Gavin provided a thoughtful commentary about the role of scientists as advocates in his RealClimate piece a few weeks ago.
I have weighed in with my own views on the matter in my op-ed today in this Sunday’s New York Times. And, as with Gavin, my own views have been greatly influenced and shaped by our sadly departed friend and colleague, Stephen Schneider. Those who were familiar with Steve will recognize his spirit and legacy in my commentary. A few excerpts are provided below:
THE overwhelming consensus among climate scientists is that human-caused climate change is happening. Yet a fringe minority of our populace clings to an irrational rejection of well-established science. This virulent strain of anti-science infects the halls of Congress, the pages of leading newspapers and what we see on TV, leading to the appearance of a debate where none should exist.
.
.
My colleague Stephen Schneider of Stanford University, who died in 2010, used to say that being a scientist-advocate is not an oxymoron. Just because we are scientists does not mean that we should check our citizenship at the door of a public meeting, he would explain. The New Republic once called him a “scientific pugilist” for advocating a forceful approach to global warming. But fighting for scientific truth and an informed debate is nothing to apologize for.
.
.
Our Department of Homeland Security has urged citizens to report anything dangerous they witness: “If you see something, say something.” We scientists are citizens, too, and, in climate change, we see a clear and present danger. The public is beginning to see the danger, too — Midwestern farmers struggling with drought, more damaging wildfires out West, and withering, record, summer heat across the country, while wondering about possible linkages between rapid Arctic warming and strange weather patterns, like the recent outbreak of Arctic air across much of the United States.
.
.
The piece ends on this note:
How will history judge us if we watch the threat unfold before our eyes, but fail to communicate the urgency of acting to avert potential disaster? How would I explain to the future children of my 8-year-old daughter that their grandfather saw the threat, but didn’t speak up in time?
Those are the stakes.
I would encourage interested readers to read the commentary in full at the New York Times website.
Constructive contributions are welcome in the comment section below :-)
#548–“Then at times the IEA switches from using GWh to GW, as in here: “Renewable power capacity in the OECD Americas rises by over 100 GW over 2012-18.””
Just to clarify: I would hope everybody (not just the IEA) uses GW when talking about “capacity”, as GWh is an inappropriate unit for that purpose.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt#Confusion_of_watts.2C_watt-hours_and_watts_per_hour
“A power station would be rated in multiples of watts, but its annual energy sales would be in multiples of watt hours.”
SecularAnamist gives a succinct (short and pithy) explanation of uncertainty in making projections (11 Feb 2014 @ 1:55 PM, ~#540) and Walter, in the next 7 of 9 posts and 3,500 words (no I don’t count words, I have a computer), explains how he doesn’t understand the concept of uncertainty and the difference between projections and predictions.
One word- scenario- Steve
The spam capture is a pain. Its my fault I do not already know every drug name and the rest of the keywords in the list. Doesn’t matter. I’ll save what I wanted to post for elsewhere. Thanks. Walter
#550 Kevin McKinney: Did you take that as a ‘criticism’ of the IEA or me suggesting they shouldn’t do that? I know the difference.
“everybody” ……… how about Mrs Jones who lives down the corner?
You imagine that ‘everybody’ will already know the difference as they read along, and read another report? And if they don’t then they should go ‘educate themselves’ at their local College before they go Vote next time? is this the idea?
It is always the ‘readers’ fault they do not understand what these publicly released reports mean? And really, this is the only thing worth commenting on according to Kevin. Well thanks Kevin. Really good point!
Was the word “confusion” in that wiki link you gave. I wonder why I mentioned it in the first place? This is tedious, not the information contained in my comments. Know it all already? Then move along. It’s not for you.
Walter
Kevin @550:
I’ve never like KWh or GWh as units. You take a perfectly good unit, the Watt, which expresses energy transfer per unit time (Joules per second), and multiply it by a different time unit (hours) to get back to a total energy. What the heck is wrong with Joules or kiloJoules or megaJoules?
A GWh is GJ-hour/second. When you spell it out in full, it looks stoopid. It’s like measuring distance in kilometer-seconds/hour (or furlong-hours/fortnight).
Walter says:
12 Feb 2014 at 6:11 PM
Regarding Historical and Future Projections for Energy Use and GHG emissions
From IPCC AR5 Sept 2013
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_TechnicalSummary.pdf
TS.5 Projections of Global and Regional Climate Change
Projections of changes in the climate system are made […] These models simulate changes based on a set of scenarios of anthropogenic forcings. A
new set of scenarios, the Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs), was used for the new climate model simulations carried out under the framework of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 CMIP5) of the World Climate Research Programme. […] CMIP5, whose results form the core of the climate system projections. This section summarizes the assessment of these climate change projections.
Projected changes are given relative to the 1986–2005 average unless indicated otherwise.
TS.5.2 Future Forcing and Scenarios
[..] a series of new Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP) are used that largely replace the SRES scenarios. They produce a range of responses from ongoing warming, to approximately stabilized forcing, to a stringent mitigation scenario (RCP2.6) that stabilizes and then slowly reduces the radiative forcing after mid-21st century.
In contrast to the AR4, the climate change from the RCP scenarios in the AR5 is framed as a combination of adaptation and mitigation. Mitigation actions starting now in the various RCP scenarios do not produce discernibly different climate change outcomes for the next 30 years or so, while long-term climate change after mid-century is appreciably different across the RCPs. […]
Future anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG), aerosol particles and other forcing agents such as land use change are dependent on socio-economic factors, and may be affected by global geopolitical agreements to control those emissions to achieve mitigation.
AR4 made extensive use of the SRES scenarios that do not include additional climate initiatives, which means that no scenarios were included that explicitly assume implementation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) or the emissions targets of the Kyoto Protocol.
[…] In this report, outcomes of climate simulations that use new scenarios (some of which include implied policy actions to achieve mitigation) referred to as (RCPs) are assessed. These RCPs represent a larger set of mitigation scenarios and were selected to have different targets in terms of radiative forcing at 2100. The scenarios should be considered plausible and illustrative, and do not have probabilities attached to them.
The RCPs were developed using Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) that typically include economic, demographic, energy, and simple climate components. The emission scenarios they produce are then run through a simple model to produce time series of greenhouse gas concentrations that can be run in AOGCMs. […]
Considering CO2, both ‘concentrations-driven’ projections and ‘emissions-driven’ projections are assessed from CMIP5. These allow quantification of the physical response uncertainties as well as climate-carbon cycle interactions. […]
There is robust evidence that accompanying controls on methane (CH4) (Fracking Shale Gas CSG & natural) emissions would offset some of this
sulphate-induced warming, although the cooling from methane mitigation will emerge more slowly than the warming from sulphate mitigation due to the different timescales over which atmospheric concentrations of these substances decrease in response to decreases in emissions.
Including uncertainties in projecting the chemically reactive greenhouse gases methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) from RCP emissions gives a range in abundance pathways that is likely 30% larger than the range in RCP concentrations used to force the CMIP5 climate models. Including uncertainties in emission estimates from agricultural, forest, and land-use sources, in atmospheric lifetimes, and in chemical feedbacks, results in a much wider range of abundances for N2O, CH4, and HFCs and their radiative forcing.
