This month’s open thread for general climate science discussions.
Reader Interactions
321 Responses to "Unforced Variations: Apr 2018"
Ray Ladburysays
Weaktor: “After I totally demolished your feeble attempt…”
Oh the strawmanity! Now the only question is whether Weaktor knows he is dealing in straw men or if he actually thinks his ignorance is universally shared.
Weaktor, once again, thanks for being on the other side. Your stupidity is working wonders for us.
Ray Ladburysays
Mr. KIA,
I don’t click on random links. Give a synopsis, and I’ll think about it. Human sexuality is a complicated, multidimensional problem. To reduce it to a single chromosomal dichotomy is simply stupid.
Victor quotes a bit from Spencer Weart, carefully excised from context, to make his ideas sound like they’re supported.
He needs to read the rest of the page from which he quoted. https://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm
Meanwhile global temperatures resumed their rise. The cooling from smoke particles had a limit, for the particles dropped from the atmosphere in weeks whereas the accumulating CO2 would linger for centuries. It was getting increasingly difficult for scientists to claim that the greenhouse effect was no cause for worry. By 1979 the ever more powerful computers had confirmed that it was impossible to construct a model that could mimick the current climate and that did not warm up a few degrees ….
Douglassays
Thank you again to everyone who responded to my question # 111 about CCS in which I asked if hypothetically several billionaires got behind doing it, could it make an appreciable difference. The reason I asked the question is because I am thinking about starting a non-profit where I would seek out billionaires and educate them on climate change, and more importantly, what they could do to make a difference. I am aware of Tom Steyer who is a billionaire who is trying to make a difference on the issue.
I am not asking folks here their opinion how successful I might be getting some of these billionaires to agree to some initiative, although I expect I will get some sarcastic responses nonetheless. What I would like is the opinion of several of you if you could hypothetically get some of our wealthiest citizens to agree to some initiatives, what would they be? One person suggested we may need industrial sized factories to pull carbon down from the atmosphere. Would that be a worthy goal to get billionaires on board with? How about funding a large scale bio-char initiative? Or a regenerative farming “program”? I know Bill Gates is involved with trying to find a clean energy magic bullet, but from what I gather here, and other places I’ve read, soil is the area where we could make the biggest difference perhaps.
So, I would like to know folks here opinion if hypothetically you got several billionaires to agree to do what you wanted with respect to the climate problem, what would it be? As we all know, we are very late in the game now, and so we don’t have any time to waist to address climate change adequately-thus my idea for involving very rich people to fund vital solutions. I would greatly appreciate all and any responses to my question, and please be as detailed as you would like.
Carriesays
149 Mr. Know It All a reasonable query because I understand your concerns. There are not many good examples which exist. This article is supposed to explain how global warming works https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/03/alsup-asks-for-answers/ I am not convinced it’s very useful for the average person especially those who have serious doubts about the credibility of the science thus far. Who’s thomas?
Check page 15, there you will see the predominant approach of climate scientists especially on this forum and how the typical response addresses you and everyone else. It goes like this (my addition): The Deficit Model – This model (incorrectly) assumes that public skepticism about science is caused by the public’s lack of relevant knowledge. In this approach, scientists (incorrectly believe they) can remedy the “deficit” by sharing their knowledge with the public. The (forlorn and failed) hope is that addressing the knowledge “deficit” will lead to more public support for science. In the deficit model, the transfer of knowledge is one-way and top-down.
It’s understandable why people reject this approach. Treating adults like inferior know nothing children switches the majority of people’s frontal lobes off not on! The better more sustainable, self-reinforcing approach is The Contextual Mode on the same page.
May remind you of Martin Luther King or Nelson Mandela. Many proven methods and tools that have been ignored by climate scientists and activists since the 1990s so here we are now. Different people respond to different styles and personalities.
Good public communicators are as rare as hens teeth. Reagan was one example, David Attenborough is a natural. But good climate science communicators are so rare you may never find one in your lifetime. (grin)
Victorsays
146 CCHolley: “IPCC states that the period up to 1940 is so lacking in accurate data that it is impossible to determine with any precision what the exact causes were…that’s the scientific consensus. The amount of warming is also suspect due to to the uncertainties and the change in wartime measurements of sea surface temperatures. Again, this is a period of high uncertainty of which it is impossible to draw meaningful conclusions.”
And yet meaningful conclusions HAVE been drawn, the conclusions being that there’s been some “long-term” trend during which CO2 emissions have been responsible for both global warming and sea-level rise. How do such “uncertainties” morph into a “settled science” of climate change? In other words: how does an absence of evidence become evidence? Please explain.
“However, latest Hay study shows greater correlation to temperatures.” Correlation of WHAT to temperatures. I’m assuming this study conveniently corrects the embarrassing graph posted by Rahmstorf, which shows no sea level decline in the wake of 40 years of cooling. If that’s the case, and there was some degree of sea level decline during that period after all, so what? Once again: how does a certain amount of sea level decline after a period of global cooling (assuming Hay’s sources are more accurate than Rahmstorf’s) constitute evidence that CO2 emissions are the cause of rising sea levels? We’re talking not only correlation but cause and effect. It does make more sense that a long period of atmospheric cooling would lead to a lowering of sea level, but that correlation has NOTHING to do with CO2 emissions, which were skyrocketing while global temperatures either fell or remained steady. Over 40 years!
“Sea level rise is accelerating. CO2 levels are accelerating.” Yet CO2 levels were accelerating substantially from 1950 through 1979 with NO appreciable rise in temperatures. The record from the beginning of the industrial revolution through the 1940s was, as you yourself claim, uncertain. And the record from 1940 through 1979 shows both cooling and leveling off of temperatures. Yet you stubbornly insist that “there is no 70 year period where it can be shown CO2 warming only played a minor role in temperatures or sea level rise.” Where is the evidence that it could have played any role whatever?
“Nor has he provide evidence of alternative causes of warming that would result in the observed nights warming faster than days and winters warming faster than summers.” I haven’t provided such evidence because I see no need to. If you want to claim that CO2 emissions are leading to dangerous climate change then the burden is on YOU to provide sufficient evidence. Instead, like a true believer, you prefer to toss red herrings.
Victor Grauesays
150
Kevin McKinney says: “However, since your version of the verb has proven in the past here to mean ‘repetitively assert what you claim, without regard to logical rebuttals made’, the prospect is less than inviting. (Eg., the Great Air Conditioner Debacle, where you made yourself appear extremely foolish, IMO.)”
Ah yes, I remember it well. I argued that lack of volcanic activity could in no way produce a net warming of the atmosphere, just as lack of air conditioning could not heat a room. Sheer nonsense, obviously. (Why do I get the impression that this blog is some sort of Mad Tea Party?)
Areksays
154 Douglas I have a few ideas. See the issue as one of hearts and minds and not engineering, technology nor economics. Think about 200 years into the future based on the highest of Human ideals and sustainable community based values only. https://youtu.be/skilmEHMsMc?t=22m30s see last 5 minutes
‘Humanist Values’ and ‘UN founded Human Rights’ that would see the natural eradication of all nuclear weapons in every nation being the only sane and rational thing to urgently achieve alongside solutions to climate change and global resource depletion.
Would that be a worthy goal to get billionaires on board with? A life worth living for all people. Equity, equality, and equanimity in practice not theory. All the engineering technology inventive aspects are quite capable of looking after themselves due to human ingenuity.
Understanding the issue is much bigger than western orientated ideas and that there is more then one way to skin a cat. Embracing those major nations outside the wealthy west such as China, Brazil, Indonesia, Russia, in Central Asia, SE Asia, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, South America, Mexico and other. Respecting their cultures, their systems of government, and their rights is essential precursor.
What would make a sustainable difference? First a global ‘think tank’ model with a humanist mission statement, underpinned by Business/Marketing Plan developed by the very best social scientists, marketers and advertising gurus on the planet.
A new Third Way Politically orientated NGO to sponsor train and setup Humanist Sustainability orientated grass roots national Political parties. AS already promoted by Dr James Hansen in the US. A 3rd centrist party that would hollow out the middle ground support base from both dominant parties as well as attract support from the Greens/Libertarian ranks and/or encourage effective long term coalitions based on ideals and not crass old-world ideology nor neo-liberalism.
The primary mission is for the third way to gain the balance of power of federal parliaments wherever possible and sending a new age of national representatives to the annual COP meetings and to the United Nations.
Buying out several companies the likes of Cambridge Analytica retooling them and employing people to be activists for good and not for the abuse of power of existing radical undemocratic elites.
Buying out or gaining financial control over News Corp, Fox, MSNBC, CNN, WashPost, NYT, LA Times and their kind all over the western world.
Buying out or gaining financial control over Facebook, Twitter and Google. Or creating alternatives from scratch based upon a different business model that enhances ethical journalism and truth in advertising.
A globally coordinated umbrella of organisations and parties that drive systemic changes in existing political economic norms and that drives social change through positive constructive evidence based humane laws and regulations that then drives sustainable generational changes in economic norms, climate change solutions investments and technological change for the good of all people and not the few.
The natural outcomes would be logical solutions such as massive changes in agriculture, trade, transport, housing, building codes, energy use, manufacturing, mining, protection of soils, forests, and ocean ecology, plus regenerative agriculture, permaculture, self reliance, and more.
Easy to say and yet a wicked diabolical problem to understand and solve.
nigeljsays
Douglas @154
I think the whole regenerative farming / soil carbon approach has a lot of promise, because its removing C02, reducing soil erosion and uses land thats already there, so has a huge mix of benefits. Just my gut reaction. I have tried to find studies comparing various negative emissions options, but without success, perhaps someone else knows. I would include the use of biochar within this option, as its related.
The farmers need financial support and the schemes do not require developing complicated technology. There are already pilot schemes and organic farming is already quite well established, so the whole thing uses well known existing techniques.
But only a fool would rely on just one approach. Growing more forests has value and can use land not suitable for agriculture, so is complementary.
Direct air capture and storage has the merit of being something that can be located near suitable underground storage areas, and needs more funding for research and prototypes at this stage. Obviously theres an intrinsic attraction in pulling CO2 out of the air as its so direct.
Governments and the private sector are looking at all of these already in various countries, so its hard to identify one that particularly suits a philanthropic billionaire. It may be a case of researching which ones your own country is neglecting.
BECCS looks hopeless to me, because of the complexity, the multi stage process and huge transport costs and the other issues I mentioned.
Another issue is the way the oil industry and certain climate denialist billionaires dominate political party funding at least in The USA. It would be great to have a few environmentally minded billionaires to counter that influence.
Mr. Know It Allsays
144 – Carrie
Good comment – I was thinking the same thing when I read that article on the AMOC – it was mealy-mouth, what if, maybe, maybe not, we just don’t know…..it was laughable.
Thomas was a commenter on this website a couple of months ago who, like you, pushed better communication techniques – go back a couple months and look up comments for “Thomas” – or try the Search Box – there will be no shortage of comments – probably some good history in them. :)
147 – Arek
Listened to some of your audio link, but when he says he knows deniers who are “seemingly educated, seemingly intelligent” people, he’s just insulting people because that’s all he’s got. On people denying CC because of the “diabolic or wicked nature of the problem” being hard to solve – there is no merit to that argument. People deny CC because they don’t believe it is man-made; climate has always changed – always will. Scientists have repeatedly put out questionable science – see the article on the AMOC collapse in a comment above and the good analysis of the article in comment 144 above. Scientists have been caught fudging data, hiding emails which don’t fit the narrative, etc – so many times that many people just don’t believe them. You don’t belive them either and neither do most others – I know this because very few “believers” are actually making the changes in lifestyle that they want to force on everyone else. Want people to believe in CC? Show us the math, show us how the models work. ;)
Ray Ladburysays
Carrie,
What does a politician do? Politics. You can tell from the “Politic” in the word.
