus events will be less visible. Little did she know this one, thanks to Karl, was about to become less visible. How would this shock her? She has already agreed that is what it’s going to look like. Lol.
Willard,
My own alphabet soup.
A) Not sure why I’m wasting my time on you but I am.
B) Doable, well if it isn’t ‘doable’ why bother.
C) Scientific establishment ‘currently holds’ is a pretty strong indicator that uncertainty exists as it indicates it’s likely to change.
D) Mr. T again? Why not shirt ripping?
E) I didn’t say I wanted anything to fit that which Inhofe desires. I don’t care for the man, but you applying your presumption to me speaks volumes. What I did was remind that he’s a powerful man in a powerful position. Nice try though.
Especially entertained that you bring in economists (Placing reminder to look at the title of this blog here). Maybe Dr. Tol would be so kind as to chime in. Whaddya think?
And speaking of CBA not being needed, I’m happy to understand that your choice is that all alternative spending be ended immediately and reoriented towards your understand of the ‘right’ approach to combat CC/GW. Yep, I’m sure that’ll pass. And who needs health care, food stamps, road and bridges or infrastructure of any kind, oh and military……let’s wipe that out as an unnecessary expense as no comparative analysis is needed. Throw every penny at the issue as you see fit.
JCH,
So I’m taking it that you didn’t ask?
Nieves says again in your quote that the hiatus exists. Karl effectively eliminated it. NOT the same thing. Lol yourownself. I find your continued repeating of the same thing to be no more credible than the first time. They quite apparently see two differing visions of the same event (or non event per Karl). It’s delusional to say that what is happening in the Indian is the same thing as that nothing is happening and hasn’t happened. Those don’t jive. (And just for fun, I used the ‘delusional’ term as a gentle reminder that you used it with me when I reminded you of your giant hug of Hay at C.E. You said I was delusional. I pointed out where you did. You said Yep, that was a giant hug……….ya know, folks make mistakes at times…………maybe it’s nice to be reminded one is human after all)
Yes, you’ve said ‘paws up’ numerous times but I don’t recall you ever saying never happened. And have I disagreed with your projection? My tendency is to expect that the heat Nieves has isolated in the Indian Ocean will manifest in some fashion. It sloshed in there and may indeed slosh back out, but this was an unexpected finding and took a very long time to be discovered. Now it’s subject to verification and being built upon (or disputed). Somewhere I’ve heard that’s how science works.
With your banking so hard on Karl (the non-hiatus) implies a lot of quite learned folks (including those in the IPCC) who have been seeking out ’causes of the pausez’ are pretty well off track and obviously have been wasting their time. That’s gotta be just a bit embarrassing with a ‘consensus’ of the greatest minds in science having missed that. Maybe it was just a ‘look squirrel’. But scientists are human too!
> speaking of CBA not being needed,
When did I ever say that? You have me confused with someone else, Danny.
> I don’t care for the man, but you applying your presumption to me speaks volumes.
When did I ever say that? You have me confused with someone else, Danny.
> I’m happy to understand that your choice is that all alternative spending be ended immediately and reoriented towards your understand of the ‘right’ approach to combat CC/GW.
I’m glad that you’re happy with that understanding, Danny, but did I ever say that? You might have me confused with someone else, but really, do you know anyone who every held that we ought to stop studying AGW?
Keep calm, Danny. Read before you type.
Willard,
“Elementary cost-benefit and business economics teach that this is an incorrect criterion for selecting investments or policies. The appropriate criterion for decisions in this context is net benefits (that is, the difference between, and not the ratio of, benefits and costs).”
CBA incorrect. Appropriate is BCR (which is “used in the formal discipline of CBA………How about that?). You even bolded it and I thank you.
Note, wiki indicates BCR is: A benefit-cost ratio (BCR) is an indicator, used in the formal discipline of cost-benefit analysis, that attempts to summarize the overall value for money of a project or proposal. A BCR is the ratio of the benefits of a project or proposal, expressed in monetary terms, relative to its costs, also expressed in monetary terms. All benefits and costs should be expressed in discounted present values.
Benefit cost ratio (BCR) takes into account the amount of monetary gain realized by performing a project versus the amount it costs to execute the project. The higher the BCR the better the investment. General rule of thumb is that if the benefit is higher than the cost the project is a good investment.”
and we know how you luvs you us wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit%E2%80%93cost_ratio
> You even bolded it and I thank you.
Great! Now, please address your misinterpretation of a misinterpretation of Hansen.