In the case of CH4 it likely extends the range up to 500 ppb above RCP8.5 and 270 ppb below RCP2.6 through to 2100, with smaller ranges in the near term. […]
TS.5.3 Quantification of Climate System Response
Estimates of the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) based on observed climate change, climate models and feedback analysis, as well as paleoclimate evidence indicate that ECS is positive, likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C with high confidence, […]
Further near-term warming from past emissions is unavoidable due to thermal inertia of the oceans. This warming will be increased by ongoing emissions of GHGs over the near term, and the climate observed in the near term will also be strongly influenced by the internally generated variability of the climate system. Previous IPCC Assessments only described climate-change projections wherein the externally forced component of future climate was included but no attempt was made to initialize the internally generated climate variability. Decadal climate predictions, on the other hand, are intended to predict both the externally forced component of future climate change, and the internally generated component.
TS.5.4.2 Projected Near-Term Changes in Temperature
In the absence of major volcanic eruptions—which would cause significant but temporary cooling—and, assuming no significant future long term changes in solar irradiance, it is likely that the GMST anomaly for the period 2016–2035, relative to the reference period of 1986–2005 will be in the range 0.3°C to 0.7°C (medium confidence).
There is high confidence that higher concentrations of greenhouse gases and lower amounts of sulphate aerosol lead to greater warming. [..]
The projected warming of global mean temperatures implies high confidence that new levels of warming relative to pre-industrial climate will be crossed, particularly under higher greenhouse gas emissions scenarios. Relative to a reference period of 1850–1900, under RCP4.5 or RCP6.0, it is more likely than not that the mean GMST for the period 2016–2035 will be more than 1°C above the mean for 1850–1900, and very unlikely that it will be more than 1.5°C above the 1850–1900 mean (medium confidence).
Possible future changes in solar irradiance could influence the rate at which global mean surface air temperature increases, but there is high confidence that this influence will be small in comparison to the influence of increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
TS.5.5 Long-Term Climate Change
TS.5.5.1 Projected Long-Term Changes in Global Temperature
Global mean temperatures will continue to rise over the 21st century under all of the RCPs. From around the mid-21st century, the rate of global warming begins to be more strongly dependent on the scenario. […]
It is virtually certain that, in most places, there will be more hot and fewer cold temperature extremes as global mean temperatures increase. These changes are expected for events defined as extremes on both daily and seasonal time scales. Increases in the frequency, duration and magnitude of hot extremes along with heat stress are expected, however occasional cold winter extremes will continue to occur. […]
Under RCP8.5 it is likely that, in most land regions, a current 20-year high temperature event will occur more frequently by the end of the 21st century (at least doubling its frequency, but in many regions becoming an annual or two-year event) […]
TFE.6: Climate Sensitivity and Feedbacks
The description of climate change as a response to a forcing that is amplified by feedbacks goes back many decades. The concepts of radiative forcing and climate feedbacks continue to be refined, and limitations are now better understood; for instance, feedbacks may be much faster than the surface warming, feedbacks depend on the type of forcing agent (e.g., greenhouse gas vs. solar forcing), or may have intrinsic timescales (associated mainly with vegetation change and ice sheets) of several centuries to millennia.
The analysis of physical feedbacks in models and from observations remains a powerful framework that provides constraints on transient future warming for different scenarios, on climate sensitivity and, combined with estimates of carbon cycle feedbacks (see TFE.5), determines the greenhouse gas emissions that are compatible with climate stabilization or targets. […]
TS.5.6 Long-Term Projections of Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles
Projections of the global carbon cycle to 2100 using the CMIP5 Earth System Models (ESMs) represent a wider range of complex interactions between the carbon cycle and the physical climate system. With very high confidence, ocean carbon uptake of anthropogenic CO2 will continue under all four Representative Concentration Pathways through to 2100, with higher uptake in higher concentration pathways. The future evolution of the land carbon uptake is much more uncertain. […]
The loss of carbon from frozen soils constitutes a positive radiative feedback that is missing in current coupled ESM projections. […]
6.1.2.1 CO2 and the Global Carbon Cycle
Since the beginning of the Industrial Era, humans have been producing energy by burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas), a process which is releasing large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (Rotty, 1983; Boden et al., 2011; see Section 6.3.2.1). The amount of fossil fuel CO2 emitted to the atmosphere can be estimated with an accuracy of about 5–10% for recent decades from statistics of fossil fuel use (Andres et al., 2012). Total cumulative emissions between 1750 and 2011 amount to 365 ± 30 PgC (see Section 6.3.2.1 and Table 6.1), including a contribution of 8 PgC (2.19%) from the production of cement. […]
6.3.2.1 CO2 Emissions from Fossil Fuel Combustion and Cement Production
Global CO2 emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels used for this chapter are determined from national energy consumption statistics and converted to emissions by fuel type (Marland and Rotty, 1984). Estimated uncertainty for the annual global emissions are on the order of ±8% (converted from ±10% uncertainty for 95% confidence intervals in Andres et al. (2012) to the 90% confidence intervals used here).
The uncertainty has been increasing in recent decades because a larger fraction of the global emissions originate from emerging economies where energy statistics and emission factors per fuel type are more uncertain (Gregg et al., 2008). CO2 emissions from cement production were 4% of the total emissions during 2000–2009, compared to 3% in the 1990s (Boden et al., 2011). Additional emissions from gas flaring represent
quoting again:
The total amount of anthropogenic CO2 released in the atmosphere since preindustrial (often termed cumulative carbon emission, although it only applies to CO2 emissions) is a good indicator of the atmospheric CO2 concentration and hence of the global warming response. The ratio of global mean surface temperature change to total cumulative anthropogenic CO2 emissions is relatively constant over time and independent of the scenario.
This near-linear relationship between total CO2 emissions and global temperature change makes it possible to define a new quantity, the transient climate response to cumulative carbon emission (TCRE), as the transient global mean surface temperature change for a given amount of accumulated anthropogenic CO2 emissions, usually 1000 PgC.
TCRE is model dependent, as it is a function of the cumulative CO2 airborne fraction and the transient climate response, both quantities varying significantly across models. Taking into account the available information from multiple lines of evidence (observations, models and process understanding), the near linear relationship between cumulative CO2 emissions and peak global mean temperature is well established in the literature and robust for cumulative total CO2 emissions up to about 2000 PgC.
It is consistent with the relationship inferred from past cumulative CO2 emissions and observed warming, is supported by process understanding of the carbon cycle and global energy balance, and emerges as a robust result from the entire hierarchy of models.
Expert judgment based on the available evidence suggests that TCRE is likely between 0.8°C–2.5°C per 1000 PgC, for cumulative emissions less than about 2000 PgC until the time at which temperature peaks. (see Page TS-60)
FINAL Note:
Giving a temp range of 0.8 to 2.5 seems to me to be EXTREMELY UNDEFINED and overly broad. So wide in fact that it becomes useless as a methodology to Define anything regarding actual PgC Carbon increases that is known and defined by other physical methods.
This WIDE RANGE as numerical figure merely opens the door wide open for all kinds of recalcitrant and special interest groups to use it as a WEDGE to be CHALLENGED as being “meaningless’, a guess and NOT a valid scientific Judgement based on hard evidence and scientific rigor anyone could ‘rationally’ rely upon to make a ‘fair’ Political Judgement regarding action. Leave the barn door open and the horse will bolt though it.
Of course, the Uncerntainities still have to be addressed and noted in the IPCC reports and climate papers. A Catch 22 maybe. Give an honest range and one is critcised for vagueness or trying to eat your eggs and have them too. Be too narrow in this and one can be challenged for drawing too much assumtpion in one’s ‘judgment’ that’s not ‘sceintifically supported by all the evidence.
