This month’s open thread. Pros and cons of celebrity awareness-raising on climate? The end of the cherry-picking of ‘pauses’ in the satellite data? Continuing impacts of El Niño? Your choice (except for the usual subjects to be avoided…).
Climate science from climate scientists...
Mike: “If you look back at the way James Hansen was treated by his employer, the Fed Govt, it’s really not hard to see why climate scientists make choices, conscious or otherwise, to tailor their models to produce results that are in synch with the political winds. That is how we end up with consensus science that creates a “wow” moment for a fine scientist like Gavin.”
What complete, utter horsecrap. Look, if a scientist is going to succumb to political pressure, then they shouldn’t be a frigging scientist in the first place. Period. Scientists all have biases, but ultimately, their curiosity to understand their field of study, coupled with their training, tripled with the fact that the data will keep hitting you in the face until you pay attention, will win out. You do a disservice not only to scientists, but to science itself by assuming it is so frail.
Mike@249
Dude! It’s one fricking month in an abnormally warm El Nino year. Get a grip. Look at what matters–the trends.
What complete, utter horsecrap. Look, if a scientist is going to succumb to political pressure, then they shouldn’t be a frigging scientist in the first place. Period.
Comment by Ray Ladbury — 16 Mar 2016
Complete utter horse crap Ray? PROVE IT!
Shorter Ray Ladbury: “So if a scientist is going to be ‘human’ they shouldn’t be a frigging scientist.”
http://kevinanderson.info/blog/duality-in-climate-science/
Top Climate Expert: Crisis is Worse Than We Think & Scientists Are Self-Censoring to Downplay Risk
http://www.democracynow.org/2015/12/8/top_climate_expert_crisis_is_worse
Self-censorship is an end result : “From my observation, a few examples of relatively heavy-handed interventions sufficed to send a message to the program leadership about White House political sensitivities. Under those circumstances, I believe a kind of anticipatory self-censorship kicks in, and reports begin to be drafted with an eye to what will be able to obtain CEQ approval – which appeared to be the final step in the White House clearance process.”
http://ncac.org/resource/congressional-hearings-expose-censorship-of-science
Dr. Kevin Anderson has already outlined that SOME in the scientific community are downplaying or censoring their findings. Exactly who and to what degree I don’t know. Now, if that is not happening I think the burden of prof lies with those making the claim that it is not… Ray. This was investigated by Chairman Waxman (D-CA)On January 30, 2007, the House Oversight Committee. I have provided the link to the findings of that committee.
Obviously we’re not talking about ALL climate scientists. We’ve seen what happened to Professor Michael Mann. He fought back and won; mainly by surviving the assaults from the Heritage Foundation et al. I think Dr. James Hansen is continuing to fight very hard to get the facts to the public but others have been harassed and threatened as we all know.
Scientists are human and have fears and emotions like we all do. They’re not invincible to withering attacks coming from well funded corporate entities. We’ve entered a new dimension in which the scientific community is under constant attack. Acknowledging reality isn’t a sign of weakness. It’s part of the scientific process of discovery. We have no choice but to keep moving forward with what we know, regardless of the danger.
I would never accuse anyone here at Realclimate.org of self-censorship. I think the facts are being presented as they are discovered. There’s no way to know exactly who might be under pressure to change their findings or modify the results unless those people were to come forward as whistle blowers or something of that nature. However, this topic has been investigated already and I believe further investigations are either pending or in the works as people continue to suffer the consequences of a rapidly changing climate.
Hi Ray,
warm regards to you also.
You say: “if a scientist is going to succumb to political pressure, then they shouldn’t be a frigging scientist in the first place.”
we are in total agreement.
you say: “Scientists all have biases, but ultimately, their curiosity to understand their field of study, coupled with their training, tripled with the fact that the data will keep hitting you in the face until you pay attention, will win out.”
again, near total agreement.
February 2015 temperature data hit a lot of respected scientists in the face. Quotes from some:
Michael Mann: “Adding the figures together, we can estimate February 2016 as being around 1.95°C warmer than the 1750 pre-industrial level for the northern hemisphere, and 1.65°C warmer than the beginning of the twentieth century for the planet as a whole”. It emphasises the point I have made previously that we have no carbon budget left for the 1.5°C target and the opportunity for holding to 2°C is rapidly fading unless the world starts cutting emissions hard right now”.
Stefan Rahmstorf: “We are in a kind of climate emergency now. This is really quite stunning … it’s completely unprecedented.”
Adam Scaife: “There has been record low ice in the Arctic for two months running and that releases a lot of heat.” He said the Met Office had forecast a record-breaking 2016 in December: “It is not as if you can’t see these things coming.”
Alan Finkel: “You wouldn’t want to dismiss it. There is genuine reason for concern. For all the effort we are putting into trying to avoid increases of emission, we are losing. What we are doing with solar, wind, changing practices, behavioural practices and things like that, we’re not winning the battle.”
Masters and Henson: “Perhaps even more remarkable is that February 2015 crushed the previous February record [set during the peak of the 1997-98 El Nino] by a massive 0.47C. In short, we are now hurtling at a frightening pace toward the globally agreed maximum of 2.0C warming over pre-industrial levels.”
Gavin Schmidt: “Wow.”
A lot, maybe all, of the scientists are tasked with using climate models to predict the future climate state. I think it is clear from their various responses, that with the exception of Adam Scaife, none say, oh yeah, you could see that coming.