Willard,
“do you know anyone who every held that we ought to stop studying AGW?”
Seriously? Lines quite similar to this have been posted on skeptical blogs all over. Not getting around much?
But do I know them? Not personally.
Willard,
Great! Once you correct your inaccuracy about the CBA, then maybe I’ll address your request to me about Hansen. I wouldn’t want to confuse you with someone else so I’ll wait to read it in your own words. I can wait.
> Lines quite similar to this have been posted on skeptical blogs all over.
Then it won’t be a problem for you to find a quote to substantiate this claim, Danny:
If you could also provide a working URL, that would be great.
***
> Once you correct your inaccuracy about the CBA
Which one, Danny? Sometimes, quoting ain’t enough. For good measure:
explanation
1. The act or process of explaining: launched into a detailed explanation.
2. Something that explains: That was supposedly the explanation for their misdeeds.
3. A mutual clarification of misunderstandings; a reconciliation.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/explanation
willard: You need a better vacation.
I’m back since a few days, Oily One.
Have you seen where Danny addressed Paul S’ point about XBTs and ARGO floats in K15? Perhaps he’s waiting for me to correct Nordhaus on CBA before doing so. Speaking of whom:
Wait. Does it mean we already have what Danny requires before addressing AGW?
What? DT *still* hasn’t admitted he screwed up the whole Hansen/Salon article? Is he still standing by what he read in Salon? Of course we didn’t actually provide a signed, notarized affidavit by Bob Reiss.
[Chill. -W]
Steven,
Just to clarify – because I probably was insufficiently clear – what I was getting at was that in the absence of some kind of new technology or a discovery that allows us to draw carbon out of the atmosphere, it is likely irreversible on human timescales. The natural carbon sinks are not going to rapidly draw down atmospheric CO2 concentrations even if we completely halt emissions.
I agree, though, that maybe something will come along that will either allow us to extract CO2 from the atmosphere or capture CO2 before it is emitted. However, that doesn’t change that without such abilities, it is very likely irreversible. Also, we’ve emitted > 500 GtC (or > 2000 GtCO2). That is about the same as the mass of the entire biosphere. If we carry on as we are, we could quite easily double this. So, even if what you showed is possible, we’re still talking about extracting something comparable to the mass of the entire biosphere. That’s going to be difficult, even if possible. Also, it’s my understanding that even if we could do so, this would have little impact of ocean acidification in the deep ocean.
Yes, I realise that you accept the risks associated with carbon emissions. I also accept that there are risks associated with various mitigation approaches. That’s why my personal preferrence would be that people at least accept that there are risks associated with carbon emissions, as a step towards at least trying to work towards a reasonable solution. That we still have politicians who downplay these risks, and that it seems to actually be a vote winner in some instances, is a great concern – to me, at least.
JCH,
is it not obvious that the Nieves paper cannot have any significant issue with Karl over a hiatus issue? Imo, they are not at odds.
I don’t have access to the Nieves paper, but from what I can see their basic argument seems to be that cooling Pacific SSTs are a major factor in recent global average trends so explaining cooling Pacific SSTs goes a long way towards explaining the cause of a slower global average trend. They propose a mechanism of heat transfer drawing energy away from the Pacific surface and towards a lower ocean layer, and present observations in support.
The only direct area of overlap between the papers is Pacific SSTs. ERSSTv4 (Karl et al. 2015) is consistent in indicating considerable Pacific cooling since about 2003.
The mechanism proposed by Nieves et al. would presumably work regardless of the actual global average temperature trend – it’s simply a factor in determining the Pacific SST trend – so the non-existence of a global scale “hiatus” (whatever that means) wouldn’t affect their conclusions.
But I suspect Danny isn’t really interested in whether the science is consistent. It’s more about the wordplay – Nieves talks about explaining causes of a hiatus, and Karl says there is no apparent hiatus.
Danny
[Snip. -W] Covert lobbying by vested interest is done to distort public policy for financial gain. It isn’t necessary to invoke conspiracy theories or strawman me with garbage about ‘overthrowing’ government. Especially as you’ve already tried that particular misrepresentation and I have already objected to it.
[Snip. Next comment with lines like this last one goes to the trash, BBD. -W]
Willard,
Good morning!
” Once you correct your inaccuracy about the CBA
Which one, Danny? ”
Pick one. I’ll let you decide.
As far as addressing others, well the force (Darth Vader voice) is strong with this tribe and there’s only so much time b/4 work, lunch, and after. I’ve several saved for addressing but the numbers are against me in sheer quantity of participants. I’ll get around to them eventually. Keep your shirt on!
