This month’s open thread for general climate science discussions.
Reader Interactions
321 Responses to "Unforced Variations: Apr 2018"
nigeljsays
Victor @248
“In the field of climate change there have been no shortage of ad hoc “saving hypotheses”; however, according to Occam, “plurality should not be posited without necessity,”
Actually we dont have a ‘huge’ number of so called “savings hypothesis”, and we do have necessity, so your argument fails straight away. Specifically, while there are issues in the historical climate record like the pause that are not fully understood, we have hypothetical and reasonable explanations completely consistent with greenhouse theory.
In comparison, we dont have an alternative and simple theory of climate change that can explain the pause, and be consistent with a pause, and “also” explain the 50 years of warming, and the specific characteristics of the warming, sea level rise, and numerous other data. Greenhouse theory can do this, so its “necessary” to accept CO2 is the more compelling theory, even if several complex hypotheses (plurality) exist for the pause.
Of course there are other well known reasons as well to accept agw, such as the properties of CO2, an approximate correlation of CO2 and warming, and its certainly not simply the result of a process of elimination.
JRsays
244 MA Rodger – “But methane-rich Siberian air shows no sign of rising any faster than the rest of the world.”
That is far from being a valid scientific based statement. It’s the words of a journalist instead. Another journalist or even a scientist could easily have framed these data this way: “Rising levels of atmospheric methane across the world are now registering as high as the methane-rich Siberian air.”
At least it is scientifically valid and accurate based on these known data. Proving that Spin does not exclusively belong to the political domain. Then there are the accumulated data to deal with and reality itself. The article referenced by 244 MA Rodger indicates that methane is rising rapidly the last decade and yet it is presented as the most unimportant irrelevance.
Quote from the middle of the article goes like this:
I don’t think that it’s ‘alarmist’ to be alarmed about events in the Yamal when seen in this new martian context – Siberian news reports last year described mapping of 7000 methane-venting mounds across the Yamal-Gydan (The Siberian Times, 27/03/2017), a number far in excess of the global frost mound population (~ 5000 [Mackay, 1998]) as of 1998. If confirmed, these 1000s of ‘new’ mounds must have formed within the last 20 years by a disequilibrium process unrelated to progressive ice-intrusion (Page, 2018). A University of Alaska permafrost decay expert quoted on the same day (The Washington Post, 27/03/2017) said that this mapping is likely to be an underestimate, and that the new mounds may number as many as 100,000. Should even the smaller of these numbers be correct and disequilibrium methanogenesis the cause, then Mars’ explosions may only hint at the near future for a methane-rich Earth of rapidly rising temperatures if Arctic permafrost-explosion follows suit.
A seemingly compelling counterargument, often reused in the media, is that none of the glacial-interglacial transitions of the past 400 kyr shows a sudden, large methane-spike, suggesting that abrupt, large-scale methane outbursts are unlikely. One might appeal to such abrupt events being below the temporal resolution of the rock record in explanation, but absent such spikes the safest answer is to say that large-scale interglacial outbursts did not occur during that time. This time, however, is different. Anthropogenic warming has interrupted the Glacial-Interglacial cycle of the Quaternary (Ganopolski et al., 2016; Haqq-Misra, 2014) and there will be no coming Ice-Age n-1000 years from now to reseal all of this volatile Carbon, as happened at the end of each previous interglacial.
This now-broken cyclicity is one reason why catastrophic reservoir-collapse has never occurred in the past and we should not take any comfort from that lack of precedent as never before has an Interglacial period been combined with annual, planetary-scale thermal forcing.
While high CO₂ levels have been present in Earth’s atmosphere before (e.g., during the Cambrian and Archaean) without initiating either the moist or runaway greenhouse state, never has the rate of warming been annual in scale as today. The question is not whether anthropogenic emissions could initiate these greenhouse states, but whether Arctic clathrate release could.
The IPCC 3rd Assessment Report (2001) concluded that rapid increase in atmospheric methane from the release of buried clathrate reservoirs would be “exceptionally unlikely”, at under a 1% chance, a figure revised up to 10% by the following report in 2008.
Yet the Mars observations show that abrupt, cascading devolatilisation occurs readily in nature, and there is nothing about these observations to suggest that this process is not portable or scalable to Earth. That ESAS lacks Mars’ mound-density makes the scaling no less valid, the methane-supersaturation of 80% of ESAS bottom waters (Shakhova et al., 2010) showing that frost mounds are not the sole venting pathway, gas migration pathways growing in capacity annually in the areas of greatest emissions (Shakhova et al., 2017). Destabilisation of the shallow-marine clathrates of ESAS continues to be excluded from every global climate model, the only (regional-scale) model to consider this being that of Archer (2015). The reader is referred to that paper for detail (https://www.biogeosciences.net/12/2953/2015/bg-12-2953-2015.pdf), but I would like to consider one element of that model here.
As a geologist, it is not clear to me how a model can have “…lessons to teach us about the real Siberian continental margin” (Archer, 2015) when “…many of the model variables are not well known”, “…meaning that in some aspects the model results are not a strong constraint on reality”. When this model “…neglects many of the mechanisms that could come into play in transporting methane quickly to the atmosphere, such as faults, channels, and blowouts of the sediment column” then one must ask what bearing or predictive-value it has for abrupt methane release. In ignoring faults and thaw-taliks, this model – “…the first simulation of the full methane cycle on the Siberian continental margin” – neglects those surface, subsurface, subaqueous, and subaerial pathways through which methane moves rapidly through permafrost, as observed in ESAS (e.g., Shakhova et al., 2010, 2017). Little wonder that “…No mechanism has been proposed whereby a significant fraction of the Siberian permafrost hydrates could release their methane catastrophically” (Archer, 2007) when every method of rapid release is neglected by the only ‘full’ model. The importance of such thaw-discontinuities cannot be underplayed in a model of catastrophic devolatilisation (Shakhova, 2014), as illustrated by Mars where violent degassing equivalent to 20 Yamal explosions per km² occurs through sub-mound palaeo-taliks alone (e.g., Figure above). The stated lack of constraint between model and reality is reflected in its most important Prediction, i.e., that atmospheric methane flux from anthropogenic warming of ESAS permafrost will never exceed 0.04 Tg C-CH₄ yr⁻¹ over 100-kyr of global warming (see Figure 15 of Archer, 2015). In Actuality, air sampling surveys over ESAS yield a calculated annual flux to the atmosphere of 8 Tg C-CH₄ (Shakhova et al., 2010), a figure 200 x higher than the model estimate (at Year-1 of this 100-kyr-scale warming) and equivalent to the methane emissions of the entire world’s oceans.
In questioning the abrupt 50 Gt Arctic-methane release proposed by Shakhova et al. (2010), Archer says that “…A complex model is not really required to conclude that methane hydrate will probably not produce a methane eruption of this scale so quickly”. Yet models (particularly the complex ones) are only as good as their base assumptions, and that regarding the methane flux in this region shows little correspondence with reality. There is thus no support for the Conclusion that “…The model results give no indication of a mechanism by which methane emissions from the Siberian continental shelf could have a significant impact on the near-term evolution of Earth’s climate” as the geological discontinuities that should be foremost in that mechanism are omitted from the model and the long-term CH₄-flux predictions of that model have no bearing to current, observed methane flux.
[end quote]
Who is right or more right than others? Is there a consensus based on hard evidence underpinned by real data or is there only a minority consensus based on which scientific group and publishers wield the most power and influence?
Let’s wait and see is by far the predominant opinion of the majority of climate scientists as shown by their collective professional inaction and overt personal preferences to argue about anything and everything for as long as humanly possible.
Ray Ladburysays
Weaktor: “It’s always possible to fine-tune one’s predictions to get the desired results.”
Actually, no, it is not. For instance, you cannot necessarily fit any three data points to a 3 parameter function that is monotonically increasing (e.g. your three data points could be monotonically decreasing). A physical model is different from a curve fit. In a physical model, you include only the physical phenomena KNOWN to be at play in the system. You may well be able to reproduce the behavior of the system with relatively few phenomena. However, if you include more than this number, you are in no danger of overfitting. Instead, you will simply find out that the added phenomenon has negligible influence.
Somewhere in between a purely statistical and a physical model is a phenomenological model. Here, your model is deliberately oversimplified, and you are merely trying to determine which phenomena are of most importance. A good example is Tamino’s two-box model–two interacting thermal reservoirs subjected to forcings due to total solar irradiation, greenhouse forcing, volcanism and aerosols. This model does an astoundingly good job of reproducing the wiggles in the temperature over the recent warming era.
Weaktor, I have been a physicist for over 30 years. I have a long record of publications. You are a musicologist who has recently dipped his toe into the denialist backwaters of climate blogs. Which of us do you think is more likely to have an understanding of how science works? Your analysis is shallow and your misunderstandings are deep.
CCHolleysays
The arrogance of the stupidity of Victor is absolutely astounding. Because the drivers of surface temperatures and climate are multifaceted and somewhat complex, Victor invokes “Occam’s razor” like it is some magical principal that prevents the physical world from being complex. According to Victor’s limited capacity to make sense of things, he proclaims that the multiple drivers of climate based on physics are “ad hoc”. That is, aerosol dimming must not exist. Why? Because it adds complexity. This no matter the evidence. Albedo? Nope, ad hoc. Changes in solar irradiance? Nope, ad hoc. Water vapor feedback? Nope, not possible, ad hoc.
Of course, to use Occam’s Razor one must have two competing theories. Theories that conform to the evidence and laws of physics. Victor does not express what the two competing theories are exactly. We know from physical laws that CO2 causes warming as does increased solar irradiance. Aerosols cool. So if we are concerned with the current warming trend what is Victor’s *simpler* alternative theory that conforms to the evidence? He has none. At least he certainly has not put forth an explanation of one. One that is supported by evidence and physics. But, by gosh, there must be a simpler theory. Why? Just because. Occam’s Razor!!
Victor cannot explain why CO2 is not causing the current warming trend. He cannot provided evidence showing that there are significant negative feedbacks that would offset the radiative imbalance caused by the energy absorption properties of the CO2. Radiative imbalance that has been observed and indisputable properties that result in an ECS of at least 2 degrees celsius. Nor can 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. Victor cannot, so he proclaims such questions are *red herrings*!!! In victor’s simple world, facts and evidence are to be ignored if they do not conform to his inane worldview.
From SkepticalScience on false skeptics:
Perhaps the key is that learning takes energy and deliberate effort, while ignoring is easy. If they make an effort to understand what you’re saying, they risk overturning their own beliefs. Why should they bother? Their goal is to convince you, not to let you convince them. So they ignore you and push their narrative.
They lack self-awareness. You’ll never hear them say “Okay, I know this might sound crazy, but those thousands of climate scientists are all wrong. I can’t blame you for agreeing with a supermajority, but if you’ll just hear me out, I will explain how I, a non-scientist, can be certain the contrarians are right. Just let me know if I’ve made some mistake in my reasoning here…”
Killiansays
#235 JB said The charade is nearly over: https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0667.1
I’ve been saying for 20 years now that the IPCC overestimates climate sensitivity by about a factor of 2. Looks like that was right (ECS ~ 1.66K in the linked paper vs IPCC 3K). Time for the alarmist industry to get real jobs.
P.T. Barnum spoke of fooling some all of the time, some of the time. ‘Nuff said.
#246 Kevin McKinney said I recently pointed out that the idea that cutting fossil fuels would hurt the poor has lost any validity it may have had… Now there’s news of a study doing an apparently pretty rigorous estimate of the Chinese case. A group out of MIT finds that if China enforces existing policy, reaching peak emissions no later than 2030, the result will be nearly 100,000 premature deaths avoided, several hundred billion dollars of economic savings, and a net benefit/cost ratio of four to one.
Truthout headline: Half of the Great Barrier Reef Has Died Since 2016
Half of the great barrier reef has died? doesn’t that mean that half of it survived that last nasty EN event? Isn’t the reef really half alive? Come on, lighten up. Things are going to be fine, just ask Victor.
think of the Princess Bride story: it’s only half dead, so it’s partly alive. Give it the Miracle Max treatment. We don’t need to go looking through the pockets for loose change yet.
Cheers,
Mike
Mattsays
New Data – Source IEA 2017
( Curious to know how the latest data like these is incorporated into the next batch of climate models and ipcc reports. And do some previous model runs or papers doing forecasts of climate responses get redone when new real world data becomes available like this from the IEA I find these reports really fascinating to read. )
The IEA’s first Global Energy and CO2 Status Report – released in March 2018 – provides a
snapshot of recent global trends and developments across fuels, renewable sources, and energy
Global energy demand grew by 2.1% in 2017, more than twice the growth rate in 2016.
Global energy demand in 2017 reached an estimated 14,050 million tonnes of oil equivalent
(Mtoe), compared with 10,035 Mtoe in 2000. A 40% increase of Global energy demand over 16
years
Fossil fuels met over 70% of the growth in energy demand around the world.
Natural gas demand increased the most, reaching a record share of 22% in total energy demand.
Renewables also grew strongly, making about 25% of global energy demand growth.
Nuclear use accounted for 5% of global growth in energy demand.
The overall share of fossil fuels in global energy demand in 2017 remained at 81%.
This fossil fuel energy share has remained stable for more than three decades despite the
growth in renewable energy; despite the accumlated evidence provided in Five IPCC Assessment
Reports, and despite the many Agreemments and Treaties signed under the UNFCCC system over
three decades.
World oil demand rose by 1.6% (or 1.5 million barrels a day) in 2017, much higher than the
annual average rate of 1% seen over the last decade.
Global natural gas demand grew by 3%, thanks in large part to abundant and relatively low-cost
supplies.
