The fifth international conference on regional climate (ICRC 2023), organised by World Climate Research Programme’s (WCRP) coordinated downscaling experiment (CORDEX), has just completed. It was a hybrid on-site/online conference with hubs in both Trieste/Italy (hosted by the International Centre on Theoretical Physics, ICTP) and Pune/India.
The hybrid set-up, with video links between the two hubs and digital attendence through zoom, was a change from previous ICRCs held in ICTP (2011), Brussels (2013), Stockholm (2016), and Beijing (2019). It worked impressively well, and the CORDEX ICRC 2023 streaming is available from the WCRP CORDEX YouTube channel.
It seems as an eternity since the previous ICRC before the COVID pandemic, so I was curious to see how things have progressed since then. It was also interesting to compare my impressions from this conference with my blog posts here on RealClimate from the first ICRC in Trieste, the second in Brussels, the third ICRC in Stockholm, I see that questions concerning uncertainty and added value are still being debated.
Developments within regional climate modelling
A new development, however, is the coupling of regional climate models (RCM), which traditionally have been limited to a volume of the atmosphere with some input from the surface. There were presentations on attempts to couple the RCMs to the sea, hydrology, and glaciers glacier. In this kind of coupling there is a mutual exchange of energy and mass, and hence involves a two-way interaction.
Another focus was on so-called “convective-permitting”, which are RCMs with higher spatial resolution (the size of grid boxes are a few kms) so that they explicitly can calculate convective processes, such as vertical ascent, cloud formation and precipitation. There is also work on RCMs so that they better account for aerosols and how they vary over time and space.
Artificial intelligence and machine learning
Since the previous ICRCs, artificial Intelligence (AI) has become a hotter topic, also within empirical-statistical downscaling (ESD). However, deep learning algorithms, such as artificial neural nets, were already discussed in 1999 (e.g. Zorita and von Storch, 1999), but the conclusion in 1999 was that the more advanced deep learning algorithms didn’t perform better than simpler methods such as analogs.
I’m still not convinced that AI and deep learning will take us much further now, even if the tests from a number of attempts may look impressive at first sight (how many trials have there been and how many of them failed?).
One problem is AI’s reliance on large data volumes. The data used to train AI often includes a range of different variables which may move in different directions in the future when the world heats up.
Another problem is that different global climate models (GCMs) have different biases and quirks, and that may cause problems when transferring AI trained on historical observations to the model world (or from one model to another).
Provision of climate information to society
One session was devoted to the interaction with society. To me, it seems that CORDEX is not yet ready to provide society with robust and actionable information, despite the initiative from the WCRP called regional information for society (RIfS).
RIfS has taken a long time since it was conceived in 2020 (my impression is that it’s still not ready). There is an urgency underscored by the numerous reports of weather-related calamities around the world – we are not even adapted to the current climate and a newsreport from Washington Post reveals that 2023 September month global mean temperature was probably about 1.7°C above the preindustrial level.
There is a WCRP Open Science Conference (OSC 2023) in Kigali October 23-27 where RIfS probably will be discussed further, but it’s not clear to me what it’s all about or who is involved. My impression is that the WCRP and RIfS have closer links to more academic university communities than for instance more applied and operational national meteorological services.
Many national meteorological services have already established routines and are experienced in providing regional weather and climate information to society.
For instance, the Norwegian Meteorological Institute collaborates with various institutions and authorities, such as the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate (NVE), the Norwegian Institute of Public Health (NIPH), the Norwegian Directorate for Civil Protection, power production (StatKraft) and grid (Statnett), road authorities, aviation, rail, and defense. Our experience is that relevant information flows quite well within such a professional network.
Climate services in Norway differ from weather forecasting as they aim at the municipalities and need to reach local engineers and policymakers. There are other hurdles that need to be overcome when establishing new routines compared to state authorities.
For instance, small municipalities typically lack resources, the know how and incentives. They often have set protocols and routines that are not designed to accommodate climate change adaptation.
Typical topics include water management and area planning. A unique approach in Norway is to channel climate information through the trade union for civil engineers, Tekna (which is both a professional society and a trade union), e.g. through professional courses.
The meteorological service also has some experience with impact studies and we have collaborated on e.g. toxicology (SETAC), health, biology, national heritage, indigenous people (reindeer herders), and disaster risk reduction (e.g. flooding, earth-slides). So even if the progress is slow with RIfS, there is plenty of activities on applied research relevant for society.
Some self criticism
A remark made during the ICRC made me wonder about the question: Would our regional climate modelling community benefit from more critical reflections and discussion about what we should avoid?
My impression is that there are some cases of flawed use of downscaling that we don’t call out often enough. Nevertheless, it’s necessary to be extra critical and quizzical when our results are used for climate change adaptation and impact studies in order to avoid maladaptation and misleading impact studies.
One message that I tried to remind my colleagues is that everybody, who downscales global climate model output for use as regional and local climate projections, must read Deser et al. (2012) and account for random regional climate variations on scales up to decades.
There are too many examples of regional and local climate projections based on one or a small number of global climate model simulations. The “law of small numbers” implies a minimum number of independent simulations in an ensemble (Rabin, 2002).
If one picks the results from one climate model one gets a projection, but if one were to chose another computation from the very same model, then the projection would look quite different.
The difference is due to the chaotic nature of natural regional climate variations. But if we estimate statistics (e.g mean or probability distribution/histogram) on say 100 simulations, then such statistics won’t be much affected if we were to change one or some of the model simulations. This is what we mean by robust results and it’s also useful that statistical properties often are more predictable than individual outcomes.
There are some fundamental principles that received little attention during the ICRC, including the models’ minimum skillful scales (Takayabu et al., 2016) and the evaluation of the global climate models’ (which provide the boundary conditions for downscaling) ability to skillfully reproduce large-scale change.
Regional climate modelling and world weather attribution
Another issue that puzzled me is the concept of world weather attribution – how does it fit into the limitations and the divergence highlighted here at the ICRC in connection to downscaling?
And how well do global climate models, limited by their minimum skillful scales, represent specific events such as torrential rainfall and heatwaves. There are still some limitations concerning blocking-frequency and the representation of convection (Schumacher et al. 2023).
Enhancing the signal-to-noise ratio during conferences
One trait that I find typical of many conferences, such as the ICRC, is that too much details are crammed into 10 minutes. I suffered from information overload and I’m sure I missed many points.
Perhaps one trick for enhancing our chance of really reaching our audience is try to keep in mind that when we present our results, each one of us is just one in a hundred presenters. Hence text on the slides should be kept to less than a minimum – no more than just a few words.
It goes wrong when we try to read the text on the slides while we also try to listen to the presenter talking – two competing brain activities.
A test I try myself is to try to recall how much do I remember the day after I returned from a conference, and if I remember some of the talks, I try to explain why I remembered them.
It’s also useful to keep in mind that the purpose of a conference presentation is not to show how clever we are or share all our results, but make the attendees so interested in our work that they will contact us later or read up on our publications.
The past and a possible future for downscaling
This ICRC, and looking back on the previous ones, made me ponder about the future for downscaling. There are some concerns that RCMs will become obsolete when the spatial resolution in GCMs are increased.
ESD, on the other hand, may be less affected as it may be used to estimate statistics not directly connected to the atmospheric physics, e.g. biological/health statistics or number of certain events. Also, ESD is useful for downscaling statistical properties (e.g. parametres of probability density functions) directly, something that cannot be done with a high-resolution GCM.
I also expect regional climate information in time will become an increasingly hot topic in global climate summits (COPs), especially when representatives and negotiators from various nations want to know what consequences other nations are likely to face. This will give them extra information about what issues are more important for their opponents.
ICRC 2023 paid a tribute to Filippo Giorgi who retries next year. He has been a titan within regional climate modelling and had an honourable career.
References
- C. Deser, R. Knutti, S. Solomon, and A.S. Phillips, "Communication of the role of natural variability in future North American climate", Nature Climate Change, vol. 2, pp. 775-779, 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1562
- M. Rabin, "Inference by Believers in the Law of Small Numbers", The Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 117, pp. 775-816, 2002. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/003355302760193896
- I. TAKAYABU, H. KANAMARU, K. DAIRAKU, R. BENESTAD, H.V. STORCH, and J.H. CHRISTENSEN, "Reconsidering the Quality and Utility of Downscaling", Journal of the Meteorological Society of Japan. Ser. II, vol. 94A, pp. 31-45, 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.2151/jmsj.2015-042
- D. Schumacher, J. Singh, M. Hauser, E. Fischer, and S. Seneviratne, "Why climate models underestimate the exacerbated warming in Western Europe", 2023. http://dx.doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3314992/v1
No handouts, outlines, transcripts…?
Maybe it’s just me, my audio comprehension isn’t all that great.
Not entirely applicable but:
https://theconversation.com/why-we-remember-more-by-reading-especially-print-than-from-audio-or-video-159522
I’m out of touch with this sort of thing, but I would think one end of the onus lies with government agencies setting up adaptive management systems ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_management ) i.e. ‘adaptive’ in the sense of flexible handling of changing information from experts as well as changing circumstances on the ground.
What follows is unsubtanceated bull shit.
“Accounting for the latter, the thermodynamic warming — 1.6 °C for 1980–2022 — is underestimated by nearly 40% (0.6 °C) in simulations with constant aerosols. This mismatch is even stronger for heatwaves than summer means, and manifests increasingly clearly in climate projections throughout the ongoing century. Our results imply that the future warming in Europe is likely to be higher than earlier assumed, as only part of the discrepancy between most RCM simulations and observations can be attributed to internal climate variability”.
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-3314992/v1
This is the truth about the climate models
Climate Models Progress in Physical Geography 27,3 (2003) pp. 448-455
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
These models are also used to make long-term climate projections and climate risk assessments based on future anthropogenic forcing scenarios (Saunders, 1999; Palmer, 2001; Houghton ., 2001; Pittock, 2002; Schneider, et al S.H., 2002). Many such exercises help to shape public policy recommendations concerning future energy use and various `climate protection’ measures in order to prevent `dangerous climate impacts’ (e.g., Schneider, S.H., 2002; O’Neill and Oppenheimer, 2002). But meaningful and credible scientific confidence, resting either on the traditional deterministic method of quantification or the probabilistic mode of measuring change (as favoured by, for example, Washington, 2000; Räisänen and Palmer, 2001; Schneider, S.H., 2002) cannot yet be made to such computer experiments because climate models do not yield sufficiently reliable, quantitative results in reproducing well-documented climatic changes around the world. (This work was supported by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research grant AF 49620-02-1-0194 and by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration grant NAG5-7635.)
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~wsoon/myownPapers-d/Aug27-PIPGreview2003.pdf
“What follows is unsubtanceated bull shit.”
Very sporting of you to warn us–and you’re right (spelling aside.) It’s quite clearly “bull shit” to attempt to refute a 2023 study (preprint or not) based on a 2003 article–one by the not-so-credible Willie Soon, no less.
The fact that you can not read and understand what you read is your problem.
Freeman Dyson had this to say a while back:
‘”… I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models.”
http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge219.html#dysonf
Ah, the insult. At least I didn’t try to use a 20-year old argument about computing technology to “refute” a 2023 study.
But it’s just more “bull shit.”
So, by the way, is your Dyson quote, because climate modeling involves a whole lot of “measur[ing] what is really happening outside.” It has an insatiable demand for more real-world data. And researchers all around the world go to quite heroic lengths to obtain it, taking measurements in situ, literally from the depths of the sea to the mountaintops, and from the Greenlandic and Antarctic ice caps to the Amazonian jungles.
(And speaking of outdated, just when did the Dyson quote originate? Your link is bad, but this source would indicate that it must have been prior to the end of 2010. So, not exactly up to date on what climate models represent–or don’t. And another thing–it’s apparently easy for folks like Dr. Dyson to make broad generalizations about the internal states of mind of climate scientists, but I have to think that he never read any of the model assessment sections to be found in Assessment Reports; they criticize the shortcomings of models quite ruthlessly. As indeed they should.)
J Doug: imitating your way of approaching the problem and taking Freeman’s words:
“What I am convinced of is that we do not understand (I do not understand) the climate… It will take a lot of hard work before that issue is resolved.”
Freeman. Wired. March 31, 2014
Maybe it happened like this: He never understood the weather.
It appears that Freeman Dyson understood the climate and therefore the weather far better than what Armando does. Armando will never see this reply from me because it is the truth and the truth is what “Real Climate” has an aversion for & “Real Climate” claims to be all about “climate science by working climate scientists”.