What does a lawyer do? The Law. You can tell from the fact that “Law” is in the title.
Now, for 50 points, what does a scientist do? If you said “science,” congratulations. It is not the scientist’s job to communicate with you, with politicians who have room temperature IQs or with the denialists who are bent on destroying the planet.
Scientists have been communicating the risks of climate change for more than 30 years now. Some have done so quite eloquently. However, when they raise the specter of the possible worst-case consequences, they are dismissed as “alarmist”. When they communicate the known and established risks that every reasonable and scientifically literate person can agree upon, they are dismissed as stodgy and conservative. When they seek a middle ground, they are attacked from both sides.
The problem does not lie with the scientists or the science. The problem lies with politics and the politicians. The problem lies with voters who vote in idiots based on single-issue, tribal politics and then try to defend their indefensible choices by attacking the science and scientists. The problem is that we are a pretty stupid species, and, ultimately you can’t fix stupid.
Most of the dust that’s settling in places like the San Juan mountains comes from the desert southwest, from land disturbances like farming, oil and gas drilling, cattle grazing, recreation and residential development on the southern end of the Colorado Plateau.
“It’s kind of a slow crisis, a slow disaster,” said Rich Reynolds, an emeritus researcher with the U.S. Geological Survey in Denver. “It’s not like a hurricane. It’s not like an earthquake or a volcano.”
In the past 50 years, as the Sun Belt boomed, scientists recorded a dramatic rise in the amount of dust being deposited on snow — which forces fundamental changes in how spring runoff occurs. Reynolds says reversing this trend won’t be an easy task.
“There’s no one size fits all in terms of mitigation for these kinds of source areas,” he said. “Plus, these are large, large areas.”
In a 2010 study researcher, scientists found that in heavy dust years, the Colorado River’s flow on average peaked three weeks earlier than in years without heavy dust deposition.
The same study also found that earlier melting snow reduces the amount of water that runs to the Colorado River by about 5 percent. That’s more water lost than the entire state of Nevada uses from the river in a year.
And then there’s climate change.
University of Utah hydrologist McKenzie Skiles recently co-authored a study that examined whether warmer temperatures or dust are greater threats to snowpacks.
“What we found looking at those two in this region, is that it was actually dust that controlled snowmelt timing and magnitude and sort of how fast snow ran out of the mountains, as opposed to temperature,” Skiles said. “We didn’t see any relationship to temperature at all.”…
KIA 160: Scientists have been caught fudging data, hiding emails which don’t fit the narrative, etc
BPL: You’re a god damned liar.
CCHolleysays
Victor @156
And yet meaningful conclusions HAVE been drawn, the conclusions being that there’s been some “long-term” trend during which CO2 emissions have been responsible for both global warming and sea-level rise. How do such “uncertainties” morph into a “settled science” of climate change? In other words: how does an absence of evidence become evidence? Please explain.
Uncertainties do not equate to “know nothing”. The preponderance of evidence supporting AGW is overwhelming with no credible disagreement. Victor is incapable of recognizing evidence. Evidence that has been repeated to him ad nauseam. It is tiresome and boring. Victor is incapable of critical thinking and too lazy to do a thorough investigation of the scientific literature.
Correlation of WHAT to temperatures. I’m assuming this study conveniently corrects the embarrassing graph posted by Rahmstorf, which shows no sea level decline in the wake of 40 years of cooling. If that’s the case, and there was some degree of sea level decline during that period after all, so what? Once again: how does a certain amount of sea level decline after a period of global cooling (assuming Hay’s sources are more accurate than Rahmstorf’s) constitute evidence that CO2 emissions are the cause of rising sea levels? We’re talking not only correlation but cause and effect. It does make more sense that a long period of atmospheric cooling would lead to a lowering of sea level, but that correlation has NOTHING to do with CO2 emissions, which were skyrocketing while global temperatures either fell or remained steady. Over 40 years!
So much stupidity in one paragraph.
Victor assumes, of course, too lazy to attempt to understand the complexity of determining *global* sea level rise from tide gauges. Hay didn’t use different data, he used a different model to change the data into a representation of *global* sea level. Did he correct Church & White? Maybe, maybe not. But either way it is not important to drawing conclusions about the validity of AGW, it is only important to our understanding of the response of sea levels to temperature change. Any temperature change.
Victor does not get it. Never will.
We know that short term changes in sea level rise are due to natural variability. Long term changes in sea levels are due to both changes in surface temperatures that control land ice and ocean temperatures that vary the density of water. This is NOT debated. It is a fact. Warming surface temperatures and warming ocean temperatures raise sea levels. PERIOD.
The temperature of the climate system is controlled by forcings and CO2 is only one of the forcings. Surface temperatures are dependent on all of the forcings not just CO2. Although this has been explained a thousand times, Victor does not get it. He refuses to get it. He is incredibly deluded to believe he actually is making some kind of meaningful point.
Yet CO2 levels were accelerating substantially from 1950 through 1979 with NO appreciable rise in temperatures. The record from the beginning of the industrial revolution through the 1940s was, as you yourself claim, uncertain. And the record from 1940 through 1979 shows both cooling and leveling off of temperatures. Yet you stubbornly insist that “there is no 70 year period where it can be shown CO2 warming only played a minor role in temperatures or sea level rise.” Where is the evidence that it could have played any role whatever?
Yawn, Victor continues to ignore most of the evidence. He is clearly incapable of understanding the whole picture. Science is science and evidence and facts are stubborn. Physical laws are physical laws. Too bad Victor is incapable of understanding science.
I haven’t provided such evidence because I see no need to. If you want to claim that CO2 emissions are leading to dangerous climate change then the burden is on YOU to provide sufficient evidence. Instead, like a true believer, you prefer to toss red herrings.
The master of red herrings calls the actual physics a red herring. How ironic. Victor apparently believes that accepting science along with the evidence and facts is somehow a belief.
When it comes to actual knowledge and the physics behind AGW and what it would actually take to refute, Victor simply ignores. He demands evidence. Evidence that he has been provided time and time again. Unfortunately for Victor he wouldn’t know what constituted evidence if it smacked him in the face. Besides, it is not like anyone cares what Victor demands, he’s just a simple fool. And of course he is too simple to understand that the physics IS evidence. Strong evidence.
Alastair B. McDonaldsays
Re #154 and #163
Douglas,
If I had several billion dollars, I would spend it on fertilising carbonate secreting ocean biota e.g. coccolithophores. These are the sea creatures which created the White Cliffs of Dover and gave the Cretaceous its name, which means chalk.
The natural sink for CO2 is the formation of limestone on the sea floor from the skeletons of those tiny sea creatures. If they were fertilised, then that sink could be increased without any significant drawbacks.
nigeljsays
Victor @156
You say “I’m assuming this study conveniently corrects the embarrassing graph posted by Rahmstorf, which shows no sea level decline in the wake of 40 years of cooling.”
Not an embarrassing graph, its simply the reality so needs an explanation. (Temperatures were also flat, rather than cooling but thats not the main point at issue).
CC Holey @101 has already stated the following below explaining it, which I can tell you makes sense to me. “The problems Victor states with sea level rise correlating to temperatures has nothing to do with the cause of the temperature rise. Nothing. Yes, one would expect long term sea level changes to follow temperatures. However, this correlation does not matter on what the cause of warming is. And, perfect correlation to temperature would not be expected because ice will not stop melting just because warming stopped, it takes time for the ice to reach thermal equilibrium. This is quite basic and even someone like Victor should understand that. Questioning the correlation of sea level rise to CO2 is pointless and meaningless, the direct correlation should be to its cause–warming temperatures.”
I’m not a scientist, but I understand this straight away. You Victor havent falsified it and cant because its so basic. You simply don’t read, or are trolling, or are just being deliberately dense. Theres no other alternative. You tell me which.
nigeljsays
Mr KIA @161
“Scientists have repeatedly put out questionable science – see the article on the AMOC collapse in a comment above and the good analysis of the article in comment 144 above. Scientists have been caught fudging data, hiding emails which don’t fit the narrative, etc – so many times that many people just don’t believe them.”
Its completely incorrect for you to claim the AMOC research is questionable science. It’s long been predicted that global warming will cause a slowdown and we see a slowdown. The doubt is about where it will end and how much, and this is just scientists being honest, and is clearly not “questionable science”.
It also doesn’t mean they have no idea, because they have stated its a high risk scenario and a 50% slowdown is likely. ( This is probably because if theres 4 degrees of warming by 2100 most likely scenario so if slowdown is roughly linear this is about a 50% slow down, which would be very concerning).
Scientists have not been caught fudging data. No official investigation has found this and you certainly dont provide any evidence. You just show you wont accept the reality, and are obstinate and conspiratorial in your world view.
Emails are not “being hidden”. They are confidential. Are you going to dump all yours for everyone to see? Should Scott Pruitt and Trump make all theirs public, because I doubt they would.
The emails stolen from climate scientists were investgated by four different organisations, and no fraud or wrongdoing was found.
Get over it and move on. I notice you dont care about the fact they were stolen, which shows your contempt for the law and your double standards.
Also, you keep asking for explanations of how the maths works in climate models. You have been given dozens of good references numerous times but keep on asking. I dont know why you would do that unless you cant be bothered reading what you are given, or find it too complex or just want to act like a pain in the neck.
I wont call you a liar as I cant be 100% sure. But as far as Im concerned you act like a paid troll spreading confusion. This website its very pro free speech with almost no moderation, and yet you ABUSE this privilege repeatedly by spreading propoganda, nonsense, and deceit. The word contemptible behaviour comes to mind. In fact all the fudging of the truth is coming from denialists like you, yet you are so caught in your ideologically based crusade against imagined and absurd threats of socialism and the like, you cant see that you have allowed yourself to bend the truth, and just promote nonsense propoganda.
Carree posted it on another page here. i have seen these ideas about citizens assemblies popping up a long time, it’s been seriously researched by academia and promoted quite a lot but it’s not getting any serious support.
see there
“However, our non-profit 501c3 CSAS, Inc will run out of funding within a few months unless we find additional funding sources. CSAS, Inc.
provides an overhead-free mechanism to support our work (including travel, computers, copiers), with, by far, the greatest expense being the legal
costs we cover for Our Children’s Trust lawyers, specifically for Dan Galpern, who is working with me in preparation of testimony and briefs for
the case (Juliana et al v. United States) against the Federal government and several other cases. Legal costs cover ed by CSAS, Inc. are now
more than $100K/year. We are up against the best lawyers that fossil fuel money can buy. ”
The Ridenhour Courage Prize
Dr. James Hansen, the 2013 recipient of The Ridenhour Courage Prize, was recognized for bravely and urgently telling the truth about climate change, even when the Bush administration tried to silence and penalize him as director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Rather than giving in, or giving up, Dr. Hansen—one of the world’s most tireless and articulate activists—has courageously and continuously led the fight to save the planet ever since. http://www.ridenhour.org/prizes_courage_2013.html
Douglas you don’t need a group of billionaires, you really need a group of people with real integrity and courage but having money to burn is a great bonus too.
Victorsays
166 CCHolley: “The master of red herrings calls the actual physics a red herring. How ironic. Victor apparently believes that accepting science along with the evidence and facts is somehow a belief.”
A red herring is an irrelevant fact (or factoid) that serves to divert attention from the real point of an argument. Literally every response of yours, CC, is precisely of that order. You continually dodge the issue and then accuse me of not understanding the science. I have no problem with “actual physics” and real science, but I do have a problem when people like yourself continually insult my intelligence by trotting out one red herring after another, in lieu of a reasoned argument.