In this game of sophistry, the scientists cannot win by being scientific. Well they can win, as they can hold to the ground that they are “right” based upon the evidence. The point is are the people of the world then subsequently fully informed about the reality when surrounded by all the ‘noise’?
What is the Mission and Goals for all this Climate Science at the end of the day? Was it to get the science 100% perfect and be ‘right’ about the data at all times? Or was the motivation behind the Mission of Climate Science to do the ‘work’, get the hard facts, and then inform the people of the world so that they would UNDERSTAND the current and future reality we are all facing as a direct result of AGW?
If so, are those two options the very same thing, or are they mutually exclusive alternatives? Maybe another way to ask that is: Which is of higher importance? The method or the accomplishing of the set Task or Goal? Frankly I am unsure. What I think I do know is that BAU is simply not an option anymore. The minor details and nuances and uncertainties no longer matter to me.
FINI
Kevin’s ref to IRENA wasn’t too bad. Here is an example report if interested. http://irena.org/remap/REmap%20Summary%20of%20findings_final_links.pdf
Still very problematic when reconciling what they suggest and what others suggest. Too many porcupines as usual. But there are some representations in this report others don’t do, and the website as a whole seems to be more ‘action’ support orientated than others.
As yet I am unable to locate exactly where the IPCC AR5 shows it’s primary sources for the assumptions of future Carbon CO2e emissions that relate to their RCPs. I am also unable to find exactly where they record their figures of the specific amounts of projected CO2e emissions upon which they base their RCPs Models on for the future.
Probably it is right in front of my face yet I fail to see it.
Anyway, it is very clear based on several observations in recent weeks about Carbon Emissions Reports that spending any more time on them to seek out a credible valid estimation of future BAU carbon emissions and credible renewable projections is a futile exercise.
Others far more qualified than me with the actual source data at their finger tips and the resources to present a readable report for the average person or policy maker could do this themselves already if they chose to.
Morally speaking I come to the view that I have no right to interfere with people’s free choices even if that involves them metaphorically driving their car over a cliff. I have no desire to martyr myself to any cause.
May as well enjoy the rest of my life as best I can and continue on being as self-responsible and self-sufficient as I can. If I can teach and encourage my adult children better that’s great.
All the rest can do as they wish. And those who choose to listen to denier flakes or self-serving politicians etc deserve all they get long term. Those who prefer choose to argue over hair splitting and insist they must be right, they can have at it. What goes around, comes around. People are responsible for their own choices, eventually.
Walter
Please note in the IRENA REmap 2030 report that:
“Biomass currently makes up 75% of the total
renewable energy consumption, with traditional
biomass use accounting for more than 50% of
all renewables. Not all traditional biomass used
today is sustainable, however.”
Beware of any quotes by anyone and any ‘report’ that renewables are X, Y Z % already, or can double or triple that. It totally depends on what their base line is, and what they are actually ‘listing’ as being ‘renewable energy sources’.
Most do not include “biomass”, and all treat all sources differently, over different timescales, and upon different sources (and figures) for current use.
Just about all the statements and graphs in these kinds of report are based on quite unsubstantiated ‘numbers’ and assumptions and constraints of every kind imaginable.
Frankly I cannot see that any of the ~10 “renewable energy projections” and all the existing current energy use figures I have see are in any way credible and trustworthy enough for any purpose. Buyer Beware! Don’t believe me either. Make up your own mind. Just sayin’ what I think is correct today.
Walter
MISSED AN IMPORTANT SECTION …. between
compared to 3% in the 1990s (Boden et al., 2011). Additional emissions from gas flaring represent
AND HERE
quoting again:
The total amount of anthropogenic CO2 released in the atmosphere since
——————-
CO2 emissions from cement production were 4% of the total emissions during 2000–2009, compared to 3% in the 1990s (Boden et al., 2011). Additional emissions from gas flaring represent
[END SECTION]
OK then, a work-around is in order. Much better.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/206878243/Historical-and-Future-Projections-for-Energy-Use-and-GHG-Emissions-the-IPCC-AR5
Walter
Important IPCC AR5 data source
A synthesis of carbon dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel combustion
R. J. Andres 1
Abstract. This synthesis discusses the emissions of carbon
dioxide from fossil-fuel combustion and cement production.
While much is known about these emissions, there is still
much that is unknown about the details surrounding these
emissions. This synthesis explores our knowledge of these
emissions in terms of why there is concern about them; how
they are calculated; the major global efforts on
inventorying them; their global, regional, and national
totals at different spatial and temporal scales; how they
are distributed on global grids (i.e., maps); how they
are transported in models; and the uncertainties
associated with these different aspects of the emissions.
Correspondence to: R. J. Andres
Received: 28 November 2011 – Published in Biogeosciences Discuss.: 31 January 2012
Revised: 17 April 2012 – Accepted: 24 April 2012 – Published: 25 May 2012
http://www.biogeosciences.net/9/1845/2012/bg-9-1845-2012.pdf
Walter
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAnVNXaa5oA
““everybody” ……… how about Mrs Jones who lives down the corner?
You imagine that ‘everybody’ will already know the difference as they read along, and read another report? And if they don’t then they should go ‘educate themselves’ at their local College before they go Vote next time? is this the idea?”
– See more at: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/01/if-you-see-something-say-something/comment-page-12/#comment-457440
Don’t be silly, Walter. “Everybody” should be using the customary units for everyday communication on the topic. (Although I agree with you about the conceptual slipperiness (or should I say ‘convolution’?) involved in GWh.)
So, yeah, if Mrs. Jones has an opinion (and why shouldn’t she?), it should be phrased accordingly.
Oh, and glad the ref was useful.
PS, beware the bubble: http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/1caomf/what_are_some_useful_secrets_from_your_job_that/c9es3w2
This can also happen with news, and with history. What you see depends on who you are and where you are.
Back when publishers sold regional versions of grade school American History texts, in the 1950s, we gradeschoolers in the South had four chapters about the War Between The States. Yankees reading the “exact same textbook” got one chapter about the Civil War. Heroes differed.
Here’s to the new world, same as the old world.
Kevin, I see using the word “should” as an expression of ‘hope’. In a perfect world there is no need for hope. When people consciously choose to communicate information of high value, such as the report on renewable energy, then they ‘should’ accommodate all readers in their target audience which includes Mrs Jones. Assumptions that she ‘should’ already know the difference is self-defeating by those who ‘should’ already know better.
Even knowledgeable people like bloggers can skim a report like this to cherrypick out key points and represent that incorrectly by accident. Shifts in the focus of subject matter ‘should’ be very clearly delineated in the text. The GW and GWh ‘movement’ was important. The numbers mean something completely different, and yet the ‘numbers’ themselves seem as if they are the same ‘kind of thing’. That goes back to basic philosophy of Aristotle et al. Professionals doing this kind of work ‘should’ know better already. They simply forget they are no longer speaking to their peers anymore, but to the ‘public’ and not very ‘smart’ politicians and business people as far as the science and semantics and jargon goes.
My very point about that one small item was that they shifted conceptual realities in their discourse. They ‘should’ have made a ‘note’ about that, added in a small ‘glossary point’ of the difference. Then all would be well (better) no matter who was reading the document. This is good planning and foreseeing problems ahead of time. Therefore it is being more effective in the field of ‘communication’. Five Ps.