Global coal demand rose about 1% in 2017, reversing the declining trend seen over the last two
years.
Coal electricity generation increased by 3% (280 TWh) in 2017 at a global scale, accounting
for a third of the total growth and more than cancelling a 250 TWh decline seen in 2016.
Renewables saw the highest growth rate of any energy source in 2017, meeting a quarter of
global energy demand growth.
China and the United States led this unprecedented growth, contributing around 50% of the
increase in renewables-based electricity generation, followed by the European Union, India and
Japan.
Wind power accounted for 36% of the growth in renewables-based power output.
World electricity demand increased by 3.1%, significantly higher than the overall increase in
energy demand. Together, China and India accounted for 70% of this growth.
Despite strong increases in wind and solar PV generation, hydropower remains the largest
source by far of renewables-based electricity generation, with a major share of 65% in overall
renewables output.
While Renewables now account for 25% of global electricity generation 16.25% is actually
traditional Hydropower generation.
New tech renewables only account for 8.75% of global electricity generation by Wind Solar
Geothermal Bioenergy – significantly lower than Nuclear’s total electricty generation.
Output from nuclear plants rose by 26 terrawatt hours (TWh) in 2017, as a significant amount
of new nuclear capacity saw its first full year of operation
Nuclear generation accounts for 10% of global power generation and grew by 3%, relative to
2016, with Japan contributing to 40% of this growth.
Global energy intensity improved by only 1.7% in 2017, compared with an average of 2.3% over
the last three years.
Latest trends in CO2 emissions
Global energy-related CO2 emissions grew by 1.4% in 2017, reaching a historic high of 32.5
gigatonnes (Gt), a resumption of growth after three years of global emissions remaining flat.
The increase in carbon emissions, equivalent to the emissions of 170 million additional cars,
was the result of robust global economic growth of 3.7%, lower fossil-fuel prices and weaker
energy efficiency efforts. These three factors contributed to pushing up global energy demand
by 2.1% in 2017.
The IEA’s Sustainable Development Scenario charts a path towards meeting long-term climate
goals. Under this scenario, global emissions need to peak soon and decline steeply to 2020;
this decline will now need to be even greater given the increase in emissions in 2017.
The share of low-carbon energy sources would need to increase by 1.1 percentage points every
year to meet the objectives of this scenario, more than five-times the growth registered in
2017.
In the power sector, specifically, generation from renewable sources would need to increase by
an average 700 TWh annually in this scenario, 80% higher than the 380 TWh increase registered
Methane is a well-mixed gas. It gets broken down more quickly at low latitudes, it is thought, by greater mixing ratios. Why, then, would we expect emissions rises to accumulate at the poles? This makes no sense, actually. CO2 is balanced because of it’s longer life… and the fact CH4 is adding to that CO2 when *it* breaks down. The CH4 curve since 2007 looks parabolic enough to me, and is darned sure upward, not flat. One can claim it is rice, but the fact CH4 is rising at the same rate globally is zero evidence of this, and not contrary evidence of increasing polar emissions.
’07-’11: 5.93
’10-’14: 6.71
’13-’17: 9.02
’07-’09: 6.36
’11-’13: 5.29
’15-’17: 8.88
Try it any way you like, you end up with a parabola, even just 2 years.
’07-’08: 7.18
’12-’13: 5.235
’16-’17: 8.32
Well, that’s a bit hockey stickish.
Cheers
jgnfldsays
@257
Further, our resident deniers will point out that the 50% mortality was “only” in the northernmost zones of the reef so there is even less to worry about. The reef will “just” move poleward, This is about like not worrying how farming will be able to move to the wonderful glacial till, shield rock, and muskeg “soils” as more southerly areas become too warm to grow certain crops effectively.
…there’s the simple observation that the very poor have very little to lose and and a very short pathway to sustainable lives.
Oft repeated. Little heard.
So, how do you think the very poor feel about this? Do you think that they would describe their lives as ‘sustainable?’ And do those feelings have anything to do with the fact that the percentage of global population living in urban areas nearly doubled between 1950 (29.6%) and 2015 (54.0%)?
Good information, but I think a bit more context is required. While it may be true, more or less, that the global “fossil fuel energy share has remained stable for more than three decades despite the growth in renewable energy…”, it’s not going to remain so much longer.
Why?
Electricity from renewables will soon be consistently cheaper than from most fossil fuels. By 2020, all the renewable power generation technologies that are now in commercial use are expected to fall within the fossil fuel-fired cost range, with most at the lower end or undercutting fossil fuels.
The key word in that quote is ‘consistently.’ Already the levelized cost (LCOE) of onshore wind is at the low end of that of new fossil capacity (including natgas in the US).
Onshore wind is one of the most competitive sources of new generation capacity. Recent auctions in Brazil, Canada, Germany, India, Mexico and Morocco have resulted in onshore wind power LCOEs as low as USD 0.03/kWh.
The most favorable solar projects (those with good financing and excellent solar resources) are coming in at comparable prices.
Record low auction prices for solar PV in Dubai, Mexico, Peru, Chile, Abu Dhabi and Saudi Arabia in 2016 and 2017 confirm that the LCOE can be reduced to USD 0.03/kWh from 2018 onward, given the right conditions.
Demonstrated ‘learning rates’ are bringing down costs at an astounding rate.
Sharp cost reductions – both recent and anticipated – represent remarkable deflation rates for various solar and wind options. Learning rates for the 2010-2020 period, based on project and auction data, are estimated at 14% for offshore wind, 21% for onshore wind, 30% for CSP and 35% for solar PV.
(By the way, it may be worth mentioning in passing that there’s another ‘learning rate’ for wind, which is the increase in capacity factor. A few years ago here on RC we were debating the significance of wind CFs in the 20% range; now the biggest turbine, GE’s Haliade-X, currently undergoing testing, is claiming a CF of 63%–“five to seven points above industry standard.“)
Returning to the point, and as noted in a previous comment, we’re now seeing renewable projects being built in order to replace existing coal plants, not because of emissions concerns per se, but because it’s cheaper to build new solar or wind capacity than it is to continue to operate the coal plant.
So it’s a darn good bet that the exponential growth curve that wind and especially solar have been following for the last decade isn’t going to go linear yet.
Solar photovoltaics (PV) grew by a whopping 32% in 2017, followed by wind energy, which grew by 10%. Underlying this growth are substantial cost reductions, with the levelised cost of electricity from solar PV decreasing by 73%, and onshore wind by nearly one-quarter, between 2010 and 2017. Both technologies are now well within the cost range of power generated by fossil fuels.
“Tipping point” tends not to be a very well-defined term, but my gut feeling is that we’re seeing one now in the power generation arena. Total energy use is going to take a bit longer–the liquid-fueled status quo has its advantages, especially in terms of energy density–but the signs of change are visible there, too.
In fact, I think futurists ought to be thinking about the macroeconomic and international implications of a future in which energy is cheap, widely available and secure from supply shocks and international ‘energy blackmail’. It might help hold down international tensions a bit, during an era of what I expect will be increasing food insecurity and climate migration.
YMMV, of course.
Victorsays
“Weaktor, I have been a physicist for over 30 years. I have a long record of publications. You are a musicologist who has recently dipped his toe into the denialist backwaters of climate blogs. Which of us do you think is more likely to have an understanding of how science works? Your analysis is shallow and your misunderstandings are deep.”
Well, first of all, judging from your various contributions to this blog over the years I’ve been reading here, you are not only a physicist but also a determined advocate for the AGW position, whose bias is clearly evident in literally every one of your posts. Your specialty seems to be more in the realm of insult, dismissal and ad hominem attack than actual scientific analysis.
As far as your knowledge of “how science works” is concerned, it obviously does not extend to basic principles such as Occam’s Razor, which clearly you do not understand. I advise you to stop falling back on your academic creds and start thinking critically about the issue at hand.
Victorsays
254 CCHolley: That is, aerosol dimming must not exist. Why? Because it adds complexity. This no matter the evidence. Albedo? Nope, ad hoc. Changes in solar irradiance? Nope, ad hoc. Water vapor feedback? Nope, not possible, ad hoc.
JR @244,
I think your convertion of the quote (from the Economist item linked @244) infers an untruth. You convert the Economist quote into saying that higher arctic CH4 increases have now become matched by increased global rates. Yet if you compare MLO CH4 readings (and we can be forgiven if we accept these as being ‘global’ values in that we do it with CO2 and they are certainly not arctic data) with CH4 data from Barrow (which is in the arctic), the CH4 levels (rolling 12-month averages) since this renewal of rising CH4 levels (I took it since 2000 to be generous) have risen at identical rates at MLO & at Barrow.
This is surely non-controversial and so there is no need for either myself or a journalist to cite any scientific source directly in the matter.
I note Killian @259 describes the increase in CH4 over the last decade as “parabolic”. Looking at an MLO CH4 graph, (see here -usually 2 clicks to ‘download your attachemnt’), I see no parabola.
You also cut&paste some of the many words of a Martian geologist to tell us about Shakhova’s theorising on arctic CH4 (and curiously the reports in IPCC TAR/AR4 when AR5 has been published some years now). The Martian geologist does need to get his messaging sorted so it doesn’t remain hidden within a multi-thousand-word account. His published paper is Page (2018)‘A candidate methane-clathrate destabilisation event on Mars: A model for sub-millennial-scale climatic change on Earth’ [access to June 2018]. This paper is setting out a controversial theory which suggest that what in the concensus view are (apparently) ancient martian volcanic cones are, according to Page, more recently-formed and a martian version of the explosive methane release from arctic permafrost. This is the point where the length of Page’s accounts are enough to halt my own reading of them. If he has more to say, others can surely explain the crux of it where Page has failed.
And given this bizarre proposal from Page, your end-piece defaming “the majority of climate scientists” is surely unwarranted.
JRClarksays
@ 266 MA Rodger says: JR @244, I think your convertion of the quote (from the Economist item linked @244) infers an untruth. You convert the Economist quote into saying that higher arctic CH4 increases have now become matched by increased global rates. [/]
No, what I said was “Rising levels of atmospheric methane across the world are now registering as high as the methane-rich Siberian air.” That is different to what you claim I said above.
I also said “That is far from being a valid scientific based statement. It’s the words of a journalist instead. Another journalist or even a scientist could easily have framed these data this way:” [/]
Time will tell how accurate David Page, Shakhova and other papers forecasts are. It’s only information, part of the mix. Was the The IPCC 3rd Assessment Report (2001) and other published quotes correct? The IPCC AR5 said there was no evidence of any known changes to the AMOC and yet less that 3-4 years latter people were writing papers the AMOC had decreased 15% of something to date. Things change even the science and the consensus changes.
Was it the IPCC TAR or the AR4 which said a summer arctic sea ice free event was unlikely to happen until the 2090s; the end of the century? Page could be wrong or there might be something to what he says about the ESAS.
I see no defamation because there was none. Your article also says “More research is needed to determine the correct degree of anxiety.” In the meantime my ‘anxiety’ has been put on hold while I wait for the ‘research’ and/or the ‘methane bombs’ to arrive.
Maybe you might like to first explain the spin in your comment and in the quote from a ‘journalist’ copied below before proceeding?
244
MA Rodger says:
28 Apr 2018 at 4:35 AM
There is an article in the Economist ‘The methane mystery: Scientists struggle to explain a worrying rise in atmospheric methane’ that should give the skyrocketeers some food for thought, although I would suggest they take due note of the statement “But methane-rich Siberian air shows no sign of rising any faster than the rest of the world.”
The actual proper quote is “But methane-rich Siberian air (see map of average atmospheric methane levels in January 2016, above) shows no sign of rising any faster than the rest of the world.”
Referring to a map that is not there nor is there a Ref URL to NOAA. What’s the one off CH4 level in one month got to do with anything? That’s a mystery too.
Besides isn’t deep winter the time of year where Methane from thawing permafrost etc and global readings are near their lowest in the annual cycle?
I had no idea what you meant by your comment nor the half quote. And still don’t. That’s OK. I can live with that.
Alternatively Dr Page wrote an opinion article and he provided references to peer reviewed papers and gave the ref url. People can make of that what they will. The same as any other climate article, comment or reference. I don’t see a problem in quoting it even if you do not like it.
Ray Ladburysays
Weaktor: “Well, first of all, judging from your various contributions to this blog over the years I’ve been reading here, you are not only a physicist but also a determined advocate for the AGW position, whose bias is clearly evident in literally every one of your posts.”
I’m a determined advocate for gravity, a (roughly) round Earth, a constant speed of light, quantum indeterminacy and a range of other established facts, as well. Advocacy of the facts does not constitute bias. This isn’t about opinion. It is about evidence. You have none. You are a shallow thinker who has somehow developed delusions of adequacy. I consider it a failure of our educational system that they did not manage to communicate to you just how dumb you are. You are a classic example of what happens when stupidity gets sent to college.
Victor the Troll began using the concept of Occam’s Razor about 2½ years ago as an excuse to completely ignore any scientific explanation of the evidence and thus support his misguided AGW-busting bullshit. There was no shifting him then. Even pointing out that he was abusing the concept and wielding it in ways that were entirely inapproporate, he didn’t care.
We today could point to the error of his comment @249 where he insists “Occam’s Razor is a fundamental principle applicable to scientific research of any sort, employing any type of methodology, statistical or otherwise. You are betraying your ignorance.” (There is certainly somebody ‘betraying their ignorance’, again.)
One thing Occam’s Razor is not is a “fundamental principle.” Even something as basic Wikithing states this quite clearly, saying “In science, Occam’s razor is used as an heuristic guide in the development of theoretical models, rather than as a rigorous arbiter between candidate models.”