Mr. Know It Allsays
158 – Arek “Embracing those major nations outside the wealthy west such as China, Brazil, Indonesia, Russia, in Central Asia, SE Asia, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, South America, Mexico and other. Respecting their cultures, their systems of government, and their rights is essential precursor.”
Excellent, Arek, good platform for the 2020 D candidate to run against Trump.
162 – Hank R
Thanks Hank, I’ll poke around that site.
165 – BPL
Man, I hope I’m not that bad – don’t want to go to the bad place – I hear the warming down there is BAD. The statement I made IS the perception – whether it is reality or not I don’t know. In the spanking nigelj gives me in comment 169 he says that perception is wrong, but I think many still believe it. Thanks for the spanking, nigelj – I needed it.
Victorsays
167 Alastair B. McDonald says:
“If I had several billion dollars, I would spend it on fertilising carbonate secreting ocean biota e.g. coccolithophores. These are the sea creatures which created the White Cliffs of Dover and gave the Cretaceous its name, which means chalk.
The natural sink for CO2 is the formation of limestone on the sea floor from the skeletons of those tiny sea creatures. If they were fertilised, then that sink could be increased without any significant drawbacks.”
Herein lies perhaps the greatest potential threat to the planet, far greater than the threat of “climate change” even if it turns out to be “real.” We have at the present moment more billionaires on this earth than ever before, many of them multi-billionaires. And the great majority of these people are bored, have no idea what to do with all their money, long to get “creative” and are therefor prone to come up with cockamamie schemes of all sorts, some of which could turn out to be extremely dangerous.
While a program initiated by a major government would (presumably) be preceded by studies to determine what the potential drawbacks and dangers might be, followed by public scrutiny and debate, none of these billionaires need be constrained in a similar manner. Any one of them would be free to proceed with whatever nutty scheme they could be persuaded to implement by this or that crackpot with a “foolproof” plan to “save the planet.”
And herein lies the most insidious potential consequence of all the irresponsible fear mongering we see now continually, not only in the media, but so much of the so-called “scientific” literature. Once someone with sufficient resources, influence and power manages to convince himself that something MUST be done and be done SOON, or the human race (complete with all those innocent grandchildren) is doomed, then the door is open to anyone susceptible enough to buy into that level of sheer panic and hysteria, and wealthy enough to act on those fears, to initiate some potentially destructive and irreversible scheme along the lines suggested by our well meaning but naive colleague, Mr. McDonald.
The scenario painted in the film “The Day After Tomorrow” seems extremely unlikely, even to most climate change advocates, but one could easily make a far more convincing version, based not on the effects of climate change, but the efforts of some crackpot to “save the world” from same by implementing some well meaning scheme that could all too easily lead to a disaster far more immediate and possibly far more destructive than anything a few degrees of temperature rise could produce.
Victor the Troll @171,
I see you have returned from under your lonely bridge to plague us with yet more trivial conundrums of your own invention. You claim you “have no problem with “actual physics” and real science” although evidently you do. But you are a prime example of a denier locked into a world of foolishness, so we aren’t surprised.
Perhaps it would be useful to consider a simple situation to demonstrate to you the underlying physics of what you continue to describe ad nauseam but which you fail utterly to understand.
Imagine then a very large lump of ice in a temperature controlled chamber at zero degrees celtigrade T(0). The lump of ice remains the same ‘very large lump’.
But then, after 1850 time periods we wind up the temperature in the chamber. The ‘very large lump’ begins to melt. As we approach 1900 time periods, we wind down the temperature back to T(0) such that the melting process stops and perhaps even the liquid water begins to freeze a little.
But then when we pass 1910 time periods we again wind up the temperature and melting resumes. On reaching 1940 we wind down the temperature but not all the way to T(0) before winding up the temperature again as we reach 1970 time periods.
Now we could add complexity to this simple situation but then it wouldn’t be simple any more, at least not simple for a Troll who lives under a bridge and doesn’t get out very much. And for the same reason I will refrain from any description of how the temperature-controlled chamber actually controls temperature.
So Victor, what happens to the ‘very large lump’ between time period 1940 and time period 1970? Will it get biggerer or littlerer? Or will it stay the same?
(And by the way, it is us who are insulted by you with your “trotting out one red herring after another, in lieu of a reasoned argument.”)
Killiansays
Re 163, Carrie and JRCLark,
At the center of Regenerative Governance are egalitarian councils at neighborhood/town, city/area, regional (if needed), and bio-region levels.
Circa 2011. The idea for egalitarian systems came out of ecovillages and Occupy for me, then later was reinforced by info on intact and mostly intact aboriginal cultures, which also work this way.
My particular twists on the theme lie in two aspects. The first came to me during Occupy when I thought of neighborhood General Assemblies (GA) as the natural and necessary parallel to the city-wide GAs (later this was reinforced by knowledge of pre-Columbian Amazonian communities, as well as African and North American tribal networks). It was clear to me we could not govern a city, even just as a protest movement, that way. Individual neighborhood and personal pet issues were already clogging the agenda. So we set up a Work Group to explore the idea and get the first neighborhoods off the ground. Others later and/or concurrently started a state GA in Michigan. Depending on the size and type of bio-region, Regional GAs might also make sense.
Important key elements of these GAs would be:
* Some form of egalitarian
* Autonomous, but responsible for not working against the other levels of governance
A key to that second point is that the second point should be moot: Each level of GA is only responsible for issues dependent on SCALE. There is no actual hierarchy of power. No level of GA is more powerful than any other. Jurisdiction is solely by the size of the problem, by who is affected.
E.g.: Vacant lot? Neighborhood. Most large infrastructure, e.g. bridges, street lights, etc., city. Watersheds, inter-city and international infrastructure, bio-region.
However, in the process of decision-making, the other bodies that are affected by any given issue have a right to not be violated, so any decision that clearly negatively affects people at other levels must be resolved with that in mind.
This, too, is somewhat moot in that everyone has a voice, and, the bio-regional GA members come from towns, cities, neighborhoods and have equal responsibility to those entities.
In reality, the bio-regional network would be both fractal and like a web of mycelium with information flowing back and forth rather rapidly and in such a way as to keep the whole network healthy.
You end up with some representative elements due to sheer size of the bodies. Neighborhoods would have 100% participation, but all other levels would have to be limited in size, with provision made for participation to flow rather freely. That is, it doesn’t matter who shows up from Neighborhood B1, only that someone does. B1 can send the same person for years or someone new every time. So, those most in tune or knowledgeable or passionate can participate.
In nutshell, that is how you govern an egalitarian world and how you make simplicity simple, doable, and achieving a comfortable yield.
If you search with “PermOccupy” or “Regenerative Governance” or visit my Deep Simplicity page on Facebook, you can find other things on this, including a graphic of the concept.
Killiansays
Oops. Don’t post here. Will put it over on Forced Responses.
JCHsays
Apologies if somebody else corrected this, but Carling Hay is a she. She has author/coauthored several excellent papers on SLR. That Victor thinks she is some sort of ally against the work Stefan Rahmstorf is ridiculous. The C&W graph used in the video shows less acceleration. Victor should be celebrating its use.
(Why do I get the impression that this blog is some sort of Mad Tea Party?)
That’s a much deeper question than you think, Victor. And if we knew the answer, we might be able to End Climate Change Denialism In Our Time.
But though I can speculate, I don’t really know why you are so inflexible, so dogmatic, so resistant to considering any perspective but yours. Why, in short, you utterly refuse to learn.
You aren’t ‘a fool,’ organically. But–forgive my candor here–you make yourself look very, very foolish.
In my opinion, of course.
Ray Ladburysays
Mr. KIA@160,
Not surprising to see an imbecile (KIA) singing the praises of another (Carrie). So, guys, I have a question: Why do you think it is a good thing that the models are wrong? Why do you think it helps those of you on the stupid side of the argument?
After all, the existence of the greenhouse effect is in no way predicated on the validity of the models. That there will be positive feedbacks in the system is likewise an established fact. They are going to be in any model, and they are unlikely to provide you any less heartburn.
Then, too, there is the question of what the models are for. George Box said, “All models are wrong; some models are useful.” Climate models make many validated predictions. They fall short in some respects–but how they fail is in itself interesting. You are missing all of that.
So, the science is settled. You aren’t going to make concerns about anthropogenic climate change vanish by attacking the models. However, the science is never done–there is always more to learn…and it is foolish to assume that whatever you learn will decrease concern.
A red herring is an irrelevant fact (or factoid) that serves to divert attention from the real point of an argument. Literally every response of yours, CC, is precisely of that order. You continually dodge the issue and then accuse me of not understanding the science. I have no problem with “actual physics” and real science, but I do have a problem when people like yourself continually insult my intelligence by trotting out one red herring after another, in lieu of a reasoned argument.
Red Herring: A clue, information, argument etc. that is or is intended to be misleading, diverting attention from the real answer or issue.
So Victor feels that responses to his repeated false claims as to the conclusions that can be drawn from the warming period up to the 1940s and the pause of warming from 1940 to the 1970s is a red herring. Funny that Victor thinks that information relevant to what we know and don’t know about those periods is a red herring. Especially when those periods do nothing to diminish the level of certainty we have as to the role of CO2 in warming the planet. Claims that Victor falsely puts forth.
What is the real red herring? Positing that those periods cast doubt on the consensus science. They don’t and the fact that Victor cannot understand that nor recognize a reasoned explanation as to why is evidence of his intellectual capacity.
Too bad for Victor that he has a problem with people setting the record straight when it comes to the science.
nigeljsays
From my local newspaper, this seems like a useful tool: “Virtual reality game shows Wellington after sea level rise. It’s hard to imagine sea level rising and creeping over city streets, but if you live in Wellington you don’t have to.”
“The city council has developed a virtual reality simulator, allowing users to travel anywhere in the city, stand on the street, and see the impact of the rising sea levels.”
V 173: And herein lies the most insidious potential consequence of all the irresponsible fear mongering we see now continually, not only in the media, but so much of the so-called “scientific” literature. Once someone with sufficient resources, influence and power manages to convince himself that something MUST be done and be done SOON, or the human race (complete with all those innocent grandchildren) is doomed, then the door is open to anyone susceptible enough to buy into that level of sheer panic and hysteria, and wealthy enough to act on those fears, to initiate some potentially destructive and irreversible scheme along the lines suggested by our well meaning but naive colleague, Mr. McDonald.
BPL: Of course, you start by assuming there’s no real danger. That’s your main problem right there.
Apologies if somebody else corrected this, but Carling Hay is a she.
Yes, I actually did know that. Thank you for the correction.
Carriesays
161 about communication “The problem does not lie with the scientists or the science” and other pointed complaints. Many people appear overly touchy and reactive while making all kinds of weird assumptions. It may not make any difference to anyone else but I agree with the following ideals and practices:
Responsible advocacy is characterized by a handful of principles, Schmidt said. The individual should:
communicate his/her values fairly and truthfully;
make the connections between his/her values and policy choices explicit;
make sure to distinguish his/her personal conclusions from the scientific consensus;
acknowledge that people with different values would have different policy choices; and
be aware of how his/her values might impact objectivity, and be vigilant.
Irresponsible advocacy, on the other hand, can be recognized through a handful of clues. Among these:
Individuals misrepresent and hide their values.
The basis of their policy choices is unclear.
There’s an untested presumption that the individual’s personal scientific conclusions are widely held.
I’m taking Aristotle’s advice as the most logical action to take.
nigeljsays
Victor @173, no billionaire is going to be allowed to venture on some planet altering environmental experiment without approval of government and checking of safety at the very least. You watch too many James Bond movies, and your writing is dumber and more turgid than Anne Coulters blather.