The only thing I did on my comments about this item in their report was to ‘flag’ it. I didn’t complain, I merely used it as an example of how easily things become misconstrued and then mis-reported and mis-understood by readers due to this kind of “conceptual slipperiness or should I say ‘convolution’”. I was flagging for the benefit of those who might not notice such subtle problems. Anyone who already knew the difference between GW and GWh (eg scientists and the well informed on climate science) are likely to not recognize WHY it can be such a problem for most other readers and zoom past it. I took the time out to say “hey” watch out for this. Don’t do it yourself when writing on a blog, is unwritten in the white space of my comments. Misinterpreting this minor item and building a mountain out of it actually missed the point. I had to respond to clear that up.
It goes back to many comments I make about semantics and language choices. It is self-defeating to blame readers (the average Mrs Jones public and Joe Skeptic) for not being up to speed, when the one’s responsible are in fact the authors. All the way up the science totem pole to the IPCC body.
A problem is this. When I or you say something here, I am accessible. The IPCC and the scientists etc are not. Even RC authors rarely respond to direct queries and confused comments by people here. 99% of the time people are all left to their own devices. When they get it wrong, they carry this forward for years or decades and it spreads like a virus. (Climate Science in Denierville Land)
Scientists and academics can comprehend a science paper because they have been FORMALLY trained in this particular ‘mindset’. This method in fact goes against our primal default human nature settings of how we usually think and form our beliefs.
The public have not been trained and they never will be. Yet they still vote and all form their hard and fast opinions. When an otherwise intelligent person reads something ‘convulsed’ that they cannot follow or understand it makes them FELL DUMB. An emotional reaction arises which turns them off to the author (in an idealized sense). They get hit with cognitive dissonance and FEEL really uncomfortable and stupid.
Most will keep looking for something to make them FEEL better and when they see a skeptic website blog criticizing the ‘author’ and his group it makes them FEEL better, and very welcome. If others on that site present Values and social beliefs similar to their own the cognitive dissonance goes away, and they feel relaxed and believe they have found the TRUTH. The default position then is to BELIEVE what they say on that skeptic site and then all the others too. Why? because they no longer feel so DUMB and the cognitive dissonance goes away. They TRUST such people who make them feel good, they do not trust the climate scientists who make them feel bad and instill all this doom and gloom fear of the future in them. They shut down to ‘reason and evidence’. Refuse to even look at it anymore.
They need help not personal abuse for being an even bigger idiot now. Arguing with them, pushing hard facts will NOT change their cognitive thinking. Another method is required and it will work but it takes time and effort to re-engage such people once they have switched off completely.
It really doesn’t matter about the ‘facts of the science’. The link I provided of George Lakoff is one of many instructive science based truths which explain this process and how the average person engages and actually thinks. It explains why otherwise intelligent people reject the science about climate.
The responsibility for communication is solely in the domain of the ‘speaker’ and ‘author’ and not the listener. The assumption must be that the listener has cognitive and emotional barriers that must be circumvented. One proven method is the use of imagery, metaphor built within a narrative. Story telling is in fact the primal basis for all human cognitive activity, in effective communication and therefore learning.
Science Papers and IPCC Reports total neglect this fact of life. Al Gore showed the science world HOW to communicate climate science to the public back in 2007. No one was listening or noticed the importance of this then and no one is listening now.
The question is do people who do all this work want to be right, or do they want to be successful and achieve the higher much more important goal of actually making a positive difference in what people know and think about the climate science?
A few have taken up this challenge, but not enough yet, and time is running out.
Walter
Say “Stop” ?? To who ?? To what ??
Since the corporations own about 99% of everything – especially the government (OUR POLICY MAKERS), and they write the ‘Business-as-usual’ laws that allow government to stall on any climate change mitigation, going down the useless path of writing reps, parading around with signs, yelling slogans, will produce the same old tired response – yawn….. nothing. Energy is in a race to yard out as much burnable carbon as possible to rip the profit from it before it can be slowed. The Koch brothers know full well what climate change is – with the top analysts money can buy – think they’re going to miss that ?? So instead of trying to stay within the useless rules that corporations wrote for us, we need to break out of them. The corporations hope to keep us penned in by those nice rules. After all – we’re a democratic society with 1 vote per person – we can just use our vote to make change all we need. Yeah – and that’s just how Al Gore became president. One more piece of ‘legislation from the bench’.
Naomi Klein’s, et al., “Fossil Fuel” boycott isn’t in the rules.
The Lakota nation tribe – trying to blockade the Keystone equipment from getting to that Stalin-esque pipeline isn’t playing within the rules.
The cops just clubbed the Indians out of the way. Haven’t the Indians put up with enough of the white-man’s “Manifest Destiny”?
Our own State Department decided that the pipe is going to be built anyway – might as well be us.
Instead of laying down in the road to stop an 80 ton truck – think of ways to make building and maintaining a massive pipeline so expensive that it becomes an economically bad idea?
If women played within the rules – would they have the vote today?
If the slaves played within the rules – would the they be free today?
If the colonists had played within the rules, would they have fired the shots at Lexington Green ? The law was of no help to any of them. It was in fact the enemy. The laws that allow corporations run the entire show are bad and need to be rooted out.
Hank Roberts says with the mindset and maturity of an 8 year old girl:
Nothing important.
I am reminded of the endless waffle on climate skeptic sites and blogs. A well intended person presents a comment with supporting evidence that argues the false claims being made by a denier. They point out logical fallacies in the flawed arguments made, as well as pointedly showing where the ‘facts’ being presented are in fact incorrect.
They provide the hard scientific proven evidence via links to Published papers, to RC articles, to skeptical science, and the IPCC. It proves beyond doubt (if the skeptics would LOOK at it and think about with an open rational mind) that the ‘claims’ being presented are not supported by factual well researched evidence and logical conclusions therein.
To truly understand what this person has presented (which is typically much longer than the one-liners of the denial activists comments) the readers of the blog MUST check for themselves the ‘long winded’ papers, articles, blog posts, graphs & diagrams. More than they actually have to THINK about what is being presented. This all takes time and personal effort to understand the reality of what has been presented.
However extreme fanatics and fundamentalists already know everything. NO one is going to tell them to spend ‘a lot’ of time looking at things they already know are wrong and not worth reading.
The responses come back like 8 year old girls who have had their hair pulled in class. It goes like this:
Pro-Science Person: “So you don’t believe in the scientists, the 98% of the climatologists that said that…?”
Denier Host: ”You mean the corrupt ones? You mean the corrupt ones who admit they screwed up — they skewed — their findings?”
Pro-Science Person: ”[..] [R]ead my lips, 98% of climatologists!”
Denier Host: “[..] How do [the climate scientists] make their living? Their industry has to be addressed. Believe me, for anyone at the very least to think that it is settled science is a huge leap.”
This is what Hank often does. It is the same flippant shut down that deniers and skeptics use everyday against people who present ‘long winded’ hard to grasp complex information about the truth of climate science. They instead choose not to listen and then spend their life complaining about everyone on earth who keeps talking about what is really important.
They refuse to LOOK at the substantial evidence and anecdotal examples being presented and handed to them on a silver platter. All they do is make up stuff, get all bent out of shape emotionally, play the man using ad hominem tactics, ignore the content completely even they do read it, and then proffer irrelevant illogical counter-arguments.