“My second heresy is also concerned with climate change. It is about the mystery of the wet Sahara. This is a mystery that has always fascinated me. At many places in the Sahara desert that are now dry and unpopulated, we find rock-paintings showing people with herds of animals. The paintings are abundant, and some of them are of high artistic quality, comparable with the more famous cave-paintings in France and Spain. The Sahara paintings are more recent than the cave-paintings. They come in a variety of styles and were probably painted over a period of several thousand years. The latest of them show Egyptian influences and may be contemporaneous with early Egyptian tomb paintings. Henri Lhote’s book, “The Search for the Tassili Frescoes”, [Lhote, 1958], is illustrated with reproductions of fifty of the paintings. The best of the herd paintings date from roughly six thousand years ago. They are strong evidence that the Sahara at that time was wet. There was enough rain to support herds of cows and giraffes, which must have grazed on grass and trees. There were also some hippopotamuses and elephants. The Sahara then must have been like the Serengeti today.” Freeman Dyson
https://www.edge.org/conversation/freeman_dyson-heretical-thoughts-about-science-and-society
J Doug Swallow: yes, tell me about my father and all his friends and colleagues around the world, and how you are qualified to instruct me about. that. Tell me about Manabe. Tell me that your choice of Dyson, about whom my father was fair and generous and admiring, has unique skills which make him uniquely qualified to correct 99% of the world’s qualified experts and people like Hansen. I know a lot about the massive chip on the shoulder of Will Happer as well, and some other odd outliers like Brian Josephson (dad’s student) and Gaiever (a nice guy, if deluded about climate as well).
I know far more about Anderson and Ken Arrow and the Santa Fe Institute as well. I also had the good fortune to participate in a weekly social gathering with Richard Feynman while he was working at Thinking Machines in Cambridge towards the end of his life.
You are out of your league with Anderson, and I would suggest, with Dyson as well. He was superb at what he did, part of which was not climate science. Dad did say that in the 70s his colleagues did not know which way things might go, but that became less uncertain with the passage of time.
I strongly suggest you take in this superb Gavin Schmidt presentation, the emergent patterns of climate change:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrJJxn-gCdo
Radge,,
Gotta love these “fact checking” sites like Snopes.
In a disagreement between an Attorney and a Nobel Prize winning Physicist about the greatest threat facing future generations, they bring up the fact that the physicist isn’t a climatologist! Odd that they didn’t mention that Obama wasn’t either, or didn’t even have a graduate science degree.
Surely a physicist is better able to look at all potential risks more objectively than a climatologist?
I don’t think anyone seriously questions Dyson’s intelligence or capabilities. And yes he did have some climate-related research in his background. Where Dyson failed was in applying the scientific method to his own cherished belief that man’s destiny lies in the stars. He was so focused on that future that he found it necessary to neglect any issue that threatened that vision. Hence, he dismissed the problem of climate change–and all the evidence that shows that it is happening now–by focusing on the shortcomings of climate models. I know quite a few physicists who do this, and yes, there are real shortcomings of the models. However, as the models get better, the problem of anthropogenic climate change isn’t going away. The evidence that we are changing the climate, and that this is having a serious impact on the carrying capacity of the planet is not going away. What is going away are the ice sheets, the glaciers, the areas of the planet that are fit for human habitation and agriculture.
Ultimately, the problem with Dyson’s approach is that what we cannot yet fully understand and model does not invalidate what we already do understand. There are no alternate sources of energy that can explain the rapid warming we are seeing–let alone do so even as we see the stratosphere cooling. Dyson’s critiques of the models amounted to nothing more than a plea for the problem to “just go away.”
Freeman Dyson should serve as a cautionary tale for all of us. We can be brilliant and accomplished–as Dyson unarguably was–but we can still be wrong if we do not subject our most cherished beliefs to the same scrutiny we would give to any other scientific matter. One can argue that such a level of skepticism is unsustainable. That isn’t the point. The point is that any idea or belief we hold dear can be wrong if it is left unscrutinized. What is needed is humility in our beliefs–the ability to hold them dear while acknowledging that they can lead us astray.
Freeman Dyson was not a climate-science ignoramus like the typical climate denier, but he was nonetheless wrong for all his brilliance. A more humble man would have admitted that there were other researchers who had devoted their entire lives to the study of the subject and so had a deeper understanding. A more humble man would have looked at all the evidence, and not just the pieces that seemed to support what he wanted to believe.
JDS
Freeman: “My second heresy is also concerned with climate change. It is about the mystery of the wet Sahara. This is a mystery that has always fascinated me. At many places in the Sahara desert that are now dry and unpopulated, we find rock-paintings showing people with herds of animals. The paintings are abundant, and some of them are of high artistic quality…” etc. … Lhote… 1958?!…
So he finds it mysterious for some reason. Egyptian tomb paintings explicitly depict a wetter climate, and their wide ranging influence is well known. That’s nothing new. So where does the heresy bit come in? No mention of what claim by climate scientists is actually wrong.
And do I detect a colonial whiff of dark and mysterious Africa a la Martin and Osa Johnson? Maybe throw in a little “Raiders of the Lost Arc” to make things seem timely? Or maybe not, but it sure sounds like Dyson wasn’t keeping up in his waning years.
People here will no doubt do better than Wikipedia, but in the meantime:
You can check African humid period https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_humid_period under causes.
KW: they bring up the fact that the physicist isn’t a climatologist!
BPL: Gosharoonie! Don’t they know a physicist automatically understands all other sciences?
KW,
What I posted were several quotes by certain physicists shooting themselves in the foot. Those quotes could amusingly stand alone, but I included minimal commentary for a little extra entertainment value. The lawyerly word smithing by Eric Posner provided a worthy punchline to Dyson’s straight line.
That is all. I leave it to you to verify the validity of the quotes if you don’t like my sources.
KW,
You also said: “Surely a physicist is better able to look at all potential risks more objectively than a climatologist?”
Surely you jest!
My father, Philip Anderson, who admired Dyson, got very hot under the collar about his wrongness on climate science. Unfortunately, it is all too easy for skillful physicists rich in accomplishment to think they know better in fields where they are not skilled. Dyson is a favorite of fake skeptics everywhere, because of his well earned reputation. Thankfully I found this: it’s short and crystal clear:
“A more important question, though, is whether Dyson is the important world figure that Schewe makes him out to be. In his career, we can see traces of the mathematical physicist’s reluctance to tackle the ambiguous or deeply puzzling question, or to go out mathematically even a little bit on a limb – something that contrasts sharply with his joyful interest in bizarre futurology. Perhaps this is the source of Dyson’s dreadful misjudgment on the climate question: he sees that the possible errors are large, but does not factor in that they are likely to be large in the wrong direction, and does not credit obvious qualitative arguments from simple laws of physics.”
https://physicsworld.com/a/an-iconoclasts-career/
Susan Anderson says that what the judgment of Philip Anderson is, according to; “Philip Anderson is a condensed-matter physicist at Princeton University in the US who has dabbled in complexity theory, astrophysics and even particle theory”, should be the final word on if Freeman Dyson’s views on the climate are valid.
I now wonder what Susan Anderson will have to say when these views that Philip Anderson expressed about climate models are known.
Anderson and Gell-Mann have both lent their prestige to the decade-old Santa Fe Institute, a center of complexity studies. Anderson worries that some complexity researchers have too much faith in computer simulations. “Since I know a little bit about global economic models, I know that they don’t work.” He adds, “I always wonder whether global climate models and oceanic circulation models… are as full of phony statistics and measurements” as economic models.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/philip-anderson-gruff-guru-of-physics-and-complexity-research-dies/
“and does not credit obvious qualitative arguments from simple laws of physics”
There you go folks. It’s not just that crazy zebra guy who points this out about Denialists.
They never want to answer the basic questions.
Zebra
It is not agreement on what is basic questions in the world, so that conscept looses its meaning
It is the technique of psychopats and trolls, Mafia and Racketeers, and surrealists.
They must be adressed to and treated in other ways, which is quite an art.
Hiya Susan–I hope all is well with you.
Freeman Dyson, as I imagine you already know, worked in climate science (not full time) for about 15 years on multidisciplinary climate studies. He talked with Manabe shortly after the latter developed the prototypical climate model.
My opinion of Dyson is apparently much higher than yours. But considering that two recent Nobel winners in physics (Giaevar and Clauser) share Dyson’s less than elevated view of climate models and much of the work around them, I’m not shattered to be on the other side of the fence from you and your father.
Be well, Susan
Waiting for a new AppleTV series “Physicists Behaving Badly”
Ivar Giaever:
John F. Clauser:
Freeman Dyson (well past his prime, apparently):
TWF: Freeman Dyson, as I imagine you already know, worked in climate science (not full time) for about 15 years on multidisciplinary climate studies. He talked with Manabe shortly after the latter developed the prototypical climate model.
BPL: Manabe knows better. And Dyson published no (zero, nada, nil, nothing) research in climate science. He’s talking out of his field, making an ass out of himself, just like Linus Pauling when he insisted vitamic C could cure cancer, or like William Shockley when he started babbling about race and IQ. When it comes to climate science, Dyson is incompetent. Period.
Thomas W Fuller,
The problem with the Nobel Prize Test, as you apply it, is that it is also known as “argument from authority”.
People often misuse the term here by claiming that it applies when we accept the output of those with specific expertise… “the consensus” in a scientific discipline. Not true.
The reality is that Nobel Prizes are not a test of God-like wisdom about all things. And, speaking as someone who is getting on in years, I am also well aware of the emeritus problem.
So, I recognize that for me, the best way to evaluate the climate issue is through “obvious qualitative arguments from the simple laws of physics” as above. I trust my judgment on that,
If I don’t find anything questionable in the argument, I trust that the people with supercomputers, and the specialists in disciplines like meteorology, and oceanography, and ice and snow, and so on, are having their math checked by their colleagues. And I trust that the data is real, just like the results of the last election.
But those who criticize the consensus, whether as a profession or showing up here, never quite get past that first step. That’s why I apply zebra’s troll test, and the prediction has been correct consistently. They never answer the question.
Freeman Dyson was a pretty good nuclear physicist some decades back in his day
He is not a climate researcher.
Isn’t it wonderful we have the vic’s and the doug’s to tell us what “REAL science” is?! Citing twenty year old “science” by someone who promises “deliverables” in non-peer-reviewed places for a hefty fee, no less. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html
First quote is from a 2023 article citing computations from 2022.
Second quote is from a 2003 books claiming models are inadequate.
Both can be true if the models have improved in 20 years, which is not an unreasonable assumption.
Benestad
Here I have a poem again
“Put up in a place
where it`s easy to se
the useful reminder of
T T T
When you blame your results
for how slowly they climb
it wilo gently remind you that
Things Take Time! ”
SANN!
( Piet Hein)
My uncle Andreas was Dr.Med and Pharmacologist now and then keeping lectures at the Royal Frederiks.
. He once said that when keeping a lecture, be aware that people cannot grasp, and remember more than 3 points within a normal 3/4 hour lecture. Thus, when giving a speach or a longer lecture to be remembered, then boil and refine it down to 3 and only 3 clear points / ideas. in combination. Which i believe is along with normal human perception and mental capacity. All good things are 3 and so on.
It is the principle of the Tripod, that stands and can be set on.
When I remember and follow that rule, I now and then make success, else, I do not.
Then for questions, My uncle told further, that “Give them 10 minutes first to think it over.”
The paues in the theater and in CIRCVS is 1/4 hour, so people can stretch out their legs, , have a chat, and eventually go and piss, and thus think it over.
Then the good questions and the critical questions come up. When people are allowed to think it over a bit.
It is obvious that political thyranny and military dicipline violates theese rules systematically.
That is intensional vioence to human mind and mentality.
And this alltogether may be a major reason for why a lot of congresses and lectures are not successful.
Having worked with AI for many years, the promise has always been in its ability to reveal emergent behavior. This is new information about a phenomena that only occurs because of the mixing or synthesis from information added to the knowledgebase (KB). Humans have biases and predispositions on what knowledge (rules and data) should be added to a KB. This prevents exploration of novel paths, whereas a scaled AI system has no preconditions on what it will consider. It will explore non-linear paths if a neural network is added. It will consider external factors that a human may consider out-of-bounds, or reconsider factors that were dismissed long ago. Perhaps more than anything, the amount of effort placed on cross-validation in machine learning experiments will be put to good use in climate science, since prediction is one of the main reasons for doing climate science.
There are essentially no controlled experiments available for climate science, just more and more data to weed through. Placing more emphasis on computation and AI is about the only path towards progress in understanding available. That’s where the discoveries will emerge.