I understand a scientist being defensive when the data hits them in the face and they have to recognize that their models and predictions are not sound in some significant ways. That can’t be a happy moment.
An impulse to shoot the messenger or engage in ad hominen attacks etc are easily understood in this circumstance, but they are not a meaningful response to the problem that has arisen.
Here are some important matters to keep in mind given the February numbers:
per Jon Erdman: “The global record was paced again by exceptional warmth in the northern hemisphere higher latitudes. Much of Alaska into western and central Canada, as well as eastern Europe, Scandinavia and much of Russia were at least 4 degrees Celsius (roughly 7 degrees Fahrenheit) above February averages, according to NASA/GISS.”
NASA calculated February temperatures north of 75 degrees north latitude were over 6 degrees Celsius (10.8 degrees Fahrenheit) above average.
per Mike: I think there is a lot of methane release potential related to the exceptional warmth above 75 degrees and the continuing dramatic loss of arctic sea ice and I predict that the models in use by the shocked scientists quoted above do not adequately factor in that impact.
It is easy to say, oh you are doing bad science to someone whose predictions are not similar to yours. It is easy to find their evidence unconvincing. But what do you say when your professional predictions force you to say anything like Wow when the data hits you in the face? Is wow sufficient?
Accountability is a bitch. I understand that.
but… per Richard Feynmann: “For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.”
I don’t understand all the reasons that the majority of climate scientists have underestimated the global warming process. I may very well be wrong about succumbing to political pressure, but if you think there is no political pressure, please correspond with James Hansen.
Keep in mind: Feynmann is almost certainly correct that nature cannot be fooled.
MLO CO2 for March 14 2016 404.47
MLO CO2 for March 14 2015 402.53
read’m and weep.
warm regards to all with a sincere intention not to offend or attack.
Mike
ray at 252 “Dude! It’s one fricking month in an abnormally warm El Nino year. Get a grip. Look at what matters–the trends.”
No, dudester, it’s not one month. Look at the graph: https://s.w-x.co/jma-feb-2016-graph.jpg
I think the data is hitting us in the face. Not fun.
In all friendly camraderie: I suggest you and I set a calendar ticker for December 2016 to review this kind of graphing of temperatures and decide if you are correct that this month is an outlier or is a part of a wow series of monthly temperatures. We can agree at that time that one of us will eat virtual crow. Do we need to quantify the results?
Deal?
Cheers
Mike
“I understand a scientist being defensive when the data hits them in the face and they have to recognize that their models and predictions are not sound in some significant ways.”
Mike, are you of the impression that that is what happened here? ‘Cause it isn’t. As Ray L. said, it’s a warming spike, and not entirely unexpected. Several of us here have been on record for months now that early 2016 would be record warm, and we were not unique in that expectation.
Given that observations had been running on the cool side of the model ensemble envelope, I very seriously doubt that we’re anywhere near data that would suggest a problem with the models underestimating warming. Just off the top of my head, I think we could have a couple of years of this sort of anomalies and still be well within projections.
Of course, from a ‘fate of the planet’ perspective, that’s not the outcome I’m rooting for. But it wouldn’t bear much on the ‘fate of the models.’
Last year’s global CO2 equivalent emissions have remained static for the second year in a row, despite a modest growth in the global economy. That’s some good news amongst the gloom. If this continues then certainly we’re not following the BAU projections, not that I thought it would be physically possible to do this. However, it’s still around 10 billion tonnes carbon equivalent per year. We’re supposedly “allowed” another 250 billion tonnes to avoid 2 deg C warming so even if we reduced CO2 emissions quite dramatically, it’s going to be a close run thing. But we don’t’ know do we? James Hansen has indicated that we’re already well past the level of emissions that will cause severe long term consequences, and who am I to say he’s wrong?
The latest, best estimate for the inner boundary of Sol’s ecosphere is 0.99 AUs (Kopperapu et al. 2013, Kasting et al. 2014). That means Earth is 0.01 AU from starting a moist greenhouse, eventually leading to Venus-like conditions.
This would mean 1.02 times present solar illumination, or an extra 27-28 watts per square meter from the sun, which is not trivial. We’re not there yet, not by a long shot. But we should probably not be trying to see how close we can come and still keep the planet habitable.
John Monroe: can you provide a link or something to verify that the CO2 emissions have remained static? What is the methodology being used to measure and calculate the emissions?
Mike, remember — when doing science — you’re expected to provide not just the evidence favoring your idea, but the evidence against it as well. So add Tamino to your list: Whether or not the most recent months are the harbinger of a “tectonic shift” in the global warming trend, remains to be seen. But the evidence for that isn’t in yet. The recent extraordinary heat could well be, I might even say probably is, a continuation of the present trend plus extra-hot fluctuations from both known and unknown factors.
Which doesn’t mean there’s no cause for alarm. The present trend is plenty alarming.
That doesn’t contradict “Wow.”
It does contradict those rushing to asserting their beliefs beyond what we can say from the evidence: So it begins!
On Mike’s graph at 255: Draw a line parallel to the trend through the 1997/8 spike. Note how close it comes to the terminal spike. I don’t see anything that couldn’t have been predicted in 1999, assuming foreknowledge of a “hiatus”. It’s not as if the “hiatus” represented a “cooling” of the planet below the trend. In fact it meant the opposite. When our surface thermometers show less heating, it means global warming has INCREASED. (Because the heat which would have escaped to space has instead gone into heating the planet via the ocean.) Likewise, our current atmospheric spike is prima facie evidence that global warming has temporarily slowed. Think of the atmosphere as the Earth’s airlock. What goes in there is just stuff in the process of being ejected to space.
