This month’s open thread on climate topics. Many eyes will be focused on whether April temperatures will be the 11th month in row of records…
Note that we have updated the data and figures from the Nenana Ice Classic and Dawson City river ice break up pools (the nominal 13th and 5th earliest break-ups (or 15th and 4th, w.r.t. to the vernal equinox) in their respective records)).
And a quick note about moderation: If your comment is a personal attack on another commenter instead of a substantive argument, it will just be deleted. As will your subsequent complaints. Ain’t nobody got time for that.
Please delete the preceeding draft.
Last weeks Washington Post, editorial endorsement of geoengineering R&D inspired a creative riposte:
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2024/04/cats-and-dogs-living-together.html
and may revive the thankfully dormant forces of Alt. Atmospheric Chemistry:
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2024/04/what-do-nuclear-power-protesters.html
Call the Culligan man! Thar’s fluoride in them thar chem trails!
Tomas Kalisz April 26: “ Dear Kevin, many thanks for your explanation. It was indeed useful.
… and then the rest of the post is … about me. Strange. You wouldn’t be trying to butter Kevin with compliments into fighting your battles? ; -)
Other denier cliche is the conflation of the role of water cycle as a feedback, with potential of water cycle as anthropogenic forcing, e.g.:
TK: “Lague et al provided a hint that changes in water availability for evaporation may change global climate.”
Lague at al. provided no such “hint”– they have quantified the maximum effect of the water cycle feedback by comparing two extreme cases – all Earth’s land being a swamp vs. being a desert. This says NOTHING about humans being able to alter directly the natural water cycle ENOUGH to make a noticeable difference to GMST.
In fact, Patrick used Lague’s results to show the OPPOSITE – even conversion of ALL Earth’s croplands into swamps would have reduced GMST by a … fraction of 0.3K. I used the same Lague et al. to challenge Tomas Kalisz Scheme -in which the said Kalisz proposed to increase the global desalination of seawater by … 1000-fold, and pump this water over 1000s of km – with the upper limit of cooling being …0.3K, achieved only after THOUSANDS of years of running the scheme.
No wonder that seeing Patricks results, your fellow waterboy, JCM … changes sides – from a promoters of Lague to her harsh critic: disavowed water cycle modelling as “ imaginary process mechanisms [that use arbitrary] rules about how things ought to be”, and called the models “ mental constructs and perceptions” of their authors, offering no insight into the real world.
in Re to Piotr, 1 May 2024 at 3:51 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-may-2024/#comment-821743
Dear Piotr,
On 26 Apr 2024 at 9:37 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-apr-2024/#comment-821638 ,
I wrote:
“Dear Kevin,
Many thanks for your explanation. It was indeed useful.
Nevertheless, if the “forcing” of the climate system is any parameter (not only external one, such as solar irradiation of the Earth) that can change independently (and in some cases could change as a result of human activity), then I do not understand why Piotr criticizes that I called anthropogenic changes in water availability for evaporation from land as a “forcing”.
It was my understanding that Lague et al
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/acdbe1/pdf
provided a hint that changes in water availability for evaporation may change global climate.
Piotr, on one hand, seems to agree to conclusions made by Lague et al (although he has not answered my direct questions asked in this regard yet). On the other hand, he still repeats that global water cycle intensity and surface latent heat flux are mere “temperature feedbacks”, what sounds to me as a contradiction in view of Lague and of your explanation.”
Let me thank you for your comment and ask a few questions thereto:
1) I am totally confused by your explanation of Lague 2023.
It appears that you do not understand her estimation of the difference about 8 K in global mean surface temperature between her model extremes “swamp land” and “desert land” as a hint that a change in water availability for evaporation from land may change global climate.
You write: “Lague at al. provided no such “hint”– they have quantified the maximum effect of the water cycle feedback”.
I understood Lague 2023 the way that the studied forcing (that, in the used model, caused the said 8 K difference in computed global mean surface temperature) was just the water availability for evaporation from land.