When all else fails then they stoop to delusional conspiracy theories and fantasy paranoid beliefs about the person.
Impatience is an initial form of frustration and dislike. Frustration is an initial less energetic form of anger. The pernicious effects of this state of mind are deep and long lasting. I could quote multiple science papers about this, but who would read them? Not those who really need to the most, that is for sure.
You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make them drink. No point getting upset about it or taking it personally. It’s only a horse.
Walter
#552 Steve Fish says:
” explains how he doesn’t understand the concept of uncertainty and the difference between projections and predictions. One word- scenario- Steve”
Interesting Hypothesis Steve Fish. This is where you present your scientific valid evidence and analysis and well reasoned arguments that actually supports this ‘Theory’ that you are claiming is true.
Please put up. Or ….. ? You are a scientist Steve Fish. Prove to me you can do the ‘work’ involved in the scientific method. Your assertion is egregiously False.
Please Mr Moderator, it is grossly unfair to allow such underhanded ad hominem claims being asserted and then delete a response which qualifies such emotive put downs for what they really are: B******t!
Please be consistent. Intentional ad hom insults about a ‘person’ warrant responses in kind. Maybe you deleted the comments in the wrong order. Delete the first, the second would not be necessary as a response. This is only logical.
Walter
[Moderator, this would be a more acceptable response to Hank. Yes? Delete the other.]
Hank Roberts expresses his personal preferences by way of a youtube video.
To myself Hanks personal ‘feelings’ and preferences are of no importance.
I am reminded of the endless back and forth on climate skeptic sites and blogs. A well intended person presents a comment with supporting evidence that argues the false claims being made by a denier. They point out logical fallacies in the flawed arguments made, as well as pointedly showing where the ‘facts’ being presented are in fact incorrect.
They provide the hard scientific proven evidence via links to Published papers, to RC articles, to skeptical science, and the IPCC. It proves beyond doubt (if the skeptics would LOOK at it and think about with an open rational mind) that the ‘claims’ being presented are not supported by factual well researched evidence and logical conclusions therein.
To truly understand what this person has presented (which is typically much longer than the one-liners of the denial activists comments) the readers of the blog MUST check for themselves the ‘long winded’ papers, articles, blog posts, graphs & diagrams. More than they actually have to THINK about what is being presented. This all takes time and personal effort to understand the reality of what has been presented.
However extreme fanatics and fundamentalists already know everything. NO one is going to tell them to spend ‘a lot’ of time looking at things they already know are wrong and not worth reading.
The responses come back like 8 year old girls who have had their hair pulled in class. It goes like this:
Pro-Science Person: “So you don’t believe in the scientists, the 98% of the climatologists that said that…?”
Denier Host: ”You mean the corrupt ones? You mean the corrupt ones who admit they screwed up — they skewed — their findings?”
Pro-Science Person: ”[..] [R]ead my lips, 98% of climatologists!”
Denier Host: “[..] How do [the climate scientists] make their living? Their industry has to be addressed. Believe me, for anyone at the very least to think that it is settled science is a huge leap.”
This is what Hank often does. It is the same flippant shut down that deniers and skeptics use everyday against people who present ‘long winded’ hard to grasp complex information about the truth of climate science. They instead choose not to listen and then spend their life complaining about everyone on earth who keeps talking about what is really important.
They refuse to LOOK at the substantial evidence and anecdotal examples being presented and handed to them on a silver platter. All they do is make up stuff, get all bent out of shape emotionally, play the man using ad hominem tactics, ignore the content completely even they do read it, and then proffer irrelevant illogical counter-arguments.
When all else fails then they stoop to delusional conspiracy theories and fantasy paranoid beliefs about the person.
Impatience is an initial form of frustration and dislike. Frustration is an initial less energetic form of anger. The pernicious effects of this state of mind are deep and long lasting. I could quote multiple science papers about this, but who would read them? Not those who really need to the most, that is for sure.
You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make them drink. No point getting upset about it or taking it personally. It’s only a horse.
The IPCC AR5 WGI TS ‘drones on’ for 2216 pages. Small minded people and those with little patience and limited personal ability to consume complexity do not read it either.
Walter
#564 Hank Roberts.
Relevance to climate science, advocacy, Mann’s article, prior comments or RC in general? Please explain. (if you want to) In case it is of some importance.
Walter
Mr Moderator, it would be a good idea to delete these comments as being unnecessary now. Thanks Walter
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/01/if-you-see-something-say-something/comment-page-12/#comment-457930
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/01/if-you-see-something-say-something/comment-page-12/#comment-457440
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/01/if-you-see-something-say-something/comment-page-12/#comment-457435
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/01/if-you-see-something-say-something/comment-page-12/#comment-457411
Mr Moderator: It would be a great idea to delete the
verbaldigital diarrhea listed in 571, as well as all the others by the same author . . . better yet, the borehole? It is getting extremely boring.Earlier I mentioned the importance and methodology about ‘forecasting’ and business planning here:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/01/if-you-see-something-say-something/comment-page-11/#comment-456505
and Business Budgeting:101 a Metaphor for Future Renewable Energy Use Projections here:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/01/if-you-see-something-say-something/comment-page-11/#comment-456867
It is really important and very helpful for climate action advocates to have an understanding about how business people think and how they behave under normal circumstances. Their decisions are generally well reasoned and rational. Reality butts up against business decisions every day and at times instantaneously. Numbers might be able to be massaged, but they do not lie.
I mentioned the following video before. This time I want to call attention to Tom Seyer speaking about “full cost accounting” (and a few other things). This ‘full cost accounting’ function goes to the fundamentals about business operations and financial budgeting. The basics I mentioned in the two earlier comments feed into this idea and why it is so important to understand in relation to the changes needed to change business and consumer behavior across the board.
Tom Seyer artfully summarizes how this key aspect ‘full cost accounting’ integrates into almost every other aspect of climate change advocacy and political change. From Fossil fuel subsidies to everyday politics to corporate board room decisions over the long haul.
Walter
Climate Change Politics and the Economy: Rhetoric v. Reality
“Most people don’t want to think about Science. When the science teacher showed up they left.”
Join UC Berkeley Professor Dan Kammen, an internationally recognized energy policy expert and Mr.Tom Steyer, business leader and investor, for a lively and timely conversation to understand where we are now, the solutions at hand, the barriers we face, and what must happen to “overcome the partisan divide” to speed the transition to a sustainable planet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Uua_OEW2QY Oct 5 2013
At the of end his talk Tom Seyer explains why his http://nextgenclimate.org/ project is only focusing upon the KeystoneXL pipeline, as opposed to advocacy about a Carbon Tax or other issues. This connects very closely with John Cook’s advocacy. Cook explains on ScepticalScience why they decided to focus on two major denier myths for the whole of 2013.
These are very specific Missions with clear Goals. From there they have both developed very cogent Action Plans and called on others to support them anyway possible. To see the section where Tom Seyer speaks about his thinking and choices about the Keystone pipeline use the following link:
http://youtu.be/3Uua_OEW2QY?t=55m19s to 1h00m27s
From the Q&A section these are really worth considering:
Carbon Tax, the Economy, Full Cost Accounting, the Politics, & Renewable Energy: http://youtu.be/3Uua_OEW2QY?t=1h6m27s to 1h14m
“The job of a Politician or Advocate is to take a complicated Policy idea, that no one understands, and translate it into words that people can relate to care about.”