————–
John Monro: Last year’s global CO2 equivalent emissions have remained static for the second year in a row, despite a modest growth in the global economy. That’s some good news amongst the gloom.
Richard: I disagree. Much of the “decrease” in carbon per dollar is accounted for by the switch from old-and-going-to-be-retired-soon-anyway coal power plants to new-and-gonna-spew-for-a-century natural gas ones. That is a LOSS, not a gain in this endeavor.
BAU can be re-phrased as, “Whatever makes oligarchs the most money.” In that sense, we’re very solidly continuing BAU. Until oligarchs start considering the pseudo-royal-lines they’re creating’s lives as opposed to their bank accounts, it’s BAU all the way down.
Best way to fight climate change? (other than a carbon tax) Place a high marginal tax on inheritances over $100,000, a very high one at a million, and a confiscatory one above ten million dollars per Royal, but allow a tax credit for funds that go to the public good. (i.e., you get to direct your estate “taxes” to whatever good cause you desire, leaving the government out of the equation) I thought “created equal” and “self-made” were core Republican values. Apparently not.
Next best way? Institute worldwide carbon-rights based on the water rights laws of the US west. If “old” reserves have priority over “new” ones, then we’ll immediately stop searching for more carbon to dig up. Once carbon hits the “Books”, it’s a big fight to remove it. I shake my head when people, with a straight face, suggest that reserves that belong to investors should take precedence over reserves that belong to the People. I thought capitalism was based on investors losing their shirts when they make bad decisions. Apparently not.
Chuck (@253), that’s kinda crazy, right? Typically burden of proof, when pretty serious accusations are made, rests with the accuser. Proving a negative is SO much fun… And citing the results of a congressional investigation over 9 year old and under a VERY different administration doesn’t lend your argument much oomph.
Personally, I think that what Anderson did is pretty irresponsible! If he really takes this issue seriously (and I am sure he does) AND he believes scientists are diddling their results to downplay risks then shouldn’t he name names? Do you know if he’s made more detailed claims elsewhere. That would have a lot more weight than the vague and unsupported accusation in this interview.
Hey Barton, @~258 16 Mar 2016 @ 5:45 PM, has something changed regarding a Venus-like runaway since the following science posts and others here at RC?
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/lessons-from-venus/?wpmp_tp=1
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/runaway-tipping-points-of-no-return/comment-page-3/
Steve
Mike (@254 and 255 etc.) I think you’re a little confused. That those numbers are startling is not an issue; that they are necessarily indicative of things to come or problems with the models is a very difficult argument to make.
Your implication that somehow a one or two year departure from the trend is at odds with the models or predictions is just silly. The models are intended to elucidate longer-term trends, not month-to-month (or even year-to-year) spot changes. There are always short-term departures from the trend, both on the positive and on the negative. In fact, the graph you show with February temps going back to 1890 shows EXACTLY that. The YoY increase from 2015 to 2016 is not the largest YoY change in either direction (and the graph showing a single trend from 1890 to present just confuses the issue, IMO)! Your citing the increase as evidence that the models are in need of reworking is not that different than the climate denying crowd crowing about a big move in the other direction.
The current 2016 temperature spike starts at the trend line since 1980 and not below (La-Nina) as has been the case in the past.
The following La-Nina fall is typically twice the rise from the trend line.
This points to a trend line that should be 0.2’C above the current trend line from 1980.
This looks to me like there is a sudden 0.2’C step upward that will most likely be permanent.
The “hiatus” lives on in the US Congress House Committee on Science, Space and Technology! Enjoy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fgj6ofOrsA
Mike, there are many, many reasons to be concerned about Earth’s climate. February’s temperature reading isn’t one of them. Tamino has a good take on this. Basically, February does merit a “Wow,” but not an “Oh sh*t!”
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/03/13/surprise-but-not-shock/
The basic reason why we should not read too much into temperatures during one month or 5 months or even 12 months is the same reason we can dismiss those trumpeting “THE PAUSE” as a cancellation of the crisis as imbeciles. Natural variability is actually very interesting to climate scientists. That, and not any concern about the validity of the models, is why they have devoted considerable effort to understanding “THE PAUSE”. Likewise, it is very interesting why things are so anomalously hot right not–not because we think the models are wrong, but rather because we don’t understand how all the variables of natural fluctuations interact.
Now if you want to be concerned, there are plenty of reasons:
1)The trend continues unabated.
2)We are doing sweet f*ck all about our causation and exacerbation of the trend.
3)The planet has thus far been a net sink for the carbon we are spewing into the atmosphere, but as things warm, it will eventually become a net source.
4)We will likely really start to feel the effects of climate change in the latter half of this century–coincidentally around the time human population is expected to crest at 10-12 billion, making the situation that much more difficult to difficult.
Those are the worries that give me cold sweats at night, not a couple of warm months.
NOAA have posted global temperature anomaly for February at +1.21°C. This is a rise on January of 0.16°C (GISS rise 0.21°C) and a rise of 0.32°C over the last 12 months (NASA 0.48°C) and a rise of 0.35°C compared with 1998 (NASA 0.49°C).
All this, of course, in an El Nino year. Nino3/4 remains above 1997/98 levels as it continues to fall away from peak values. SOI is having another rest with latest predictions for future months expected soon (February’s predictions expected SOI to last a few weeks longer than the 1998 El Nino).