I’m still waiting for you to address only one instead of deflecting and deferring, but that’s okay.
BBD,
You bring up a conspiracy and I’m a prat? Interesting. Even the ‘overthrow’ was a synonym YOU provided. August 23, 7:48 p.m.
All while avoiding the question about do you include Tom Steyer. So I call your strawman, and raise you an ‘avoiding the question’.
ATTP,
” That’s why my personal preferrence would be that people at least accept that there are risks associated with carbon emissions, as a step towards at least trying to work towards a reasonable solution.”
Please tell Willard et al that I chose a less elegant term (doable) than reasonable (who decides?) when I was attempting to say basically the same as you’ve said in the paragraph quoted above.
Thank you.
Danny,
That just seems like semantics.
> I chose a less elegant term (doable) than reasonable
It’s more than less elegant, Danny. It’s trivial. “Let’s do something doable” has only salesmanship value.
> Pick one.
There’s only one, Danny. It’s a quote. From William Nordhaus. Here is the relevant part:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/mar/22/why-global-warming-skeptics-are-wrong/
I await your explanation as to why this is incorrect.
While you’re at it, if you could explain why Nordhaus’ work would not fulfill your requirement of a “reasonable analysis,” that would be great.
ATTP & Willard,
Wow. Semantics. If it’s not ‘doable’ then what’s the point?
Here I am espousing the same thing (if maybe to a lesser extent depending on the definition of ‘reasonable’).
The difference that I see is it appears you want to drive what you perceive needs done down the throats of everyone, and I want to create a ‘reasonable’ set of agreeable methods. If most ‘buy in’ it addresses the ‘compliance’ bugaboo Mosher refers to more fully as opposed to what, compliance by force? Good luck with that! Inhofe, Willard’s good buddy, might have something to say about it.
Semantics, indeed.
[Not everything doable is reasonable, Danny. “YOU chose the word” &c. -W]
Danny
But I *didn’t* bring up conspiracy. That would be you. And this is the third time I have had to object to you verballing me.
Stop it.
No, what I actually wrote was that the vast sums spent by vested interest in covertly funding the denial industry were:
Democracy is not the same as ‘the government’. Once again, you are exposed as either intellectually dishonest or just subliterate; you can choose which you prefer.
Danny,
No, I meant you suggesting “doable” rather than “reasonable” seems like semantics. I wasn’t the one quibbling over a single word.
Willard,
Your repetition is not explanation. How were you inaccurate? Details, your words, please.
[You’re the one who claims that Nordhaus’ explanation is inaccurate, Danny. -W]
ATTP,
So how is what you said different that what I’ve been saying?
Danny,
I’m not really sure, but if it isn’t really different then it’s hard to see why we would need to agree on “doable” rather than “reasonable”.
Paul S. – exactly. Using the Karl GMST graph would simply make the hiatus, in Nieves’ own words, less visible.
BBD,
So, then, are you saying that vested interests (Tom Steyer) using financial influence is acceptable in a ‘democracy’ to ‘subvert’ is okay? One side can do it, and the other cannot?
I chose neither of your false choices. I am neither. I see the problems from both sides and that you cannot is the issue.
So which is it?
ATTP,
The root of it. I’d be willing to accept something doable than wind up with nothing at all that other might see as ‘reasonable. The hitch is in who decides what’s ‘reasonable’.
Miss me. I’ve gotta go to work.
Oh, and this isn’t acceptable either:
Another lie.
It was you at August 23 7:21pm selectively quoting synonyms to misrepresent me:
Stop it, Danny.
BBD,
It’s not a lie if it’s true. YOU chose the word subvert, I only supplied the definition and synonyms of the word you chose.
So stop it, BBD.
Vested interests are going to cause a great deal of harm by misleading the electorate and decision makers about the risks of climate change. That subversion of democracy for financial gain by an elite is morally wrong.
The only confusion here is in the minds of apologists for vested interest such as yourself.
I chose the word because it means what I intended to say.
You are throwing synonyms at me to try and avoid addressing what I actually said and you are also resorting to increasingly extreme intellectual dishonesty.
What I said is accurate and no amount of nonsense flung out by you can change that.
Okay, maybe we can call a halt to this discussion. It’s been going on for a number of days and I can’t see that it’ll get more constructive if it continues. In fact, I’ll just close the comments. I have a meeting to get to anyway 🙂
Pingback: RCP8.5 | …and Then There's Physics