Could you explain why you do not consider the computed 8 K change in global mean temperature as a hint that the “forcing” which caused it (through the water cycle feedback, or whatever) may influence global climate?
2) I think that Patrick’s attempt to estimate possible limits for human intervention in global climate by artificially changing water availability for evaporation from land was in accordance with the said hint provided by Lague et al.
Nevertheless, I think that the chosen example with a switch from wetland to cropland was quite unfortunate, because it comprised lot of additional assumptions that were then fiercely disputed without any clear outcome. I therefore proposed to take into consideration a much simpler example of a thought “switch” of 4 % of average earth land from the “swamp” to the “desert” or vice versa, which should (in accordance with the 8 K estimation for the entire land) afford a global mean temperature change about 0.3 K.
Do you see any reason why we should dismiss this simple estimation as incorrect?
3) I construed the 0.3 K estimation as a hint that human interference with water availability for evaporation may play a role in global climate, and that it can be considered also as an additional option for “geoengineering”.
It appears that your criticism is based mostly on supposed impracticability of this proposal. This is in my opinion a topics which should be, however, discussed in context of (im)practicability of other alternatives for geoengineering, like “direct air capture” (DAC, an artificial carbon dioxide removal from atmosphere by technical means) or intentional atmosphere pollution by artificial aerosols.
Herein, I would like to ask solely a question if I understood correctly your objection that the switch of the desert to the “artificial wetland” considered in my example must be basically permanent, because it may take several thousand years until the global Earth surface temperature reaches the new equilibrium.
If it was indeed your point, I would say that you are, of course, correct.
Nevertheless, I would like to like to add that the Earth is not in a radiative equilibrium now – we do have an imbalance just in several tenths of W/m2. It was my understanding that the idea behind “geoengineering” is primarily that this imbalance could be decreased, or perhaps completely cancelled by artificial means. I suppose that if we manage it, we will slow further “warming in the pipeline” down basically immediately – or completely prevent it, as soon as we re-establish the radiative balance.
If there are no fundamental problems preventing that ANY kind of “geoeineering” is in fact no viable way towards a quick reestablishment of the desired radiative balance, then, I think, we should analyze and discuss pros and cons of available methods and their practicability seriously, including water management.
Greetings
Tomáš
Tomáš Kalisz 2 MAY: ”
“ 1) I am totally confused by your explanation of Lague 2023”
No, you don’t say … ;-)
TK: why the computed 8 K change in GMST that the “forcing” which caused it (through the water cycle feedback, or whatever) may influence global climate?
You are hallucinating. The discussion was about the difference between “feedback” and “forcing”. That the maximum range of the effect of the water cycle feedback (8K) does not prove that humans can change the water cycle enough (“forcing”) to make any significant difference in GMST. Quite the contrary – see your point 2 and 3:
TK: “ 2. Do you see any reason why we should dismiss
this simple estimation [patrick use of Lague’s results to estimate of the effect of crops] as incorrect?
Again, you are hallucinating. My point was based on patrick’s estimate being CORRECT, i.e. not “incorrect”:
P: “ even if we abandoned ALL CROPS on Earth – the cooling from the resulting increase in ET would be TINY (a fraction of a fraction of 0.3K) ”
See?
TK: “3. It appears that your criticism is based mostly on supposed impracticability of this proposal.”
your scheme to increase the current global desalination …. 1000-FOLD, to achieve cooling of maximum …0.3K after THOUSANDS of years of running the scheme? And touted by you as the replacement to reductions of GHG concentrations, thus not addressing the other major impact of Co2 emissions – ocean acidification?
Supposedly impractical ” does not even begin describing my opinion about it – on the scale of idiocy – it ranks just a peg below the Mr. Know It bright idea to the cover the Arctic ocean with Styrofoam boards, reinforced with fiberglass… ;-)
In Re to Piotr,
Dear Piotr,
Thank you for your feedback. I would like to add a few remarks / questions.