Increduloussays
The Trump wreaking ball strikes again. New NASA administrator. Any thoughts on what it could mean for climate research?
#158 Apek
#159 NigelJ
#167 Alastair B. McDonald
#170 JRClark
To be honest, the idea of starting a third party seems unproductive to me. First of all it is a long-term enterprise, and we need to get going on solutions fast. I used to be somewhat active in the Green party, and I became disheartened because in one local race, we had a very good candidate who was clearly far better than the Democrat or Republican, but the Democrat had name recognition and had been in there a long-time. He had a lot of connections to unions etc. as well, and won the election easily.
What I realized from that experience was that the psychology of the voter was really the problem, and I don’t think that is something we have much hope of changing. What I mean by that is, in my opinion people should vote for the candidate who would fight for their most strongly held views, full stop, but few do.
People who are brilliant in other areas of their lives do not use this criteria. Instead they use one of the following or a combination of several.
They vote for:
1. The party their family or social group supports
2. The lesser of two evils (thus ruling out a third party)
3. A party they think has a realistic chance of winning.
4. A candidate with name recognition
5. Someone who is attractive
6. Someone who is of the sex they prefer
7. Safety in numbers. It is scary for some to defend a vote for a party that gets only 1%.
8. A candidate who has spent a lot of money on advertising.
There are several other reasons people vote for a candidate or party ahead of simply voting for a candidate who would fight for the issues they most hold dear. In other words policy should be the only thing that matters.
I really believe in the U.S. most people who vote for the Democratic party, their views line up with the Green party more than the Democrats, but only 1 or 2% of them will vote for the Green party when they are on the ballot.
This is the central problem why trying to start a third party seems hopeless to me. People don’t know how to vote, and I don’t know how you change that. So, whatever political solutions we want regarding climate change, (at least in the U.S.) will have to come from one of the two major parties, and most likely the Democrats. People who are brilliant in other areas of their lives go brain dead when it comes to voting. We should not compromise when we vote. If none of the candidates are satisfactory to us, then we should not vote at all! Voting does not need to be complicated-you simply vote for a candidate who would fight for the issues you hold most dear. Let the chips fall where they may. You vote for a candidate who has 5% of the vote-Great!
So, I think starting a third party is hopeless-sorry, because people will not do as I mentioned above.
I suppose however if some billionaires got behind a worthy third party, it would address some of my concerns, for example perhaps they would be able to advertise at the same level as the established parties, however starting a third party does not seem the way to go for most of the reasons I stated above. I will talk/ask about some of the other ideas mentioned in a day or two. Thanks again everyone who responded!
Victorsays
174 MA Rodger:
“So Victor, what happens to the ‘very large lump’ between time period 1940 and time period 1970? Will it get biggerer or littlerer? Or will it stay the same?”
It grows gills and turns red? :-)
Sorry, but your carefully crafted little story is a classic red herring. My point had to do with the effect of CO2 emissions on sea level rise, yet you mention CO2 not at all. It so happens that sea level continued to rise while global temperatures did not — that might bother you but not me, because that conundrum has nothing to do with evidence regarding the alleged influence of CO2. What’s important in my argument is what you prefer to ignore: the FACT that CO2 emissions could have had NO appreciable influence on sea level for roughly 70 years, rendering the graph displayed by Rahmstorf misleading to say the least.
Had a great comment on Victor’s newest folly, the Mad Billionaire Climate Disaster scenario, but it was somehow wiped out by a single errant keystroke.
But everyone but Victor can probably already see how silly it is.
In the red corner: the entire global fossil fuel economy (economic scale: over $3 trillion in annual revenue; business model necessity: adding CO2 to the atmosphere.)
In the blue corner: Jeff Bezos, current richest man (economic scale: net worth of $112 billion, annual net revenues of principal enterprise, $180 billion; principal business activity, merchandising.)
There are many geo-engineering schemes proposed in the literature (and beyond). None plausibly matching Victor’s fevered imaginations of efficacy.
I suppose, though, that the scientists involved just can’t see the obvious, blinded as they variously are by duplicity (for the ‘scammers’) or groupthink (for the innocent dupes). Maybe Victor will see fit to enlighten us as to what this uber-effective geo-engineering strategy, so (relatively) cheap, yet so effective, might be.
Should Scientists Advocate on the Issue of Climate Change? Views differ on what, exactly, is the best way for scientists to advocate for societal action against climate change. 04.24.2018 / By Ingfei Chen
“If you have all the facts” — that is, the scientific consensus on climate change — “and if you have this moral affirmation of our duty, then you know what you ought to do,” Moore told me when I called her. “You know that it’s necessary for the government, everybody to take action.” And climate scientists bear a particular moral responsibility because “they know, more than anybody else, the dangers that we face,” she said. Backed by the authority of their science, “they have powerful voices if they would choose to use them.”
Moore writes in “Great Tide” that we’re in an “all hands on deck” crisis, yet most scientists have been “down in the hold, muzzled by the vague but real fear that if they speak out, they will be punished for ‘advocacy,’ the cardinal sin of science.”
At a meta-level, the philosopher’s call to action makes sense to me. As she says in her book, Bob Dylan’s lyrics got it straight: “What good am I if I know and don’t do / If I see and don’t say.”
Nobel Laureate and climate chemistry researcher F. Sherwood Rowland: “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?”
“If you have all the facts, and if you have this moral affirmation of our duty, then you know what you ought to do.”
In this sense, Gavin Schmidt told me, the real issue is not whether, but how to advocate for change in ways that are responsible — and that actually make a difference. There’s no bright line that divides science from advocacy.
Okay, so what’s a scientist supposed to do?
This is where Moore stakes out a more radical interpretation. In her ethical analysis, global warming is like a house on fire; we should throw all we’ve got at putting out the damn fire.
…..
Yet scientist-activists such as Hansen are the exceptions. The failure of many climate researchers to match their warnings about global warming with their actions is “the great moral hazard” that they face, Moore told me.
In other words, it’s a failure of integrity. Ouch.
Methane bubbles? Breathing holes kept open by seals or whales?
Mattsays
Stuff that matters
California’s Next Climate Change Challenge is Water Whiplash
The eye-opening results indicate that while overall precipitation levels will not change significantly in the next decades, the state has already entered a period of increased extreme precipitation events that will continue to present tremendous challenges to ensuring stable water supplies. https://blog.ucsusa.org/adrienne-alvord/californias-next-climate-change-challenge-is-water-whiplash
Nature paper
As a consequence, a 25% to 100% increase in extreme dry-to-wet precipitation events is projected, despite only modest changes in mean precipitation. Such hydrological cycle intensification would seriously challenge California’s existing water storage, conveyance and flood control infrastructure. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0140-y
Climate change intensifies droughts in Europe, Researchers model the effects of the global temperature rise Date: April 23, 2018
Source: Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ
Summary: Global warming will exacerbate soil droughts in Europe – droughts will last longer, affect greater areas, and have an impact on more people. If the earth warms by three degrees Celsius, extreme events could become the normal state in the future. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/04/180423110822.htm
Minnesota Activists head to court after shutting down pipelines. Their defense? Climate change.
The judge approved the valve turners’ request last year to invoke the necessity defense, but the prosecution fought back and appealed. That appeal was just dismissed. Next up, science will take the stand: Climate scientists and other experts will testify about the serious threat posed by global warming.
Last month, a Massachusetts judge ruled that 13 protesters were not responsible for civil disobedience after they were arrested for sitting in holes dug for a pipeline to block construction. https://grist.org/briefly/france-declares-that-vegan-bacon-is-not-a-thing/
JUANITA PHILLIPS: Scientists say the Great Barrier Reef was forever changed by a catastrophic marine heatwave in 2016. A two-year study of the extreme weather found the southern reef was mostly untouched, but many coral communities up north died instantly in the hot water.
TERRY HUGHES: They didn’t die slowly of starvation, they died directly of heat stress. They cooked because the temperatures were so extreme. The incidence of coral bleaching around the world is increasing, driven by global warming.
— ABC News, 19 April, 2018
Nature Article – Great Barrier Reef saw huge losses from 2016 heatwave
One-third of reefs in the world’s largest coral system were transformed by warmed waters, finds comprehensive underwater and aerial survey. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-04660-w
Nature Letter Published online: 18 April 2018
Global warming transforms coral reef assemblages Terry P. Hughes et al
Abstract
Global warming is rapidly emerging as a universal threat to ecological integrity and function, highlighting the urgent need for a better understanding of the impact of heat exposure on the resilience of ecosystems and the people who depend on them.
Our study bridges the gap between the theory and practice of assessing the risk of ecosystem collapse, by rigorously defining both the initial and collapsed states, identifying the major driver of change, and establishing quantitative collapse thresholds. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0041-2
179 – Ray
Ray, my intent was not to attack the model – I was attacking the article about the AMOC. I have no idea what the model shows, but the article was a bunch of maybe, maybe not, what if, we don’t know, etc. That’s all – I noticed it when I read it and Carrie pointed it out – I was just agreeing with her.
183 – BPL
No apology necessary – I deserved it. I meant that since the email scandal, the adjustments of temperatures, etc that many people think the science is flaky – that’s the perception of many deniers. May be a totally false perception.
Some of the mean comments and insult fests we see on the internet remind me of this 10 minute video. It gives a theory on why the internet is so mean – sound starts at 0:23, starts getting to the meat of the meanness around 7 minutes until the end: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Cz-9hJ5hig
jgnfldsays
@198
One way of not making one’s self a magnet for “mean” responses is not to accuse professional people on their own board of engaging in unprofessional, dishonest, and even outright criminal activities while at the same time purporting that one’s confused and amateurish “science” completely overturns the findings of said professionals. Throw in those interminable repetitions of the same few long debunked denier memes and a few more supposedly insignificant “eye correlations” and the pull rating on your meanness magnet becomes very high.
Weaktor: “After I totally demolished your feeble attempt…”
Oh the strawmanity! Now the only question is whether Weaktor knows he is dealing in straw men or if he actually thinks his ignorance is universally shared.
Weaktor, once again, thanks for being on the other side. Your stupidity is working wonders for us.
Mr. KIA,
I don’t click on random links. Give a synopsis, and I’ll think about it. Human sexuality is a complicated, multidimensional problem. To reduce it to a single chromosomal dichotomy is simply stupid.
Victor quotes a bit from Spencer Weart, carefully excised from context, to make his ideas sound like they’re supported.
He needs to read the rest of the page from which he quoted.
https://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm
Thank you again to everyone who responded to my question # 111 about CCS in which I asked if hypothetically several billionaires got behind doing it, could it make an appreciable difference. The reason I asked the question is because I am thinking about starting a non-profit where I would seek out billionaires and educate them on climate change, and more importantly, what they could do to make a difference. I am aware of Tom Steyer who is a billionaire who is trying to make a difference on the issue.
I am not asking folks here their opinion how successful I might be getting some of these billionaires to agree to some initiative, although I expect I will get some sarcastic responses nonetheless. What I would like is the opinion of several of you if you could hypothetically get some of our wealthiest citizens to agree to some initiatives, what would they be? One person suggested we may need industrial sized factories to pull carbon down from the atmosphere. Would that be a worthy goal to get billionaires on board with? How about funding a large scale bio-char initiative? Or a regenerative farming “program”? I know Bill Gates is involved with trying to find a clean energy magic bullet, but from what I gather here, and other places I’ve read, soil is the area where we could make the biggest difference perhaps.
So, I would like to know folks here opinion if hypothetically you got several billionaires to agree to do what you wanted with respect to the climate problem, what would it be? As we all know, we are very late in the game now, and so we don’t have any time to waist to address climate change adequately-thus my idea for involving very rich people to fund vital solutions. I would greatly appreciate all and any responses to my question, and please be as detailed as you would like.