Yet Victor fails to understand the importance of this Wikithing statement which he must have seen as up-thread @232 he introduces Occam quoting from that same paragraph of Wikithing (and @248 we learn it is a quote he also manages within his grand work of nonsense – his book published under a poisoned-pen-name ‘Polar Vomit’ or something similar).
And let us be clear what Victor is and isn’t doing. Victor does not make the mistake of using Occam as “a rigorous arbiter between candidate models.” as he has yet to reach the point of even considering the existence of “candidate models” let alone what to do about them. Instead what Victor is doing is waving the name ‘Occam’ then skipping straight to the bit that goes ‘So Victor must be right and all of the science completely wrong!!’
“Parabolic” might be an overstatement; the rise in CH4 is pretty noisy, as evidenced by your plot of the 12-month increase, and so deciding just what the best fit might be would have its challenges. Yet there is pretty clearly a acceleration of some ilk, which is a matter of some concern.
HadCRUT has reported for March with an anomaly marginally above the earlier months of the year (and indeed also above the last four months of 2017), giving Jan +0.55ºC, Feb +0.52ºC, Mar +0.62ºC.
We still await a March anomaly from BEST while ever-prompt UAH has posted an April TLT anomaly of +0.21ºC, very slightly down on March and not greatly different from the earlier months of the year Jan +0.26ºC, Feb +0.20ºC, March +0.23ºC.
It is the 7th warmest April behind 1998 (+0.74ºC). 2016 (+0.72ºC), 2005 (+0.33ºC), 2010 (+0.32ºC), 2017 (+0.27ºC), 2002 (+0.23ºC), all El Nino years bar 2017. And it stands as =93rd highest monthly anomaly in the full record.
CCHolleysays
@Victor
As far as your knowledge of “how science works” is concerned, it obviously does not extend to basic principles such as Occam’s Razor, which clearly you do not understand. I advise you to stop falling back on your academic creds and start thinking critically about the issue at hand.
Wow. The arrogance expressed here is truly unbelievable. Someone who has never completed any course work in physics is calling an esteemed physicist clueless as to the likes of Occam’s razor. Victor is so deluded in his self absorbed belief in his own infallibility when it comes to his ability to understand science one must question his mental health. Truly.
This is a total mischaracterization of my position. Have you ever taken the trouble to read the response on my blog.? I did it for your benefit, so by all means, check it out:…
Not a mischaracterization at all. It is exactly what Victor is implying. Stupid is as stupid does.
Victor (@264 and 265) I actually looked at your posts on your blog. You still don’t get it. You don’t get how physical models work (for instance, adding complexities stemming from known effects is not a “saving hypothesis”). Since you don’t understand the complexities of the models, you come to incorrect “logical” conclusions (e.g. your supposed lack of evidence CO2 forcing in the mid-century — think about what temperatures would have done in the absence of CO2 forcing). You think Occam’s Razor is a rule. It’s not. It’s a useful device for examining some situations. Even if it were a rule, in this case here, what simpler alternative explanation do you think there is to the consensus model for global warming? Just saying “something else” is no better. That something would be as-yet-unknown physics, carrying with it all the same potential complexities (and likely contradictions to our current understanding of physics).
Mattsays
263 Kevin McKinney , your irena reference suggests “Solar photovoltaics (PV) grew by a whopping 32% in 2017, followed by wind energy, which grew by 10%.”
The IEA report said at the end of my post
“The share of low-carbon energy sources would need to increase by 1.1 percentage points every year to meet the objectives of this scenario, more than five-times the growth registered in 2017.”
Indicating Solar PV would need to at least grow by 150% per year every year and the Wind sector by at least 50% per year to achieve the Paris goals. On top of that Solar thermal, geothermal, and bio energy would need to grow to a similar order. Hydropower cannot grow linearly nor exponentially like this.
The IEA report then clarifies it further saying “In the power sector, specifically, generation from renewable sources would need to increase by an average 700 TWh annually in this scenario, 80% higher than the 380 TWh increase registered in 2017.”
That’s 80% higher every year 2018, 2019 and 2020 of +700 TWh annually to meet the first goal. Then increasing further out to 2030.
It is obvious that the reported Irena growth increase of 32% and 10% respectively in 2017 or the years before is not even in the ball park of what is required globally. There is no indication anywhere that solar pv and wind will get anywhere near an 80% increase year on year on year.
Which supports the EIA (US) reports for combined global fossil fuel use projections out to 2040 as remaining steady and not falling below current use for the next 23 years. Meaning that CO2 emissions will continue to increase by at least +2 ppmv globally past 2040 putting us at near 440 ppmv by then.
This means that any positive feedbacks in the natural world (ENSO, arctic albedo change, droughts, fires, permafrost melt and so on) that triggers additional CO2/ghg emissions growth will be on top of that 2 ppmv per yr.
This kind of future will seal the destruction of coral reefs globally as well. The impact on arctic sea ice, glaciers and ice sheets should be obvious as well. Recent warnings about California water supply, drought, precip and food production stress will be realized.
The only conclusion to draw then is that neither the Price nor Renewable Growth is the silver bullet of hope they are made out to be because they are not in fact being deployed at the much higher rate circumstances demand for ongoing increases of GHG emissions globally to stop then drop.
At present Renewable energy deployment is a forlorn hope. A false hope. Every indication is that GHG emissions will continue to increase out to 2040 and beyond. There is no Plan by anyone to increase the rate of Renewable deployment to the level required globally.
Man-made GHG emissions are and will continue to increase significantly into the future. Then Physics and basic Climate Science math come into play. The likely impacts should be undeniable too. But hope dies last. I say the sooner the better. Being realistic beats false hope, disinformation, hyper-bias, false advertising and mythical stories every day of the week. But YMMV?
Victorsays
BPL: Victor, please give me the start and end dates you want for the 70 years in which you allege carbon dioxide had no effect on sea level.
From what I gather from the evidence, CO2 has never had a significant effect on sea level. However the period I’ve been writing about was the period from ca. 1910 through ca. 1979, a time when, as most climate scientists agree, CO2 levels were either too low to make much of a difference (1910-1940) or global temperatures failed to rise at all (1940-1979).
JRsays
This article keeps appearing on many sites lately.
The melting Arctic shows that climate change is already upon us By Mark Serreze
Scientists have known for a long time that as climate change started to heat up the Earth, its effects would be most pronounced in the Arctic. This has many reasons, but climate feedbacks are key.
Since I have spent more than 35 years studying snow, ice and cold places, people often are surprised when I tell them I once was skeptical that human activities were playing a role in climate change. My book traces my own career as a climate scientist and the evolving views of many scientists I have worked with. https://www.citymetric.com/horizons/melting-arctic-shows-climate-change-already-upon-us-3877
In a sweeping tale of discovery spanning three decades, Serreze describes how puzzlement turned to concern and astonishment as researchers came to understand that the Arctic of old was quickly disappearing–with potentially devastating implications for the entire planet. https://press.princeton.edu/titles/11223.html
Victor and DDS — imagine a complicated machine, in which most of the moving parts aren’t precisely smooth and most of the wheels and gears are oval not round. So if you wind it up and let it run for a while, over and over, you get a range of results out of it, not an exact repetition on each run. It’s not like a windup clock.
Climate models are run repeatedly because many of the parts are estimated as ranges — they’re not nailed down precisely.
Each run takes a long time and costs a lot of resources, and they need multiple repeated runs to get an idea of the range of possible outcomes. The result looks like a bundle of spaghetti and is called a “spaghetti graph” — a bunch of possible outcomes. https://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/comparing-cmip5-observations/
And ya know what? Climate is like that. Many of the things that affect climate are variable. Albedo. Humidity. Cloud cover. Plankton making oxygen and sinking carbon in the ocean. Meltwater. Rainfall. Runoff. You won’t get the same result — the sensitivity — running the same fossil fuel experiment on multiple planets that start off identical. You get a range of sensitivities to the increase in CO2.
There’s probably a good explanation of how models need to be run repeatedly to get a bundle of possible outcomes somewhere — pointers welcome from any one who knows where to find such an explanation.
climate sensitivity is provided as a range of estimates due to underlying uncertainty in the behaviour of some aspects of the climate system as the planet warms.
The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) has slightly revised the climate sensitivity estimates from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report in 2007. However the range of estimates has been broadly consistent across three IPCC reports over the past 12 years.
this page is an ongoing effort to compare observations of global temperature with CMIP5 simulations assessed by the IPCC 5th Assessment Report. The first two figures below are updated versions of Figure 11.25a,b from IPCC AR5 which were originally produced in mid-2013.
The first panel shows the raw ‘spaghetti’ projections, with different observational datasets in black and the different emission scenarios (RCPs) shown in colours. The simulation data uses spatially complete coverage of surface air temperature….
pictures worth looking at and thinking hard about.
A climate model isn’t a smooth running machine that gives you only a single clear answer.
Killiansays
Kevin,
Climate is best described by longer time lines. Both the longer time lines used end up with a parabolic curve. I noted, all on my own, that the one curve was more of a hockey stick. I used multiple time frames to highlight the increase shows up no matter how you look at it.
Not an overstatement.
Try not to respond argumentatively aka pointlessly. You point was made in the OP.
JRClark @267,
I think my one mistake up-thread was in numbering your comment @252 as being #244. (#244 was my initial comment presenting that link to the Economist article). So just one mistake yet all the points you set out @252 were wrong which was a remarkable achievement. And you manage to repeat them all again @267. On the off-chance that this situation is not because you have cloth ears, let me explain, again.
☻ Concerning your mash-up of the journalist’s quote – both your re-write mash-up of my quote-from-the-article @244 and my re-write @266 of your mash-up – both say the same thing. The words may be different but the meaning is the same.
And you are wrong to assert (again) that another journalist or scientist would use your words because your words are wrong.
You are also wrong to suggest that I mis-quoted you as I plainly set out what you were saying and not the words you used.
Come on, if something is “now as high” it means ‘previously it was not as high’ but for these methane rises that is untrue. Your words. Your meaning. Your error. The rise globally and in the arctic is identically high and has been since before the start of the renewed methane rise.
☻ I don’t know why you feel this David Page theory has merit given it is crazy stuff to draw parallels between Mars and our arctic. You say @267 “Time will tell how accurate David Page, Shakhova and other papers forecasts are.” Yet are you aware that Page et al (2009) is almost a decade old? How much time is required for these researchers to set out their work? And you have yet to describe why there is merit in it. You accuse climatologists of “inaction” but it is up to individual researchers to present convincing work. If they have convinced you, it is then up to you to show their merit. Yet it is you who are content to say “time will tell.” Sounds like you are the one practising “inaction” regarding “overt personal preferences.”
☻ But let loose the hounds and let’s go IPCC bashing. Is this your real game? If not, what with all the blather over AMOC and summer sea ice? These have nothing to do with the Page theory. Or Shakhova.
☻ Finally you do seem to have some big misunderstandings about the use of referencing in science. A pile of reference does not in any way indicate a worthy conclusion. And where argument is based on widely-known and non-controversial findings, references are not required.
While the Economist article was not a scientific piece complete with scientific referencing, it gave enough attribution for the job. (Note the “map that is not there” was indeed there, “above” at the head of the article. And if you needed assistance finding the “map that is not there”, perhaps I should provide you a link to NOAA CH4.) The article set out four current theories for the renewed methane rises – agriculture, wet-lands, less wild-fires and CH4 sinks. I quoted the arctic-mention to be sure that the various skyrocketeers on this site did not see the arctic as being a fifth potential cause. (Note that if there is going to be an arctic methane problem, and it is a worry, there is no sign of it beginning, so far.)
The Economist article I feel is a useful account although perhaps it rather plays up the renewed rise in methane within the grand scheme of things. Whatever the new (effective) source(s) of methane causing the recent renewed rise, it must be remembered as shown here, it is the sources of the pre-2000 rise that are the big daddy we have to address.
Killiansays
266 MA Rodger said I note Killian @259 describes the increase in CH4 over the last decade as “parabolic”. Looking at an MLO CH4 graph, I see no parabola.
None so blind as those who choose not to see. You like to poke at people without cause. I have one eye and see it clear as day.
#263 Kevin McKinney said In fact, I think futurists ought to be thinking about the macroeconomic and international implications of a future in which energy is cheap, widely available and secure from supply shocks and international ‘energy blackmail’. It might help hold down international tensions a bit, during an era of what I expect will be increasing food insecurity and climate migration.
Interesting you think the type of energy supply determines whether there will be blackmail or not. It does not. Ownership does. In country or foreign makes little difference to the end user. Stop paying the utilities for your solar-generated electricity and see how long you have it to you home/business.
Please remember my reasoning against corporate renewables from 2008.
Killiansays
262
Kevin McKinney says:
30 Apr 2018 at 7:15 AM
#256 Kevin said Killian–
…there’s the simple observation that the very poor have very little to lose and and a very short pathway to sustainable lives.
Oft repeated. Little heard.
So, how do you think the very poor feel about this?
I don’t care how they feel about it, I care what they think about it. That said, are they aware? I’m sure some are. I am equally sure that number is tragically small. Their level of awareness is immaterial to my point.
Do you think that they would describe their lives as ‘sustainable?’
You know what happens when you ask a stupid question? Who said their lives *are* sustainable?
I’m talking design, you’re making no sense.
Victorsays
274
MartinJB says:
MJB: Victor (@264 and 265) . . . Since you don’t understand the complexities of the models, you come to incorrect “logical” conclusions (e.g. your supposed lack of evidence CO2 forcing in the mid-century — think about what temperatures would have done in the absence of CO2 forcing).
V: Absence of evidence is not evidence, sorry. What “would have” happened is also not evidence.