“Americans spend 5 minutes a month on Politics. It better be short and sweet. It better be straight forward and it better hit them right in the gut.”
Shadow Science, KeystoneXL, Government assumptions, Bill MacGibbon, restoring integrity to Science & Policy, Political criteria and overlays (framing):
http://youtu.be/3Uua_OEW2QY?t=1h14m10s to 1h20m
——
The above is included in this summary doc: http://www.scribd.com/doc/206878243/Historical-and-Future-Projections-for-Energy-Use-and-GHG-Emissions-the-IPCC-AR5
#565–Walter, do you really not see a difference between a technical report and popular article? It is not practical (nor desirable) in the former to explain everything ab initio. Yet it seems that that is what you demand in your comment.
Quoting extracts below from the IPCC AR5 Sept 2013: http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_TechnicalSummary.pdf
TS.5.2 Future Forcing and Scenarios
In contrast to the AR4, the climate change from the RCP scenarios in the AR5 is framed as a combination of adaptation and mitigation. Mitigation actions starting now in the various RCP scenarios do not produce discernibly different climate change outcomes for the next 30 years or so, while long-term climate change after mid-century is appreciably different across the RCPs. […]
TS.5.3 Quantification of Climate System Response
Estimates of the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) based on observed climate change, climate models and feedback analysis, as well as paleoclimate evidence indicate that ECS is positive, likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C with high confidence, […]
Relative to a reference period of 1850–1900, under RCP4.5 or RCP6.0, it is more likely than not that the mean GMST for the period 2016–2035 will be more than 1°C above the mean for 1850–1900
Summary Notes: Total cumulative fossil fuel CO2 emissions
Between 1750 and 2011 amounts to 365 ± 30 PgC (261 years)
2000–2009 increased by 3.2% yr–1
2011 amounts to 9.5 ± 0.8 PgC
Hold that rate of 9.5 x 88 years = 836 PgC to 2100
Between 2012 and 2100 amounts to 1685 ± 225 PgC for RCP8.5
This scenario amounts to 19.1 PgC yr-1 over 88 years
1685 PgC is 462% above the 365 PgC cumulative total of 1750 to 2011
Walter
> This is what Hank often does. It is the same flippant
> shut down that deniers and skeptics use
Gavin? does this “Walter” person have a name and email?
I’d like to talk with him, outside the forum here, and he doesn’t attach a link to his name. I do, so he knows how to reach me.
Kevin, “Yet it seems that that is what you demand in your comment.”
I am sorry it seems that way, but really I do not ‘demand’ anything. Of anyone. I think what I am doing in this specific case is suggesting there may be a better way to achieve better understanding by all those outside the ‘science economic academic’ circles. I am assuming by the way these reports are being presented publicly and what they say in them that they are not only intended for peer level readers. Maybe I have that wrong. Also in regard the ‘renewable energy forecasts’ displayed in numerous public reports that they are confusing for many reasons already listed and require caution, which is probably already assumed by high achievers and regulars here. Because I say something or raise an issue (that takes my attention) it does not mean I think that no body else here knows it already or needs me to clear anything up for them. It was only late last year when I started having a close look at future forecasts in more depth and researching (reading up) on what’s out there. It was a co-incidence to see Diogenes also very interested in this aspect too. More than anything else I am a little surprised at how disjointed and inharmonious all these data sets and reports are. I assume the IPCC AR5 inputs are high quality and rigorous. It is very hard to find anyone else’s future energy scenarios matching up with the IPCC figures in a way that is overt and understandable. To me that’s a problem., Not because I am paranoid or doubting peoples/orgs bona fides, but because I cannot work out why the gaps are there nor how to narrow them without reinventing the wheel (which I do not want to do). I only wish to understand what is a well reasoned credible evidence based estimate for mid-term energy use v potential CO2ppm increase. Everyone seems to be doing their own thing in their own way and not talking to each other much. Maybe all you guys here already knew this and don’t see it as a problem. Fine. OK. No worries. Lucky you. Mann says there’s a clear and present danger. When I go to look for whats the current state of play I find multiple answers none of which adds up. Sorry for mentioning it. I’ll go work it out by myself I suppose. And sorry for sharing the things I have found over the years that makes sense to me about the political advocacy social psychological and public communication aspects too. Even though it’s why the message about climate hasn’t got through and just about everyone these days really do not understand it at all well. Outside of a very small percentage like most readers of this site of course.
flxible wrote: “… better yet, the borehole? It is getting extremely boring.”
Or just rename the site RealWalter.
2000–2009 increased by 3.2% yr–1
2011 amounts to 9.5 ± 0.8 PgC
According to the EIA estimates Fossil fuel use globally increase by ~50% by 2040. At which time the growth rate is tapering/leveling out.
To me this means that ~2030> it amounts to ~14 PgC per year
Given more recent papers the figure does not include higher than ‘expected’ rates of methane CH4 fugitive emission from fracking across the world nor any major climate feedbacks causing further CO2e emissions which are not included in the AR5.
I have no idea how ~14 PgC 2030> relates back to the models used in the AR5 RCPs. I have very little faith that Arctic summer sea will be around in any summertime ~2030 either vs the 2050/60 time frame in the AR5.
All key markers in prior IPCC reports have occurred sooner and far worse that were expected.
Worst case RCP8.5 scenario suggest CO2 from fossil fuels *averaging* 19.1 PgC yr-1 to 2100. Right now I do not know how to reconcile these figures. Or if it matters.
I do wonder though what a well reasoned BAU forecast with limited planned renewable uptake (as today’s state of play suggests is a likely outcome) would look like in 2030 to 2040. I doubt I will be here then so will likely never find this out.
Should the existing expectations not be met for renewable and nuclear power expansion now to 2030 then the 14 PgC could easily jump to 18 PgC per year. If that was to happen all the RCPs in the AR5 (and the AR6) will be quite moot. “if” who knows? COP19 seemed like a disaster in geopolitical terms, and a majority of voters in some key nations have been saying there is little interest in tackling the issue. That’s all I am saying. Forecasts and projections and ambitious goals can go either way, and suddenly. All 2008 there wasn’t anything to worry about in the US housing market or financial system according to the ‘consensus’ of the experts of Bernake down. Talking heads on cable were putting out buy orders for Lehman’s et al the day before they went belly up. That’s how good ‘experts’ can be on a bad day.
For several years many other expert individuals (trained economists and the like) were putting out dire warnings about the Stock market and Housing bubble. They were being laughed at and ridiculed on the finance shows by their ‘peers’, journalists, and Government/Fed spokespeople. Barely 5% got it right. Those that got it seriously wrong are still there still doing the same ‘expert’ work they were doing in 2008. Weird huh?
One of the ‘experts’ in Feb 2008 saying the sky was about fall in if nothing was done was Gov Eliot Spitzer of NY. The 1% shut that ‘chicken little’ up big time. A convenient co-incidence maybe. But anyone who has studied what Spitzer was saying and doing for a couple of years then knows he had it 100% right in early 2008 and before.
@576 14 Feb 2014 at 11:18 AM
Hank asks “Gavin? does this ‘Walter’ person have a name and email?”
I’ve been scrolling past “Walter’s” blather for many days but his reference to Elizabeth Kolbert caught my eye and I followed his link to http://www.declineoftheempire.com/2014/02/the-argument-from-ignorance.html. The identical text there and here (@479, 7 Feb 2014 at 9:27 PM) leads me to suspect that “Walter” and Dave Cohen are one and the same. Either that or Walter is a plagiarist as well as a bore.