Barton, on the surface your drought paper looks impressive, but I’m not in a position to judge, as my knowledge of statistics is very limited. I feel for you, though, as I’m a bit of a maverick in my own field, and have sometimes had my own problems getting published in mainstream journals. So it would be hypocritical of me to completely dismiss your work simply because you didn’t pass the usual peer review. On the other hand, I do suspect that you, like so many others, have been affected by confirmation bias, which is not at all easy for even the most rigorous researchers to avoid.
After searching the Internet to get a better perspective on this issue, I get the impression it is far from “settled science” and will continue to be debated for a long time, despite what you or anyone else has been able to come up with. When it comes to drought especially, there are just too many variables to be reasonably considered, and it’s all too easy to pick those that give you the results you want and ignore the others.
I’m particularly impressed by the new publication “Attribution of Extreme Weather Events in the Context of Climate Change” (http://www.nap.edu/catalog/21852/attribution-of-extreme-weather-events-in-the-context-of-climate-change), which demonstrates in very thorough fashion the great complexity involved when we try to determine the cause(s) of any such event, including the influence of AGW. There’s a whole chapter on drought, where the many such problems are discussed at length. For example:
“As an illustration of the complexity of defining and assessing drought, consider some of the hydrologic contributing factors to drought. Redmond (2002) refers to a “snow drought”—that is, for locations like much of the western United States that receive a majority of precipitation as snowfall and where summer precipitation is typically quite low, a deficit in winter snow can lead to summer drought. Bumbaco and Mote (2010) take the concept further, providing specific examples of when low winter precipitation or in some cases high winter or spring temperature ends up producing unusually low snowmelt for the dry summer period. Because there are so few observations, especially long records, of soil moisture, many studies use an index of drought computed from
monthly observations of precipitation and/or temperature, like soil moisture computed in a hydrologic model, the Standardized Precipitation Index, or the Palmer Drought Severity Index (Funk et al., 2013). The simplicity of the latter makes it attractive to use in largescale drought assessments, but may also bias results—especially in the context of climate change. Thus, assessment of change in drought characteristics should consider including several indices, with specific consideration of their particular limitations (Seneviratne et
al., 2012; Sheffield et al., 2012).”
Also, this, from their Conclusions:
Statements about attribution are sensitive to the way the questions are posed
and the context within which they are posed. For example, when defining an event, choices must be made about defining the duration of the event (when did it begin and when did it end) and the geographic area it impacted, but this may not be straightforward for some events (e.g., heat waves). Furthermore, different physical variables may be studied (e.g., drought might be characterized by a period with insufficient precipitation, excessively dry soil, or reduced stream flow) and different metrics can be used to
determine how extreme an event was (e.g., frequency, magnitude). Whether an
observation- or model-based approach is used, and the sorts of observations and/or models available for studying the event, will also constrain the sorts of questions that can be posed.”
In the light of all the complexities demonstrated in this very thorough, impartial, review, I find it incredible that so many still insist on claiming that “the science is settled.” Clearly, it is not.
Steve @263,
Check here:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.6674
The full article pdf is probably available somewhere as well.
Victor, #269–
I think it’s useful, nay, essential, to specify just which science you mean. The radiative effects of CO2 are pretty well ‘settled’–though open to challenge in principle, in good Popperian fashion. So are many chunks of the relevant oceanography and meteorology, and more. Drought projections and extreme weather attributions, not so much.
So if any of those ‘so many’ fail duly to specify what they think is settled, please give them a good piece of my mind–assuming you can find one, that is.
@269 “I find it incredible that so many still insist on claiming that “the science is settled.” Clearly, it is not.”
All first order effects are known and quantified, second order effects are largely known.
The science is therefore settled.
Debating second and third order terms does not alter the fundamental science, but it does give confused denialists hope.
ray at 267 says :
if you want to be concerned, there are plenty of reasons:
1)The trend continues unabated.
2)We are doing sweet f*ck all about our causation and exacerbation of the trend.
3)The planet has thus far been a net sink for the carbon we are spewing into the atmosphere, but as things warm, it will eventually become a net source.
4)We will likely really start to feel the effects of climate change in the latter half of this century–coincidentally around the time human population is expected to crest at 10-12 billion, making the situation that much more difficult to difficult.
on 1 and 2 we are in complete agreement.
on 3 mostly agree. but we would need to work on when the planet will become a net source. Eventually sounds like a long time. It is heard in dogwhistle politics as “no rush.”
on 4. No, we are feeling the effects of climate change now and they will likely be felt more strongly each year now in the form of flooding, droughts, tornadoes, etc. The effects are here and now.
A long time ago I was a scout leader for an explorer post. We did search and rescue in support of local volunteer fire dept where I was an emt and firefighter.
One a saturday, the post was in meeting, we were working on rope training and suddenly a call for multiple victim drowning came in on the river about 15 miles away. We bagged ropes, loaded up and were first on the scene. I put the post to work stringing ropes and securing a means down a very steep slope to the white water canyon where we believed we might find survivors. Sure enough, we were down in the canyon with ropes secured when a couple of survivors came crawling up the slope and we were able to send them up-rope to the road where I could hear the other rescue units setting up. One survivor was very vocal, kept saying how the leader of the “raft adventure” kept saying don’t panic, don’t panic as they went over the falls and into a really dangerous reach of the river. She was really traumatized by event, but said the leader was still below and was trying to run ropes across the canyon for a survivor on the other side. By the time we got to the leader, he had fallen into the churn while clipped into a rope he had secured on one side of the river. It took a while for us to get his body out of the rapids and up on the steep bank where we tried cpr in hopes of a cold water drowning revival. Didn’t work. Tried two cold water drowning revivals over the years and I was 0 for 2.