MJB: You think Occam’s Razor is a rule. It’s not. It’s a useful device for examining some situations.
V: As the Wikipedia article states, there will always be an infinite number of possible explanations for any phenomenon. Occam’s Razor is therefore an essential heuristic for helping us decide which are most likely to be meaningful and which have been offered merely as “saving hypotheses.” All else being equal, the simplest explanations should be preferred. That does NOT mean that complexities should be discounted, but if another explanation that accounts for all the evidence is less complex, it should be preferred.
MJB: Even if it were a rule, in this case here, what simpler alternative explanation do you think there is to the consensus model for global warming? Just saying “something else” is no better. That something would be as-yet-unknown physics, carrying with it all the same potential complexities (and likely contradictions to our current understanding of physics).
V: The simplest explanation is that the warming we’ve seen over the past century is due largely to the usual contingencies attendant on climatic change generally. The same explanation can be offered for any such trends over the entire history of the Earth. We don’t know the cause of the temp. runup in the early 20th century, nor do we know the cause of the downward trend after 1940. So why is it necessary to explain the abrupt warming trend at the end of the 20th century any differently?
Victorsays
251 nigelj says:
nj: . . . Actually we dont have a ‘huge’ number of so called “savings hypothesis”,
nj: and we do have necessity, so your argument fails straight away. Specifically, while there are issues in the historical climate record like the pause that are not fully understood, we have hypothetical and reasonable explanations completely consistent with greenhouse theory.
nj: In comparison, we dont have an alternative and simple theory of climate change that can explain the pause, and be consistent with a pause, and “also” explain the 50 years of warming, and the specific characteristics of the warming, sea level rise, and numerous other data. Greenhouse theory can do this, so its “necessary” to accept CO2 is the more compelling theory, even if several complex hypotheses (plurality) exist for the pause.
V: But Greenhouse theory explains nothing, it’s just a long series of contrivances. As I’ve already demonstrated, CO2 levels were too low to have much effect on either temperatures or sea level prior to the 1950’s. And from the 40’s to the late 70’s, there was NO rising trend in global temps at all while CO2 levels soared. And from 1998 through 2015, when CO2 levels were soaring to even greater heights, we see the notorious “hiatus” in warming. We are often reminded of “record breaking” warm years during this period, but once temperatures level off, as they did after 1998, then even the slightest rise from one year to the next can produce a “record.”
Yet we continually hear about some “long term” upward trend.
nj: Of course there are other well known reasons as well to accept agw, such as the properties of CO2, an approximate correlation of CO2 and warming, and its certainly not simply the result of a process of elimination.
There never was any such correlation, not even approximate. Until the 50’s CO2 levels were too low to make much of a difference. From the 1940’s through late seventies there was no warming trend at all. And after 1998, until the sudden blip in 2016, thanks to an especially intense El Nino, there was a hiatus, with only minimal rises in temperature from year to year. The only period where we see a clear correlation between CO2 levels and temperature is the last 20 years of the previous century. NOT exactly a long-term trend.
Try not to respond argumentatively aka pointlessly.
Any argument was more against MAR’s point than yours–just saying, for argument’s sake. ;-)
(Ie., the data do appear to show acceleration, as I stated, whether or not the ‘best fit’ is actually parabolic or some other second-order function–which I don’t think one can discover with just three data points.)
Kevin: So, how do you think the very poor feel about this?
Killian: I don’t care how they feel about it, I care what they think about it.
Mmm. Well, my perspective is that we make decisions based (more or less) on our entire selves–what we think, and what we feel about it. That’s because value is inextricably subjective (ie., emotional.) Ideally, both spheres should be in good communication with each other, allowing reason and value judgements to mutually inform and influence. (In the context of RC, the folly of allowing excessive weight on the emotional side is probably relatively well-recognized, the folly of allowing insufficient weight on the emotional side perhaps less so, but–pace the ghost of the late Ed Greisch!–I’d argue that the danger on that side is no less real.)
Be that as it may, my point was that the poor keep on choosing migration to urban centers, and it seems likely that that is going to keep on happening for quite a while yet. Presumably, that’s because they think/feel that that is their best shot.
The simplest explanation is that the warming we’ve seen over the past century is due largely to the usual contingencies attendant on climatic change generally. The same explanation can be offered for any such trends over the entire history of the Earth. We don’t know the cause of the temp. runup in the early 20th century, nor do we know the cause of the downward trend after 1940. So why is it necessary to explain the abrupt warming trend at the end of the 20th century any differently?
In other words, the best explanation is no explanation at all. “Usual contingencies” explains precisely nothing.
Interesting you think the type of energy supply determines whether there will be blackmail or not…
You seem to be neglecting the word ‘international’. I’m speaking here of phenomena such as OPEC trying to use oil as a political weapon in the 70s, or Russia using natural gas similarly in our day. As you comment, ‘ownership’ of the resource was the key.
However, since no nation ‘owns’ the sun or the wind, many nations see renewables as a hedge against such actions. That’s reported to be an attraction for the Chinese, to take the largest example, but it has advantages all the way down the scale to nations like Haiti (which has a very good solar resource but currently gets a lot of its electricity from diesel generators–the least advantageous possible method of all.)
Of course, the national interest as perceived by ruling elites may not align perfectly, or even well, with the advantages of all individuals. But that wasn’t the level I was referring to in my comment.
STOP. Your reference asserts a “statistically significant” pause. This is mis/disinformation as it is only “statistically significant” if you ignore (deny???) the most basic assumptions of statistics…specifically that when multiple tests are made you need to correct for that fact.
There is a standard first day exercise in stats 101 where the prof divides the class into 2 where one group generates “random” sequences of, say, 100 heads and tails by hand and the other group actually flips coins 100 times and records the results. The prof then collects the papers and then correctly identifies which is which with a high accuracy. How? People generating random sequences actively filter out “pauses” because they _seem_ significant and nonrandom. “Pausers” make the same error. NO one has ever shown a statistically significant “pause” in the long term temperature record using valid statistical reasoning.
No reason to read the rest of the post when you start out with mis/disinformation.
V: “From the 1940’s through late seventies there was no warming trend at all.”
V, this is pathetic. You’re relying on eyeballing the chart instead of doing the arithmetic, and that means you’re making stuff up.
Get it? You’re making statements that have no basis in fact. You’re a flat-earther.
You can look this data up and check what you believe, if you care to tell people the truth.
But I suspect you’re only coming here to knock the stupidest corners off your fabrication so it sounds more sciency.
V: The simplest explanation is that the warming we’ve seen over the past century is due largely to the usual contingencies attendant on climatic change generally. The same explanation can be offered for any such trends over the entire history of the Earth. We don’t know the cause of the temp. runup in the early 20th century, nor do we know the cause of the downward trend after 1940. So why is it necessary to explain the abrupt warming trend at the end of the 20th century any differently?
But what Victor claims is an explanation is no explanation at all. It is magic.
What are these usual contingencies attendant on climatic change generally that Victor proclaims? What’s the science? What explanations can be offered for any such trends over the entire history of the Earth? What are the drivers of climate? Unbeknownst to Victor these are well understood. No surprise as he has repeatedly exhibited his complete ignorance of scientific principals. According to Victor’s claim historical climate must be caused by magic, magic that we cannot identify for the current warming trend. Energy for the current warming trend must be created from thin air. CO2 must magically not act as quantum mechanics tell us it must. So much buffoonery in the arrogance of Victor it is beyond imagination.
Professor Hulme — who used to work for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — is not convinced that the Paris deal will work. In fact, he said he thought climate change was in danger of becoming a “fetish” and that rallying cries to “save the planet by limiting global warming to 2 degrees” could distract us from the “political logjam” in front of us.
“We can’t solve climate change with numbers,” Professor Hulme told Natasha Mitchell on ABC RN’s Science Friction. “We can actually only deal with climate through the human imagination.” but said he now thought the future lay with more local solutions — involving new “political coalitions” of unlikely bedfellows.
Recent research into local climate action in Australia supported this focus on co-benefits. “Sometimes, framing actions as [tackling] climate change will not bring people into a community meeting. But framing it as making savings on energy bills will gain more traction,” said Macquarie University geographer Donna Houston, who hosted a postgraduate workshop with Professor Hulme in Sydney last week.
Co-benefits are “critically important”, according to David Karoly, who heads up the CSIRO’s Earth Systems and Climate Change Hub. He is on the advisory board of the Climate and Health Alliance, a coalition of doctors worried about the immediate health effects of air pollution from burning fossil fuels.
Steven Sherwood, a climate scientist at the University of New South Wales, pointed to other examples. “There are places in Texas that are rapidly taking up rooftop solar — even though most people there are pretty sceptical about global warming — because it enables them to be independent,” Professor Sherwood said.
The idea of using more politics and less science to solve climate change might stick in the craw of those who think we should rely on what the science “says”. But Professor Hulme, who once evaluated climate models and scenario construction, claimed this was putting too much of a burden on science.
“Science is a very powerful way that humans have invented and discovered to understand the way in which the physical world works,” he said. “Science will not be able to adjudicate on what we should or should not do. “We have invented another human tradition — we call it politics — to resolve those sorts of challenges.”
Professor Hulme claimed better politics was the only way to reduce the vitriol around climate change that has made it a divisive and “toxic brand” in some countries.
“Climate change is no longer a scientific problem,” he said. “Climate change is a human problem.”
But he said he was dubious of the power of “bottom-up” actions to create real action on climate. “In the UK, Europe, United States and in Australia, action or inaction on climate change has not been driven by grassroots level activity,” he said. “It has been driven by decisions made at the national political level.”
nigeljsays
MA Rodger @262, recent increase in methane may not be parabolic, but its definitely a curve of some sort, so accelerating. I can see this by eye, and just put a ruler on the graph.
Reasons are uncertain. The economist article lists about 5 potential reasons. None are comforting reasons.
nigeljsays
There’s an old saying “you cannot argue with an idiot” . Victor is an absolute idiot as far as science goes. This is the simplest explanation, and thus an excellent example of the application of occams razor.
Most of those are nonsense. A small number are plausible. Even you should be able to work out the climate is complex and several of them could combine. Occams razor only says one explanation is usually correct, it doesnt forbid a combination of causal factors. Occams razor is a rule of thumb, not a law of physics.
And please note the pause was not statistically significant. And since you like “eye balling graphs” have a look at the latest hadcrut or nasa global temperature graph, and it should be obvious to even you the “pause” is a blip of about 6 years duration of flat temperatures, thus easily explained by natural variability.
“we have hypothetical and reasonable explanations (for the pause) completely consistent with greenhouse theory.”
You have just accepted in your “updated list” that there are hypothetical reasons! Your idiotic statements have no limits.
Your blog is nonsensical. You claim chinas temperatures have continued to increase recently despite their coal burning and sulphate aerosols, with no basic knowledge that 1) they have filters on the power stations to remove most particulate matter like this since the 1980’s, and 2) CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere overwhelming particulates, which are short lived in the atmosphere. Because you dont know what you are doing!
“V: But Greenhouse theory explains nothing, it’s just a long series of contrivances. ”
If you say so Mr film producer and media studies consultant. The greenhouse theory is established science based on laboratory data, and is perfectly consistent with the temperature trend of the last 150 years and more, including all the wiggles. The trend is easily explained by a combination of the greenhouse theory, natural climate factors and sulphate aerosols. In comparison, theres no other theory that can explain that full 150 years of data, whether solar theories or anything else. They can only explain small parts of the picture. But you are too scientifically illiterate to see this.
Mr. Know It Allsays
I really enjoyed reading thru the insults in the above comments that have been posted just in the last couple of days. I thought the best one was this one by MAR in 281 above: “….On the off-chance that this situation is not because you have cloth ears, let me explain, again.”
Cloth ears. :)
Killiansays
#288 Kevin McKinney said Killian, #284–
Kevin: So, how do you think the very poor feel about this?
Killian: I don’t care how they feel about it, I care what they think about it.
my point was that the poor keep on choosing migration to urban centers, and it seems likely that that is going to keep on happening for quite a while yet. Presumably, that’s because they think/feel that that is their best shot.
Is all this to happen in a vacuum? No. Cities are unsustainable, ergo we must stop moving into them, ergo we must spread the word, ergo they will not keep doing this once the conversation on regenerative futures becomes the dominant paradigm. The poor that *don’t* move will be far closer to sustainability than those that do.
290 Kevin McKinney said Killian, #283–
Interesting you think the type of energy supply determines whether there will be blackmail or not…
You seem to be neglecting the word ‘international’.
I said didn’t matter whether international or not, and that may be what you neglected from the beginning. Utility-owned energy is the mistake, whether gov or private.
That was my point.
Ergo, doesn’t matter what type of energy, only who owns it. If not the community/individual, it can, and will, be taken away, priced out of reach, etc., as it all already is and always has been.
To be clear, it being foreign is not the key to manipulated scarcity.
I’m speaking here of phenomena such as OPEC trying to use oil as a political weapon in the 70s, or Russia using natural gas similarly in our day. As you comment, ‘ownership’ of the resource was the key.
However, since no nation ‘owns’ the sun or the wind, many nations see renewables as a hedge against such actions. That’s reported to be an attraction for the Chinese, to take the largest example, but it has advantages all the way down the scale to nations like Haiti (which has a very good solar resource but currently gets a lot of its electricity from diesel generators–the least advantageous possible method of all.)
Of course, the national interest as perceived by ruling elites may not align perfectly, or even well, with the advantages of all individuals. But that wasn’t the level I was referring to in my comment.