Paul Pukite (@whut) says on 5 OCT 2023 that; “Perhaps more than anything, the amount of effort placed on cross-validation in machine learning experiments will be put to good use in climate science, since prediction is one of the main reasons for doing climate science”. Would Paul Pukite (@whut) care to elucidate, considering what he has stated on this that was happening in the 1940’s in the climate science community?
• Was the information in this paper by G. N. Plass what created the 1970’s rush by the scientific community to claim that another ice age was approaching?
“Yet not so long ago the news media issued dire warnings about global cooling and a coming Ice Age. Consider these headlines:
“The Earth’s Cooling Climate,” Science News, November 15, 1969. • “Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age,” Washington Post, January 11, 1970. • “Science: Another Ice Age?” Time Magazine, June 24, 1974. • “The Ice Age Cometh!” Science News, March 1, 1975. • “The Cooling World,” Newsweek, April 28, 1975. • “Scientists Ask Why World Climate is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead,” New York Times, May 21, 1975. • “In the Grip of a New Ice Age?” International Wildlife July-August, 1975. • “A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable,” New York Times, September 14, 1975. • “Variations in the Earth’s Orbit, Pacemaker of the Ice Ages,” Science magazine, December 10, 1976.
Reporters told the public about global cooling in the same confident tone used in today’s coverage about global warming, creating the strong impression that no reasonable person could disagree. Here are some examples:
“The evidence in support of these predictions [global cooling] has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it.” The Cooling World “A study release last month by two NOAA scientists that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.” The Cooling World “Telltale signs are everywhere…the thickness of the pack ice…the southward migration of warmth-loving creatures like the armadillo…” Another Ice Age? “Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7 degrees.” Another Ice Age? “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind,” The Ice Age Cometh!”
Today It’s Global Warming; In the ’70s It was the Coming Ice Age
https://www.washingtonpolicy.org/publications/detail/today-its-global-warming-in-the-70s-it-was-the-coming-ice-age?fbclid=IwAR025-h8efPOEBoOyU4NMGIK0u4QWWABpSguwm0Mx6xWfb06vGvyZFuWpoI
JDS: Today It’s Global Warming; In the ’70s It was the Coming Ice Age
BPL: Look again:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/03/the-global-cooling-mole/
Benestad
I see you also discuss signal to noise ratio during conferences
I am highly experienced on the same, having tried the ” Early Music” festivals. showing home- made recorders.
It is a total mess and jam session with chaotic sounds and whizzlings everywhere in all corners from compeating “stands” by fameous “makers” and the big heavyweight bodies and names with their heavy uniform massproducing industries take over. One is seen as an unexperienced opportunist and aspirand, maybe a cheater.
But after a few times, I understood and learnt it.
What sells on the free market is the lire- box and warm wheat bread. There you see money rustling all the time and nowhere else.
Because, what people are looking for at the free market is free entertainment and…. consumers cannot resist the smell of hot wheat bread.
Such as hot smokingt waffle irons and white dressed baking women (hvite bakstekjerringer) with broad bottoms. There, the money rustles all the time, hardly anywhere else.
They are looking for free entertainment and small baskets of free cakes and sweets / drops.
I trained carefully My bonnie is over the ocean…with contrapunto pure harmonical duet for 2 pipes, that is the lire- box version., and began performing that from my stand in all those ugly chaotic noises.
It worked!
“Oh……..that I know,… is n`t that an old ballade?”
All the People came in and stood like herrings in a barrel….I only needed an ape in a chain to go around and cash. The competition all around was sitting there in grey and swet despair, just as I wanted it.
It is called “Svisker….. Prunes..”in music. That shall allways be there in the Comedia del arte on the free market, to the necessary “Deja- vue” experience.
Shakespeare Moliere, and Concerto grosso italiano knew it. Not just academic an grave all the time. The Scherzo and the erotic pastolales, the easily remembered and smelling sweets & feromone signals must be there on the free, Hansa- market festivals.. .
Knowing this, I managed later on to score the communal LOGO on local TV, … as an intruder…. by performing “Ritsch ratch fillibombom” from my most cunningly arranged stand,
By a rustique roughly thimbered wooden table, and grandparents recycled Biedermaier stick chairs, ……….. with madder red ( Galium Mollugo alizarine) stains that was complimentary to light chlorophyll green all around , at the communal housework festival.
Which is also a rule of ornamental and decoration painting. 2 and only 2 colours on a rather natural and neutral ground and do not set on industrial synthetic professional brilliancy .for dilettants.
And then a fameous traditional frree market most traditional signal tune on clean tuned pythagorean pipe- organ to it.
1, My bonnie is over the ocean,
2, Wo de Nordseewellen trekken auf den Strand,…
3, Ritsch ratsch fillibombombom…
beats all professional institutional competition on the free market,,
Try that, and you just need a rhesus monkey in a chain to go around and cash.
I have had to study this for display purposes, , having no “network” gild or league and marketing departnent to my assistance.
At the Venus occultation festival in Frognerparken Oslo I scored above the very stand sales promotion of industrialized telescopy by chopped and unregulated firewood, re- cycled iron, silver and brass solder by blasted charcoal, an obsolete fraunhofer acromatic refractor from the flee market in Paris, 1/4″ camera screws a plastic toy newtonian refractor and sooted glass.
Only my device had the Sun and Venus in focus all the time under most difficult cloud conditions (because I had taken it very serious and trained it thorroughly)….
…… as I had also re- invented Fouriers telescope and camera guiding mechanism by natural gravitational forces and Chr Huyghens horologium oscillatorum. for regulation to avoid severely expensive electric guidance systems with batteries or extension chords).
Beautiful women journalists came swarming around my stand with cameras and could be given the best service, and tell further of me, and my Slogan to the festival “Old methods work!”.
It was a really veneric situation and experience. .
Even Niels Ole Oftebro came and was interested. We could discuss the theater sciences.
But, who scored above anything else was a tiny woman from New Age, by a crooked twig on a Shaman- drum. She did beat Rånåsfoss (5 Kilovolt Oslo communal hydroelectric) by 3/4″ leads to the main festival loudspeaker rack, with waggons of “technologty” behind, ,……………….. simply by handpower.
The arrangement had set on roaring it out in dozens of kilowatts through heavy metal megaphones.
A shaman- drum with symbols and simply by handpower could coup the national festival show. for half an hour.
You cannot roar against a hurricane, Benestad. That is timeless wisdom in the climate. Tell that around from Norway.
They had to sing it on clear harmonical rational strophe formulas over deck in any situation, as the intercom and the loudspeaker was not yet invented. Thus the fameous “Chanty” at sea, was have the voices and minds traned for the case of storm. .
What carries and scores in the climate as in the festivals on the free market is not the kilowatts and the amplitudes,…. and the gigabytes,….. but the understanding and the message…. the LOGOS. the consciously undestood forms and meanings.
Formal knowledge and experience and trained con- sensus on REALIA is what only can tackle gobal climate from human side..
somewhat off topic: please please someone write a deep assessment of James Hansens, Leon Simmons and others claim of very high effect of sulphate pollution on the earth albedo – much higher than previously assumed, and the concept of a (sulphate emissions) “termination shock” in the climate system.
@ Dominik Lenne
Quite important and often forgotten in the shsdows and turbulence of the CO2- discussion, but Sulphur in 6th oxidatuion state as sulphuric acid and acid rain and photochemical smog from burning of sulphides and mercaptan in fossile fuel , coal and stinky diesel, is fameous for having the opposite effect of carbondioxide to global temperature. Able to explain much in the global mean temperatue curve of the last 120 years. And further the characteristic dips at the great vulcanic eruptions, and the clear effect of “Shrubbing” to clean the air and counteract acid rain.
Look into the dogfights with a certain “Victor” on the unforced variations and elsewhere on Real Climate, Victor who clames that any CO2 effect on global temperatures has been disprooved through 40years from 1940 to 1980, and that aerosols mainly those who give white to yellowish sky when it ougt to be blue, ….. falls down and dissappears after just a few days or weeks, thus cannot explain for 40 years. Allthgough the chimneys and exhaust tubes were smoking just more and more and more during those 40 years.
James Hansen may be the right person to show back to, as he began his career as an expert on Venus and its ground temperatures, and especially brilliantly white albedo and became a concerned scientist from it. .
Your paragraph may be quite especially on topic now.
“Whither U.S. Climate?
By James Hansen, Reto Ruedy, Jay Glascoe and Makiko Sato — August 1999
What’s happening to our climate? Was the heat wave and drought in the Eastern United States in 1999 a sign of global warming?
Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought. The drought of 1999 covered a smaller area than the 1988 drought, when the Mississippi almost dried up. And 1988 was a temporary inconvenience as compared with repeated droughts during the 1930s “Dust Bowl” that caused an exodus from the prairies, as chronicled in Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath.”
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/1999_hansen_07/
Over the 11-year span from 1930-1940, a large part of the region saw 15% to 25% less precipitation than normal. This is very significant to see such a large deficit over such a long period of time. This translates to 50 to 60 inches of much needed moisture which never arrived that decade. For an area which only averages less than 20 inches of precipitation a year, deficits like this can make the region resemble a desert. Deficits like this are the equivalent of missing three entire years of expected precipitation in one decade. Figure 2 is a map of the precipitation departures from normal in terms of a percentage of normal (total precipitation divided by normal precipitation) for the Dust Bowl region for 1930 to 1940.
https://www.weather.gov/ama/dust_bowl_versus_today
Uh, you DO know, of course, that GLOBALLY the decade of the 30s was fairly cool, right? Especially compared to the early 40s?
A REAL scientist would NEVER infer a anything about a global pattern from a 1.5% selected sample highly nonrepresentative of the globe as a whole. Any high school science student knows that’s ridiculous.
Neither Feynman nor Dyson would be very impressed with your “reasoning”.
jgnfld says on 11 OCT 2023 AT 2:16 PM that; “Uh, you DO know, of course, that GLOBALLY the decade of the 30s was fairly cool, right? Especially compared to the early 40s?”, when I am expected to just take jgnfld word for what is being maintained by jgnfld. Why would America’s 1930’s heat wave experience not have happened in other parts of the world is something for jgnfld to explain?
Heatwave of July 1936
Overview
The “Dust Bowl” years of 1930-36 brought some of the hottest summers on record to the United States, especially across the Plains, Upper Midwest and Great Lake States. For the Upper Mississippi River Valley, the first few weeks of July 1936 provided the hottest temperatures of that period, including many all-time record highs (see tab below).
The string of hot, dry days was also deadly. Nationally, around 5000 deaths were associated with the heat wave.
In La Crosse, WI, there were 14 consecutive days (July 5th-18th) where the high temperature was 90 degrees or greater, and 9 days that were at or above 100°F. Six record July temperatures set during this time still stand, including the hottest day on record with 108°F on the 14th. The average high temperature for La Crosse during this stretch of extreme heat was 101°F, and the mean temperature for the month finished at 79.5°F – 2nd highest on record.
https://www.weather.gov/arx/heat_jul36
You all fail to see that point of a ” sulphate emission termination shock” in the climate, by about 1980.
That is essencial to the evaluation and discussion of the longterm temperature curves fom 1900 up to Datum.
Yes. 1% of the globe was rather warm in the 30s. The rest of the globe was rather cool.
Fact.
Dominik Lenné,
You may wish to view the latest (13 Oct 2023) communication by James Hansen, Makiko Sato, Reto Ruedy, and Leon Simons titled El Nino Fizzles. Planet Earth Sizzles. Why?. It included:
https://mailchi.mp/caa/el-nino-fizzles-planet-earth-sizzles-why
Geoff Miell says on 15 OCT 2023 AT 9:14 PM directed at Dominik Lenné,
“You may wish to view the latest (13 Oct 2023) communication by James Hansen, Makiko Sato, Reto Ruedy, and Leon Simons titled El Nino Fizzles. Planet Earth Sizzles. Why?. It included”:
“One final comment. The discussions of the remarkable September global warming have noted that much of the warming is associated with an extreme warming anomaly over Antarctica, with the suggestion that this warming is a weather effect that will disappear. While it is true that Antarctic temperature fluctuates greatly from month to month, we note that there is a latent southern Hemisphere polar amplification of warming that has long been dormant, as Southern Hemisphere sea ice cover has been relatively constant for several decades. The recent decline of sea ice area may be an indication that, averaged over weather, Antarctica will become a more important contributor to global temperature change”.
https://mailchi.mp/caa/el-nino-fizzles-planet-earth-sizzles-why
I wonder if Geoff Miell, James Hansen, Makiko Sato, Reto Ruedy, and Leon Simons can explain how it could have been that this is what Sir Douglas Mawson discovered in Antarctica in 1911 to 1914?