149 Mr. Know It All a reasonable query because I understand your concerns. There are not many good examples which exist. This article is supposed to explain how global warming works https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/03/alsup-asks-for-answers/ I am not convinced it’s very useful for the average person especially those who have serious doubts about the credibility of the science thus far. Who’s thomas?
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03634529709379090 ?
Introduction to Public Communication ? http://www.uvm.edu/~tpatters/pcom/syllabus.html ?
Thomas et al., Communicating Science Effectively – he’s well known.
https://www.brown.edu/academics/science-center/sites/brown.edu.academics.science-center/files/uploads/Quick_Guide_to_Science_Communication_0.pdf
Check page 15, there you will see the predominant approach of climate scientists especially on this forum and how the typical response addresses you and everyone else. It goes like this (my addition):
The Deficit Model – This model (incorrectly) assumes that public skepticism about science is caused by the public’s lack of relevant knowledge. In this approach, scientists (incorrectly believe they) can remedy the “deficit” by sharing their knowledge with the public. The (forlorn and failed) hope is that addressing the knowledge “deficit” will lead to more public support for science. In the deficit model, the transfer of knowledge is one-way and top-down.
It’s understandable why people reject this approach. Treating adults like inferior know nothing children switches the majority of people’s frontal lobes off not on! The better more sustainable, self-reinforcing approach is The Contextual Mode on the same page.
May remind you of Martin Luther King or Nelson Mandela. Many proven methods and tools that have been ignored by climate scientists and activists since the 1990s so here we are now. Different people respond to different styles and personalities.
possible alternatives on youtube are: https://youtu.be/9dC1iVCqmx0 ; https://youtu.be/2SYCHtYidAo ; https://youtu.be/SIBoJWDAg00 ; https://youtu.be/CSXz-dTGVvI ; https://youtu.be/cDOg3xLj_VE
Climate State is an excellent resource some are first rate. Better yet, locate your nearest average Republican/Libertarian who has looked into the topic more than you have been able. https://www.sciencealert.com/people-accept-facts-on-climate-change-republican-not-scientist
Good public communicators are as rare as hens teeth. Reagan was one example, David Attenborough is a natural. But good climate science communicators are so rare you may never find one in your lifetime. (grin)
146 CCHolley: “IPCC states that the period up to 1940 is so lacking in accurate data that it is impossible to determine with any precision what the exact causes were…that’s the scientific consensus. The amount of warming is also suspect due to to the uncertainties and the change in wartime measurements of sea surface temperatures. Again, this is a period of high uncertainty of which it is impossible to draw meaningful conclusions.”
And yet meaningful conclusions HAVE been drawn, the conclusions being that there’s been some “long-term” trend during which CO2 emissions have been responsible for both global warming and sea-level rise. How do such “uncertainties” morph into a “settled science” of climate change? In other words: how does an absence of evidence become evidence? Please explain.
“However, latest Hay study shows greater correlation to temperatures.” Correlation of WHAT to temperatures. I’m assuming this study conveniently corrects the embarrassing graph posted by Rahmstorf, which shows no sea level decline in the wake of 40 years of cooling. If that’s the case, and there was some degree of sea level decline during that period after all, so what? Once again: how does a certain amount of sea level decline after a period of global cooling (assuming Hay’s sources are more accurate than Rahmstorf’s) constitute evidence that CO2 emissions are the cause of rising sea levels? We’re talking not only correlation but cause and effect. It does make more sense that a long period of atmospheric cooling would lead to a lowering of sea level, but that correlation has NOTHING to do with CO2 emissions, which were skyrocketing while global temperatures either fell or remained steady. Over 40 years!
“Sea level rise is accelerating. CO2 levels are accelerating.” Yet CO2 levels were accelerating substantially from 1950 through 1979 with NO appreciable rise in temperatures. The record from the beginning of the industrial revolution through the 1940s was, as you yourself claim, uncertain. And the record from 1940 through 1979 shows both cooling and leveling off of temperatures. Yet you stubbornly insist that “there is no 70 year period where it can be shown CO2 warming only played a minor role in temperatures or sea level rise.” Where is the evidence that it could have played any role whatever?
“Nor has he provide evidence of alternative causes of warming that would result in the observed nights warming faster than days and winters warming faster than summers.” I haven’t provided such evidence because I see no need to. If you want to claim that CO2 emissions are leading to dangerous climate change then the burden is on YOU to provide sufficient evidence. Instead, like a true believer, you prefer to toss red herrings.
150
Kevin McKinney says: “However, since your version of the verb has proven in the past here to mean ‘repetitively assert what you claim, without regard to logical rebuttals made’, the prospect is less than inviting. (Eg., the Great Air Conditioner Debacle, where you made yourself appear extremely foolish, IMO.)”
Ah yes, I remember it well. I argued that lack of volcanic activity could in no way produce a net warming of the atmosphere, just as lack of air conditioning could not heat a room. Sheer nonsense, obviously. (Why do I get the impression that this blog is some sort of Mad Tea Party?)
154 Douglas I have a few ideas. See the issue as one of hearts and minds and not engineering, technology nor economics. Think about 200 years into the future based on the highest of Human ideals and sustainable community based values only. https://youtu.be/skilmEHMsMc?t=22m30s see last 5 minutes
‘Humanist Values’ and ‘UN founded Human Rights’ that would see the natural eradication of all nuclear weapons in every nation being the only sane and rational thing to urgently achieve alongside solutions to climate change and global resource depletion.
Would that be a worthy goal to get billionaires on board with? A life worth living for all people. Equity, equality, and equanimity in practice not theory. All the engineering technology inventive aspects are quite capable of looking after themselves due to human ingenuity.
Understanding the issue is much bigger than western orientated ideas and that there is more then one way to skin a cat. Embracing those major nations outside the wealthy west such as China, Brazil, Indonesia, Russia, in Central Asia, SE Asia, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, South America, Mexico and other. Respecting their cultures, their systems of government, and their rights is essential precursor.
What would make a sustainable difference? First a global ‘think tank’ model with a humanist mission statement, underpinned by Business/Marketing Plan developed by the very best social scientists, marketers and advertising gurus on the planet.
A new Third Way Politically orientated NGO to sponsor train and setup Humanist Sustainability orientated grass roots national Political parties. AS already promoted by Dr James Hansen in the US. A 3rd centrist party that would hollow out the middle ground support base from both dominant parties as well as attract support from the Greens/Libertarian ranks and/or encourage effective long term coalitions based on ideals and not crass old-world ideology nor neo-liberalism.
The primary mission is for the third way to gain the balance of power of federal parliaments wherever possible and sending a new age of national representatives to the annual COP meetings and to the United Nations.
Buying out several companies the likes of Cambridge Analytica retooling them and employing people to be activists for good and not for the abuse of power of existing radical undemocratic elites.
Buying out or gaining financial control over News Corp, Fox, MSNBC, CNN, WashPost, NYT, LA Times and their kind all over the western world.
Buying out or gaining financial control over Facebook, Twitter and Google. Or creating alternatives from scratch based upon a different business model that enhances ethical journalism and truth in advertising.
A globally coordinated umbrella of organisations and parties that drive systemic changes in existing political economic norms and that drives social change through positive constructive evidence based humane laws and regulations that then drives sustainable generational changes in economic norms, climate change solutions investments and technological change for the good of all people and not the few.
The natural outcomes would be logical solutions such as massive changes in agriculture, trade, transport, housing, building codes, energy use, manufacturing, mining, protection of soils, forests, and ocean ecology, plus regenerative agriculture, permaculture, self reliance, and more.
Easy to say and yet a wicked diabolical problem to understand and solve.
Douglas @154
I think the whole regenerative farming / soil carbon approach has a lot of promise, because its removing C02, reducing soil erosion and uses land thats already there, so has a huge mix of benefits. Just my gut reaction. I have tried to find studies comparing various negative emissions options, but without success, perhaps someone else knows. I would include the use of biochar within this option, as its related.
The farmers need financial support and the schemes do not require developing complicated technology. There are already pilot schemes and organic farming is already quite well established, so the whole thing uses well known existing techniques.
But only a fool would rely on just one approach. Growing more forests has value and can use land not suitable for agriculture, so is complementary.
Direct air capture and storage has the merit of being something that can be located near suitable underground storage areas, and needs more funding for research and prototypes at this stage. Obviously theres an intrinsic attraction in pulling CO2 out of the air as its so direct.
Governments and the private sector are looking at all of these already in various countries, so its hard to identify one that particularly suits a philanthropic billionaire. It may be a case of researching which ones your own country is neglecting.
BECCS looks hopeless to me, because of the complexity, the multi stage process and huge transport costs and the other issues I mentioned.
Another issue is the way the oil industry and certain climate denialist billionaires dominate political party funding at least in The USA. It would be great to have a few environmentally minded billionaires to counter that influence.
144 – Carrie
Good comment – I was thinking the same thing when I read that article on the AMOC – it was mealy-mouth, what if, maybe, maybe not, we just don’t know…..it was laughable.
Thomas was a commenter on this website a couple of months ago who, like you, pushed better communication techniques – go back a couple months and look up comments for “Thomas” – or try the Search Box – there will be no shortage of comments – probably some good history in them. :)
147 – Arek
Listened to some of your audio link, but when he says he knows deniers who are “seemingly educated, seemingly intelligent” people, he’s just insulting people because that’s all he’s got. On people denying CC because of the “diabolic or wicked nature of the problem” being hard to solve – there is no merit to that argument. People deny CC because they don’t believe it is man-made; climate has always changed – always will. Scientists have repeatedly put out questionable science – see the article on the AMOC collapse in a comment above and the good analysis of the article in comment 144 above. Scientists have been caught fudging data, hiding emails which don’t fit the narrative, etc – so many times that many people just don’t believe them. You don’t belive them either and neither do most others – I know this because very few “believers” are actually making the changes in lifestyle that they want to force on everyone else. Want people to believe in CC? Show us the math, show us how the models work. ;)
Carrie,
What does a politician do? Politics. You can tell from the “Politic” in the word.
What does a lawyer do? The Law. You can tell from the fact that “Law” is in the title.
Now, for 50 points, what does a scientist do? If you said “science,” congratulations. It is not the scientist’s job to communicate with you, with politicians who have room temperature IQs or with the denialists who are bent on destroying the planet.
Scientists have been communicating the risks of climate change for more than 30 years now. Some have done so quite eloquently. However, when they raise the specter of the possible worst-case consequences, they are dismissed as “alarmist”. When they communicate the known and established risks that every reasonable and scientifically literate person can agree upon, they are dismissed as stodgy and conservative. When they seek a middle ground, they are attacked from both sides.
The problem does not lie with the scientists or the science. The problem lies with politics and the politicians. The problem lies with voters who vote in idiots based on single-issue, tribal politics and then try to defend their indefensible choices by attacking the science and scientists. The problem is that we are a pretty stupid species, and, ultimately you can’t fix stupid.
> KIA … Want people to believe in CC? Show us the math, show us how the models work.
http://www3.geosc.psu.edu/~dmb53/Earth_System_Models/Simple_Climate_Models.html
It’s no secret.
# 158 Arek, and # 159 Nigelj,
Thank you for your thoughtful responses. I think I will wait a bit longer to see if anyone else responds before I follow up.
More attention needed to slow-growing forcings:
https://text.npr.org/s.php?sId=604580743
KIA 160: Scientists have been caught fudging data, hiding emails which don’t fit the narrative, etc
BPL: You’re a god damned liar.