Victor @248
“In the field of climate change there have been no shortage of ad hoc “saving hypotheses”; however, according to Occam, “plurality should not be posited without necessity,”
Actually we dont have a ‘huge’ number of so called “savings hypothesis”, and we do have necessity, so your argument fails straight away. Specifically, while there are issues in the historical climate record like the pause that are not fully understood, we have hypothetical and reasonable explanations completely consistent with greenhouse theory.
In comparison, we dont have an alternative and simple theory of climate change that can explain the pause, and be consistent with a pause, and “also” explain the 50 years of warming, and the specific characteristics of the warming, sea level rise, and numerous other data. Greenhouse theory can do this, so its “necessary” to accept CO2 is the more compelling theory, even if several complex hypotheses (plurality) exist for the pause.
Of course there are other well known reasons as well to accept agw, such as the properties of CO2, an approximate correlation of CO2 and warming, and its certainly not simply the result of a process of elimination.
244 MA Rodger – “But methane-rich Siberian air shows no sign of rising any faster than the rest of the world.”
That is far from being a valid scientific based statement. It’s the words of a journalist instead. Another journalist or even a scientist could easily have framed these data this way:
“Rising levels of atmospheric methane across the world are now registering as high as the methane-rich Siberian air.”
At least it is scientifically valid and accurate based on these known data. Proving that Spin does not exclusively belong to the political domain. Then there are the accumulated data to deal with and reality itself. The article referenced by 244 MA Rodger indicates that methane is rising rapidly the last decade and yet it is presented as the most unimportant irrelevance.
There are other views of course. From http://arctic-news.blogspot.com.au/2018/04/mars-today-a-business-as-usual-model-for-earth-tomorrow.html
Quote from the middle of the article goes like this:
I don’t think that it’s ‘alarmist’ to be alarmed about events in the Yamal when seen in this new martian context – Siberian news reports last year described mapping of 7000 methane-venting mounds across the Yamal-Gydan (The Siberian Times, 27/03/2017), a number far in excess of the global frost mound population (~ 5000 [Mackay, 1998]) as of 1998. If confirmed, these 1000s of ‘new’ mounds must have formed within the last 20 years by a disequilibrium process unrelated to progressive ice-intrusion (Page, 2018). A University of Alaska permafrost decay expert quoted on the same day (The Washington Post, 27/03/2017) said that this mapping is likely to be an underestimate, and that the new mounds may number as many as 100,000. Should even the smaller of these numbers be correct and disequilibrium methanogenesis the cause, then Mars’ explosions may only hint at the near future for a methane-rich Earth of rapidly rising temperatures if Arctic permafrost-explosion follows suit.
A seemingly compelling counterargument, often reused in the media, is that none of the glacial-interglacial transitions of the past 400 kyr shows a sudden, large methane-spike, suggesting that abrupt, large-scale methane outbursts are unlikely. One might appeal to such abrupt events being below the temporal resolution of the rock record in explanation, but absent such spikes the safest answer is to say that large-scale interglacial outbursts did not occur during that time. This time, however, is different. Anthropogenic warming has interrupted the Glacial-Interglacial cycle of the Quaternary (Ganopolski et al., 2016; Haqq-Misra, 2014) and there will be no coming Ice-Age n-1000 years from now to reseal all of this volatile Carbon, as happened at the end of each previous interglacial.
This now-broken cyclicity is one reason why catastrophic reservoir-collapse has never occurred in the past and we should not take any comfort from that lack of precedent as never before has an Interglacial period been combined with annual, planetary-scale thermal forcing.
While high CO₂ levels have been present in Earth’s atmosphere before (e.g., during the Cambrian and Archaean) without initiating either the moist or runaway greenhouse state, never has the rate of warming been annual in scale as today. The question is not whether anthropogenic emissions could initiate these greenhouse states, but whether Arctic clathrate release could.
The IPCC 3rd Assessment Report (2001) concluded that rapid increase in atmospheric methane from the release of buried clathrate reservoirs would be “exceptionally unlikely”, at under a 1% chance, a figure revised up to 10% by the following report in 2008.
Yet the Mars observations show that abrupt, cascading devolatilisation occurs readily in nature, and there is nothing about these observations to suggest that this process is not portable or scalable to Earth. That ESAS lacks Mars’ mound-density makes the scaling no less valid, the methane-supersaturation of 80% of ESAS bottom waters (Shakhova et al., 2010) showing that frost mounds are not the sole venting pathway, gas migration pathways growing in capacity annually in the areas of greatest emissions (Shakhova et al., 2017). Destabilisation of the shallow-marine clathrates of ESAS continues to be excluded from every global climate model, the only (regional-scale) model to consider this being that of Archer (2015). The reader is referred to that paper for detail (https://www.biogeosciences.net/12/2953/2015/bg-12-2953-2015.pdf), but I would like to consider one element of that model here.
As a geologist, it is not clear to me how a model can have “…lessons to teach us about the real Siberian continental margin” (Archer, 2015) when “…many of the model variables are not well known”, “…meaning that in some aspects the model results are not a strong constraint on reality”. When this model “…neglects many of the mechanisms that could come into play in transporting methane quickly to the atmosphere, such as faults, channels, and blowouts of the sediment column” then one must ask what bearing or predictive-value it has for abrupt methane release. In ignoring faults and thaw-taliks, this model – “…the first simulation of the full methane cycle on the Siberian continental margin” – neglects those surface, subsurface, subaqueous, and subaerial pathways through which methane moves rapidly through permafrost, as observed in ESAS (e.g., Shakhova et al., 2010, 2017). Little wonder that “…No mechanism has been proposed whereby a significant fraction of the Siberian permafrost hydrates could release their methane catastrophically” (Archer, 2007) when every method of rapid release is neglected by the only ‘full’ model. The importance of such thaw-discontinuities cannot be underplayed in a model of catastrophic devolatilisation (Shakhova, 2014), as illustrated by Mars where violent degassing equivalent to 20 Yamal explosions per km² occurs through sub-mound palaeo-taliks alone (e.g., Figure above). The stated lack of constraint between model and reality is reflected in its most important Prediction, i.e., that atmospheric methane flux from anthropogenic warming of ESAS permafrost will never exceed 0.04 Tg C-CH₄ yr⁻¹ over 100-kyr of global warming (see Figure 15 of Archer, 2015). In Actuality, air sampling surveys over ESAS yield a calculated annual flux to the atmosphere of 8 Tg C-CH₄ (Shakhova et al., 2010), a figure 200 x higher than the model estimate (at Year-1 of this 100-kyr-scale warming) and equivalent to the methane emissions of the entire world’s oceans.
In questioning the abrupt 50 Gt Arctic-methane release proposed by Shakhova et al. (2010), Archer says that “…A complex model is not really required to conclude that methane hydrate will probably not produce a methane eruption of this scale so quickly”. Yet models (particularly the complex ones) are only as good as their base assumptions, and that regarding the methane flux in this region shows little correspondence with reality. There is thus no support for the Conclusion that “…The model results give no indication of a mechanism by which methane emissions from the Siberian continental shelf could have a significant impact on the near-term evolution of Earth’s climate” as the geological discontinuities that should be foremost in that mechanism are omitted from the model and the long-term CH₄-flux predictions of that model have no bearing to current, observed methane flux.
[end quote]
Who is right or more right than others? Is there a consensus based on hard evidence underpinned by real data or is there only a minority consensus based on which scientific group and publishers wield the most power and influence?
Let’s wait and see is by far the predominant opinion of the majority of climate scientists as shown by their collective professional inaction and overt personal preferences to argue about anything and everything for as long as humanly possible.
Weaktor: “It’s always possible to fine-tune one’s predictions to get the desired results.”
Actually, no, it is not. For instance, you cannot necessarily fit any three data points to a 3 parameter function that is monotonically increasing (e.g. your three data points could be monotonically decreasing). A physical model is different from a curve fit. In a physical model, you include only the physical phenomena KNOWN to be at play in the system. You may well be able to reproduce the behavior of the system with relatively few phenomena. However, if you include more than this number, you are in no danger of overfitting. Instead, you will simply find out that the added phenomenon has negligible influence.
Somewhere in between a purely statistical and a physical model is a phenomenological model. Here, your model is deliberately oversimplified, and you are merely trying to determine which phenomena are of most importance. A good example is Tamino’s two-box model–two interacting thermal reservoirs subjected to forcings due to total solar irradiation, greenhouse forcing, volcanism and aerosols. This model does an astoundingly good job of reproducing the wiggles in the temperature over the recent warming era.
Weaktor, I have been a physicist for over 30 years. I have a long record of publications. You are a musicologist who has recently dipped his toe into the denialist backwaters of climate blogs. Which of us do you think is more likely to have an understanding of how science works? Your analysis is shallow and your misunderstandings are deep.
The arrogance of the stupidity of Victor is absolutely astounding. Because the drivers of surface temperatures and climate are multifaceted and somewhat complex, Victor invokes “Occam’s razor” like it is some magical principal that prevents the physical world from being complex. According to Victor’s limited capacity to make sense of things, he proclaims that the multiple drivers of climate based on physics are “ad hoc”. That is, aerosol dimming must not exist. Why? Because it adds complexity. This no matter the evidence. Albedo? Nope, ad hoc. Changes in solar irradiance? Nope, ad hoc. Water vapor feedback? Nope, not possible, ad hoc.
Of course, to use Occam’s Razor one must have two competing theories. Theories that conform to the evidence and laws of physics. Victor does not express what the two competing theories are exactly. We know from physical laws that CO2 causes warming as does increased solar irradiance. Aerosols cool. So if we are concerned with the current warming trend what is Victor’s *simpler* alternative theory that conforms to the evidence? He has none. At least he certainly has not put forth an explanation of one. One that is supported by evidence and physics. But, by gosh, there must be a simpler theory. Why? Just because. Occam’s Razor!!
Victor cannot explain why CO2 is not causing the current warming trend. He cannot provided evidence showing that there are significant negative feedbacks that would offset the radiative imbalance caused by the energy absorption properties of the CO2. Radiative imbalance that has been observed and indisputable properties that result in an ECS of at least 2 degrees celsius. Nor can 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. Victor cannot, so he proclaims such questions are *red herrings*!!! In victor’s simple world, facts and evidence are to be ignored if they do not conform to his inane worldview.
From SkepticalScience on false skeptics:
Perhaps the key is that learning takes energy and deliberate effort, while ignoring is easy. If they make an effort to understand what you’re saying, they risk overturning their own beliefs. Why should they bother? Their goal is to convince you, not to let you convince them. So they ignore you and push their narrative.
They lack self-awareness. You’ll never hear them say “Okay, I know this might sound crazy, but those thousands of climate scientists are all wrong. I can’t blame you for agreeing with a supermajority, but if you’ll just hear me out, I will explain how I, a non-scientist, can be certain the contrarians are right. Just let me know if I’ve made some mistake in my reasoning here…”
#235 JB said The charade is nearly over:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0667.1
I’ve been saying for 20 years now that the IPCC overestimates climate sensitivity by about a factor of 2. Looks like that was right (ECS ~ 1.66K in the linked paper vs IPCC 3K). Time for the alarmist industry to get real jobs.
P.T. Barnum spoke of fooling some all of the time, some of the time. ‘Nuff said.
Well, and these:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2018/04/27/lewis-and-curry-again/
https://twitter.com/AndrewDessler/status/988898450107457536
https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/18/5147/2018/acp-18-5147-2018.pdf
#246 Kevin McKinney said I recently pointed out that the idea that cutting fossil fuels would hurt the poor has lost any validity it may have had… Now there’s news of a study doing an apparently pretty rigorous estimate of the Chinese case. A group out of MIT finds that if China enforces existing policy, reaching peak emissions no later than 2030, the result will be nearly 100,000 premature deaths avoided, several hundred billion dollars of economic savings, and a net benefit/cost ratio of four to one.
https://cleantechnica.com/2018/04/27/health-benefits-of-chinese-climate-goals-could-offset-costs-by-2030/
A more stringent policy would have greater benefits.
Or there’s the simple observation that the very poor have very little to lose and and a very short pathway to sustainable lives.
Oft repeated. Little heard.
Truthout headline: Half of the Great Barrier Reef Has Died Since 2016
Half of the great barrier reef has died? doesn’t that mean that half of it survived that last nasty EN event? Isn’t the reef really half alive? Come on, lighten up. Things are going to be fine, just ask Victor.
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/44319-half-of-the-great-barrier-reef-has-died-since-2016
the Nature study is here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0041-2
think of the Princess Bride story: it’s only half dead, so it’s partly alive. Give it the Miracle Max treatment. We don’t need to go looking through the pockets for loose change yet.
Cheers,
Mike
New Data – Source IEA 2017
( Curious to know how the latest data like these is incorporated into the next batch of climate models and ipcc reports. And do some previous model runs or papers doing forecasts of climate responses get redone when new real world data becomes available like this from the IEA I find these reports really fascinating to read. )
The IEA’s first Global Energy and CO2 Status Report – released in March 2018 – provides a
snapshot of recent global trends and developments across fuels, renewable sources, and energy
efficiency and carbon emissions, in 2017.
http://www.iea.org/geco/
Global energy demand grew by 2.1% in 2017, more than twice the growth rate in 2016.
Global energy demand in 2017 reached an estimated 14,050 million tonnes of oil equivalent
(Mtoe), compared with 10,035 Mtoe in 2000. A 40% increase of Global energy demand over 16
years
Fossil fuels met over 70% of the growth in energy demand around the world.
Natural gas demand increased the most, reaching a record share of 22% in total energy demand.
Renewables also grew strongly, making about 25% of global energy demand growth.
Nuclear use accounted for 5% of global growth in energy demand.
The overall share of fossil fuels in global energy demand in 2017 remained at 81%.