Walter wrote: “Really genuine people seeking a discussion do not speak in one liners nor using clever quips.”
” A Buddhist duck walks into a bar and says make me one with everything, put it on my bill.”
If this is clever or not is purely subjective to the viewer. I am reminded of Monty pythons famous funniest joke used on the battle fields. They did not elaborate I expect to reduce friendly fire incidents. There was of course the German retaliation ” My dog has no nose “… ” How does he smell? “…” Terrible ”
The Achilles is, the response to, My dog has no nose, could be ” I don’t care “. Likewise, Science has been attacked constantly by people studying only the science of scare crow argumentation. Scare crow argumentation throws in a non relevant non argument statement an ICKA or Irrelevant Common knowledge Attack. Please try to respond to these in some way like ” what is the point you are trying to make ” or even ??? if you are in a rush. Slipping it in and continuing on with other ICKA or what i call the layer cake of often conflicting ICKA. At this point you are dealing with someone connected to the Borg mother ship of dirty energy cheer leading. The clever quip is then considered useable under the Geneva conventions ignored by the previous administration.
#577–For what it’s worth, Walter, my take is that these reports aren’t aimed at the public ‘at large,’ but at those with a more serious interest. I aim more toward the public ‘at large’ in my pieces, but I think I still don’t simplify nearly enough to be truly ‘popular’ in my approach. It’s quite hard to do that well.
(BTW, has Google taken over Captcha? The latter is ‘all Valentine’s all the time’ right now!)
Analyzing the hard data shows.
Error/Mod posts = 12
Regarding and supporting Diogenes = 18
Dealing with falsehoods, nastiness, ad hom, personal insults, complaints totally disconnected to the actual content of my comments, and time wasters = 44
Post by me that were on-topic to this thread, replies to people on-topic to my comments, plus my specific scientific and advocacy interests = 50
Total Thread Post now = 581
My total Posts now = 125 or 21%
My # posts before 200 Comments Page 5 were made = 1
My on-topic Posts and Replies = 50 = 8.6%
My time spent dealing with errors, falsehoods, off-topic unnecessary recalcitrant complaints and ad hom BS = ~67 Posts or 54% of my total posts made.
That’s the Scientific Based Facts.
The evidence is there clear as day across 12 pages so far.
Make of that what you will.
Do you want 50 – ~8% of on-topic relevant posts some containing some high quality referenced material and links plus genuine specific queries being put?
Or that plus another 67 posts dealing with the emotionally biased garbage by people unable to read what’s there in the first place, who default to nitpicking blaming and endless complaints who repeatedly present mindlessly ridiculous false claims in the process, and who couldn’t ask a respectful question if their life depended on it?
Yeah, it’s all MY fault. Not!
This is of a very similar quality, by several (nameless) commenters, of the cognitive thinking that goes into most climate science denier blog comments. Absolutely irrational illogical garbage that ignores the mountain of climate science evidence right in front of their faces, and who refuse to actually ‘read’ what it is pro-science advocates are actually ‘writing’ on those blog sites, as they point blank REFUSE to go investigate even one link provided to high quality information that could actually help them if they would stop long enough to LOOK at it with an open-mind and a decent attitude.
Walter
Here ya go RECapture : speak seva tart
I even know what that means too!
Had a look through several files here 1990
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_first_assessment_1990_wg1.shtml
On the surface purview it seems as if this IPCC report (and accepting the obvious constraints back then, and the disclaimers for uncertainties and ranges given) has over estimated SLR from 1990 to now and to 2030.
‘predicted’ 2013 ~12cm and 2030 ~ 20cm (?) +/-
On all other items, CO2 ppm, other GHGs, GMST temperature, arctic ice loss (though not specifically mentioned), surface ice loss, extreme weather events, maximum & minimum temperature records broken, and so on, this report has ‘underestimated’ all of these issues ~25 years into the future from 1990.
All measures able to be followed from this 1990 report (uncertainties aside and SLR) all measures have been tracking at or above BAU forecasting.
eg CO2 wasn’t expected to hit 400 ppm until ~2020+
However, in all the explanatory texts the IPCC report has proven true and correct in it’s overall ‘thesis’ or rather Message given then. They did articulate the future expectations of what ‘should’ occur under AGW theory and known facts.
In fact they are very spot on how this report was presented, and they clearly laid out the high level of uncertainties and the need for much new detailed climate science research. I doubt one denier could find one error in it bar the SLR estimate.
The kicker for me is that it also appears that zero improvement has been made on adopting significant global emissions reduction plans or actual as advised by the Report was what was needed. And ‘immediately’ then in 1990 to avoid severe climate change effects and +1.5C temperature increase over 1850.
In 2014 everything is now running at or above BAU with zero mitigation occurring. That’s where we are 25 years later.
Sure many things have changed, the knowledge is much greater but the results show nothing really has changed as far as ‘actual improvements’ is concerned. The climate is reacting harder and faster than expected in the 1990s.
I ‘hope’ that in 25 years from now (2040) that the world is not still tracking on 2013 BAU projections with minimal mitigation achievements.
Hope is not enough I suspect. Walter
“Hope is not enough…”
No, it is not. The adaptive purpose of hope is to energize, not to tranquilize.
Kevin McKinney
An Evolutionary Biologist would say that the adaptive purpose of hope is to allow individuals who possess it to reproduce, despite poor odds of their progeny surviving to reproduce in turn.
Joseph O’Sullivan:
Yep, that’s how we arrived at our current predicament. Go ahead and dump CO2 into the atmosphere by the gigaton, what could possibly go wrong? And if anything does, a wise master wizard will sort it!
Oops, wrong blog! That’ll teach me to use RC’s comment preview for comments elsewhere 8^(.
Oh well, ReCAPTCHA says “fookyi pursuit”. Not a total disaster then.
> (and accepting the obvious constraints back then,
> and the disclaimers for uncertainties and ranges given)
Science at work. It’s not a mighty oak with a taproot –science can’t be challenged by showing the early work was wrong. Of course it was.
ying yang wrote: “A Buddhist duck walks into a bar and says make me one with everything, put it on my bill.”
A skeleton walks into a bar and orders a beer and a mop.
> An Evolutionary Biologist would say that
> the adaptive purpose of hope is
To be willing to go farther out on a limb than any other monkey.
#591 Hanks says the IPCC science #1 was wrong, when (or because) I said it was right? Dyslexia is my best judgement with >95% confidence.
Repeat:
“However, in all the explanatory texts the IPCC report has proven true and correct in it’s overall ‘thesis’ or rather Message given then. They did articulate the future expectations of what ‘should’ occur under AGW theory and known facts.
In fact they are very spot on how this report was presented, and they clearly laid out the high level of uncertainties and the need for much new detailed climate science research. I doubt one denier could find one error in it bar the SLR estimate.”
Correction to #586: “arctic ice loss (though not specifically mentioned)”
It was mentioned but not quantified in any forecasts/predictions.