1) I asked my question
“Could you explain why you do not consider the computed 8 K change in global mean temperature as a hint that the “forcing” which caused it (through the water cycle feedback, or whatever) may influence global climate?”
with respect to your sentence
“Lague at al. provided no such “hint”– they have quantified the maximum effect of the water cycle feedback”.
because I spoke about relationship between water cycle intensity and global climate.
Can I now, conclude from your reply that we both, actually, share the same views at least in two points, namely that
(i) the forcing studied by Lague 2023 was water availability for evaporation from land, and
(ii) maximal difference in the global mean surface temperature that may be caused by this forcing was estimated by their model to about 8K?
2) My question
“Do you see any reason why we should dismiss this simple estimation as incorrect?”
pertained to my example of a switch of 4 % average Earth land in Lague’s model from the “desert” to the “swamp” (or vice versa), not to Patrick’s originalů example.
I think that my “thought experiment” is much simpler than Patrick’s attempts to assess the differences between forest and cropland. The simple example showed that (assuming that Lague’s model is correct and accurate), this 4 % switch should cause a 0.3 K difference in Earth global mean surface temperature.
I concluded from this result that Lague et al can be construed as a hint that human interference with water availability for evaporation from land may represent a forcing that deserves consideration in discussions about global climate.
3) I think (and said) that in the assessment of practicability of human interferences with water availability for evaporation from land as a kind of “geoengineering” designed for global warming mitigation, we should be equally cautious and careful as in case of any other theoretically possible geoengineering, including artificial aerosols or artificial removal of greenhouse gases from atmosphere by technical means (known also as “direct air capture” or DAC).
I guess that if it came out from a such evaluation that costs of an artificial removal of one million tons of atmospheric CO2 roughly equal to costs of desalination of 1 cubic km sea water, the latter might be preferable over the first, because DAC does hardly offer any direct additional economical benefit, whereas land irrigation can do so.
Greetings
Tomáš
Tomas Kalisz Dear Piotr, Thank you for your feedback. I would like to add a few remarks / questions.
I didn’t ask you to “add a few remarks” – all what is asked of you is to address the answers to your 3 original points:
re p.1, I wrote: “ You are hallucinating, Tomas. The discussion was about the difference between “feedback” and “forcing”. That the maximum range of the effect of the water cycle feedback (8K) does not prove that humans can change the water cycle enough (“forcing”) to make any significant difference in GMST. Quite the contrary – see your point 2 and 3“. Your current “addition” … does not address any of the above
TK: “ my question 2 pertained to my example [not patrick’s]“.
The same difference: I don’t say that YOUR calculations are “incorrect “, the opposite – my argument is based on that your calculation are correct – that you correctly calculated the cooling effect of your scheme – being laughably small (max. 0.3K for the gargantuan effort and money it would require (see p.3)
3. Your scheme requires a THOUSAND-fold increase in the current global desalination, pumping the water over 1000s of km and spraying it over 5 mln km2, to achieve, after 1000s of years, the maximum effect of 0.3 K cooling.
I can’t think of any LESS cost-effective way to slow down the AGW. Certainly is not a viable alternative to decarbonization of economy, which also helps also with ocean acidification, which your scheme does nothing about.
Where the heck does Piotr think he is?
He seems oblivious to the fact that this is neither facebook or TikTok .
Russel May 2: “Where the heck does Piotr think he is?
He seems oblivious to the fact that this is neither facebook or TikTok “
“What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence” (Hitchen’s razor)
In Re to Piotr, 1 MAY 2024 AT 3:51 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-may-2024/#comment-821743
and in addition to my previous reply of today.
Dear Piotr,
I missed in your post of 25 APR 2024 AT 8:48 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-apr-2024/#comment-821619
that you reasoned your assumption “cooling being …0.3K, achieved only after THOUSANDS of years of running the scheme.”
by the cirsumstance that sands of deserts like Sahara do not contain enough organic matter that is important for keeping water.
This is, of course a relevant objection.