The explorers were calm and collected on the scene. I was so proud of them. We debriefed that episode several times the next year.
One of the things that came up over and over was the traumatized survivor and her saying over and over, don’t panic? Panic was the thing that I used to get out of there. That woman’s terror and trauma really stuck with us all.
Relatively simple error on the raft adventure: the leader put them in where they were supposed to get out – the last somewhat calm, fun reach of the Cispus before it turned into a monster river for a quarter of a mile or more.
The explorers and I agreed that we had done pretty much perfect job of setting ropes, protecting ourselves and the rescue units that came in behind us. That we had not given in to panic or adrenaline and rushed down into the canyon. We found respect for the panic response and trauma of the talkative survivor.
The Feb temp is a teachable moment. We will get more of those. Panic, foreboding, anticipatory grief, shame – none of those are outside the range of reasonable responses that I expect from others of my species as the scope of our folly becomes more apparent.
I hope to treat others like the explorers treated the traumatized survivor. I saw them looking in her eyes, holding her hand and saying, you’re ok now, it’s ok. We have blankets at the road above, lets’ get you up there and wrapped up in a blanket.
Immediate care, with great caring. What great kids those were.
Off to PDX for a couple of days, Take care all
Mike
MartinJB: Proving a negative is SO much fun… And citing the results of a congressional investigation over 9 year old and under a VERY different administration doesn’t lend your argument much oomph.
Richard: If I remember correctly, here, or within a link from here, a scientist’s entire team was discussing how far they could push their conclusions towards what they felt to be true and still seem credible. Anybody else remember the post?
Couldn’t get any further than 253, very well written specially to a old Dutchy like me.
Love to make a comment, which gets me one of those green bracketed responses. My guys would have a fit. OK, here we go.
I assume that even (g)avin would willingly censor his ‘wow’ if the publication of his indicator was likely to cause public unrest. He may even have to keep it from us ?
In the light of all the complexities demonstrated in this very thorough, impartial, review, I find it incredible that so many still insist on claiming that “the science is settled.” Clearly, it is not.
Comment by Victor — 17 Mar 2016 @
I find it incredible that people continue to respond to your inconsequential claptrap.
And another one bites the dust. The year 2014 was the warmest ever recorded by humans. Then 2015 was warmer still. January 2016 broke the record for the largest monthly temperature anomaly. Then came last month.
February didn’t break climate change records – it obliterated them. Regions of the Arctic were were more than 16℃ warmer than normal – whatever constitutes normal now. But what is really making people stand up and notice is that the surface of the Earth north of the equator was 2℃ warmer than pre-industrial temperatures. This was meant to be a line that must not be crossed.
https://theconversation.com/meltdown-earth-the-shocking-reality-of-climate-change-kicks-in-but-who-is-listening-56255
Victor, wrote: “I find it incredible that so many still insist on claiming that ‘the science is settled.’ Clearly, it is not.”
Kevin McKinney replied: “I think it’s useful, nay, essential, to specify just which science you mean.”
For Victor’s purposes, it is most useful to NOT specify just which science he means.
FYI regarding methane emissions:
A 21st century shift from fossil-fuel to biogenic methane emissions indicated by 13CH4
Science 10 Mar 2016:
DOI: 10.1126/science.aad2705
Abstract:
Re- Comment by Barton Paul Levenson — 17 Mar 2016 @ 3:58 PM, ~#270
Barton, I couldn’t find a full-text version of your reference, but I did find a more recent piece by the same group (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.5292.pdf). This is very far from my area of expertise but, that said, I don’t see how this work supports the possibility of a Venus syndrome on Earth. It appears that, for worlds like the earth that are not tidally locked to their star, the habitable zone is actually expanded inward a little.
I wouldn’t have even brought this up except that this issue has been dealt with here at RC in the past and the “Venus syndrome” can take on a life of its own like the “much ado about methane” freak-out. I believe that presentation of science should not exaggerate for effect, like several here advocate, because it is against the whole culture of the scientific enterprise (e.g. accuracy and impartiality) and provides fodder for denialism. I would really like our management here to comment on this.
Steve
Paul Donahue: The “hiatus” lives on in the US Congress House Committee on Science, Space and Technology! Enjoy:
Richard: Thanks, Paul. The video highlights the number one error scientists make when debating with deniers: they allow the denier to define the terms of debate. Me Smith continually hammered Admin. Sullivan about “Global Warming” and the hiatus. The error in definitions was blatantly obvious: “Global warming” does not equal “surface temperatures”, so to answer a question about global warming by discussing surface temperatures is inherently flawed. Sullivan should have answered by discussing ocean heat and GLOBAL warming, and why surface temperatures are only a small part of the equation. Then, having properly defined GLOBAL warming, she could answer with confidence and clarity.
Instead, she mumbled and evaded and looked foolish. Smith won the debate by dismissing her via allowing that she had the right to be in the minority of opinion. He took a large issue and crammed it into an irrelevant academic debate as to whether 18 years worth of surface temperature measurements went slightly up or slightly down. Totally irrelevant to GLOBAL warming, but he slaughtered her because she accepted his definitions.