1911 to 1914 Australasian Antarctic Expedition (AAE)
Explorers during this time were focused on being the first to reach the South Geographic Pole. However, Mawson’s passion for advancing scientific knowledge inspired him to develop an Australian-led Antarctic research expedition.
Embarking on the Australasian Antarctic Expedition(AAE) with Mawson, John King Davis captained the Aurora with a crew, 31 expeditioners and materials for living huts, and wireless masts to establish the first radio communications in Antarctica. Five men set up a base at Macquarie Island, while the remainder sailed on the Antarctic continent to establish two bases: the Main Base at Commonwealth Bay led by Mawson, and the Western Base at Queen Mary Land led by Frank Wild.
http://www.antarctica.gov.au/about-antarctica/history/people/douglas-mawson
A photoprint of Commonwealth Bay, taken during the Australasian Antarctic Expedition in 1912.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Bay#/media/File:F._Bickerton_looking_out_over_seas_near_Commonwealth_Bay.jpg
This is the map of where Mawson was able to sail to when in 2013 ships where stuck in the ice far from the Antarctica shore.
https://www.antarctica.gov.au/site/assets/files/48423/2625.1200×0.jpg
Science, any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation. In general, a science involves a pursuit of knowledge covering general truths or the operations of fundamental laws.
https://www.britannica.com/science/science
Is anyone at “Real Climate” able to provide the empirical evidence that it is CO₂ that causes the Earth’s complex climate to changed or that causes the Earth’s temperature to rise in an unpresented way?
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong”. Richard P. Feynman
Awww…more high school science to a largely science professional audience telling said science professionals with decades and lifetimes of actual scientific work what science is!!! TOTALLY cute!
The answer to your question is, “Yes.” I refer you to the evidence presented many places, but fairly recently collated in AR6 WG1.
Feynman, btw, would have found your “science” laugh-out-loud ridiculous. He was a great populizer but NO lover of cranks as he dealt with so many of them.
jgnfld needs to explain why, “Feynman, btw, would have found your “science” laugh-out-loud ridiculous”, when it is the definition of science that is put forth by Britannica .
“Science, any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation. In general, a science involves a pursuit of knowledge covering general truths or the operations of fundamental laws”.
https://www.britannica.com/science/science
I can picture jgnfld not being able to understand this definition of science; but I do not believe that someone with an active brain, such as what Feynman demonstrated that he was in possession of, would have disagreed with the definition of “science” that is put forth by Britannica.
What is jgnfld’s definition of what “science” is, is a fair question to ask?
When you can cite Feynman’s actual data on climate science, don’t hesitate. Same with Dyson.
Science versus pseudo science is discussed at a rather deeper level here than in the encyclopedia which tends to be more at the high school first year level.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/
JDS,
I have a test that I do here to determine if someone is serious or a troll. I ask them a question, and if they don’t answer, that shows that they are not serious.
All you have to do is tell us what would constitute “empirical evidence” in your question, and why. You would have to be specific… not give vague generalizations, but concrete examples. Again, you would also have to explain why, based on basic scientific principles and fundamental laws.
This seems like a very reasonable request, to avoid people having to waste time guessing what would qualify. Science, after all, has to start with everyone agreeing on the definitions.
“realclimate” peut-il m’aider à supprimer un doute ?
Les chiffres généralement admis pour la composition de l’atmosphère terrestre sont : 78 % pour l’Azote, 21 % pour l’Oxygène et 0,93 % pour l’Argon. Les trois gaz principaux de notre atmosphère totalisent donc ensemble, 99,93 % de la masse totale de l’atmosphère. Ce qui veut dire, qu’il reste 0,07 % de place pour les gaz à effet de serre (GES). Ce qui veut dire également, que si la vapeur d’eau (H2O) est le GES le plus important, il est dit qu’il varie selon les régions ou l’altitude entre 0 et 5 %, le second GES le plus important, le dioxyde de carbone (CO2), est titré lui à 0,042 % soit 420 ppmv (parties par million volume), soit encore environ 4 molécules de CO2 pour 10.000.
Il est dit que le taux de CO2, et surtout sa part anthropique, fait monter la température et contribue au réchauffement climatique. Ok, mais comment ? Ou se trouve l’équation “quantité de CO2 dans l’atmosphère = hausse des températures” ? Et comment 0,042 % des 0,07 % de GES, peut faire monter la température globale de la Terre et changer son climat ? Merci de m’éclairer à ce sujet.
[Response: Vous pouvez commencer ici, ou (traduit) nos sommaire ici. – gavin]
Pourquoi s’inquiéter de la proportion de co2 ? Vous inquiétez-vous si votre aspirine représente 30 % ou seulement 25 % du comprimé ? Cela n’a sûrement pas d’importance, à condition que le dosage soit celui habituel de 325 mg.
Radge Havers says things about Ivar Giaever that are to be expected from an anthropogenic climate change believer and they’re not true.
“In his resignation note, Giaever wrote: In the APS, it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?
The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period.
Giaever, co-winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1973, is an institute professor emeritus at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, N.Y., a professor-at-large at the University of Oslo, and the president of Applied BioPhysics Inc.
According to a Wall Street Journal report, Giaever declared himself a dissenter in 2008, I am a skeptic… Global warming has become a new religion”.
Anyone that uses skeptical science as a source has declared that they have no interest in what the truth is about anything to do with the Earth’s climate.
JDS: how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?
BPL: Wow! How could such a thing even be possible? Of course you can’t compute an average! That would require.,. I don’t know… math or something!
Levenson
“Math or someting”
Rather “Something”
Math hardly helps if there is not “someting” that is presumably real and reliable.
Levenson hates real examples because he is above practical empirical science in the grades and has set on immanginary and virtual planets instead, where he can have the full control, with no disturbing control and access from anyone anywhere else.
“mjaths” he calls it. setting on that you will never learn his “maths”.
Let me take all this in a presumably original US american way that can be understood. :
I found a Cider-mill in the folks museum uphill in Connecticut. It was finest autentic Leonardo wooden, angular tooth wheel technology driven by ox- or pony- power or even by assembled manpower with enough matchweight. Then further packed in common straw into a large wooden frame plate press with 3 large wooden screws. That ran into barrelse where it boubbled intensely.
.
Whasps and Drosophila were flying everywhere because the brewery master was quite cunning and experienced, All giving a really autentic smell and atmosphere in the brewery.
I tried the wasted apples outdoor in an experienced way from the good side and found the sorts that I know from home but in other combinations and crossings. Silk apples Charlamowski Gravensten, Cox Pommona Boskop Åkerø Philippa and everything, But a certan John Appleseed has mixed it together and “furthered” it 0ver there in the states. He walked barefoot from cidermill to cidermill spreading out the collected seeds from his pockets, from the respective mills flotated “Mask”. residuums.
We discussed the product and I said him that at home it must be choisest appelation controlle inspected from both sides, harvested also at exacly the right moment . The brewery master could sustain exactly that. For real quality . It must be auslese spätlese goldener october mit prädikat, When milled, pressed, bubbled and settled, that keeps for christmas, “One cannot press anything” he remarked. It must be choisest, appelation controlle, terroire, chateau, and goldener octber of course.
That is where Levenson fails. He believes in the industrial machine where he has got racial and even congregational monopoly “Math s” he calls it. Not knowing that it must be choisest harvested and inspected from both sides and cut through before you throw it into the milling machine. and hope for homogenization, fermentation, and consumption statistics
The sublimely clean stainless steel and polyetylene industrial process will not save and guarantee your product if your raw materials are rotten. because Garbage in… garbage out.
The critical sampling and sampling methods are most essencial, else you will have systematic errors that no statistics or “maths” will be able to save.
There is essencial Saccaromyces paradoxus, Penicillium album, Vespa vulgaris and Drosophila melanogaster… not just “Maths”. and similar production secrets in the machine
Your substrate must be in order and “Terroire”. If that in order, then your very machine and mill may also be quite simple. archaic.
“You cant press anything” he said, , not even with Leonardos toothwheels and Archimedes screws. not even in Connecticut.
They buy industrialized toy automats for dilettants and throw rots and garbage blindly into it , calling it “Scientific”. even “Maths”. smile smile hum hum. Thus Garbage in garbage out.
C: Levenson hates real examples because he is above practical empirical science
BPL: I am a scientist, you twit. Bugger off.
Carbo,
Why are you bagging on BPL? He was being sarcastic.
And seriously, after all that you just wrote, are you still going to maintain that you’re not a surrealist? Holy shades of Professor Irwin Corey!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJIvBeVKoQA
Levenson still cannot understand
To tell you of another milling factory and process Dr. Levenson:
It was at the institute of foreighn politics, Oslo West at Frogner, where Gro Harm Brundtland also went in and out. My cousin brother, political science, also went in and out there and I followed him one day.
In the hall, they had a “stand” advertizing their product, that was peer rewiewed published “papers” of foreighn politics. Standard format in offset print. I looked over it and it all looked very similar and standardized all the way regardless of content.
So I said “Ahaaaa…. I understand. You have a large, secret milling and pressing and packing machine here in the backroom , with a large funnel where you put in all kinds of foreighn political straw, mosses, bark, waste, and twigs. That is being hacked, blasted, steamed, dried, and pressed . And then vacuum packed in a controlled atmosphaere and sealed and labeled for display, sales and consumption.
They did not know what to answer, because it was the truth.
.
Because I could clearly see the marks of the same standard steel rollers on all the processed and pressed products quite regardless of what is harvested and put in. And thus they earn their Ph.D. s , Publish or perish.”
It is called Homogenization also.
It is also called Entfremdung der Arbeit, and invented by Adam Smith, the wealth of nations. And further called , “The uneducated industrial workers historical and necessary, scientific, , leading role or Mayors role in the historic dialectic material and scientific process. (=Communist formula)
But it was typical, Gro Harlem Brundtland “Social democratic” UN world bank factory procedure.
The homogemnization and standardization with statistics on data and raw materials, with Entfremdung der Arbeit. The big and secret, aadvanced and integrated milling machine from the experts driven by hydroelectrics, big coal, or even nuclear ( Not manpower and poney- power anymore) is what does it. Even on foreighn politics for the worlds bank. To the wealth of nations.
Personally, I am not inaugurated to that paradigm. I was never industrialized and successfully homogenized. And pick out the twigs and the straws and mushroms and mosses before they enter the machine, inspect it from all sides and see if I can set it asideas it is and rather use it it for something else.
You loose a lot of values in that perverse statistic homogenization and vacuum packing factory system, with your blind “maths” on the factory floor where the earth is flat within error- bars.
Further about machinery.:
The emigrant came over to visit his brother back home. Who was very proud of his new Philishave
“Hmmmm…. thats nothing!” the American said. “Over there in the states , we put on a dime and put our heads into a hole in the wall on the street and get shaved!”
The brother was quite astonished but then came to think and dared to ask: “But, all heads aren`t alike?”
The american: “…. Well…. they get alike!”
(Laughter)
C: To tell you of another milling factory and process Dr. Levenson:
BPL: Didn’t ask for a lecture from you. Bugger off.
Carbomontanus:
so your point, if that is the word, is that determining the average temp of the planet using math requires careful processing of the optimal raw temp information in a similar way to how making really good cider requires knowledgeable processing of well-chosen apples. oblique, but fine. why does that necessitate criticism of BPL?
A good question, Richard Creager.
Why go after Barton Paul Levenson first and by such means?
I see large , magic words are being smeared around and smeared onto it to make it sell faster here on the free market. ” ..Maths…!” ……”Statistics!…” and hardly what`s in it and what it is about.
That especially looks like trained political heavyweight demagogy and professional sales promotion by rather cheap standard massproduced and canned feromones & perfumes. as learnt from the personality strengthening “academies”. exclusive and closed studies.
JDS,
What exactly did I say about Ivar Giaever? I quoted him. His words speak for themselves.
You then say a bunch of stuff mostly irrelevant to what I posted, I will, however, point out bluntly that “emeritus” is just a fancy way of saying “out to pasture with a sinecure.”
The problem with hero worship is that it tends to ignore the fact that even the best of people have flaws, and that even the smartest people can fall down a stupid rabbit hole. No-one is immune from that.
Skeptical Science is well researched and pr0vides more than sufficient backup for each of its levels of responses to all too common nonsense assertions. J Doug Swallow tells us a lot about his prejudices and ignorance in this comprehensive attack on the truth.