This fossil fuel energy share has remained stable for more than three decades despite the
growth in renewable energy; despite the accumlated evidence provided in Five IPCC Assessment
Reports, and despite the many Agreemments and Treaties signed under the UNFCCC system over
three decades.
World oil demand rose by 1.6% (or 1.5 million barrels a day) in 2017, much higher than the
annual average rate of 1% seen over the last decade.
Global natural gas demand grew by 3%, thanks in large part to abundant and relatively low-cost
supplies.
Global coal demand rose about 1% in 2017, reversing the declining trend seen over the last two
years.
Coal electricity generation increased by 3% (280 TWh) in 2017 at a global scale, accounting
for a third of the total growth and more than cancelling a 250 TWh decline seen in 2016.
Renewables saw the highest growth rate of any energy source in 2017, meeting a quarter of
global energy demand growth.
China and the United States led this unprecedented growth, contributing around 50% of the
increase in renewables-based electricity generation, followed by the European Union, India and
Japan.
Wind power accounted for 36% of the growth in renewables-based power output.
World electricity demand increased by 3.1%, significantly higher than the overall increase in
energy demand. Together, China and India accounted for 70% of this growth.
Despite strong increases in wind and solar PV generation, hydropower remains the largest
source by far of renewables-based electricity generation, with a major share of 65% in overall
renewables output.
While Renewables now account for 25% of global electricity generation 16.25% is actually
traditional Hydropower generation.
New tech renewables only account for 8.75% of global electricity generation by Wind Solar
Geothermal Bioenergy – significantly lower than Nuclear’s total electricty generation.
Output from nuclear plants rose by 26 terrawatt hours (TWh) in 2017, as a significant amount
of new nuclear capacity saw its first full year of operation
Nuclear generation accounts for 10% of global power generation and grew by 3%, relative to
2016, with Japan contributing to 40% of this growth.
Global energy intensity improved by only 1.7% in 2017, compared with an average of 2.3% over
the last three years.
Latest trends in CO2 emissions
Global energy-related CO2 emissions grew by 1.4% in 2017, reaching a historic high of 32.5
gigatonnes (Gt), a resumption of growth after three years of global emissions remaining flat.
The increase in carbon emissions, equivalent to the emissions of 170 million additional cars,
was the result of robust global economic growth of 3.7%, lower fossil-fuel prices and weaker
energy efficiency efforts. These three factors contributed to pushing up global energy demand
by 2.1% in 2017.
The IEA’s Sustainable Development Scenario charts a path towards meeting long-term climate
goals. Under this scenario, global emissions need to peak soon and decline steeply to 2020;
this decline will now need to be even greater given the increase in emissions in 2017.
The share of low-carbon energy sources would need to increase by 1.1 percentage points every
year to meet the objectives of this scenario, more than five-times the growth registered in
2017.
In the power sector, specifically, generation from renewable sources would need to increase by
an average 700 TWh annually in this scenario, 80% higher than the 380 TWh increase registered
in 2017.
http://www.iea.org/geco/emissions/
Re 252 JR and MA Roger:
Methane is a well-mixed gas. It gets broken down more quickly at low latitudes, it is thought, by greater mixing ratios. Why, then, would we expect emissions rises to accumulate at the poles? This makes no sense, actually. CO2 is balanced because of it’s longer life… and the fact CH4 is adding to that CO2 when *it* breaks down. The CH4 curve since 2007 looks parabolic enough to me, and is darned sure upward, not flat. One can claim it is rice, but the fact CH4 is rising at the same rate globally is zero evidence of this, and not contrary evidence of increasing polar emissions.
’07-’11: 5.93
’10-’14: 6.71
’13-’17: 9.02
’07-’09: 6.36
’11-’13: 5.29
’15-’17: 8.88
Try it any way you like, you end up with a parabola, even just 2 years.
’07-’08: 7.18
’12-’13: 5.235
’16-’17: 8.32
Well, that’s a bit hockey stickish.
Cheers
@257
Further, our resident deniers will point out that the 50% mortality was “only” in the northernmost zones of the reef so there is even less to worry about. The reef will “just” move poleward, This is about like not worrying how farming will be able to move to the wonderful glacial till, shield rock, and muskeg “soils” as more southerly areas become too warm to grow certain crops effectively.
#250, Nigel–
Good link, that. Thanks. Shared.
#256, Killian–
So, how do you think the very poor feel about this? Do you think that they would describe their lives as ‘sustainable?’ And do those feelings have anything to do with the fact that the percentage of global population living in urban areas nearly doubled between 1950 (29.6%) and 2015 (54.0%)?
https://esa.un.org/unpd/wup/DataQuery/
Matt, #258–
Good information, but I think a bit more context is required. While it may be true, more or less, that the global “fossil fuel energy share has remained stable for more than three decades despite the growth in renewable energy…”, it’s not going to remain so much longer.
Why?
The key word in that quote is ‘consistently.’ Already the levelized cost (LCOE) of onshore wind is at the low end of that of new fossil capacity (including natgas in the US).
The most favorable solar projects (those with good financing and excellent solar resources) are coming in at comparable prices.
Demonstrated ‘learning rates’ are bringing down costs at an astounding rate.
(All quotes above are from this report.)
(By the way, it may be worth mentioning in passing that there’s another ‘learning rate’ for wind, which is the increase in capacity factor. A few years ago here on RC we were debating the significance of wind CFs in the 20% range; now the biggest turbine, GE’s Haliade-X, currently undergoing testing, is claiming a CF of 63%–“five to seven points above industry standard.“)
Returning to the point, and as noted in a previous comment, we’re now seeing renewable projects being built in order to replace existing coal plants, not because of emissions concerns per se, but because it’s cheaper to build new solar or wind capacity than it is to continue to operate the coal plant.
So it’s a darn good bet that the exponential growth curve that wind and especially solar have been following for the last decade isn’t going to go linear yet.
Putting some numbers on that:
“Tipping point” tends not to be a very well-defined term, but my gut feeling is that we’re seeing one now in the power generation arena. Total energy use is going to take a bit longer–the liquid-fueled status quo has its advantages, especially in terms of energy density–but the signs of change are visible there, too.
In fact, I think futurists ought to be thinking about the macroeconomic and international implications of a future in which energy is cheap, widely available and secure from supply shocks and international ‘energy blackmail’. It might help hold down international tensions a bit, during an era of what I expect will be increasing food insecurity and climate migration.
YMMV, of course.
“Weaktor, I have been a physicist for over 30 years. I have a long record of publications. You are a musicologist who has recently dipped his toe into the denialist backwaters of climate blogs. Which of us do you think is more likely to have an understanding of how science works? Your analysis is shallow and your misunderstandings are deep.”
Well, first of all, judging from your various contributions to this blog over the years I’ve been reading here, you are not only a physicist but also a determined advocate for the AGW position, whose bias is clearly evident in literally every one of your posts. Your specialty seems to be more in the realm of insult, dismissal and ad hominem attack than actual scientific analysis.
As far as your knowledge of “how science works” is concerned, it obviously does not extend to basic principles such as Occam’s Razor, which clearly you do not understand. I advise you to stop falling back on your academic creds and start thinking critically about the issue at hand.
254 CCHolley: That is, aerosol dimming must not exist. Why? Because it adds complexity. This no matter the evidence. Albedo? Nope, ad hoc. Changes in solar irradiance? Nope, ad hoc. Water vapor feedback? Nope, not possible, ad hoc.
V: This is a total mischaracterization of my position. Have you ever taken the trouble to read the response on my blog.? I did it for your benefit, so by all means, check it out: http://amoleintheground.blogspot.com/2018/03/thoughts-on-climate-change.html
http://amoleintheground.blogspot.com/2018/03/thoughts-on-climate-change-part-2.html
JR @244,
I think your convertion of the quote (from the Economist item linked @244) infers an untruth. You convert the Economist quote into saying that higher arctic CH4 increases have now become matched by increased global rates. Yet if you compare MLO CH4 readings (and we can be forgiven if we accept these as being ‘global’ values in that we do it with CO2 and they are certainly not arctic data) with CH4 data from Barrow (which is in the arctic), the CH4 levels (rolling 12-month averages) since this renewal of rising CH4 levels (I took it since 2000 to be generous) have risen at identical rates at MLO & at Barrow.
This is surely non-controversial and so there is no need for either myself or a journalist to cite any scientific source directly in the matter.
I note Killian @259 describes the increase in CH4 over the last decade as “parabolic”. Looking at an MLO CH4 graph, (see here -usually 2 clicks to ‘download your attachemnt’), I see no parabola.
You also cut&paste some of the many words of a Martian geologist to tell us about Shakhova’s theorising on arctic CH4 (and curiously the reports in IPCC TAR/AR4 when AR5 has been published some years now). The Martian geologist does need to get his messaging sorted so it doesn’t remain hidden within a multi-thousand-word account. His published paper is Page (2018)‘A candidate methane-clathrate destabilisation event on Mars: A model for sub-millennial-scale climatic change on Earth’ [access to June 2018]. This paper is setting out a controversial theory which suggest that what in the concensus view are (apparently) ancient martian volcanic cones are, according to Page, more recently-formed and a martian version of the explosive methane release from arctic permafrost. This is the point where the length of Page’s accounts are enough to halt my own reading of them. If he has more to say, others can surely explain the crux of it where Page has failed.
And given this bizarre proposal from Page, your end-piece defaming “the majority of climate scientists” is surely unwarranted.
@ 266 MA Rodger says: JR @244, I think your convertion of the quote (from the Economist item linked @244) infers an untruth. You convert the Economist quote into saying that higher arctic CH4 increases have now become matched by increased global rates. [/]
No, what I said was “Rising levels of atmospheric methane across the world are now registering as high as the methane-rich Siberian air.” That is different to what you claim I said above.
I also said “That is far from being a valid scientific based statement. It’s the words of a journalist instead. Another journalist or even a scientist could easily have framed these data this way:” [/]
Time will tell how accurate David Page, Shakhova and other papers forecasts are. It’s only information, part of the mix. Was the The IPCC 3rd Assessment Report (2001) and other published quotes correct? The IPCC AR5 said there was no evidence of any known changes to the AMOC and yet less that 3-4 years latter people were writing papers the AMOC had decreased 15% of something to date. Things change even the science and the consensus changes.
Was it the IPCC TAR or the AR4 which said a summer arctic sea ice free event was unlikely to happen until the 2090s; the end of the century? Page could be wrong or there might be something to what he says about the ESAS.
I see no defamation because there was none. Your article also says “More research is needed to determine the correct degree of anxiety.” In the meantime my ‘anxiety’ has been put on hold while I wait for the ‘research’ and/or the ‘methane bombs’ to arrive.
Maybe you might like to first explain the spin in your comment and in the quote from a ‘journalist’ copied below before proceeding?
244
MA Rodger says:
28 Apr 2018 at 4:35 AM
There is an article in the Economist ‘The methane mystery: Scientists struggle to explain a worrying rise in atmospheric methane’ that should give the skyrocketeers some food for thought, although I would suggest they take due note of the statement “But methane-rich Siberian air shows no sign of rising any faster than the rest of the world.”
The actual proper quote is “But methane-rich Siberian air (see map of average atmospheric methane levels in January 2016, above) shows no sign of rising any faster than the rest of the world.”
Referring to a map that is not there nor is there a Ref URL to NOAA. What’s the one off CH4 level in one month got to do with anything? That’s a mystery too.
Besides isn’t deep winter the time of year where Methane from thawing permafrost etc and global readings are near their lowest in the annual cycle?
I had no idea what you meant by your comment nor the half quote. And still don’t. That’s OK. I can live with that.
Alternatively Dr Page wrote an opinion article and he provided references to peer reviewed papers and gave the ref url. People can make of that what they will. The same as any other climate article, comment or reference. I don’t see a problem in quoting it even if you do not like it.
Weaktor: “Well, first of all, judging from your various contributions to this blog over the years I’ve been reading here, you are not only a physicist but also a determined advocate for the AGW position, whose bias is clearly evident in literally every one of your posts.”
I’m a determined advocate for gravity, a (roughly) round Earth, a constant speed of light, quantum indeterminacy and a range of other established facts, as well. Advocacy of the facts does not constitute bias. This isn’t about opinion. It is about evidence. You have none. You are a shallow thinker who has somehow developed delusions of adequacy. I consider it a failure of our educational system that they did not manage to communicate to you just how dumb you are. You are a classic example of what happens when stupidity gets sent to college.
Victor the Troll began using the concept of Occam’s Razor about 2½ years ago as an excuse to completely ignore any scientific explanation of the evidence and thus support his misguided AGW-busting bullshit. There was no shifting him then. Even pointing out that he was abusing the concept and wielding it in ways that were entirely inapproporate, he didn’t care.
We today could point to the error of his comment @249 where he insists “Occam’s Razor is a fundamental principle applicable to scientific research of any sort, employing any type of methodology, statistical or otherwise. You are betraying your ignorance.” (There is certainly somebody ‘betraying their ignorance’, again.)
One thing Occam’s Razor is not is a “fundamental principle.” Even something as basic Wikithing states this quite clearly, saying “In science, Occam’s razor is used as an heuristic guide in the development of theoretical models, rather than as a rigorous arbiter between candidate models.”
Yet Victor fails to understand the importance of this Wikithing statement which he must have seen as up-thread @232 he introduces Occam quoting from that same paragraph of Wikithing (and @248 we learn it is a quote he also manages within his grand work of nonsense – his book published under a poisoned-pen-name ‘Polar Vomit’ or something similar).
And let us be clear what Victor is and isn’t doing. Victor does not make the mistake of using Occam as “a rigorous arbiter between candidate models.” as he has yet to reach the point of even considering the existence of “candidate models” let alone what to do about them. Instead what Victor is doing is waving the name ‘Occam’ then skipping straight to the bit that goes ‘So Victor must be right and all of the science completely wrong!!’