Another simple (minded?) question:
I long ago noticed that the maxima and minima for Arctic sea ice extent occur very near the equinoxes, which naively seemed reasonable.
But further reflection shows that in a much colder regime, ice would continue to accrue well past the spring equinox, and might start recovering well before the autumn one.
And in a warmer regime the melting could begin sooner than the equinox.
So…
Is it mere coincidence that the extremes are so temporally close to the equinoxes, or does that indicate something deeper about a very fine tuning of earth’s climate?
Or did I miss something obvious in my further reflections?
[Response: It is the solstices that are the minima and maxima of radiation going into the arctic. That the peaks/troughs are ~3 months later is a function of the slow responses of the system. – gavin]
MA Rodger: NOAA have posted global temperature anomaly for February at +1.21°C.
Richard: Again, definitions are critical. Given that rise over pre=industrial is what the PUBLIC has been informed of, quoting figures from a different baseline MUST be defined. I’m not sure what the difference is, but for this comment I’ll assume 0.4C, and so they SHOULD have said, “the global temperature anomaly for February is +1.61C above pre-industrial, which can also be stated as 1.121C above a 19xx-xxxx baseline.”
Scientists are informing the PUBLIC, not themselves, so they MUST use CONSISTENT PUBLIC terms. Hiding the data behind random baselines is WRONG. Get it together, guys!
Steve @280,
I agree a runaway is almost impossible on Earth under present conditions. But in theory, if idiots gain control of the world (i.e., _more_ idiots than at present) and decide to mine out all the coal and tar sands, even if everybody has to wear gas masks… then in 2500 AD or so it might be a real issue. Never underestimate human stupidity. But frankly, I think civilization will collapse long before that, and so a runaway will never actually happen (in our geological time). I was just intrigued that the boundary had been moved from 0.95 to 0.99 AUs.
Mike,
Panic never helps. What we need is for policy makers to use the best information, and that is still the information provided by the scientists. Are there uncertainties? Certainly, but again, the scientists are still the best source of information on uncertainties.
It is important that we take action now, as our options for action will become increasingly limited and more severe and unpalatable the longer we wait. Panic will only further blind us to what those options are.
As to February, there is nothing shocking, as Tamino pointed out. It is pretty much what you’d expect from a bad-ass El Nino piled on top of 20 years of warming since the last bad-ass El Nino.
Personally, I think that what Anderson did is pretty irresponsible! If he really takes this issue seriously (and I am sure he does) AND he believes scientists are diddling their results to downplay risks then shouldn’t he name names? Do you know if he’s made more detailed claims elsewhere. That would have a lot more weight than the vague and unsupported accusation in this interview.
Comment by MartinJB — 16 Mar 2016 @
That Anderson’s comments are “irresponsible” is your ‘opinion’, and your opinion, in my opinion, has less validity than Dr. Anderson’s comments. I didn’t ask you to prove a negative either. I ask you to prove anything. I personally have no reason to doubt that there may be some “self-censoring” going on concerning climate data. First off, we know that it has happened in the past.
You otoh are postulating that this practice abruptly ended in 2009 because of a congressional hearing. Well, I seriously doubt that. I have google, you have google. I suggest you do your own research into the matter and come up with some sort of proof that scientists are no longer human and are behaving as robots, regardless of the credible threats they face on a daily basis. If this is indeed the case, they will henceforth be unfettered in their ability to freely disseminate their findings without fear of retribution. Glory Hallelujah!
I am starting to root for CO2 now.
MLO for Mar 18 2016 highest daily average on record – that’s a personal best for the CO2 emitters!
407.12 against the measly
400.38 from Mar 18 2015
Killian Mar 12 at 1:36 am:
“unless we hit significantly over an 408.3-ish peak, the evidence for a massive CO2 bump is probably pretty meager. Said peak should be in May, BTW, not February or March or April.
I’ll get excited if we approach 409 in May.”
It’s March madness. What happens if you get excited, Killian? We can’t really get to 409 this year, can we?
Gavin, thank you for the response, but it doesn’t really answer my question.
Is it just coincidence that the lag from the solstices brings the extremals into such close alignment with the equinoxes?
If so, does this have any direct relevance to the consequences to be expected if the system moves away from that close alignment? (E.g, any kind of feed-back effects.)
I’m just musing, so feel free to dump cold water on this…
I’ll get excited if we approach 409 in May.”
It’s March madness. What happens if you get excited, Killian? We can’t really get to 409 this year, can we?
Comment by mike — 19 Mar 2016 @
I was wondering where you were getting your CO2 readings from but I figured it out. duh.
That’s a remarkable increase reading from a year ago. I assume CO2 can fluctuate that much but it seems odd to me. I wonder if the Earth’s systems are starting to take over and run things for us. If so, how soon might that be confirmed scientifically? I’m contemplating out loud of course.
It would be interesting to hear others opinions. Isn’t this an awfully big increase, even in an El Nino year?
Chuck (@286):
Let’s break this down.
1) My opinion (no need to put it in quotes, of course it’s my opinion) about Anderson has nothing to do with him being right or wrong. I don’t know if this is going on or not. But if Anderson knows that other scientists have been diddling the results so as to materially underrepresent the threat then he has a responsibility to do more than just insinuate in an interview. That would be a big deal, both because of the need to fully understand the threat and because of the need to maintain credibility.