For resources on climate, you can’t do worse than the stellar group of people who founded and maintain RealClimate. It is the height of arrogant stupidity to come here and maintain stupid lies here at Real Climate, in the face of many people willing to to share better information. Religion, forsooth! Many scientists are people of faith, but they keep their faith separate from their scientific research.
Tom Fuller, I know you have a good heart and are a good person (forgive my presumption, but I have this impression). But your willingness to adopt authorities who support your prejudices, while it may be well intentioned, shows your inability to face the hard questions of how to understand that which is beyond your own expertise. It’s a question of admitting you don’t know what you don’t know, and then doing what you can with skepticism for anything that makes you want to claim you know better than most qualified experts who have given their lives and considerable intelligence to their work.*
Unfortunately, the idea that lies are equal to or superior to truth has gained ground. We will all suffer, as reality, due to its very nature (and nature, while we’re at it, which physics and climate science strives to understand and evaluate) will assert itself. Truth is truth. Lies are lies. Prejudices and bias are just that.
Once again, if you are in doubt, please check out Gavin Schmidts fine exposition: “all models are wrong, but some are skillful” ->
The emergent patterns of climate change
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrJJxn-gCdo
* By the way, the big money is in fake skepticism (big fossil, Kochs, Mercers, etc. dark money inc.)
For real denialati, the aphorism that Skeptical Science is completely untrustworthy–that’s somewhat interpretive on my part, as I’ve yet to really hear one specify just what they mean when saying such things as JDS did above–is, dare I say it, an article of faith.
“One thing we found was that climate models that do not include volcanic forcing tend to overestimate the long-term change, and their simulated decadal variability is not in agreement with the observations. On the other hand, the models that include volcanic forcing are more realistic in terms of decadal variability, but they tend to slightly underestimate the long-term warming,” she says. “This kind of result tells us volcanic forcing is important, but that we don’t totally understand it yet.”
https://www.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/OceanCooling?fbclid=IwAR0kvEOJMO71qgYxz7bfAcnzDoYCW1SA2lewoMxLIH3LTsAHaHDarNOPCTs
May I strongly suggest that Susan Andereon takes a look at how the models line up with actual observations. I do not know why I waste my time with this site, Real Climate, that WILL not ever show the truth about most issues that have to do with the Earth and its climate.
http://tarheelred.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Climate-Model-Predictions.jpg
JDS: One thing we found was that climate models that do not include volcanic forcing tend to overestimate the long-term change
BPL: Carbon dioxide emitted by all the volcanoes in the world plus metamorphosis: 370 billion tons per year.
By human technology: 40 billion tons per year.
Divide A by B. Discuss.
Sorry, that should have read 370 million (M for Million) tons from volcanoes, 40 billion from human technology.
My bad. Have to remember to proofread.
JDS: Well, it’s a puzzle to me why you are wasting everybody else’s time at this site. You could, of course, stop wasting your own time, as you do everything in your power to ignore the substance of what is available here, argue with it, and claim expertise which is, to most of us, all too obviously bent to the task of asserting your “rightness” in the face of a reality which does not support you.
The linked 2008 Earth Observatory piece is interesting, and does not say what you say it does. It is also 15 years ago. Nobody is ignoring volcanic forcing, but they are not, as you are, letting it blind them to the bigger picture.
I have posted Gavin Schmidt’s video twice. You would benefit from watching it with an open mind.
As for putting my lack of expertise to work ‘proving’ something about models, I am not joining the idiocracy who think they know better than most of the world’s best scientists with relevant skills. I am happy to evaluate the quality of overall information pouring in from all directions and trust people who are trustworthy. I have a good bullsh*t meter and your hosts demonstrate quality through and through.
I only weighed in about Dad’s opinion of Nobelists using the weight of their expertise in one area to claim expertise in another, because he was quite clear about Freeman Dyson’s excellence in other areas and lack of excellence on climate. Same with Gaiever, only different.
Until it occurs to you that you might be wrong, and you exercise enough humility to figure out why, you are wasting not only our time, but your own. Your “truth” is not true, and the truth does matter.
J Doug Swallow: – “I do not know why I waste my time with this site, Real Climate, that WILL not ever show the truth about most issues that have to do with the Earth and its climate.”
I’d suggest you are here to proselytize – carrying out attempts to instill beliefs in others that align with yours, which includes denial of the overwhelming scientific evidence/data for anthropogenic climate change.
Hi Susan,
Thank you for your kind words. I’ll try and live up to them.
The rest of your comment is true, but only trivially. It doesn’t challenge what I wrote above. I don’t ‘adopt’ authority–I cite them.
And I cite them because it is both odd and exceedingly unreported that two Nobel Prize physicists and a third who was arguable even more deserving have serious problems with climate models.
I’m sure that Gavin, your father and Ken Rice over at ATTP are fine scientists and good people. But… two Nobel Prize physicists and a third who worked at that level… it should raise a few red flags, don’t you think?
TWF: two Nobel Prize physicists and a third who was arguable even more deserving have serious problems with climate models.
BPL: Their Nobel Prizes were not awarded for climatological work, were they?
Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling thought Vitamin C could cure cancer.
Nobel Prize winner William Shockley thought IQ tests proved black people were less intelligent than white people.
Nobel Prize winner Halton Arp thought there was no cosmological red shift and the Big Bang never happened.
A Nobel Prize winner in a different field has no more authority in a different field than their own than does the Nobel Prize winner’s five year old child, and for the same reason.
And we should also consider seriously forehead tatoos to prevent transmission of defective genes, and massive doses of vitamin C to cure the common cold, I suppose.
I have a copy of Pauling’s General Chemistry on my bookshelf, and when I was very young I did take a lot of vitamin C. (Not a big fan of eugenics, though.)
He was as elite in the Nobel pantheon as you can get, but he was also a human being. Like many others of considerable achievement (e.g. Einstein), he got stuff wrong. We are all susceptible to error, and reasoning motivated by political orientation or personal prejudice, however intelligent and accomplished in some field.
That’s what the enterprise of science is for… lots of people working together up from, again, “obvious qualitative arguments from the simple laws of physics” as Anderson said. That’s what the specialists involved in climate are doing.
Even if you have a Nobel, you can fail my troll test by ignoring the fundamentals.
Really, Hr Zebra.
It is known that the difference between real humans and vampires, is that they can all be seen dancing together in the ballroom,… but take a look in the mirror, The vampires seem as alive as can be, but they are not seen in the ballroom mirror.
Thus, you can identify them in the ballroom.
Trolls cannot stand sunshine and daylight. When the sun goes up and light falls over them, , they splash and evaporate , vanish, and disappear. Simply, daylight over them!.
A third known method from anxient on is that if you can find out and tell their real name when they think they have won and come for cashing , then they loose their power.
Their secret name is often “Sjøl!” meaning Self.
And persons with no shadow and who are nor visible in the mirror either,…… they have no soul and are hardly physical. They are but human illusions and delusions.
The devil is after peoples soul for that reason because he has no soul.
Theese things are perhaps among the fundamentals as you call it.
Looks to me like most of the red flags have been considered, If Gramps is found driving erratically down Main Street and playing bumper cars with his Maserati, maybe it’s time to surrender the keys.
Dyson died three years ago at 96. It will be interesting to see how his cult continues to evolve.
Tom Fuller: No, I don’t think. You are just flat out wrong on this, and I am puzzled as to how to get you to stop believing in magic here.
I was trying to explain that physics is a broad field and that a Nobel prize in physics is not a universal qualification for climate science. Most Nobel physicists are not climate contrarians. Dad, for example, read Hansen’s book and assured himself of the greenhouse effect maths. Almost all physicists, eminent or not, support, to the level of their knowledge, the current state of climate science as it is represented here at RealClimate. They are not gods, they are people. I was sharing a personal story about Freeman Dyson because it was something I questioned Dad about at some length and we had some mutual friends who were close with the Dyson family. Gaiever’s delusions were also discussed but only in passing.
It makes me sad to think you are so easily impressed and eager to cite only climate contrarians and ignore the rest.
You remind me, when in high-science-qualification company, I had the most interesting conversations about life drawing and the way teaching and practicing it can enhance perception. This was a lot more interesting to them than any half-baked discussions about science, because ways of perception can be fascinating and seeing can be cultivated. We all did discuss climate, and there was near universal agreement about the crisis we all face. But, like politics, one can have a limited appetite for hell in a handbasket conditions and prefer to talk about less unpleasant situations.
Hi Susan
I’m not disputing climate science at all. I have no problems with the physics that your father and so many others espouse. Climate change is real, our contributions accelerate those changes, the impacts will be real and damaging and will affect most those in developing nations. We should dedicate considerable resources to mitigation and pre-adaptation to the problems human influenced climate change will bring.
But climate models are not useful for predictions, RCP 8.5 has no business being a basis for climate studies, polar bears are vulnerable, not endangered, we would all be better served if the media did not exaggerate so many weather/climate studies and I still believe atmoshperic sensitivity to a doubling of the concentrations of CO2 is less than 3C. In other words, I’m still a lukewarmer.
No amount of disparagement of Nobel and near-Nobel prize winners in this thread will lessen my agreement with them about the utility of climate models as currently employed in the climate conversation. As Manabe said, they are excellent tools for charting the broad sweep of climate change, but should not be used for predictions. As Manabe also predicted, they were immediately used for climate predictions. Climate science is the poorer for it.
TWF: climate models are not useful for predictions
BPL: They aren’t used for predictions. They are used for projections. The former is a definite statement about how the future will go; the latter is a statement of how it will go given certain starting circumstances.
Thomas W Fuller: – “But climate models are not useful for predictions, RCP 8.5 has no business being a basis for climate studies…”
Past climate changes, from the paleo-historical record, as analogues, do tell us a great deal about how the Earth-atmosphere-ocean-ice-vegetation-climate system responds to perturbations of the carbon cycle.
We’ve well and truly crossed the 400 ppm line in modern atmospheric CO₂ concentrations, and the 500 ppm line for CO₂-equivalent. Per paleo-historical data, the Earth System is now entering climate territory not encountered for many MILLIONS of years, heading towards mid-Miocene-like (i.e. +4.0-5.0 °C) climate conditions.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/09/as-soon-as-possible/#comment-814867
Thomas W Fuller: – “…I still believe atmoshperic sensitivity to a doubling of the concentrations of CO2 is less than 3C.”
I’d suggest the overwhelming climate science evidence/data indicates otherwise. The Laws of Physics are not negotiable.
Projective and Predictive…….
Again it seems that Barton Paul Levenson hardly understands his own words and what he is discussing. He seems rather just to be teaching- instructing and dictating on things where he is less experienced and aquainted.
For a theory or model to be predictive in the common meaning of pre- diction,…. it must have a time- axis , the conscept of speed, and entail physical change of other things in time.
Over which Levenson has no control at all.
For levenson to teach or to instruct that a model or a theory is not predictive, only projective he must have full institutional warrant and control of how it is used and applied, and further strict control on that it has got no parameters or operators related to time , to moovement, and to speed and change of speed.
Which seems alltogether very bold and heavyweight adult professional warranted and inaugurated hum hum,…
But less aquainted and responsible to physics , even to classical physics,,, and to planetary physics.
===============000
I can even discuss it in detail where Levenson should resign on his stalinisms.
Last summer I wrote and pre- dicted that “This will have con- sequenses!”.
It was abnormal temperatures measured in the northeast atlantic. Then I dare to pre- dict Due to what a Matthias Schürle has corrected me for teaching that the vapour pressure curve of water only rules in closed systems, Thus, Water hardly evaporates faster in open systems like in the northeast Atlantic when hotter.
(That special social folklore supersticion is progressive political. What can be shown to rule for water experimentally in a testtube or in an erlenmeyer flask in the lab does not rule for water as such and quite in general. smile smile. Because quite another set of theory / paradigm…. is now to take over, namely scientific socialism, the Party with P=. And common traditional facultary science is standing in its way and to be eradicated.)
2 weeks later, reality showed me to be quite a SHAMAN , prophetic, and experinced amateur meteorologist. There was record rain on land, bridges broken and cars and cellars drowned 2 times in the same month.
I have reported it here.
Thomas Kalisza did teach: “No, the rain hardly comes from the sea, it rather comes from “evaportanspiration” on land.
When the state of Texas is suddenly drowned in 10 inches of water all over that enormeous area, then where does all that water come from?
And the same in southern California where rumors say that it never rains so it cannot have evaportanspirated from there either.. (National socialists are not so clever on budgeting)
They play with their LEGO model formulas and “models” & methods and “maths” from the experts in anonymeous plural, and are not told and trained to look after what it actually means and is about.