Victor, please give me the start and end dates you want for the 70 years in which you allege carbon dioxide had no effect on sea level.
This is the third time I’ve asked. I’ll drop it if you don’t respond after this.
#266, MAR—
“Parabolic” might be an overstatement; the rise in CH4 is pretty noisy, as evidenced by your plot of the 12-month increase, and so deciding just what the best fit might be would have its challenges. Yet there is pretty clearly a acceleration of some ilk, which is a matter of some concern.
HadCRUT has reported for March with an anomaly marginally above the earlier months of the year (and indeed also above the last four months of 2017), giving Jan +0.55ºC, Feb +0.52ºC, Mar +0.62ºC.
We still await a March anomaly from BEST while ever-prompt UAH has posted an April TLT anomaly of +0.21ºC, very slightly down on March and not greatly different from the earlier months of the year Jan +0.26ºC, Feb +0.20ºC, March +0.23ºC.
It is the 7th warmest April behind 1998 (+0.74ºC). 2016 (+0.72ºC), 2005 (+0.33ºC), 2010 (+0.32ºC), 2017 (+0.27ºC), 2002 (+0.23ºC), all El Nino years bar 2017. And it stands as =93rd highest monthly anomaly in the full record.
@Victor
Wow. The arrogance expressed here is truly unbelievable. Someone who has never completed any course work in physics is calling an esteemed physicist clueless as to the likes of Occam’s razor. Victor is so deluded in his self absorbed belief in his own infallibility when it comes to his ability to understand science one must question his mental health. Truly.
Not a mischaracterization at all. It is exactly what Victor is implying. Stupid is as stupid does.
Victor (@264 and 265) I actually looked at your posts on your blog. You still don’t get it. You don’t get how physical models work (for instance, adding complexities stemming from known effects is not a “saving hypothesis”). Since you don’t understand the complexities of the models, you come to incorrect “logical” conclusions (e.g. your supposed lack of evidence CO2 forcing in the mid-century — think about what temperatures would have done in the absence of CO2 forcing). You think Occam’s Razor is a rule. It’s not. It’s a useful device for examining some situations. Even if it were a rule, in this case here, what simpler alternative explanation do you think there is to the consensus model for global warming? Just saying “something else” is no better. That something would be as-yet-unknown physics, carrying with it all the same potential complexities (and likely contradictions to our current understanding of physics).
263 Kevin McKinney , your irena reference suggests “Solar photovoltaics (PV) grew by a whopping 32% in 2017, followed by wind energy, which grew by 10%.”
The IEA report said at the end of my post
“The share of low-carbon energy sources would need to increase by 1.1 percentage points every year to meet the objectives of this scenario, more than five-times the growth registered in 2017.”
Indicating Solar PV would need to at least grow by 150% per year every year and the Wind sector by at least 50% per year to achieve the Paris goals. On top of that Solar thermal, geothermal, and bio energy would need to grow to a similar order. Hydropower cannot grow linearly nor exponentially like this.
The IEA report then clarifies it further saying “In the power sector, specifically, generation from renewable sources would need to increase by an average 700 TWh annually in this scenario, 80% higher than the 380 TWh increase registered in 2017.”
That’s 80% higher every year 2018, 2019 and 2020 of +700 TWh annually to meet the first goal. Then increasing further out to 2030.
It is obvious that the reported Irena growth increase of 32% and 10% respectively in 2017 or the years before is not even in the ball park of what is required globally. There is no indication anywhere that solar pv and wind will get anywhere near an 80% increase year on year on year.
Which supports the EIA (US) reports for combined global fossil fuel use projections out to 2040 as remaining steady and not falling below current use for the next 23 years. Meaning that CO2 emissions will continue to increase by at least +2 ppmv globally past 2040 putting us at near 440 ppmv by then.
This means that any positive feedbacks in the natural world (ENSO, arctic albedo change, droughts, fires, permafrost melt and so on) that triggers additional CO2/ghg emissions growth will be on top of that 2 ppmv per yr.
This kind of future will seal the destruction of coral reefs globally as well. The impact on arctic sea ice, glaciers and ice sheets should be obvious as well. Recent warnings about California water supply, drought, precip and food production stress will be realized.
The only conclusion to draw then is that neither the Price nor Renewable Growth is the silver bullet of hope they are made out to be because they are not in fact being deployed at the much higher rate circumstances demand for ongoing increases of GHG emissions globally to stop then drop.
At present Renewable energy deployment is a forlorn hope. A false hope. Every indication is that GHG emissions will continue to increase out to 2040 and beyond. There is no Plan by anyone to increase the rate of Renewable deployment to the level required globally.
Man-made GHG emissions are and will continue to increase significantly into the future. Then Physics and basic Climate Science math come into play. The likely impacts should be undeniable too. But hope dies last. I say the sooner the better. Being realistic beats false hope, disinformation, hyper-bias, false advertising and mythical stories every day of the week. But YMMV?
BPL: Victor, please give me the start and end dates you want for the 70 years in which you allege carbon dioxide had no effect on sea level.
From what I gather from the evidence, CO2 has never had a significant effect on sea level. However the period I’ve been writing about was the period from ca. 1910 through ca. 1979, a time when, as most climate scientists agree, CO2 levels were either too low to make much of a difference (1910-1940) or global temperatures failed to rise at all (1940-1979).
This article keeps appearing on many sites lately.
The melting Arctic shows that climate change is already upon us By Mark Serreze
Scientists have known for a long time that as climate change started to heat up the Earth, its effects would be most pronounced in the Arctic. This has many reasons, but climate feedbacks are key.
Since I have spent more than 35 years studying snow, ice and cold places, people often are surprised when I tell them I once was skeptical that human activities were playing a role in climate change. My book traces my own career as a climate scientist and the evolving views of many scientists I have worked with.
https://www.citymetric.com/horizons/melting-arctic-shows-climate-change-already-upon-us-3877
In a sweeping tale of discovery spanning three decades, Serreze describes how puzzlement turned to concern and astonishment as researchers came to understand that the Arctic of old was quickly disappearing–with potentially devastating implications for the entire planet.
https://press.princeton.edu/titles/11223.html
Victor and DDS — imagine a complicated machine, in which most of the moving parts aren’t precisely smooth and most of the wheels and gears are oval not round. So if you wind it up and let it run for a while, over and over, you get a range of results out of it, not an exact repetition on each run. It’s not like a windup clock.
Climate models are run repeatedly because many of the parts are estimated as ranges — they’re not nailed down precisely.
Each run takes a long time and costs a lot of resources, and they need multiple repeated runs to get an idea of the range of possible outcomes. The result looks like a bundle of spaghetti and is called a “spaghetti graph” — a bunch of possible outcomes.
https://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/comparing-cmip5-observations/
And ya know what? Climate is like that. Many of the things that affect climate are variable. Albedo. Humidity. Cloud cover. Plankton making oxygen and sinking carbon in the ocean. Meltwater. Rainfall. Runoff. You won’t get the same result — the sensitivity — running the same fossil fuel experiment on multiple planets that start off identical. You get a range of sensitivities to the increase in CO2.
There’s probably a good explanation of how models need to be run repeatedly to get a bundle of possible outcomes somewhere — pointers welcome from any one who knows where to find such an explanation.
This helped a bit: https://www.google.com/search?q=climate+sensitivity+and+how+it+is+estimated
found https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/d3a8654f-e1f1-4d3f-85a1-4c2d5f354047/files/factsheetclimatesensitivitycsiro-bureau.pdf
https://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/comparing-cmip5-observations/
pictures worth looking at and thinking hard about.
A climate model isn’t a smooth running machine that gives you only a single clear answer.
Kevin,
Climate is best described by longer time lines. Both the longer time lines used end up with a parabolic curve. I noted, all on my own, that the one curve was more of a hockey stick. I used multiple time frames to highlight the increase shows up no matter how you look at it.
Not an overstatement.
Try not to respond argumentatively aka pointlessly. You point was made in the OP.
2007 7.84
2008 6.52
2009 4.72
2010 5.16
————-
5.95
2011 5.41
2012 4.63
2013 5.84
2014 12.53
————-
7.10
2014 12.53
2015 10.00
2016 6.93
2017 9.71
————
9.79
JRClark @267,
I think my one mistake up-thread was in numbering your comment @252 as being #244. (#244 was my initial comment presenting that link to the Economist article). So just one mistake yet all the points you set out @252 were wrong which was a remarkable achievement. And you manage to repeat them all again @267. On the off-chance that this situation is not because you have cloth ears, let me explain, again.
☻ Concerning your mash-up of the journalist’s quote – both your re-write mash-up of my quote-from-the-article @244 and my re-write @266 of your mash-up – both say the same thing. The words may be different but the meaning is the same.
And you are wrong to assert (again) that another journalist or scientist would use your words because your words are wrong.
You are also wrong to suggest that I mis-quoted you as I plainly set out what you were saying and not the words you used.
Come on, if something is “now as high” it means ‘previously it was not as high’ but for these methane rises that is untrue. Your words. Your meaning. Your error. The rise globally and in the arctic is identically high and has been since before the start of the renewed methane rise.
☻ I don’t know why you feel this David Page theory has merit given it is crazy stuff to draw parallels between Mars and our arctic. You say @267 “Time will tell how accurate David Page, Shakhova and other papers forecasts are.” Yet are you aware that Page et al (2009) is almost a decade old? How much time is required for these researchers to set out their work? And you have yet to describe why there is merit in it. You accuse climatologists of “inaction” but it is up to individual researchers to present convincing work. If they have convinced you, it is then up to you to show their merit. Yet it is you who are content to say “time will tell.” Sounds like you are the one practising “inaction” regarding “overt personal preferences.”
☻ But let loose the hounds and let’s go IPCC bashing. Is this your real game? If not, what with all the blather over AMOC and summer sea ice? These have nothing to do with the Page theory. Or Shakhova.
☻ Finally you do seem to have some big misunderstandings about the use of referencing in science. A pile of reference does not in any way indicate a worthy conclusion. And where argument is based on widely-known and non-controversial findings, references are not required.
While the Economist article was not a scientific piece complete with scientific referencing, it gave enough attribution for the job. (Note the “map that is not there” was indeed there, “above” at the head of the article. And if you needed assistance finding the “map that is not there”, perhaps I should provide you a link to NOAA CH4.) The article set out four current theories for the renewed methane rises – agriculture, wet-lands, less wild-fires and CH4 sinks. I quoted the arctic-mention to be sure that the various skyrocketeers on this site did not see the arctic as being a fifth potential cause. (Note that if there is going to be an arctic methane problem, and it is a worry, there is no sign of it beginning, so far.)
The Economist article I feel is a useful account although perhaps it rather plays up the renewed rise in methane within the grand scheme of things. Whatever the new (effective) source(s) of methane causing the recent renewed rise, it must be remembered as shown here, it is the sources of the pre-2000 rise that are the big daddy we have to address.
266 MA Rodger said I note Killian @259 describes the increase in CH4 over the last decade as “parabolic”. Looking at an MLO CH4 graph, I see no parabola.
None so blind as those who choose not to see. You like to poke at people without cause. I have one eye and see it clear as day.
Don’t care that you claim not to.
https://04da4be4-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/marclimategraphs/collection/G04.jpg?attachauth=ANoY7crVC5UuakBnu5LTqOlHpD2FmHsZFCvShUTFCs6wXDGN_tCFaAnCvTObsGfIPp3NuyNuWb3FCJBnmvpUyDrZRgXqpV5fv-V_ArtYfMdP4CDpzaeOcMEmcP6VQ1g4Ry_OHZX0qZFgB72NbTDZVox3u0gjzGe7GYnknxwof6Vnlyu31oof-tptwbcay4lunfXPJPHSOyoAcsuaRdshoOdfY7g4rRmwwkOzjUbhE8VxLQSMqtNiGac%3D&attredirects=0
#263 Kevin McKinney said In fact, I think futurists ought to be thinking about the macroeconomic and international implications of a future in which energy is cheap, widely available and secure from supply shocks and international ‘energy blackmail’. It might help hold down international tensions a bit, during an era of what I expect will be increasing food insecurity and climate migration.
Interesting you think the type of energy supply determines whether there will be blackmail or not. It does not. Ownership does. In country or foreign makes little difference to the end user. Stop paying the utilities for your solar-generated electricity and see how long you have it to you home/business.
Please remember my reasoning against corporate renewables from 2008.
262
Kevin McKinney says:
30 Apr 2018 at 7:15 AM
#256 Kevin said Killian–
…there’s the simple observation that the very poor have very little to lose and and a very short pathway to sustainable lives.
Oft repeated. Little heard.
So, how do you think the very poor feel about this?
I don’t care how they feel about it, I care what they think about it. That said, are they aware? I’m sure some are. I am equally sure that number is tragically small. Their level of awareness is immaterial to my point.
Do you think that they would describe their lives as ‘sustainable?’
You know what happens when you ask a stupid question? Who said their lives *are* sustainable?
I’m talking design, you’re making no sense.
274
MartinJB says:
MJB: Victor (@264 and 265) . . . Since you don’t understand the complexities of the models, you come to incorrect “logical” conclusions (e.g. your supposed lack of evidence CO2 forcing in the mid-century — think about what temperatures would have done in the absence of CO2 forcing).
V: Absence of evidence is not evidence, sorry. What “would have” happened is also not evidence.
MJB: You think Occam’s Razor is a rule. It’s not. It’s a useful device for examining some situations.