Victor @156
Uncertainties do not equate to “know nothing”. The preponderance of evidence supporting AGW is overwhelming with no credible disagreement. Victor is incapable of recognizing evidence. Evidence that has been repeated to him ad nauseam. It is tiresome and boring. Victor is incapable of critical thinking and too lazy to do a thorough investigation of the scientific literature.
So much stupidity in one paragraph.
Victor assumes, of course, too lazy to attempt to understand the complexity of determining *global* sea level rise from tide gauges. Hay didn’t use different data, he used a different model to change the data into a representation of *global* sea level. Did he correct Church & White? Maybe, maybe not. But either way it is not important to drawing conclusions about the validity of AGW, it is only important to our understanding of the response of sea levels to temperature change. Any temperature change.
Victor does not get it. Never will.
We know that short term changes in sea level rise are due to natural variability. Long term changes in sea levels are due to both changes in surface temperatures that control land ice and ocean temperatures that vary the density of water. This is NOT debated. It is a fact. Warming surface temperatures and warming ocean temperatures raise sea levels. PERIOD.
The temperature of the climate system is controlled by forcings and CO2 is only one of the forcings. Surface temperatures are dependent on all of the forcings not just CO2. Although this has been explained a thousand times, Victor does not get it. He refuses to get it. He is incredibly deluded to believe he actually is making some kind of meaningful point.
Yawn, Victor continues to ignore most of the evidence. He is clearly incapable of understanding the whole picture. Science is science and evidence and facts are stubborn. Physical laws are physical laws. Too bad Victor is incapable of understanding science.
The master of red herrings calls the actual physics a red herring. How ironic. Victor apparently believes that accepting science along with the evidence and facts is somehow a belief.
When it comes to actual knowledge and the physics behind AGW and what it would actually take to refute, Victor simply ignores. He demands evidence. Evidence that he has been provided time and time again. Unfortunately for Victor he wouldn’t know what constituted evidence if it smacked him in the face. Besides, it is not like anyone cares what Victor demands, he’s just a simple fool. And of course he is too simple to understand that the physics IS evidence. Strong evidence.
Re #154 and #163
Douglas,
If I had several billion dollars, I would spend it on fertilising carbonate secreting ocean biota e.g. coccolithophores. These are the sea creatures which created the White Cliffs of Dover and gave the Cretaceous its name, which means chalk.
The natural sink for CO2 is the formation of limestone on the sea floor from the skeletons of those tiny sea creatures. If they were fertilised, then that sink could be increased without any significant drawbacks.
Victor @156
You say “I’m assuming this study conveniently corrects the embarrassing graph posted by Rahmstorf, which shows no sea level decline in the wake of 40 years of cooling.”
Not an embarrassing graph, its simply the reality so needs an explanation. (Temperatures were also flat, rather than cooling but thats not the main point at issue).
CC Holey @101 has already stated the following below explaining it, which I can tell you makes sense to me. “The problems Victor states with sea level rise correlating to temperatures has nothing to do with the cause of the temperature rise. Nothing. Yes, one would expect long term sea level changes to follow temperatures. However, this correlation does not matter on what the cause of warming is. And, perfect correlation to temperature would not be expected because ice will not stop melting just because warming stopped, it takes time for the ice to reach thermal equilibrium. This is quite basic and even someone like Victor should understand that. Questioning the correlation of sea level rise to CO2 is pointless and meaningless, the direct correlation should be to its cause–warming temperatures.”
I’m not a scientist, but I understand this straight away. You Victor havent falsified it and cant because its so basic. You simply don’t read, or are trolling, or are just being deliberately dense. Theres no other alternative. You tell me which.
Mr KIA @161
“Scientists have repeatedly put out questionable science – see the article on the AMOC collapse in a comment above and the good analysis of the article in comment 144 above. Scientists have been caught fudging data, hiding emails which don’t fit the narrative, etc – so many times that many people just don’t believe them.”
Its completely incorrect for you to claim the AMOC research is questionable science. It’s long been predicted that global warming will cause a slowdown and we see a slowdown. The doubt is about where it will end and how much, and this is just scientists being honest, and is clearly not “questionable science”.
It also doesn’t mean they have no idea, because they have stated its a high risk scenario and a 50% slowdown is likely. ( This is probably because if theres 4 degrees of warming by 2100 most likely scenario so if slowdown is roughly linear this is about a 50% slow down, which would be very concerning).
Scientists have not been caught fudging data. No official investigation has found this and you certainly dont provide any evidence. You just show you wont accept the reality, and are obstinate and conspiratorial in your world view.
Emails are not “being hidden”. They are confidential. Are you going to dump all yours for everyone to see? Should Scott Pruitt and Trump make all theirs public, because I doubt they would.
The emails stolen from climate scientists were investgated by four different organisations, and no fraud or wrongdoing was found.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
Get over it and move on. I notice you dont care about the fact they were stolen, which shows your contempt for the law and your double standards.
Also, you keep asking for explanations of how the maths works in climate models. You have been given dozens of good references numerous times but keep on asking. I dont know why you would do that unless you cant be bothered reading what you are given, or find it too complex or just want to act like a pain in the neck.
I wont call you a liar as I cant be 100% sure. But as far as Im concerned you act like a paid troll spreading confusion. This website its very pro free speech with almost no moderation, and yet you ABUSE this privilege repeatedly by spreading propoganda, nonsense, and deceit. The word contemptible behaviour comes to mind. In fact all the fudging of the truth is coming from denialists like you, yet you are so caught in your ideologically based crusade against imagined and absurd threats of socialism and the like, you cant see that you have allowed yourself to bend the truth, and just promote nonsense propoganda.
163 Douglas see https://www.rte.ie/news/enviroment/2018/0418/955466-environment-citizens-assembly/
Carree posted it on another page here. i have seen these ideas about citizens assemblies popping up a long time, it’s been seriously researched by academia and promoted quite a lot but it’s not getting any serious support.
i chased down hansen’s 3rd party idea too.
The Peaceful Revolutionary Party 27 January 2017 James Hansen
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2017/20170127_PeacefulParty.pdf
see there
“However, our non-profit 501c3 CSAS, Inc will run out of funding within a few months unless we find additional funding sources. CSAS, Inc.
provides an overhead-free mechanism to support our work (including travel, computers, copiers), with, by far, the greatest expense being the legal
costs we cover for Our Children’s Trust lawyers, specifically for Dan Galpern, who is working with me in preparation of testimony and briefs for
the case (Juliana et al v. United States) against the Federal government and several other cases. Legal costs cover ed by CSAS, Inc. are now
more than $100K/year. We are up against the best lawyers that fossil fuel money can buy. ”
The American Party 29 May 2013 James Hansen
http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/mailings/2013/20130529_AmericanParty.pdf
The Ridenhour Courage Prize
Dr. James Hansen, the 2013 recipient of The Ridenhour Courage Prize, was recognized for bravely and urgently telling the truth about climate change, even when the Bush administration tried to silence and penalize him as director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Rather than giving in, or giving up, Dr. Hansen—one of the world’s most tireless and articulate activists—has courageously and continuously led the fight to save the planet ever since.
http://www.ridenhour.org/prizes_courage_2013.html
Douglas you don’t need a group of billionaires, you really need a group of people with real integrity and courage but having money to burn is a great bonus too.
166 CCHolley: “The master of red herrings calls the actual physics a red herring. How ironic. Victor apparently believes that accepting science along with the evidence and facts is somehow a belief.”
A red herring is an irrelevant fact (or factoid) that serves to divert attention from the real point of an argument. Literally every response of yours, CC, is precisely of that order. You continually dodge the issue and then accuse me of not understanding the science. I have no problem with “actual physics” and real science, but I do have a problem when people like yourself continually insult my intelligence by trotting out one red herring after another, in lieu of a reasoned argument.
158 – Arek “Embracing those major nations outside the wealthy west such as China, Brazil, Indonesia, Russia, in Central Asia, SE Asia, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, South America, Mexico and other. Respecting their cultures, their systems of government, and their rights is essential precursor.”
Excellent, Arek, good platform for the 2020 D candidate to run against Trump.
162 – Hank R
Thanks Hank, I’ll poke around that site.
165 – BPL
Man, I hope I’m not that bad – don’t want to go to the bad place – I hear the warming down there is BAD. The statement I made IS the perception – whether it is reality or not I don’t know. In the spanking nigelj gives me in comment 169 he says that perception is wrong, but I think many still believe it. Thanks for the spanking, nigelj – I needed it.
167 Alastair B. McDonald says:
“If I had several billion dollars, I would spend it on fertilising carbonate secreting ocean biota e.g. coccolithophores. These are the sea creatures which created the White Cliffs of Dover and gave the Cretaceous its name, which means chalk.
The natural sink for CO2 is the formation of limestone on the sea floor from the skeletons of those tiny sea creatures. If they were fertilised, then that sink could be increased without any significant drawbacks.”
Herein lies perhaps the greatest potential threat to the planet, far greater than the threat of “climate change” even if it turns out to be “real.” We have at the present moment more billionaires on this earth than ever before, many of them multi-billionaires. And the great majority of these people are bored, have no idea what to do with all their money, long to get “creative” and are therefor prone to come up with cockamamie schemes of all sorts, some of which could turn out to be extremely dangerous.
While a program initiated by a major government would (presumably) be preceded by studies to determine what the potential drawbacks and dangers might be, followed by public scrutiny and debate, none of these billionaires need be constrained in a similar manner. Any one of them would be free to proceed with whatever nutty scheme they could be persuaded to implement by this or that crackpot with a “foolproof” plan to “save the planet.”
And herein lies the most insidious potential consequence of all the irresponsible fear mongering we see now continually, not only in the media, but so much of the so-called “scientific” literature. Once someone with sufficient resources, influence and power manages to convince himself that something MUST be done and be done SOON, or the human race (complete with all those innocent grandchildren) is doomed, then the door is open to anyone susceptible enough to buy into that level of sheer panic and hysteria, and wealthy enough to act on those fears, to initiate some potentially destructive and irreversible scheme along the lines suggested by our well meaning but naive colleague, Mr. McDonald.
The scenario painted in the film “The Day After Tomorrow” seems extremely unlikely, even to most climate change advocates, but one could easily make a far more convincing version, based not on the effects of climate change, but the efforts of some crackpot to “save the world” from same by implementing some well meaning scheme that could all too easily lead to a disaster far more immediate and possibly far more destructive than anything a few degrees of temperature rise could produce.
Victor the Troll @171,
I see you have returned from under your lonely bridge to plague us with yet more trivial conundrums of your own invention. You claim you “have no problem with “actual physics” and real science” although evidently you do. But you are a prime example of a denier locked into a world of foolishness, so we aren’t surprised.
Perhaps it would be useful to consider a simple situation to demonstrate to you the underlying physics of what you continue to describe ad nauseam but which you fail utterly to understand.
Imagine then a very large lump of ice in a temperature controlled chamber at zero degrees celtigrade T(0). The lump of ice remains the same ‘very large lump’.
But then, after 1850 time periods we wind up the temperature in the chamber. The ‘very large lump’ begins to melt. As we approach 1900 time periods, we wind down the temperature back to T(0) such that the melting process stops and perhaps even the liquid water begins to freeze a little.
But then when we pass 1910 time periods we again wind up the temperature and melting resumes. On reaching 1940 we wind down the temperature but not all the way to T(0) before winding up the temperature again as we reach 1970 time periods.
Now we could add complexity to this simple situation but then it wouldn’t be simple any more, at least not simple for a Troll who lives under a bridge and doesn’t get out very much. And for the same reason I will refrain from any description of how the temperature-controlled chamber actually controls temperature.
So Victor, what happens to the ‘very large lump’ between time period 1940 and time period 1970? Will it get biggerer or littlerer? Or will it stay the same?