They are given and told to train on and to discuss sterile industrial toy proteses of reality and of consciousness. So called “models”.
==================000
There was an extreemly fameous Jesuit Vatican Scolar Athanasius Kircher. The Vaticans alternative to Gallilei and to Christiaan Huyghens. Most fameous for his toy Plastilina and growing and vanishing grapefruit theory of Saturnus because “there must now be limits to revolutionibus in the universe !” Contra Christian Huyghens`explaination of the Saturn rings.
Kirchers model- theory of rain and rivers was for serious that the sea is swallowed and runs down in the fameoius Maelstrom in Lofoten. And then re- cycled in tunnels and tubes undergrount to come out adain in all tiny wells uphill in the Alps.
Similar “models” exel on bold fashionable sponsored level up to our days and even on this website.
I could disqualify the very lifework of that fameous Kirchner by looking after what he has written about musical instrument technology and organology. That is simply not technically appliciable. Whereas Leonardo, Gallilei, Huyghens, and Keppler wrote technically appliciable engineering sense & good ideas for the workshop.
Levenson does not.
On how to get to the moon and safely back given earthly raw materials and technology. On how to perform In Duci Jubilo quartet by chopped firewood using empty air and no mooving parts without borrowed measured maps and bought models & tools from the experts.
REALIA you see, and coherence, viscosity and glue- forces…. is in the air., and not to be forced upon molecular materials, but derived from and used by…. the same the enlighted way. for artistic use and performance.
The sailship is derived from the winds and the sea, the flying machine from empty air by given earthly twigs and bamboo and canvas,., the rocked engine from the flame,… the electromotor from the invisible electromagnetic field in space and inside of coppers and irons…. not forced upon the same for matter an natures lawas to obey under and squeezed and changed by….
Laudato si, that is how. Respect of Nature and Reality. Not brutal control and dictatorship upon the same. The wizzles are derived from the winds and the Pnevma. in rational whole numerasl proportions.
It takes also Maths, but not Levensons “Maths”. No rocket, no spaceship, not even a model airplane did ever fly by it.
“No amount of disparagement of Nobel and near-Nobel prize winners in this thread will lessen my agreement with them about the utility of climate models as currently employed in the climate conversation.”
This is a classic example of appeal to (inappropriate) authority. A Nobel prize in a field unrelated to climate science says nothing about the validity of that person’s opinion/assertion about anything to do with climate science.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority
BPL: “They aren’t used for predictions. They are used for projections. ”
Surely you don’t expect a propagandist to care about actual definitions or about how actual science is done? That is antithetical to the purposes of the propaganda being generated.
That those twinkly things in the sky are mainly giant balls of fusing hydrogen at great distances is based on solely on how well the spectra observed in the light agree with what models predict. And there are still many areas of research where the models don’t predict every last detail of astrophysical observations. Heck, the evolution and details of Saturnian ring behavior isn’t fully sucesssfully modeled yet either. So I guess the work to date is of no use either.
That the sun will come up tomorrow is also based on acting on a model.
Thomas W Fuller, it looks to me like you didn’t read what I wrote with an open mind and for comprehension. My father never was a climate scientist nor did he pretend to be one. Your idea that Nobel physicists all get together and study the same thing is silly. That’s rather the point. Others have addressed the specifics of your stubborn insistence that a Nobel confers absolute authority in equal measure and puts its possessor on a plane different from the rest of us. I’ve met a few dozen of them and they come in all shapes and sizes.
Thanks for making clear that you do not deny climate change and the problems we face. Victor’s endless posturings were quite another story, which is why I suggested he devalues the comment section more than those who come to argue and display their lack of knowledge with less arrogant self regard and at lesser length.
Please please visit Gavin Schmidt’s video (3rd try, I mean it! and please don’t reply to me with your inexpert opinion of models if you won’t. Your citation of Manabe is out of context as well. You’d be better off with Schmidt and Rahmstorf and their crew.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrJJxn-gCdo
C: Again it seems that Barton Paul Levenson hardly understands his own words and what he is discussing. He seems rather just to be teaching- instructing and dictating on things where he is less experienced and aquainted.
BPL: What the cake said to Alice.
“Models being not useful for predictions,…”
That is typical unqualified systematic teaching with blinkers Hr. T.W. Fuller.
For istance,…. as if you cannot see and read from a map namely a model of the landscape, how a landscape is changing… has changed… and will change further.
As if you cannot judge from a mapping and logging of the past and the present, how the future may come to be.
Such behaviours are class warfare against the test tube, against the AQVARIVM and against the Bunsen burner and the blown spiritus flame in the laboratorivm. Further against the litmus paper, the telescope and the microscope, the erlenmeyer flask and the Petri- shale,
It is the professional racial class warfare against the hygrometer barometer and thermometer and all the weather balloons….. teaching that it does not tell anything… smile smile… hum hum.
Because, now rather “Science” “Logics” and “the progressives!” are in charge, teaching and instructing the basics and the premises and the frames of reference and the systematics.
So typical and so betraying. We have had that before.
You are badgering mapping and logging 0f reality as such, teaching that it does not entail and pointing at anything at all in the future or at any time..
That is your cultural and political situation as such, Genosse, for everyone to be aware of. .
Yes, we know that allready from before. “But,.. soviet scientists have shown that…. smile smile… hum hum!”
Thomas,
Your comments demonstrate a surprisingly unsophisticated understanding of the roles of models in science and technology. As George Box said, “All models are wrong. Some models are useful.” Climate models have actually been remarkably successful at predicting trends and for sensitivity analysis. As pointed out by others, they are not really used for “prediction” but rather for projection/scenario studies (e.g. If we do X, we can expect Y). True, unsophisticated observers may mistake such studies for predictions, but those doing the analyses remain aware that the results are predicated on the input scenario.
And if models have been occasionally misused for predictive purposes, it is because there is a tremendous need for predictive tools. It always surprises me when lukewarmers such as yourself attack the models, because the policy approaches you advocate simply cannot be supported if we do not have models with which we can limit risk. We know that we are warming the climate. We know that this warming will have–indeed, is having–negative consequences. We know the effects of such consequences can be severe. Without models to limit the severity of those consequences, we are flying blind, and the only appropriate mitigation strategy would be avoiding the consequences altogether.
The worse the models are, the more conservative we have to be in our response to the problem–and by conservative, I mean following the precautionary principle.
In Re to
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/10/the-5th-international-conference-on-regional-climate/#comment-815246
Dear Carbomontanus,
If you review the orgpage
https://orgpad.com/s/7zfynb_y5o7
representing a record of the discussion about the role of water cycle in Earth surface temperature regulation, you find out that I have rather asked questions than taught anything.
I am quite sure that I have never asserted that “rain comes rather from evapotranspiration than from the sea”, or something like this.
Anyway, I have two questions, one to you and one to Barton Paul Levenson.
1) I do not know the grapefruit theory of Saturnus created by Anathasius Kircher. It sounds interesting, could you specify in more detail in a separate post?
2) Dear Barton Paul, on September 15
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/09/unforced-variations-sep-2023/#comment-814397 ,
I expressed a concern that in Part 5 of your “evaporation plan” analysis
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/09/unforced-variations-sep-2023/#comment-814205 ,
you made a mistake by assuming doubling global average absolute humidity as a condition for doubling evaporation above land surface.
Could you check?
Greetings
Tomáš Kalisz
@ jgnfld
I see you are giving Levenson a lecture on prediction and projection in relation to models.
You seem quite right on that. I have been teaching him on that too.
But dis- regarding Levenson on metaphysics and systematics, I feel that the very conscept of models and modeling may have become all too popular, thus being misused after having long been worn out. As if it eases and stimulates peoples lacks of experience conscepts and vocabulary for what they are talking about. Model- discussions are often very decadent.
I looked through both English and German Wikipedia and there I find allmost the same. A lot of different meanings of that popular, qvasi- scientific word “Model”
I hate it because I am especially experienced and trained on model- making ever since I made my first “Sølekaker” dirt- cakes, figures of common clay. and further of wax, gypsum, wood, and metals.
Modeling and modelmaking is quite an art, how to make it from cheap materials in a hurry for a wide spectrum of purposes, and adjustable also, so that models can be adjusted and corrected…. and then re- cycled or burnt or composted after use. Only the most sublime and superbe, most fabulous models should end up on museum.
Whats even worse. Modelmaking and model- thinking is sin against the 10 ammendments § 2 in original text. Wityh fierceful threats, and high promises if you just can resign on that.. . Niels Bohr and Albert Einstein, both Jews, have explicitely warned and adviced against that
referring to that text. .
Thus, whenever you draw it on the blackboard, allways keep the sphonge ready , and keep it wet. Because, you are probably stating falseness all the way.
Set it on formula, say it in words, sing it on rhyme,… even show it on the scene as “Air castles”, gesticulations squares spirals triangles curves in the air so that people must immagine.. that is also quite an art. Ai castles are very important if you lacki a blackboard an even a computer video screen and should be trained.
To my conscepts , models are more or less in scale and proportions, they are made of cheapest materials, they are 3- dimensional, and they are more or less accurate, more or less finished.
What about taking an apple or an orange and tell that it is the earth or the sun? and moove it the right way. That is very human. But I would call that an example or a symbol, not a model.
And then the old school- globus on a tilted axis, that is a model of the earth. But how different from what came on photo when humanity came up in space with a proper colour camera?
It is just as severe when it comes to fameous LEGO models of microchosmos, of electrons atoms and molecules. It simply aint not so. Better take a closer and more enlighted look at real materials. And try and tell the truth about that. Do not live in another world that is not
real.
TK:: you made a mistake by assuming doubling global average absolute humidity as a condition for doubling evaporation above land surface.
BPL: I first did doubling, then measured how much of an increase would be needed to offset the cooling from increased evaporation. My conclusion was that unless the airborne water vapor burden increased no more than 18%, there would be no net cooling from doubling evaporation. So the crucial figure is not 2 but 1.18.
in Re to
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/10/the-5th-international-conference-on-regional-climate/#comment-815280
Dear Barton Paul,
My question was not directed to your estimation of the 18 % percentage itself. This could be fine, if not – in my opinion mistakenly – based on assumed doubling of global average air humidity.
I think so because even if we assume that the average global air humidity must be commensurate to global water cycle intensity (or, in other words, that the higher is the global average of annual precipitation, the higher must be also average partial water vapour pressure), I still do not see a ground for assuming that for doubling the evaporation ABOVE LAND (which you considered in parts 1-4 of your analysis), you may suddenly need doubling partial water vapour pressure GLOBALLY.
Actually, as pointed out also by JCM
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/09/unforced-variations-sep-2023/#comment-814323
doubling the latent heat flux ABOVE LAND only does acually represent a 12 % increase thereof GLOBALLY.
In other words, if you consider that global average water vapour pressure change has to be commensurate to the considered latent heat flux increase, the change of GLOBAL average water vapour pressure that is commensurate to the assumed GLOBAL latent heat flux change + 12 % should be in my opinion also + 12 %, and not 100 % as you surprisingly set in part 5 of your analysis.
If so, 12 % is indeed less than 18 % average water vapour pressure increase which you calculated as necessary for full cancellation of the cooling effect of the increased latent heat flux by greenhouse effect enhancement due to higher water vapour concentration.
The result of your analysis will be in this case opposite to the original one:
Even if we consider that any change in latent heat flux must be acompanied by a commensurate water vapour concentration change, the greenhouse effect of the assumed change in water vapour concentration will NOT be sufficient for full compensation of the latent heat flux effect.
Could you look on your posts once again and double check?
Thank you in advance and greetings
Tomáš
“…exceedingly unreported…”
Surely you jest! This has been on the denialato Top 20 for years now.
Hei Kalisz
Good to have you back.
I am trained and aquainted to øcological and biochemicaql metabolic cycles Other people are obviously not.
Carl Marx did not invent the budget.
The Burget was invented by my professional mentor Robert Boyle, who also invented Royal Society in Cambridge , and placed Isaac Newton there as its first precident “The sceptical chemist” by Robert Boyle is written against goldmaking and ADVLTERARE, i. e. virtual money and virtual reality on the free market.
Marx Das Kapital never kept up with that. Neither did Adam Smith.
On your request, I found ITER EXTATICVM COELESTE referred to Athanasius Kircher.
In a second edition by a certain Schott about 1671 I found the fameous alternative theory in words but not drawn.
Try
” Athanasiusn Kirchers vision of the universe”
I have seen that plastilina & cartoon- tube- model theory drawn in several popular introductions to astronomy, and learnt much later about Kircher that was recommended to me for musical technology. But Kirchner on musical instruments showed to be what I call sheere bluff., and rather a disploay of how to bluff and to cheat people
You will admire Kirchners works if you are cheated and bluffed yourself allready.