Page 150 in Ch 5
Equilibrium Climate Change – and its Implications for the Future http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_05.pdf
“5 2 2 4 Sea ice changes
In simulations with enhanced CO2, both the extent and
thickness ol sea ice are significantly reduced In some
summer simulations sea ice is completely removed in the
Arctic (Wilson and Mitchell, 1987a Boer, 1989, personal
communication) and around Antarctica (Wilson and
Mitchell 1987a) In other models there aie large reductions
in the extent ol sea ice but some cover iemains in the
Arctic and aiound Antarctica in summer (Noda and
Tokioka, 1989 Meehl and Washington, 1989) Finally in
some models (Wetherald 1989, peis comm) the extent ol
sea-ice change is less, but the thickness is reduced bv up to
a factor of two.
The factors contributing to the differences between
models include diffeicnccs in the sea-ice extent and depth
in the control simulation (Spelman and Manabe, 1984),
differences in the treatment of sea-ice albedo (for example,
Washington and Meehl, 1986), and the inclusion of
corrective heat-llux undei sea ice in some models (for
example Manabe and Wetheiald, 1989, personal communication,
Boer, 1989 personal communication) and not
others
On the basis ot cunent simulations, it is not possible to
make reliable quantitative estimates ol the changes in the
sea ice extent and depth It should be noted that the models
considered here neglect ice dynamics, leads, salinity
effects, and changes in ocean circulation.”
(end quote – typos caused by original doc quality – see original url)
Updated Doc includes GenIV Nuclear section about safety and operations
Historical and Future Projections for Energy Use and GHG
http://www.scribd.com/doc/206878243/Historical-and-Future-Projections-for-Energy-Use-and-GHG-Emissions-the-IPCC-AR5
More specific data & diagrams about future energy projections including ‘renewables’ to 2040 may be added later – in the meantime enough source URLs are included.
An example of how the IPCC leaves open the door to activist deniers by not paying enough attention to the details during their editing process.
This is very ‘picky’ however it is what deniers take ‘advantage of’ whenever they can by cherry-picking specific quotes that include specific ‘weaker’ terms and phrases left open for misuse.
Compare these two sentences
1) Consequently, in the near term, global-mean surface temperatures are projected to continue to rise at a similar rate for the four RCP scenarios.
2) In the near term (2016-2035), global mean surface warming is more likely than not to exceed 1°C [,,]
section TFE.8: Climate Targets and Stabilization
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_TechnicalSummary.pdf
Temperatures is correct.
Warming is not correct, it should have been written as ‘temperature’.
Experienced ‘Proof readers’ not associated with writing the material are best placed to pick these kinds of ‘errors’ up. Not those writing the reports whose eyes start glazing over in discussions about what is to go into the ‘text’.
An apparently ‘small point’ for the uninitiated, but a very important one that can bring negative long term consequences. The above is one example. It is not a criticism. It is a heads up.
Walter
Heisenberg, Gödel and Chomsky walk into a bar.
Heisenberg suddenly stops and says, “Wait, we just walked into a bar, and there are three of us. This must be some sort of joke, but is it a funny joke?”
Gödel explains: “Well, we are part of the joke, so we cannot determine whether the joke is funny or not.”
Chomsky chimes in: “Of course it’s a funny joke. You just aren’t telling it right!”
Apologies ahead of time if this is really boring and redundant. When thinking about the ‘grand strategy’ of the ‘denier’ activists, most will notice a pattern over recent years since AR4 of ‘direct attacks’ on the IPCC/Climate Science that is focused around the GMST …. temperature, iow.
‘Temperature’ is an extremely fluid ‘marker’, a ‘vague’ number that can only be determined within a range. Could we call it a ‘slippery’ number? I think so.
Therefore Temperature is not an accurate nor timely measure for determining the extent of a measurable ‘real world effect’ of the global warming / forcing.
On the other hand, monitoring of actual GHG concentrations these numbers are tight, especially for CO2 PPM, the #1 main component in GHGs at present.
We know, irrespective of any natural variability +/-, that higher CO2 PPM and other rising GHG concentrations will and must raise GMST over the medium to long term. That’s what climate science tells us is so.
Therefore, logically, GHG concentrations in PPM are the most stringent tool that science has to accurately measure the cumulative forcing on the climate system. In real time, and as far as temperatures global and regionally increasing is concerned, well ahead of time.
There is no better a tool available today than GHG PPM measures to monitor the medium term likelihood of increased temperatures over time. Yes?
With all the advances in climate science since 1990 there is an almost direct co-relation between a Carbon Budget and Fossil Fuel Use back to a specific measurement of downstream CO2 PPM increases.
Consider the typical pattern of attacks by the denier ‘industry’ on the science of climate change about ‘temperature’. Do they ever raise CO2 ppm as an issue? Not really. Now have a look at the recent IPCC AR5 report and consider this in light of the ‘temperature and denier strategy, extracts below:
(of course others will know this already, i am emphasizing it as a very important matter to keep aware of.)
——
TFE.8: Climate Targets and Stabilization
The concept of stabilization is strongly linked to the ultimate objective of the UNFCCC, which is:
“to achieve […] stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the
atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic
interference with the climate system.”
Recent policy discussions focused on limits to a global temperature increase, rather than to greenhouse gas concentrations, as climate targets in the context of the UNFCCC objectives.
The most widely discussed is that of 2°C, i.e., to limit global temperature increase relative to preindustrial times to below 2°C, but targets other than 2°C have been proposed (e.g., returning warming to well below 1.5°C global warming relative to preindustrial, or returning below an atmospheric CO2 concentration of 350 ppm).
Climate targets generally mean avoiding a warming beyond a predefined threshold. Climate impacts however are geographically diverse and sector specific, and no objective threshold defines when dangerous interference
is reached. Some changes may be delayed or irreversible, and some impacts could be beneficial.
It is thus NOT POSSIBLE TO DEFINE a single critical objective threshold without value judgments and without assumptions on how to aggregate current and future costs and benefits.
This section does not advocate or defend any threshold or objective, nor does it judge the economic or political feasibility of such goals […]
[ NOTE – This shift in POLICY EMPHASIS from a GOAL based on GHG PPM CONCENTRATIONS to one of AVERAGE SURFACE TEMPERATURE (GMST) ‘appears’ to have been imposed onto the IPCC process by the most powerful National Governments in the UNFCCC.
This change is NOT something instigated by the Climate Scientists and IPCC Authors themselves during the writing of the AR5 IPCC reports, nor does this appear based upon the scientific work in any of the published climate science Papers since the AR4 in 2007.]
Con’t:
Temperature targets imply an upper limit on the total radiative forcing (RF). Differences in RF between the four RCP scenarios are relatively small up to 2030, but become very large by the end of the 21st century and dominated by CO2 forcing.
Consequently, in the near term, global-mean surface temperatures GMST) are projected to continue to rise at a similar rate for the four RCP scenarios.
Around the mid-21st century, the rate of global warming begins to be more strongly dependent on the scenario. […]
In the near term (2016-2035), global mean surface warming is more likely than not to exceed 1°C and very unlikely to be more than 1.50C relative to preindustrial (assuming 0.61°C warming has occurred prior to 1986 – 2005) (medium confidence).
[NOTE:
The last 5+ year emphasis by denier activists and recalcitrant anti-Science National Governments & Legislators has been on the idea of a HIATUS-PAUSE in TEMPERATURE INCREASES.
Their OBJECTIVE (I believe) goes like this: There has been Nil to Minimal short-term Average Temperature Increase ? = UNFCCC Goals Are Being Met = NOT A PROBLEM = No Action Required = Nothing to see here ]
Ref: section TFE.8: Climate Targets and Stabilization
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_TechnicalSummary.pdf
Please email me about your concerns.