(And by the way, it is us who are insulted by you with your “trotting out one red herring after another, in lieu of a reasoned argument.”)
Re 163, Carrie and JRCLark,
At the center of Regenerative Governance are egalitarian councils at neighborhood/town, city/area, regional (if needed), and bio-region levels.
Circa 2011. The idea for egalitarian systems came out of ecovillages and Occupy for me, then later was reinforced by info on intact and mostly intact aboriginal cultures, which also work this way.
My particular twists on the theme lie in two aspects. The first came to me during Occupy when I thought of neighborhood General Assemblies (GA) as the natural and necessary parallel to the city-wide GAs (later this was reinforced by knowledge of pre-Columbian Amazonian communities, as well as African and North American tribal networks). It was clear to me we could not govern a city, even just as a protest movement, that way. Individual neighborhood and personal pet issues were already clogging the agenda. So we set up a Work Group to explore the idea and get the first neighborhoods off the ground. Others later and/or concurrently started a state GA in Michigan. Depending on the size and type of bio-region, Regional GAs might also make sense.
Important key elements of these GAs would be:
* Some form of egalitarian
* Autonomous, but responsible for not working against the other levels of governance
A key to that second point is that the second point should be moot: Each level of GA is only responsible for issues dependent on SCALE. There is no actual hierarchy of power. No level of GA is more powerful than any other. Jurisdiction is solely by the size of the problem, by who is affected.
E.g.: Vacant lot? Neighborhood. Most large infrastructure, e.g. bridges, street lights, etc., city. Watersheds, inter-city and international infrastructure, bio-region.
However, in the process of decision-making, the other bodies that are affected by any given issue have a right to not be violated, so any decision that clearly negatively affects people at other levels must be resolved with that in mind.
This, too, is somewhat moot in that everyone has a voice, and, the bio-regional GA members come from towns, cities, neighborhoods and have equal responsibility to those entities.
In reality, the bio-regional network would be both fractal and like a web of mycelium with information flowing back and forth rather rapidly and in such a way as to keep the whole network healthy.
You end up with some representative elements due to sheer size of the bodies. Neighborhoods would have 100% participation, but all other levels would have to be limited in size, with provision made for participation to flow rather freely. That is, it doesn’t matter who shows up from Neighborhood B1, only that someone does. B1 can send the same person for years or someone new every time. So, those most in tune or knowledgeable or passionate can participate.
In nutshell, that is how you govern an egalitarian world and how you make simplicity simple, doable, and achieving a comfortable yield.
If you search with “PermOccupy” or “Regenerative Governance” or visit my Deep Simplicity page on Facebook, you can find other things on this, including a graphic of the concept.
Oops. Don’t post here. Will put it over on Forced Responses.
Apologies if somebody else corrected this, but Carling Hay is a she. She has author/coauthored several excellent papers on SLR. That Victor thinks she is some sort of ally against the work Stefan Rahmstorf is ridiculous. The C&W graph used in the video shows less acceleration. Victor should be celebrating its use.
Victor asks:
That’s a much deeper question than you think, Victor. And if we knew the answer, we might be able to End Climate Change Denialism In Our Time.
But though I can speculate, I don’t really know why you are so inflexible, so dogmatic, so resistant to considering any perspective but yours. Why, in short, you utterly refuse to learn.
You aren’t ‘a fool,’ organically. But–forgive my candor here–you make yourself look very, very foolish.
In my opinion, of course.
Mr. KIA@160,
Not surprising to see an imbecile (KIA) singing the praises of another (Carrie). So, guys, I have a question: Why do you think it is a good thing that the models are wrong? Why do you think it helps those of you on the stupid side of the argument?
After all, the existence of the greenhouse effect is in no way predicated on the validity of the models. That there will be positive feedbacks in the system is likewise an established fact. They are going to be in any model, and they are unlikely to provide you any less heartburn.
Then, too, there is the question of what the models are for. George Box said, “All models are wrong; some models are useful.” Climate models make many validated predictions. They fall short in some respects–but how they fail is in itself interesting. You are missing all of that.
So, the science is settled. You aren’t going to make concerns about anthropogenic climate change vanish by attacking the models. However, the science is never done–there is always more to learn…and it is foolish to assume that whatever you learn will decrease concern.
http://blogs.reading.ac.uk/climate-lab-book/2018/heavy-rainfall-events-increasing/
Victor @171
Red Herring: A clue, information, argument etc. that is or is intended to be misleading, diverting attention from the real answer or issue.
So Victor feels that responses to his repeated false claims as to the conclusions that can be drawn from the warming period up to the 1940s and the pause of warming from 1940 to the 1970s is a red herring. Funny that Victor thinks that information relevant to what we know and don’t know about those periods is a red herring. Especially when those periods do nothing to diminish the level of certainty we have as to the role of CO2 in warming the planet. Claims that Victor falsely puts forth.
What is the real red herring? Positing that those periods cast doubt on the consensus science. They don’t and the fact that Victor cannot understand that nor recognize a reasoned explanation as to why is evidence of his intellectual capacity.
Too bad for Victor that he has a problem with people setting the record straight when it comes to the science.
From my local newspaper, this seems like a useful tool: “Virtual reality game shows Wellington after sea level rise. It’s hard to imagine sea level rising and creeping over city streets, but if you live in Wellington you don’t have to.”
“The city council has developed a virtual reality simulator, allowing users to travel anywhere in the city, stand on the street, and see the impact of the rising sea levels.”
https://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/gadgets/103246531/Virtual-reality-game-shows-Wellington-after-sea-level-rise
KIA 172: I apologize for losing my temper. But please keep in mind these accusations are aimed at real people, me among them.
V 173: And herein lies the most insidious potential consequence of all the irresponsible fear mongering we see now continually, not only in the media, but so much of the so-called “scientific” literature. Once someone with sufficient resources, influence and power manages to convince himself that something MUST be done and be done SOON, or the human race (complete with all those innocent grandchildren) is doomed, then the door is open to anyone susceptible enough to buy into that level of sheer panic and hysteria, and wealthy enough to act on those fears, to initiate some potentially destructive and irreversible scheme along the lines suggested by our well meaning but naive colleague, Mr. McDonald.
BPL: Of course, you start by assuming there’s no real danger. That’s your main problem right there.
Victor, you’re behind the news again with your rich maniac disaster scenario.
It’s been tried.
https://www.google.com/search?q=fertilizing+ocean+Indian+Vancouver+Island
and
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/06/permit-sought-for-iron-fertilization-off-coast-of-chile-to-boost-fish.html
JCH @177
Yes, I actually did know that. Thank you for the correction.
161 about communication “The problem does not lie with the scientists or the science” and other pointed complaints. Many people appear overly touchy and reactive while making all kinds of weird assumptions. It may not make any difference to anyone else but I agree with the following ideals and practices:
Richard Feynman’s Simple Technique For Sorting Science From Pseudoscience, 50 years later, and more relevant than ever. He offered some of the best advice in the history of science communication:
https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-richard-feynman-s-simple-technique-for-sorting-science-from-pseudoscience
EarthSky’s Science Communicator of the Year says that telling people about how scientists work is a key to communicating the science of climate change.
http://earthsky.org/earth/gavin-schmidt-on-communicating-climate-change
“My (Gavin’s) main advocacy is for people to have a higher level of conversation on these topics than we generally see in the public discussion. That means trying to focus attention on substantive issues rather than trivialities,”
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/12/agu-talk-on-science-and-advocacy/
Responsible advocacy is characterized by a handful of principles, Schmidt said. The individual should:
communicate his/her values fairly and truthfully;
make the connections between his/her values and policy choices explicit;
make sure to distinguish his/her personal conclusions from the scientific consensus;
acknowledge that people with different values would have different policy choices; and
be aware of how his/her values might impact objectivity, and be vigilant.
Irresponsible advocacy, on the other hand, can be recognized through a handful of clues. Among these:
Individuals misrepresent and hide their values.
The basis of their policy choices is unclear.
There’s an untested presumption that the individual’s personal scientific conclusions are widely held.
During his talk, he flashed a great quote on the screen, which sums up much of the talk: “To avoid criticism, say nothing, do nothing, be nothing.” — Aristotle
https://www.skepticalscience.com/gavin-schmidt-speaking-up-speaking-out.html
and https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00963402.2017.1364008
Scientists have special responsibilities to inform the public on key societal issues that are relevant to their specific expertise.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/speaking-science-to-power/
2 April 2018
Gavin Schmidt and Richard Alley’s Talk to a Full House at the Smithsonian
https://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscience/2018/04/02/gavin-schmidt-and-richard-alleys-talk-to-a-full-house-at-the-smithsonian/
The Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science at SUNY Stonybrook. The center offers workshops that aim to help scientists communicate about their work to the public.
http://www.caltech.edu/news/scientists-can-tell-good-story-50474
I’m taking Aristotle’s advice as the most logical action to take.
Victor @173, no billionaire is going to be allowed to venture on some planet altering environmental experiment without approval of government and checking of safety at the very least. You watch too many James Bond movies, and your writing is dumber and more turgid than Anne Coulters blather.
The Trump wreaking ball strikes again. New NASA administrator. Any thoughts on what it could mean for climate research?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/james-bridenstine-nasa-climate-change-denier-donald-trump-ignoring-science-terrifying-launch-a8313966.html
http://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/jim-bridenstine
Thanks to all who responded to me:
#158 Apek
#159 NigelJ
#167 Alastair B. McDonald
#170 JRClark
To be honest, the idea of starting a third party seems unproductive to me. First of all it is a long-term enterprise, and we need to get going on solutions fast. I used to be somewhat active in the Green party, and I became disheartened because in one local race, we had a very good candidate who was clearly far better than the Democrat or Republican, but the Democrat had name recognition and had been in there a long-time. He had a lot of connections to unions etc. as well, and won the election easily.
What I realized from that experience was that the psychology of the voter was really the problem, and I don’t think that is something we have much hope of changing. What I mean by that is, in my opinion people should vote for the candidate who would fight for their most strongly held views, full stop, but few do.
People who are brilliant in other areas of their lives do not use this criteria. Instead they use one of the following or a combination of several.
They vote for:
1. The party their family or social group supports
2. The lesser of two evils (thus ruling out a third party)
3. A party they think has a realistic chance of winning.
4. A candidate with name recognition
5. Someone who is attractive
6. Someone who is of the sex they prefer
7. Safety in numbers. It is scary for some to defend a vote for a party that gets only 1%.
8. A candidate who has spent a lot of money on advertising.
There are several other reasons people vote for a candidate or party ahead of simply voting for a candidate who would fight for the issues they most hold dear. In other words policy should be the only thing that matters.
I really believe in the U.S. most people who vote for the Democratic party, their views line up with the Green party more than the Democrats, but only 1 or 2% of them will vote for the Green party when they are on the ballot.
This is the central problem why trying to start a third party seems hopeless to me. People don’t know how to vote, and I don’t know how you change that. So, whatever political solutions we want regarding climate change, (at least in the U.S.) will have to come from one of the two major parties, and most likely the Democrats. People who are brilliant in other areas of their lives go brain dead when it comes to voting. We should not compromise when we vote. If none of the candidates are satisfactory to us, then we should not vote at all! Voting does not need to be complicated-you simply vote for a candidate who would fight for the issues you hold most dear. Let the chips fall where they may. You vote for a candidate who has 5% of the vote-Great!
So, I think starting a third party is hopeless-sorry, because people will not do as I mentioned above.
I suppose however if some billionaires got behind a worthy third party, it would address some of my concerns, for example perhaps they would be able to advertise at the same level as the established parties, however starting a third party does not seem the way to go for most of the reasons I stated above. I will talk/ask about some of the other ideas mentioned in a day or two. Thanks again everyone who responded!