V: As the Wikipedia article states, there will always be an infinite number of possible explanations for any phenomenon. Occam’s Razor is therefore an essential heuristic for helping us decide which are most likely to be meaningful and which have been offered merely as “saving hypotheses.” All else being equal, the simplest explanations should be preferred. That does NOT mean that complexities should be discounted, but if another explanation that accounts for all the evidence is less complex, it should be preferred.
MJB: Even if it were a rule, in this case here, what simpler alternative explanation do you think there is to the consensus model for global warming? Just saying “something else” is no better. That something would be as-yet-unknown physics, carrying with it all the same potential complexities (and likely contradictions to our current understanding of physics).
V: The simplest explanation is that the warming we’ve seen over the past century is due largely to the usual contingencies attendant on climatic change generally. The same explanation can be offered for any such trends over the entire history of the Earth. We don’t know the cause of the temp. runup in the early 20th century, nor do we know the cause of the downward trend after 1940. So why is it necessary to explain the abrupt warming trend at the end of the 20th century any differently?
251 nigelj says:
nj: . . . Actually we dont have a ‘huge’ number of so called “savings hypothesis”,
V: See http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/07/updated-list-of-29-excuses-for-18-year.html
nj: and we do have necessity, so your argument fails straight away. Specifically, while there are issues in the historical climate record like the pause that are not fully understood, we have hypothetical and reasonable explanations completely consistent with greenhouse theory.
V: No we don’t. If you read the three most recent posts on my blog (http://amoleintheground.blogspot.com/) you’ll see why.
nj: In comparison, we dont have an alternative and simple theory of climate change that can explain the pause, and be consistent with a pause, and “also” explain the 50 years of warming, and the specific characteristics of the warming, sea level rise, and numerous other data. Greenhouse theory can do this, so its “necessary” to accept CO2 is the more compelling theory, even if several complex hypotheses (plurality) exist for the pause.
V: But Greenhouse theory explains nothing, it’s just a long series of contrivances. As I’ve already demonstrated, CO2 levels were too low to have much effect on either temperatures or sea level prior to the 1950’s. And from the 40’s to the late 70’s, there was NO rising trend in global temps at all while CO2 levels soared. And from 1998 through 2015, when CO2 levels were soaring to even greater heights, we see the notorious “hiatus” in warming. We are often reminded of “record breaking” warm years during this period, but once temperatures level off, as they did after 1998, then even the slightest rise from one year to the next can produce a “record.”
Yet we continually hear about some “long term” upward trend.
nj: Of course there are other well known reasons as well to accept agw, such as the properties of CO2, an approximate correlation of CO2 and warming, and its certainly not simply the result of a process of elimination.
There never was any such correlation, not even approximate. Until the 50’s CO2 levels were too low to make much of a difference. From the 1940’s through late seventies there was no warming trend at all. And after 1998, until the sudden blip in 2016, thanks to an especially intense El Nino, there was a hiatus, with only minimal rises in temperature from year to year. The only period where we see a clear correlation between CO2 levels and temperature is the last 20 years of the previous century. NOT exactly a long-term trend.
Killian, #280–
Any argument was more against MAR’s point than yours–just saying, for argument’s sake. ;-)
(Ie., the data do appear to show acceleration, as I stated, whether or not the ‘best fit’ is actually parabolic or some other second-order function–which I don’t think one can discover with just three data points.)
Killian, #284–
Mmm. Well, my perspective is that we make decisions based (more or less) on our entire selves–what we think, and what we feel about it. That’s because value is inextricably subjective (ie., emotional.) Ideally, both spheres should be in good communication with each other, allowing reason and value judgements to mutually inform and influence. (In the context of RC, the folly of allowing excessive weight on the emotional side is probably relatively well-recognized, the folly of allowing insufficient weight on the emotional side perhaps less so, but–pace the ghost of the late Ed Greisch!–I’d argue that the danger on that side is no less real.)
Be that as it may, my point was that the poor keep on choosing migration to urban centers, and it seems likely that that is going to keep on happening for quite a while yet. Presumably, that’s because they think/feel that that is their best shot.
#286, Victor said:
In other words, the best explanation is no explanation at all. “Usual contingencies” explains precisely nothing.
Killian, #283–
You seem to be neglecting the word ‘international’. I’m speaking here of phenomena such as OPEC trying to use oil as a political weapon in the 70s, or Russia using natural gas similarly in our day. As you comment, ‘ownership’ of the resource was the key.
However, since no nation ‘owns’ the sun or the wind, many nations see renewables as a hedge against such actions. That’s reported to be an attraction for the Chinese, to take the largest example, but it has advantages all the way down the scale to nations like Haiti (which has a very good solar resource but currently gets a lot of its electricity from diesel generators–the least advantageous possible method of all.)
Of course, the national interest as perceived by ruling elites may not align perfectly, or even well, with the advantages of all individuals. But that wasn’t the level I was referring to in my comment.
“…advantages of all individuals.”
Feh. Should be “interests” of course.
@286
“251 nigelj says:
nj: . . . Actually we dont have a ‘huge’ number of so called “savings hypothesis”,
V: See http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/07/updated-list-of-29-excuses-for-18-year.html…”
STOP. Your reference asserts a “statistically significant” pause. This is mis/disinformation as it is only “statistically significant” if you ignore (deny???) the most basic assumptions of statistics…specifically that when multiple tests are made you need to correct for that fact.
There is a standard first day exercise in stats 101 where the prof divides the class into 2 where one group generates “random” sequences of, say, 100 heads and tails by hand and the other group actually flips coins 100 times and records the results. The prof then collects the papers and then correctly identifies which is which with a high accuracy. How? People generating random sequences actively filter out “pauses” because they _seem_ significant and nonrandom. “Pausers” make the same error. NO one has ever shown a statistically significant “pause” in the long term temperature record using valid statistical reasoning.
No reason to read the rest of the post when you start out with mis/disinformation.
V: “From the 1940’s through late seventies there was no warming trend at all.”
V, this is pathetic. You’re relying on eyeballing the chart instead of doing the arithmetic, and that means you’re making stuff up.
Get it? You’re making statements that have no basis in fact. You’re a flat-earther.
You can look this data up and check what you believe, if you care to tell people the truth.
But I suspect you’re only coming here to knock the stupidest corners off your fabrication so it sounds more sciency.
Eyeball: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1940/to:1990
Then do the math and see the trend:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1940/to:1990/trend
But what Victor claims is an explanation is no explanation at all. It is magic.
What are these usual contingencies attendant on climatic change generally that Victor proclaims? What’s the science? What explanations can be offered for any such trends over the entire history of the Earth? What are the drivers of climate? Unbeknownst to Victor these are well understood. No surprise as he has repeatedly exhibited his complete ignorance of scientific principals. According to Victor’s claim historical climate must be caused by magic, magic that we cannot identify for the current warming trend. Energy for the current warming trend must be created from thin air. CO2 must magically not act as quantum mechanics tell us it must. So much buffoonery in the arrogance of Victor it is beyond imagination.
#70 Carrie “Proof is all around. Some people even believe that climate science and climate scientists will save the world from the looming disasters of climate change. Like how dumb is that?” from here https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/04/stronger-evidence-for-a-weaker-atlantic-overturning-circulation/comment-page-2/#comment-702515
Some climate scientists seem to agree with this sentiment and have said so publicly.
Science can’t solve climate change — better politics can, former IPCC scientist says http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018-05-02/why-science-cant-solve-climate-change/9711364
for example some extracts
Professor Hulme — who used to work for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — is not convinced that the Paris deal will work. In fact, he said he thought climate change was in danger of becoming a “fetish” and that rallying cries to “save the planet by limiting global warming to 2 degrees” could distract us from the “political logjam” in front of us.
“We can’t solve climate change with numbers,” Professor Hulme told Natasha Mitchell on ABC RN’s Science Friction. “We can actually only deal with climate through the human imagination.” but said he now thought the future lay with more local solutions — involving new “political coalitions” of unlikely bedfellows.
Recent research into local climate action in Australia supported this focus on co-benefits. “Sometimes, framing actions as [tackling] climate change will not bring people into a community meeting. But framing it as making savings on energy bills will gain more traction,” said Macquarie University geographer Donna Houston, who hosted a postgraduate workshop with Professor Hulme in Sydney last week.
Co-benefits are “critically important”, according to David Karoly, who heads up the CSIRO’s Earth Systems and Climate Change Hub. He is on the advisory board of the Climate and Health Alliance, a coalition of doctors worried about the immediate health effects of air pollution from burning fossil fuels.
Steven Sherwood, a climate scientist at the University of New South Wales, pointed to other examples. “There are places in Texas that are rapidly taking up rooftop solar — even though most people there are pretty sceptical about global warming — because it enables them to be independent,” Professor Sherwood said.
The idea of using more politics and less science to solve climate change might stick in the craw of those who think we should rely on what the science “says”. But Professor Hulme, who once evaluated climate models and scenario construction, claimed this was putting too much of a burden on science.
“Science is a very powerful way that humans have invented and discovered to understand the way in which the physical world works,” he said. “Science will not be able to adjudicate on what we should or should not do. “We have invented another human tradition — we call it politics — to resolve those sorts of challenges.”
Professor Hulme claimed better politics was the only way to reduce the vitriol around climate change that has made it a divisive and “toxic brand” in some countries.
“Climate change is no longer a scientific problem,” he said. “Climate change is a human problem.”
But he said he was dubious of the power of “bottom-up” actions to create real action on climate. “In the UK, Europe, United States and in Australia, action or inaction on climate change has not been driven by grassroots level activity,” he said. “It has been driven by decisions made at the national political level.”
MA Rodger @262, recent increase in methane may not be parabolic, but its definitely a curve of some sort, so accelerating. I can see this by eye, and just put a ruler on the graph.
Reasons are uncertain. The economist article lists about 5 potential reasons. None are comforting reasons.
There’s an old saying “you cannot argue with an idiot” . Victor is an absolute idiot as far as science goes. This is the simplest explanation, and thus an excellent example of the application of occams razor.
Victor @286
You think lots of explanations for the pause? “V: See http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/07/updated-list-of-29-excuses-for-18-year.html”
Most of those are nonsense. A small number are plausible. Even you should be able to work out the climate is complex and several of them could combine. Occams razor only says one explanation is usually correct, it doesnt forbid a combination of causal factors. Occams razor is a rule of thumb, not a law of physics.
And please note the pause was not statistically significant. And since you like “eye balling graphs” have a look at the latest hadcrut or nasa global temperature graph, and it should be obvious to even you the “pause” is a blip of about 6 years duration of flat temperatures, thus easily explained by natural variability.
“we have hypothetical and reasonable explanations (for the pause) completely consistent with greenhouse theory.”
“V: No we don’t. If you read the three most recent posts on my blog (http://amoleintheground.blogspot.com/) you’ll see why.”
You have just accepted in your “updated list” that there are hypothetical reasons! Your idiotic statements have no limits.
Your blog is nonsensical. You claim chinas temperatures have continued to increase recently despite their coal burning and sulphate aerosols, with no basic knowledge that 1) they have filters on the power stations to remove most particulate matter like this since the 1980’s, and 2) CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere overwhelming particulates, which are short lived in the atmosphere. Because you dont know what you are doing!
“V: But Greenhouse theory explains nothing, it’s just a long series of contrivances. ”
If you say so Mr film producer and media studies consultant. The greenhouse theory is established science based on laboratory data, and is perfectly consistent with the temperature trend of the last 150 years and more, including all the wiggles. The trend is easily explained by a combination of the greenhouse theory, natural climate factors and sulphate aerosols. In comparison, theres no other theory that can explain that full 150 years of data, whether solar theories or anything else. They can only explain small parts of the picture. But you are too scientifically illiterate to see this.
I really enjoyed reading thru the insults in the above comments that have been posted just in the last couple of days. I thought the best one was this one by MAR in 281 above: “….On the off-chance that this situation is not because you have cloth ears, let me explain, again.”
Cloth ears. :)
#288 Kevin McKinney said Killian, #284–
Kevin: So, how do you think the very poor feel about this?
Killian: I don’t care how they feel about it, I care what they think about it.
my point was that the poor keep on choosing migration to urban centers, and it seems likely that that is going to keep on happening for quite a while yet. Presumably, that’s because they think/feel that that is their best shot.
Is all this to happen in a vacuum? No. Cities are unsustainable, ergo we must stop moving into them, ergo we must spread the word, ergo they will not keep doing this once the conversation on regenerative futures becomes the dominant paradigm. The poor that *don’t* move will be far closer to sustainability than those that do.
290 Kevin McKinney said Killian, #283–
Interesting you think the type of energy supply determines whether there will be blackmail or not…
You seem to be neglecting the word ‘international’.
I said didn’t matter whether international or not, and that may be what you neglected from the beginning. Utility-owned energy is the mistake, whether gov or private.
That was my point.
Ergo, doesn’t matter what type of energy, only who owns it. If not the community/individual, it can, and will, be taken away, priced out of reach, etc., as it all already is and always has been.
To be clear, it being foreign is not the key to manipulated scarcity.
I’m speaking here of phenomena such as OPEC trying to use oil as a political weapon in the 70s, or Russia using natural gas similarly in our day. As you comment, ‘ownership’ of the resource was the key.
However, since no nation ‘owns’ the sun or the wind, many nations see renewables as a hedge against such actions. That’s reported to be an attraction for the Chinese, to take the largest example, but it has advantages all the way down the scale to nations like Haiti (which has a very good solar resource but currently gets a lot of its electricity from diesel generators–the least advantageous possible method of all.)
Of course, the national interest as perceived by ruling elites may not align perfectly, or even well, with the advantages of all individuals. But that wasn’t the level I was referring to in my comment.