Other jesuits of that time have scored much higher.. Some of them were blamed for having fallen off from due faith, after having saved and secured the 3000 year old imperial astronomical observatorium in China for humanity. .
Being a Jesuit in those days was not easy either.
But The Dominicans were perhaps even worse as they were set to administered the holy inquisition (“Congregation of faith”) without being qualified and knowing how.
Their fameous sins during all those years are .consequently blamed on the ugly jesuits.
I shall return to the rains in spain and elsewhere.
I came over somewhere that Christiaan Huyghens had to close down his correct explaination of the saturn rings in the bank till after his death, in the fear of “jesuits”. Similar stories are told about Baruc de Spinoza and even Blaise Pascal.
Spinoza was a jew who tried to become a christian but failed both places thus fell between 2 chairs and had to write his own religion known as “Principa etica geometricl demonstrata”.
Spinoza came on the 2000Hfl- bill after all, well earnt.
There was very ugly times in the netherlands after the breakup with Spania, fameous scolars flew to England for security and freedom.
I find a deep national trauma in the souls of the netherlands due to this as their very wealthy empire was split up. with a very ugly civil war .following.
The Duth are protestant purists. They drink only Heineken and only Oude Genever. National brews. Only for sin, they try also Belgian beer labeled “DUVEL” that means Devil.
DUVEL is flamish Catolic beer with unknown Fusel and alcohol content. .
But Heineken is a Pilsner of orderly recepy. with Saccaromyces carlsbergiensis. Bottom jeast at cellar or bohemian- moravian cave- temperatures and choisest malt, hops and springwater.
Duvel is then rather a strong and brown “ale” by Saccaromyces paradoxus & maybe unwarranted ingedients .
When a Dutchman comes creeping on the road with red eyes, the history is allways the same. “Yesterday he was out on “Belgian beer..”. labeled DUVEL
That is typical Calvinistic Moraaaaaaal, you see.
Calvijn was a swiss lawyer and determinist. You get to heaven by good deeds according to Gods determination.
But to my opinion we rather ought to determine for ourselves and not leave that to lawyers.
.
.
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/gl_trend.html
Recent Global CO2 Trend
October 21/ 2013: 396.28 ppm
.
.
.
October 21/ 2023: 420.00 ppm
.
.
.
?????????
October 21/ 2083: 350.00 ppm
@ Thomas Kalisz
Your Orgpad shown to does not answer.
Dear Carbomontanus,
I have forgotten that you already once reported that your older computer has problems with rendering this big orgpage.
I am afraid that it would have made little sense, trying to resolve this on my side, because it is unclear if it will help if I reduce the orgpage to my own posts only.
It appears that no ideal solution does exist for you in this situation: You have either try again with a more powerful equipment, or trust me :-)
Greetings
Tomáš
@ Thomas Kalisz
My computer in a Hewlett Packard with Winddows 10.
In checked up Orgpad.com and see that you must scale your device for it. Then it would probably work. But when I look into how Orgpad.com is organizing its system and telling that it is equal to how your brains do it with associations and connections, I can simply disqualify it as another popular industrial Protese for consciousness spirit and soul that will hardly keep for more than 10- 15 years when that factory is broke and you will not get spare parts anymore,
Then, you will not be able to referre to your own thoughts and works.
It is another ROBOT, see Carel Capek.
Litt: H.C.Andersen Nattergalen. On the real and the synthetic nigthtinggale, and how to cure the Emperor of China.
in Re to
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/10/the-5th-international-conference-on-regional-climate/#comment-815346
Dear Carbomontanus,
Thank you for your feedback!
I am aware that with any new tool like OrgPad, it could happen that it will not succeed, the company finally closes their business, and its users may get in troubles.
In case of OrgPad, I have the advantage that I know the people creating it personally. That is why I trust them that even in such worst case scenario, they will fulfill their obligations to their customers.
As regards their assertion that the application fits the way how human brains process information, I know the story behind it. The idea of exploiting a multidimensional graph as a representation of human thoughts and their connections in computers was created by Czech matematician Zdeněk Hedrlín
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zden%C4%9Bk_Hedrl%C3%ADn
and is based on an idea (allegedly arising from Herbart psychology) that thoughts in human brain are like buoys in a sea, and associations between thougts are like ropes linking the buoys to form a complex network.
One of OrgPad founders, Pavel Klavík, belongs to last pupils of Zdeněk Hedrlín. In spring 2018, during a visit in hospital, he made to his teacher a promise to bring his idea into practice.
Greetings
Tomáš
Good to know Hr Kalisz. I shall see if I can get into it.
I even disqualify “Models and model thinking” knowing too much about it. Most of it is obvious sin against the 10 amendments §2 in original, as explained both by Niels Bohr and Albert Einstein who were jews both of them.
My father was a dentist using gypsum models and wax impact prints for teeth- proteses. I have taken up the art on larger scale for metal casting of tricky impossible complex engine parts and carve the models of softwood & regulate with wax and sawdust with Na2SiO3 solution that hardens in 1/2 hour and can be sawed further,
Then we have modeled pepper cakes, and 20% gypsum in common clay, that hardens without swelling or shrinking. And can be burnt gas- free at red hot for bronse-casting giving porous terracotta. . That is the dentist recepy for golden teeth. Taken up by NASA for impossible incredible engine parts. Such as indian shivas and elephants. Quite an art. They were inspired for it in the etrurian museum, incredible impossible goldsmithing.
In the meantime, guncasting bellcasting and incredible impossible pioneering machineries of bronse and brass. There Models are used all the way.
Else I like to draw it freehanded and rub it out again or draw it over carefully by ink before I rub out again. Then it looks as if I could draw!
I have in my grandfathers teachbook of technology model casting of advanced doubble curved 3 dimensional shipspropellars of cast iron or bronse. Todays light metals make that all very much easier. It took them a hectoliter of cokes each time. Todays light metal alloys go down in an iron cruxible for blasted firewo0d and the frappingly simple techniques from bronse- age really come to their right then.
I looked up Johan Friedrich Herbart. Never heard of him before. His metaphysics seem a bit similar to the radical ideas of Alfred North Whitehead in that a thing (Substance) only exists in relation to the wholeness of its surroundings including conscious mind.
jgnfld says on21 OCT 2023 AT 10:17 PM that; “Yes. 1% of the globe was rather warm in the 30s. The rest of the globe was rather cool. Fact.” I can hardly contain my anticipation of receiving proof that; “1% of the globe was rather warm in the 30s. The rest of the globe was rather cool.”
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
JDS: I can hardly contain my anticipation of receiving proof that; “1% of the globe was rather warm in the 30s. The rest of the globe was rather cool.”
BPL: Try here:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v4/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
You can look yourself at WoodforTrees. The 30s were warmer than the 20s–slighly,–and much cooler than the 40s. In the CONUS (1% of Earth’s surface) the 30s were warm.
You could save yourself a lot of embarrassment–and us a lot of time–if you could bring yourself to look at the evidence.
Well, the problematic demand for “proof” in a scientific question aside, this is pretty good evidence that jgn is not far wrong. It’s the GISTemp LOTI global anomaly map for 1930-39, and it shows a global anomaly of -0.11 C with respect to a 1951-80 baseline. Much of the Arctic is warm, as is a big blob in the North Atlantic, the US midwest, and a stretch of northern central Africa. Is it 1%? Maybe; it’s certainly a small proportion of the globe’s area.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/
John Doug Swallow.
The underlying point being made is that Americas temperatures in the 1930s decade were much higher than the the planet as a whole as below.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page2.php
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/beyond-data/mapping-us-climate-trends
So the warming in America in the 1930s related to the dust bowl period was not a global phenomenon. It relates to high sea surface temperatures in parts of both the pacific and atlantic oceans near America simultaneously which is unusual.
Many old local or regional temperature records have been broken as the climate warms. Eventually all will likely be broken.
All this is the reality. You can choose to accept it or deny it. It’s more intellectually honest to just accept it.
nigelj says on 27 OCT 2023 AT 2:54 PM that ; “So the warming in America in the 1930s related to the dust bowl period was not a global phenomenon. It relates to high sea surface temperatures in parts of both the pacific and atlantic oceans near America simultaneously which is unusual”.
There are other sources of information about how the climate and the weather were global than the ones that nigelj provided me with that did not have an agenda to follow back in 1688-89 and it presents actual valid records from the period that demonstrate that what was occurring was indeed global.
The winter of 1688-89 was very severe in England and the river Thames was frozen. A frost fair was held on the river in London.
In Germany, the winter was severely cold with great falls of snow. In 1689, there was a famine in Northern Ireland. ‘The inhabitants glad to eat rats, tallow and hides.’
France experienced their driest years in 30 years.
Heavy rainfall caused a great flood in Norwich, England.
The long drought broke in Italy, when the country experienced great rains, which rendered the whole spring frightful and good for nothing.
A great hurricane struck the island of Nevis in the West Indies killing one half of the inhabitant.
Droughts struck many regions of China and as a result many wells, springs and rivers dried up.
Climatologists regard the extreme climate events and disastrous harvests during the 1690’s, with average temperatures 1.5° C below those of today, as the ‘climax of the Little Ice Age’.
Sea temperatures around the Orkney Islands and Scandinavia in the 1690’s were 5º C colder than today. In 1690, an awful snowstorm struck Scotland, which lasted thirteen days and nights. During that time nine-tenths of the sheep were frozen to death, and many shepherds lost their lives. In 1690 in Ireland, there was famine and disease. In Italy in 1690, there was a famine from excessive rains.
Around the end of March, the heavens seemed to open their bosom and pour out their whole great reservoir of water. By one night’s rain, all the country about Modena, Finlan, Ferrara, Mirandola [in Northern Italy] were laid under water, deluged like a Sea. These cities standing up like little islands. This rainy weather continued the whole spring and summer, scarce one fair day. In the beginning of June, mildew appeared on the grain leading to its total destruction.
Nuts alone escaped the plague. In 1690, there was a famine in Shanghai, China from the drought.
There was no harvest that season. In the autumn of 1690 Ottoman troops in the Balkans endured from ‘snow, rain and frost. The snow being as high as the horses’ chest, barred the roads, and the infantry could no longer move on; many animals dying, the officers were left to go on foot.’
http://wiki.iceagefarmer.com/wiki/History:_Extreme_Weather_during_the_Maunder_Minimum?fbclid=IwAR2NnmTRMdFZgDipLKJeXHwY0f97MsT5db1Euc0stvV7OO47Qx3J9yr5maEn
If you wanted to contradict what nigelj said about the 1930s American heatwaves not being global, you should have provided anything showing global heat waves in the same time period. Honestly, saying it was something you believe would have been better than your response.
Any papers that you can point to that show the 1930s heatwave was global?
The shift from the end of the MWP to the Little Ice Age–neither of which were really global phenomena, BTW–was about .4C in 400 years. The shift from the end of the LIA to now is over 1C in 100 years. https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years#/media/File:2000+_year_global_temperature_including_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_-_Ed_Hawkins.svg
One thing is not like the other thing no matter how hard you wave your hands.
In other words, you’ve got nothing relevant, and must resort to distraction.
“display their lack of knowledge with less arrogant self regard and at lesser length.” goes for a few others besides Victor.
Ray Ladbury is a beacon of light here, expressing himself with clarity, intelligence, and, thanks be, brevity. He doesn’t need ‘teaching’ from people who are convinced they know better.
I continue to request that those not here to learn and contribute, but to endlessly assert their self-regard, leave this conversation to those who wish to participate. They could start their own blog.
Start with our hosts at RealClimate, please. They take the trouble to share, and we should welcome this.
@ Susan Anderson
It may be necessary to repeat public school for people, where it is lacking and being actively fought and ridiculed .
To my opinion, you should not try and administer peoples paragraphs and scriptures to the length or to the form that you best like it, or to which you are most aquainted. Not even give general advices on it.
CarboM: This word salad is incomprehensible. Could you have meant strictures? You know nothing about what I like. afaict my principal point was to ask people to respect RealClimate and stop exploiting this comment section to promote BS.
Ray L: Good points.
Anybody who associates Feynman with climate science denial has rocks in their head. Dirty coal ones, probably.
Unfortunately, we must accept and live with the fact that, these days, all the Cool Kids have abandoned Einstein and are now quoting — excuse me, *quote mining* — Feynman, although it’s doubtful that many have bothered to crack open the Feynman Lectures on Physics.