2) I don’t suggest that the congressional hearing has anything to do with “this practice abruptly end[ing]”. I don’t know if this “practice” was widespread back then or not, and I don’t know if the extent to which it happens has changed. But I would suggest that the transition from the Bush administration, which was overtly hostile to taking action to combat global warming, to the Obama administration, which would like to do more to combat it, changed the political pressures on some scientists.
3) Perhaps I misinterpret these two statements of yours as asking for proving the negative: “Now, if that is not happening I think the burden of prof lies with those making the claim that it is not…” and “…come up with some sort of proof that scientists are no longer human and are behaving as robots, regardless of the credible threats they face on a daily basis.” Silly me for reading something incorrect into those!
4) The argument that “it’s worse than the scientists are saying” because they’ve bowed to political pressure, is pretty much the same as “scientists have exaggerated the threat of global warming” because they’ve bowed to political pressure. Congratulations! You’ve argued for a favorite global warming denier meme!
Re- Comment by Chuck Hughes — 19 Mar 2016 @ 9:33 AM, ~#286
Chuck, you stated: “I personally have no reason to doubt that there may be some ‘self-censoring’ going on concerning climate data. First off, we know that it has happened in the past.” I am not part of that “we” who know this, so I would like to see what you think is evidence of this type of scientific malfeasance and who the culprits were. It seems to me that the whole 2007 kerfuffle demonstrated how scientists resisted extreme censorship by the Bush administration. How about a little objective support for your assertions?
Steve
martin jb: on self censoring. Here is one of the ways this works in the real world.
from Dr. Mann, April 11, 2014 “These data therefore indicate that to reliably avoid two degrees C of warming [above pre-Industrial levels], CO2 levels should be held to 405 ppm (blue [line]) — barely above the 393 to 400 ppm levels observed in the past year.”
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-will-cross-the-climate-danger-threshold-by-2036/?print=true
from Dr. Mann, March 10 2016 in response to CO2 of 402.6 from MLO (now revised I think to 404.16)
“This spike is almost certainly due in substantial part to the ongoing El Niño event, which is a fleeting effect that increases carbon dioxide concentrations temporarily,” Mann said. “Carbon dioxide concentrations are a lagging indicator, and they don’t accurately reflect recent trends in the more important variable — our actual carbon emissions.”
Emissions, he said, have stabilized somewhat in recent years and dropped slightly in 2015, reflecting human progress in transitioning away from a fossil fuel economy, he said.
“Those are the numbers to keep a close eye on,” he said. “If they continue to decline, we will see carbon dioxide concentrations beginning to stabilize.
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/unprecedented-spike-co2-levels-2015-20125
So, April 2014: we need to stay under 405. When we start bumping our heads on 405, let’s move the goalposts and focus on carbon emission reports.
Also, Dr. Mann is pretty critical of the climate models in the April 2014 article. Read the article if you need to confirm that. Here is one quote:
“It is difficult to determine an exact value of ECS because warming is affected by feedback mechanisms, including clouds, ice and other factors. Different modeling groups come to different conclusions on what the precise effects of these feedbacks may be.”
Lots of variability on outcomes through modulation of one simple value that is difficult to determine and is estimated.
The title of the April 1, 2014 article was: Earth Will Cross the Climate Danger Threshold by 2036.
Maybe it’s an April fools joke or maybe there’s a typo and it should say cross threshold by 2100?
I think some folks believe that climate change is not real. Some believe it will hurt us eventually, but we time to work on the problem. Some even believe that Trump is the answer that will fix things. What can I say? I am now rooting for CO2! We are setting new records on a pretty regular basis now. 407.12! Go, go, go. Can we hit 409? Or should we move the focus to emissions where soft number reports indicate we are making progress?
I think it is possible to make any of the climate models produce a “reasonable” projection by simply choosing a “better” value for ECS. Nothing really wrong with a lot of these models, somewhat rosy outcomes available if just one difficult value is underestimated.
Dr. Mann sounds a little panicked back in 2014 article. I am glad to see that he calmed down a bit and is reassured by the carbon emission numbers in 2016 article.
Mike (@292),
To paraphrase Inigo Montoya, these numbers and quotes you cite, I don’t think they mean what you think they mean. The most important of these is the relationship between ECS and climate models.
Mann said. “Carbon dioxide concentrations are a lagging indicator, and they don’t accurately reflect recent trends in the more important variable — our actual carbon emissions.”
Emissions, he said, have stabilized somewhat in recent years and dropped slightly in 2015, reflecting human progress in transitioning away from a fossil fuel economy, he said.
Comment by mike — 20 Mar 2016 @
This is what gets me: “stabilized”…. emissions have now “stabilized!”
What does that mean exactly? Going up at a stable rate? Leveled off at 404ppm? CO2 levels are declining? If a patient in a hospital is in “stable condition” he could be dead for all I know. Death is pretty stable. So is a coma. “Yes Mrs. Smith, your husband is dead but we have him ‘stabilized’ and expect him to remain in that condition for the foreseeable future. We’ll call you if there are any changes.
“Then add “some what” to the mix and what have you really told anyone? I would think that emissions have not yet stabilized if CO2 levels continue to rise, but what do I know?
Sorry. It’s frustrating to read those kinds of statements after seeing the latest CO2 measurements. Maybe emissions have stabilized at 407ppm for the time being.
4) The argument that “it’s worse than the scientists are saying” because they’ve bowed to political pressure, is pretty much the same as “scientists have exaggerated the threat of global warming” because they’ve bowed to political pressure. Congratulations! You’ve argued for a favorite global warming denier meme!