I still think, however, that it may be rather a “technical” problem than a critical issue making the idea unfeasible. I believe that said lack of organic matter can be approached from various directions. I can imagine starting in landscapes that do not have character of migrating sand dunes. Another approach could consist in enhancing biomass formation around roots of planted trees and bushes and grass by “enrichment” of water used for irrigation with algae or fungi cultivated therein. Still another approach could consist in re-cycling water that soaked into underground by drilling wells and pumping it back to the surface…
If people any time gave-up without really trying to solve a problem, we could hardly carry out this discussion per Internet.
Greetings
Tomáš
Tomas Kalisz: I still think, however, that it may be rather a “technical” problem than a critical issue making the idea unfeasible.
Increasing current total global desalination THOUSANDS times, and operating it for THOUSANDS of years before you even approach the pitifully small for the effort maximum effect 0.3K cooling – does NOT make your “idea” unfeasible???
In Re to Piotr, 3 MAY 2024 AT 4:53 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-may-2024/#comment-821777
Dear Piotr,
merely repeating your objection without any substantive reaction to comments offered by your opponents can hardly make your arguments more convincing.
Meanwhile, it came to my mind that fungi are heterotrophic organisms and their large-scale cultivation would have required a commensurate supply of organic matter which we would like actually create. In this respect, likely only the idea with algae cuiltivation as a possible “fertilizer” for sterile sandy soils might perhaps deserve further discussion.
Greetings¨
Tomáš
Tomas Kalisz.
The reason Piotr repeats his objection is probably because you do not seem to understand his objection. The amount of resourcing required is massive for a very small reduction in warming, and you cant get around that. You do not seem understand that no amount of fiddling with the details of the idea like the use of fungi can ever change that or make it practical.
And yes DAC does not look practical either. Vast amounts of DAC are required to sequester even 25% of yearly emissions (I calculated approximately one million DAC instillations using the largest currently operating facility. which is in Europe) This just doesnt look practical.
But your irrigation / solar panel / desalinisation plan in the Sahara looks even worse than DAC, because at least DAC removes CO2, so it is getting to the heart of the problem..
Tomas : “merely repeating your objection without any substantive reaction to comments offered by your opponents can hardly make your arguments more convincing.”
since the said Opponent {Tomas Kalisz] was unable to disprove that argument, and behaves as if it never existed – repeating it is EXACTLY what is needed:
TK: “it may be rather a “technical” problem than a critical issue making the idea unfeasible.”
P: ” Increasing current total global desalination THOUSANDS times, and operating it for THOUSANDS of years before you even approach the pitifully small for the effort maximum effect 0.3K cooling – does NOT make [Tomas Kalisz’s] “idea” unfeasible???”
In Re to Nigel, 4 MAY 2024 AT 3:13 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-may-2024/#comment-821812
and Piotr, 4 MAY 2024 AT 5:09 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-may-2024/#comment-821814
Hi Nigel, hi Piotr,
Many thanks for your feedback.
You may be right. I do not say that we have to start immediately with building the infrastructure for irrigation of a few million square km of hot deserts with desalinated water.
I strived to show that water cycle intensity and water availability for evaporation from land indeed matter in global climate, and that human activities may interfere therewith on a global scale, because these potentially important circumstances seem to be still neglected in ongoing disputes about climate generally and about present climate change specifically.
Please note that you may be also NOT right, e.g. in case that present climate models in fact underestimate the cooling effect of latent heat flow as object Makarieva et al when they question validity of convective parametrization used therein, and/or in case that greening deserts might bring significant positive economical effects, and/or in case that greening deserts would sequester significant amounts of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
I therefore hope that we can mutually agree to each other at least in that
(i) the role of water cycle and human interferences therewith in climate regulation may deserve more attention,
and
(ii) activities promoted by JCM, as explained in very detail e.g. in his last contributions of 3 MAY 2024 AT 11:50 AM and 5 MAY 2024 AT 1:14 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-may-2024/#comment-821773
and
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-may-2024/#comment-821845 ,
may be important and desirable for human well-being generally and possibly also specifically as a part of climate change mítigation.