174 MA Rodger:
“So Victor, what happens to the ‘very large lump’ between time period 1940 and time period 1970? Will it get biggerer or littlerer? Or will it stay the same?”
It grows gills and turns red? :-)
Sorry, but your carefully crafted little story is a classic red herring. My point had to do with the effect of CO2 emissions on sea level rise, yet you mention CO2 not at all. It so happens that sea level continued to rise while global temperatures did not — that might bother you but not me, because that conundrum has nothing to do with evidence regarding the alleged influence of CO2. What’s important in my argument is what you prefer to ignore: the FACT that CO2 emissions could have had NO appreciable influence on sea level for roughly 70 years, rendering the graph displayed by Rahmstorf misleading to say the least.
Had a great comment on Victor’s newest folly, the Mad Billionaire Climate Disaster scenario, but it was somehow wiped out by a single errant keystroke.
But everyone but Victor can probably already see how silly it is.
In the red corner: the entire global fossil fuel economy (economic scale: over $3 trillion in annual revenue; business model necessity: adding CO2 to the atmosphere.)
In the blue corner: Jeff Bezos, current richest man (economic scale: net worth of $112 billion, annual net revenues of principal enterprise, $180 billion; principal business activity, merchandising.)
There are many geo-engineering schemes proposed in the literature (and beyond). None plausibly matching Victor’s fevered imaginations of efficacy.
I suppose, though, that the scientists involved just can’t see the obvious, blinded as they variously are by duplicity (for the ‘scammers’) or groupthink (for the innocent dupes). Maybe Victor will see fit to enlighten us as to what this uber-effective geo-engineering strategy, so (relatively) cheap, yet so effective, might be.
Mauna Loa CO2 New Records Set
Weekly Avg 2018 April 15: 411.07 ppm
Daily Avg 2018 April 23: 412.37 ppm
Hourly Avg 2018 April 14: 413.20 ppm
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/monthly.html
Previous Weekly Record was 410.36 ppm in 2017 May 14
In other climate news
http://www.capetownetc.com/water-crisis/city-warns-of-more-stringent-water-restrictions-if-consumption-is-not-lowered/
Yet despite that effort, “Day Zero” is still projected to arrive next year. And when it comes, the crisis will see the government switching off all the taps and rationing the resource through collection points.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/11/cape-town-water-crisis-cities-should-prepare-for-water-scarcity.html
https://theconversation.com/five-key-lessons-other-cities-can-learn-from-cape-towns-water-crisis-94045
Taps in capital city of Maputo being turned off every other day as climate change exacerbates southern African drought
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/apr/22/mozambique-prays-for-rain-water-shortages-hit-poor-maputo-southern-africa-drought
Should Scientists Advocate on the Issue of Climate Change? Views differ on what, exactly, is the best way for scientists to advocate for societal action against climate change. 04.24.2018 / By Ingfei Chen
“If you have all the facts” — that is, the scientific consensus on climate change — “and if you have this moral affirmation of our duty, then you know what you ought to do,” Moore told me when I called her. “You know that it’s necessary for the government, everybody to take action.” And climate scientists bear a particular moral responsibility because “they know, more than anybody else, the dangers that we face,” she said. Backed by the authority of their science, “they have powerful voices if they would choose to use them.”
Moore writes in “Great Tide” that we’re in an “all hands on deck” crisis, yet most scientists have been “down in the hold, muzzled by the vague but real fear that if they speak out, they will be punished for ‘advocacy,’ the cardinal sin of science.”
At a meta-level, the philosopher’s call to action makes sense to me. As she says in her book, Bob Dylan’s lyrics got it straight: “What good am I if I know and don’t do / If I see and don’t say.”
Nobel Laureate and climate chemistry researcher F. Sherwood Rowland: “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?”
“If you have all the facts, and if you have this moral affirmation of our duty, then you know what you ought to do.”
In this sense, Gavin Schmidt told me, the real issue is not whether, but how to advocate for change in ways that are responsible — and that actually make a difference. There’s no bright line that divides science from advocacy.
Okay, so what’s a scientist supposed to do?
This is where Moore stakes out a more radical interpretation. In her ethical analysis, global warming is like a house on fire; we should throw all we’ve got at putting out the damn fire.
…..
Yet scientist-activists such as Hansen are the exceptions. The failure of many climate researchers to match their warnings about global warming with their actions is “the great moral hazard” that they face, Moore told me.
In other words, it’s a failure of integrity. Ouch.
https://undark.org/article/dilemma-climate-scientist-advocate/
A rather curious article, though written in a deplorably tongue-in-cheek “NASA baffled” style:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2018/04/23/nasa-baffled-by-mysterious-ice-circles-in-the-arctic/
Methane bubbles? Breathing holes kept open by seals or whales?
Stuff that matters
California’s Next Climate Change Challenge is Water Whiplash
The eye-opening results indicate that while overall precipitation levels will not change significantly in the next decades, the state has already entered a period of increased extreme precipitation events that will continue to present tremendous challenges to ensuring stable water supplies.
https://blog.ucsusa.org/adrienne-alvord/californias-next-climate-change-challenge-is-water-whiplash
Nature paper
As a consequence, a 25% to 100% increase in extreme dry-to-wet precipitation events is projected, despite only modest changes in mean precipitation. Such hydrological cycle intensification would seriously challenge California’s existing water storage, conveyance and flood control infrastructure. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0140-y
Climate change intensifies droughts in Europe, Researchers model the effects of the global temperature rise Date: April 23, 2018
Source: Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ
Summary: Global warming will exacerbate soil droughts in Europe – droughts will last longer, affect greater areas, and have an impact on more people. If the earth warms by three degrees Celsius, extreme events could become the normal state in the future.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/04/180423110822.htm
For the week ending April 21 2018, the weekly Mauna Loa atmospheric CO2 concentrations were 411.07ppm
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2231.0;attach=99977;image
Minnesota Activists head to court after shutting down pipelines. Their defense? Climate change.
The judge approved the valve turners’ request last year to invoke the necessity defense, but the prosecution fought back and appealed. That appeal was just dismissed. Next up, science will take the stand: Climate scientists and other experts will testify about the serious threat posed by global warming.
Last month, a Massachusetts judge ruled that 13 protesters were not responsible for civil disobedience after they were arrested for sitting in holes dug for a pipeline to block construction.
https://grist.org/briefly/france-declares-that-vegan-bacon-is-not-a-thing/
JUANITA PHILLIPS: Scientists say the Great Barrier Reef was forever changed by a catastrophic marine heatwave in 2016. A two-year study of the extreme weather found the southern reef was mostly untouched, but many coral communities up north died instantly in the hot water.
TERRY HUGHES: They didn’t die slowly of starvation, they died directly of heat stress. They cooked because the temperatures were so extreme. The incidence of coral bleaching around the world is increasing, driven by global warming.
— ABC News, 19 April, 2018
Nature Article – Great Barrier Reef saw huge losses from 2016 heatwave
One-third of reefs in the world’s largest coral system were transformed by warmed waters, finds comprehensive underwater and aerial survey.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-04660-w
Nature Letter Published online: 18 April 2018
Global warming transforms coral reef assemblages Terry P. Hughes et al
Abstract
Global warming is rapidly emerging as a universal threat to ecological integrity and function, highlighting the urgent need for a better understanding of the impact of heat exposure on the resilience of ecosystems and the people who depend on them.
Our study bridges the gap between the theory and practice of assessing the risk of ecosystem collapse, by rigorously defining both the initial and collapsed states, identifying the major driver of change, and establishing quantitative collapse thresholds.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0041-2
Research Article Published online: 26 Feb 2017
Does Engagement in Advocacy Hurt the Credibility of Scientists? Results from a Randomized
National Survey Experiment by John E. Kotcher et al (incl. Edward W. Maibach) Center For
Climate Change Communication | Department of Communication George Mason University VA.
ABSTRACT
It is often assumed that issue advocacy will compromise the credibility of scientists. We
conducted a randomized controlled experiment to test public reactions to six different
advocacy statements made by a scientist—ranging from a purely informational statement to an
endorsement of specific policies.
We also found no significant differences in trust in the broader climate science community
between the six message conditions. Our results suggest that climate scientists who wish to
engage in certain forms of advocacy have considerable latitude to do so without risking harm
to their credibility, or the credibility of the scientific community.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17524032.2016.1275736
Prior to joining George Mason, John E. Kotcher was a Communications Officer in the Office of
Communications at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. In my role at
the Academies, I helped to communicate the work of the institution to broader audiences,
worked on programs to connect empirical research on the science of science communication with
the needs of practitioners, and developed communication training programs for scientists and
engineers.
I also hold an M.S. in environmental science from American University in Washington D.C. My
master’s research examined the potential of opinion leaders to catalyze wider public
engagement with climate change and complement traditional media outreach strategies.
https://communication.gmu.edu/people/jkotcher
ALSO consider
On Advocacy by Environmental Scientists: What, Whether, Why, and How
MICHAEL P. NELSON, JOHN A. VUCETICH First published: 14 September 2009
Most arguments, whether for or against advocacy, are characterized by some significant
deficiency. From our analysis of the literature an argument emerges that to date has never
been fully articulated: that advocacy is nearly unavoidable, and that scientists, by virtue
of being citizens first and scientists second, have a responsibility to advocate to the best
of their abilities, to improve their advocacy abilities, and to advocate in a justified and
transparent manner.
We suggest scientists expend their efforts to better understand what constitutes appropriate
advocacy and spend less effort pondering whether they should advocate.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01250.x
ALSO compare with
Controversy matters: Impacts of topic and solution controversy on the perceived credibility of
a scientist who advocates
Lindsey Beall,
Teresa A. Myers,
John E. Kotcher,
Emily K. Vraga,
Edward W. Maibach
Published: November 14, 2017
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0187511
DISCUSSION
Our study shows that non-controversial solutions generally resulted in higher scientist
credibility than providing information only, which could change how scientists communicate
with the public about threatening issues. This lends support to the claim that scientist
advocacy is not inherently a bad thing and may not repel the public; rather non-controversial
solutions may be the best avenue to utilize when communicating science issues to the public.
This may also indicate that the public desires expert guidance about how to address risks, not
simply to learn that risks exist, which could increase self or collective efficacy to address
a problem.
Funding: This research was supported by the National Aeronautics and Space Association
(NASA.gov) http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0187511
179 – Ray
Ray, my intent was not to attack the model – I was attacking the article about the AMOC. I have no idea what the model shows, but the article was a bunch of maybe, maybe not, what if, we don’t know, etc. That’s all – I noticed it when I read it and Carrie pointed it out – I was just agreeing with her.
183 – BPL
No apology necessary – I deserved it. I meant that since the email scandal, the adjustments of temperatures, etc that many people think the science is flaky – that’s the perception of many deniers. May be a totally false perception.
Some of the mean comments and insult fests we see on the internet remind me of this 10 minute video. It gives a theory on why the internet is so mean – sound starts at 0:23, starts getting to the meat of the meanness around 7 minutes until the end:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Cz-9hJ5hig
@198
One way of not making one’s self a magnet for “mean” responses is not to accuse professional people on their own board of engaging in unprofessional, dishonest, and even outright criminal activities while at the same time purporting that one’s confused and amateurish “science” completely overturns the findings of said professionals. Throw in those interminable repetitions of the same few long debunked denier memes and a few more supposedly insignificant “eye correlations” and the pull rating on your meanness magnet becomes very high.
V 191: : the FACT that CO2 emissions could have had NO appreciable influence on sea level for roughly 70 years
BPL: Did they have an appreciable influence on temperature in that time?