Comment by MartinJB — 20 Mar 2016 @
Climate Science research is happening around the globe if I understand the process correctly. Dr. Anderson is from the UK I believe. Other countries are doing their own research under the auspices of their own governments. I would think that conditions in Australia might be different than those in the United States, for instance. The IPCC relies on a consensus from what I understand and the language used to articulate our situation has to be agreed upon before being published. Therefore the final assessment is considered to be quite “conservative”. That’s my understanding. So yes, I would think some in the scientific community would have to govern their reporting. Is that bad or good? I don’t know. What I do know is that predictions are constantly having to be revised because things are happening much faster than previously estimated. This continues to happen as we go forward.
The question is, are some scientists downplaying our situation or censoring their findings? It makes sense to me that “some” could be. I don’t think it is the responsibility of Dr. Anderson to police the entire scientific community. That’s my opinion. What he said in the interview makes sense to me. I can’t prove it and it’s not my job to prove it but I personally think that he’s telling the truth. That is all.
So if March doesn’t roert-zijn-staart and comes in with the others, then surely if April begins to look good, we can start celebrating? Gloat with our family and friends, that we were right after all? Maybe incite some mobbing of WUWT? Nobel Price for James ?
No, it will probably go like Y2K. I worked my guts out for years ironing out date bugs and was on worldwide conference call all of that not-so-fatal night . . . Wow, NZ did OK, that was a good sign. Once AUS got over the line, it was already being called a storm-in-a-tea-cup.
Y2K had a possitive outcome, but numbers followed by higher and higher numbers, are just numbers and will not be taken seriously by the general public, until they can be linked to some event. So let’s assume that we will be hit by at least one such early events. Surely with all these models, we could now attempt to predict the likely ones and plan all preparations to tame these events. And all best done without chasing an Oscar.
One more. AUS is politically one-step-ahead of US on climate change policy. Rudd recognised the threat to humanity, but did nothing and we are still paying for his appologies. Obama fits somewhere in here. Gillard tried a Carbon Tax, but was thrown out by climate-change-is-crap Abbot. Obviously a mate of Trump. We now have Turnbull, who recognises that climate change is real and we are going to adapt to it (like reposition CSIRO) without wrecking our economy. Hillary seems a bit of a mixed bag.
btw @275 I deliberately loaded my post to allow our friend to step aside, but if it had have been any of you celebrity posters . . .
On scientific reticence:
How about a thought experiment? Given that uncertainties cut both ways, it would be expected that errors would occur with similar magnitudes and frequency between “It’s better than we thought” and “It’s worse than we thought”
Deviations from that suggest a bias. So, given that “It’s worse than we thought” trounces the opposite in both frequency and magnitude, how likely is it that scientific reticence exists?
Mike,
Your posts betray a deep misunderstanding of scientists, science and of human nature. First, the reason people spend over a decade of schooling followed by a decade of post docs to become a scientist is because they are curious about their research subject. Anything that slows down their progress in understanding that subject will retard their progress in the field–and that includes “shading” their opinions according to the expectations of the public or even of their peers. You don’t become a scientist if you are easily influenced by public pressure.
Second, you don’t simply “choose” a value for ECS. ECS emerges from the physics in the model, and the physics is constrained by the data. This is a profound misunderstanding of how climate science is done.
Third, the two statements by Dr. Mann are not inconsistent. In the first case, he is talking about atmospheric CO2 levels required to be sure of staying below 2 degrees C long term. In the second he is referring to the fact that El Nino and La Nina cause the atmospheric concentration to fluctuate about a mean trend. It is the mean trend that matters, as that is what determines the long term new equilibrium temperature of the planet. Also, this is not a case of “game over” once we hit 400 ppmv. We can still make things better or worse.
Third, you speak of the global scientific community as if it were a monolith that could shade its opinion uniformly in response to political pressure. It can’t. The global scientific community represents tens of thousands of scientists the world over, all with their own opinions, prejudices and understanding.
Finally, I agree with Martin. You sound exactly like the denialists. Maybe that should make you wonder if you have fallen victim to some of the same fallacies.
Regarding the timing of sea ice extremals, I think I answered my own question.
If the insolation follows a sine curve with extremals at the solstices, then the integral of that curve should be a cosine with externals at the equinoxes, as observed. (Duh).
A warmer or cooler regime would simply lower or raise than sinusoidal curve, until it either bottomed out at zero or maxed out due to meeting land-masses.
So my initial intuition that it was an expected shape (as opposed to a coincidence) was correct, and I just confused myself overthinking it.
(It does leave a small residual question as to why the Arctic maxima manages to stay so close to a sinusoid even though the maximum is impacted by the ice cover encountering limiting continental land masses. Again, naively I would have expected that to somewhat flatten the top of the curve.)
My apologies for the noise…
Deviations from that suggest a bias. So, given that “It’s worse than we thought” trounces the opposite in both frequency and magnitude, how likely is it that scientific reticence exists?
Comment by Richard Caldwell — 21 Mar 2016
Excellent! I think that’s your proof right there.
If scientists could factor in human nature/behavior we would have a very clear picture of where we’re headed and where we may be right now. I don’t think we really know, or if we do we’re afraid to admit it. I wouldn’t call it lying as much as I would call it ‘wishful thinking’. As long as humans are involved in making assessments I have no reason to believe that that ‘human’ element will not prevail.