Wholeheartedly endorse Susan Anderson’s comments and still working to plumb the irony of Carbomontamus’ reply.
Then plumb on.
Thank you, Susan, for your kind words. While I do try to be brief, I suspect that my brevity has more to do with my busy schedule as it does with any eloquence on my part.
I would note that the fact that I try to be brief probably does mean I’m more likely to be read. There are lots of other busy people who pop in here, and a busy person when confronted with a seemingly impenetrable wall of text–no matter how many bon mots or amusing quips it contains–will tend to skip over it. On the other hand, if an entry is brief and pithy, it’s likely to be read.
Another sure recipe for being overlooked is engaging in arguments with people who for all practical purposes agree with you. Frankly, there is nothing more boring than an argument between people who agree. It’s like trying to decipher the doctrinal differences between different schisms of the Presbyterians–in other words, dull.
Most of the usual suspects here are at least on team reality, while a third of the country is still chanting
“Drill, Baby. Drill!” That is where the front should be.
Ray Ladbury says on 26 OCT 2023 AT 11:52 AM that; “Most of the usual suspects here are at least on team reality, while a third of the country is still chanting
“Drill, Baby. Drill!” That is where the front should be”.
Has this fact escaped Ray Ladbury regarding, “Drill, Baby. Drill!”?
84.3% of global energy comes from fossil fuels. 33.1% is from oil, 27% is from coal and 24.3% is from gas.
https://ourworldindata.org/images/published/Global-primary-energy-by-source_850.webp
Explore global data on where our energy comes from, and how this is changing.
https://ourworldindata.org/energy-mix
JDS: “84.3% of global energy comes from fossil fuels. ”
And at one point it all came from wood, and at another point, no decent family would use any fuel but whale oil to light their homes.
In the real world, renewables are now the cheapest source of new energy. Catch up.
Ray Ladbury 29 OCT 2023 9:37 PM tells me that; “And at one point it all came from wood, and at another point, no decent family would use any fuel but whale oil to light their homes.
In the real world, renewables are now the cheapest source of new energy. Catch up”.
I am caught up because these were the figures presented to me;
Yes, of that 84.3% of the GLOBAL energy that comes from fossil fuels Oil provides 33.1%, the hated Coal provides 27%, Gas provides 24.3%, Hydropower is 6.4%, Nuclear is 4.3%, Wind is 2.2%, Solar is 1.1% other renewables is 0.9% and Biofuels is 0.07 %
https://ourworldindata.org/images/published/Global-primary-energy-by-source_850.webp
Now for the comment on how; “In the real world, renewables are now the cheapest source of new energy. Catch up”, is applicable when Wind is 2.2%, Solar is 1.1% other renewables is 0.9%? No matter how Cheap that it is, it such a small part of the energy mix that hardly matters.
J Doug Swallow: – “Now for the comment on how; “In the real world, renewables are now the cheapest source of new energy. Catch up”, is applicable when Wind is 2.2%, Solar is 1.1% other renewables is 0.9%? No matter how Cheap that it is, it such a small part of the energy mix that hardly matters.”
Oh dear; it seems there’s no apparent imagination from you. J Doug Swallow, you don’t seem to understand the power of the exponential function.
“The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function.” — Albert Bartlett
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Allen_Bartlett
On 18 Oct 2023 in Edinburgh, Johan Rockström presented the 44th TB Macaulay Lecture. The YouTube video titled 44th TB Macaulay Lecture – In conversation with Professor Johan Rockström, published 20 Oct 2023, duration 1:37:47.
See the graph presented from time interval 1:02:33 showing the projected doubling curves for the rollout of renewables. Per Prof Rockström, renewable deployments have been doubling every 5½ years over the last 15 years – that’s exponential.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2VjdyqG-nY
“In the real world, renewables are now the cheapest source of new energy”
Ha ha ha ha ha h ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha h ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha h ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha h ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha h ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha h ha ha ha ha
I know this gets touted around all the time but it is utter nonsense. If it were actually true then the world would rapidly be changing and there would be no need for preaching from sites like this. I assume the developing world would be the first to jump on to renewables as they would clearly want the cheapest form of new energy for their rapid modernisation. Obviously they must be stupid for wanting expensive FFs.
Don’t bother sending anything “proving” they are cheaper. When they are cheaper, people will use them without being forced to.
Currently renewables aren’t even coming close to covering the incremental increase in energy demand
Beacon of light? You have got to be joking
Ray already answered your question, JDS: while the percentages are relatively small now, that share has been growing more or less exponentially, and looks set to keep doing so–precisely because modern wind and solar (and increasingly, energy storage) are so cost-effective.
On energy costs:
https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth
That’s a lengthy and detailed piece that well rewards the time spent.
Anyway, the result of cheaper and cheaper renewable energy is that the IEA already projected in their 2022 Energy Outlook that global fossil fuel demand would begin to decline within the next few years:
IEA, Fossil fuel demand in the Stated Policies Scenario, 1900-2050, IEA, Paris https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/fossil-fuel-demand-in-the-stated-policies-scenario-1900-2050, IEA. Licence: CC BY 4.0
And as their 2023 Energy outlook outlines, green energy investments have outpaced fossil fuel investments starting in 2018, and the gap just keeps widening.
https://origin.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2023/executive-summary
So, yes, renewable energy matters, a lot–which is precisely why your political friends are trying to demonize it and hold back the tide of change:
https://news.yahoo.com/former-president-donald-trump-pushes-023801447.html
A more technical point: the first area of transition to clean energy has been in the electrical generation field. “Primary energy” is a larger category, encompassing generation but also uses such as transportation and manufacturing and so forth. So by citing primary energy stats, you’re underplaying the change occurring. For example, the world-in-data piece I cited at the top of this comment, already has global generation at 7% wind and 4% solar.
And with EVs coming on rapidly (despite recent market hiccups), we’re starting to see change in other categories that come under “primary energy” as well.
John Doug Swallow. Its unbelievable how you miss the point every single time. The point is we have alternatives to fossil fuels and although they are still a small part of the mix they are now a cheap source of energy. Its politics, ignorance, and denialism holding them back. Google “luddites” and look in a mirror.
@ Susan Anderson
To correct and to administer consciousness and intelligence is not that easy as you might have been t0ld and brought up to.
Especially in the context of science and when it also might have got to do with nature and with humaniora, it is rather quite different from a military commercial training camp with exercises and wolleyball sportsground within error bars, or a classical industrial factory in a peoples republic where the earth is flat, and the dictionary with orthodoxd peoples grammars & syntax containjs only 400 expedition words, and 400 next words on a secret list are those of the class enemy to be boreholed and crankshafted / sent over to Gulag / Alcatraz.
Along with your feelings, who were brought up and formed that way and labeled “science,”
Ray Ladbury has a better conscept of it. “Nothing is more boring (boreholing?) than doctrinal differences between different schizms of the presbyterians.”
LENIN did teach and order: “Theese lectures / ceremonials must be kept short..!”
Carbomontanus-
as long as you’re mansplaining (excuse presumption), would you mind mansplaining what you mean when you assert that “To correct and to administer consciousness and intelligence…..is rather quite different from a military commercial training camp with exercises and wolleyball sportsground within error bars”. are you a text generator written by undergrads? just have to ask.
Richard C: There is much humor in Carbo’s RC word salads here, where he appears to feel entitled to exert ownership/control, [Some of this, to be fair, arises from English not being his first language, and making an effort in a foreign language would be admirable if the resultant mess were not so indecipherable.] I mostly scroll past (and have said, as usual, that I wish so much scrolling were unnecessary). I did make an effort to say something I thought might be relevant, in this case arising from conversations with my father; unfortunately the reactions were so mixed they undermined useful substance. Carbo’s lack of humility/shame appear to me to have led him to indulge in what you call mansplaining, earning further chortles.
I am an amateur with a proven bollox meter which I have come to trust. As a fool who ventures in where angels fear to tread I am less shy than I used to be – partly because the matter of action on greenhouse emissions reduction is so important that anyone who can contribute, imnsho, should.
Another common fault indulged in by multiple parties here is the very definition of ad hominem (womanem?). I don’t usually think of myself as more or less worthy of respect for being female, but admit to lack of training/skills in climate science. I hadn’t thought of AI, but you may have identified a part of the problem.
Susan, I remember your father from when I worked at Physics Today. He had an impressive intellect to be sure, but more important from my perspective, he was always willing to help us out in understanding an unfamiliar subject. I have nothing but fond memories of him.
Susan A-
Exactly. I’m a largely culture-bound American with highschool french, and greatly respect those with working language skills. Working outside the mother-tongue buys tolerant reading but is no excuse for condescension. Personally, if I were writing in a language I’d less than mastered, I might choose to avoid opaque multi-layered nested metaphors in favor of a straightforward statement of my point, to have the best chance of actually communicating.
Please don’t hesitate to comment when you have thoughts to add to the thread. We lay-lurkers speedscan or scroll by the grouches who write their daily screenpage sniping at each other. Your name is one we stop to read.
Is this Olga Kalasnikova 0wning and administering- teaching further?
Geoff Miell tells me on my birthday, 3 NOV 2023 AT 8:03 PM that; “The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function.” — Albert Bartlett. It is also humanities inability to try to face facts, such as that the countries that use the most renewable energy, now have the highest priced electricity in the world.
Top 10 Countries With the Highest Electricity Costs:*
1. Denmark — 0.538
2. Germany — 0.530
3. United Kingdom — 0.479
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/cost-of-electricity-by-country
However, seven countries in Europe have achieved much higher levels of wind power penetration, including 41% of production in Denmark, 28% in Ireland, 24% in Portugal, 21% in Germany, and 19% in Spain. For one day in 2017, Denmark got 100% of its energy from wind power.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/wind-power-by-country
(One could add the next day Denmark got 100% of its energy from either powerplants or from France and Sweden’s nuclear power houses)
I did not watch the whole video but what is actually meant by; “Renewables; Share of primary energy”? Is that just for electricity generation, because if one takes transportation or agriculture’s needs into account, that is a totally different subject all together?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2VjdyqG-nY
JDS: the countries that use the most renewable energy, now have the highest priced electricity in the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
J Doug Swallow: – “It is also humanities inability to try to face facts, such as that the countries that use the most renewable energy, now have the highest priced electricity in the world.”
Per the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO):
https://aemo.com.au/en/newsroom/media-release/renewables-drive-lower-prices-record-low-emissions
Renewables in the National Energy Market (NEM, including Queensland, NSW, Victoria, ACT, South Australia & Tasmania) so far in 2023 have provided 66,207 GWh (37.9 share contribution to the NEM).
https://opennem.org.au/energy/nem/?range=all&interval=1y&view=discrete-time
A state-by-state guide to all operating generators on the NEM:
https://reneweconomy.com.au/on-the-map-a-state-by-state-guide-to-all-operating-generators-on-the-nem/
How’s that for some facts?
J Doug Swallow: – “I did not watch the whole video but what is actually meant by; “Renewables; Share of primary energy”?
Per Our World In Data:
https://ourworldindata.org/energy-definitions
Almost everything in the UK is expensive, not just energy, but one reason energy prices soared in the UK was because it is heavily dependant on imported oil and gas from parts of the world affected by the Ukraine war*, more so than other European countries partly due to poor housing stock and less renewable and nuclear energy generation available and because it has lower gas storage facilities forcing the country to buy gas at real-time prices. If the UK had stopped pretending to be America, pulled its finger out and got a move on with transitioning to renewables decades ago, we likely would have been far less affected by energy price inflation. One of the problems with the UK in general is that it doesn’t produce nearly enough essential resources to supply its growing population and has to rely on other countries, so we have ended up vulnerable to inflation caused by things like overseas conflicts and adverse weather conditions, the latter predicted to get worse as the decades go on.
*Admittedly some of this was also caused by lower than normal electricity generation from renewables due to unusually calm conditions in either 2021 or 2022 combined with prolonged cold weather in April 2021 which increased demand for heating.
Keith Woollard says on 4 NOV 2023 AT 1:47 AM, many true things that I am surprised that RealClimate allowed to be seen by others about the hoax of renewable energy being so cheap when compared to fossil fuels. “When they are cheaper, people will use them without being forced to” Keith Woollard.
“To understand the folly that drives too much of the nation’s energy policies, consider these basic facts about wind energy.
After decades of federal subsidies—almost $24 billion according to a recent estimate by former U.S. Sen. Phil Gramm—nowhere in the United States, or anywhere else, has an array of wind turbines replaced a single conventional power plant. Nowhere.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324310104578507242336481504.html
JDS: the hoax of renewable energy being so cheap when compared to fossil fuels.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source