Greetings
Tomáš
Tomáš Kalisz says 6 MAY 2024 AT 3:33 AM
Yes obviously its possible I’m wrong about your irrigation scheme, given there are uncertainties about the latent heat issue and the potential to sequester carbon etc, etc but I think its unlikely that I’m wrong. All those things would have to go hugely in your favour to overcome the huge costs of your scheme for what look like small returns in terms of reducing warming. I’m just not optimistic that they would just intuitively.
Sequestering carbon in vegetation has some merit, but keeping vegetation in place long term as a long term carbon store is hard to do. Sequestering carbon in the soils has merit but with a warming climate its very difficult keeping the carbon in the soil. Its a very complex area and highlights the extreme importance of cutting emissions at source.
Anyone should agree more research is needed on the water cycle. But the IPCC have assessed the implications of past land use changes for warming, etc, etc and seem to have concluded with some confidence that CO2 has been far the main contributer to warming. I can see roughly how they would have evaluated such things, and I see no alarm bells that they would be hugely underestimating it and I dont see any reason to delay cutting emissions due to uncertainties about the water cycle that do not look like they would make a huge difference to things.
JCMs comments do include a range of environmental projects that have merit in a wide sense and may also have some benefits for the climate. These benefits for the climate are a side effect. So if you contemplated such schemes for the general environmental good, and it had an additional benefit for the climate that would be another good reason to adopt it.
I’m all in favour of nature conservation, restoring wetlands, regenerative agriculture ( at least to an extent), preserving biodiversity, having fishing quota, etc, etc although I don’t think its viable to return the planet to preindustrial times. Too much has changed to be able to do that.
I think we are in damage control mode where we have to stop the big environmental problems causing us the greatest concern. The climate problem, the decline in pollinating insects, and nitrate pollution seem like examples. These problems probably have to be solved within a capitalist industrial society paradigm because changing that entire system looks like a massive challenge.
Im not a huge fan of capitalism but Im realistic that we dont really have a viable alternative, all things considered so we just have to make capitalism work in a more environmentally responsible way, which means governments need quite strong environmental laws.
“Many eyes will be focused on whether April temperatures will be the 11th month in row of records…”
April surely will be the 11th ‘scorchyisimooo!!!!’ month in a row.
CFSR is saying it is and the daily numbers (with one day to go) from the Copernicus Climate Pulse web engine show the ERA5 re-analysis April anomaly running at +0.67ºC, the lowest anomaly since last June but still with some serious free-board ahead of previous warmest Aprils; +0.53ºC of Apr 2016 and the +0.52ºC of Apr 2020.
Maybe the TLT numbers will manage something less record-breaking.
Sorry folks, but . . .
Forest fires are not created by CO2.
Floods are not produced by CO2.
Droughts are not produced by CO2.
Heavy rainfall is not created by CO2.
Ice loss in the Arctic is not created by CO2.
Ice shelf erosion in the Antarctic is not produced by CO2.
Hurricanes are not caused by CO2.
Heat waves are not caused by CO2.
The AMOC is not being destabilized by CO2.
Sea-level rise is not caused by CO2.
Glaciers are not melting because of CO2.
Etc.
All the above are blamed (rightly or wrongly) on a rising trend in global temperatures that began in 2016, only 8 years ago. A much longer warming trend began in 1910 and continued until 1940. Heat waves of even greater intensity occurred during the 1930s.
Yet rising CO2 levels are being blamed for ALL the unfortunate effects in the above list.
If CO2 were responsible for such rising temperatures we’d have seen a rising temperature trend from 1940 to 1979, when CO2 levels were rising significantly, but that was NOT the case.
Another “dead parrot” argument
The only thing worse than a dead parrot is a short audio loop of its last squawk.
“‘Geep,’ whuppled the parrot.” – from The Wonderful O by James Thurber
More like a dead brain argument.
Even if it likely will fall on deaf ears: please consider watching Sabine’s great video on how the greenhouse effect works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqu5DjzOBF8
It is both more complicated than one typically thinks AND it is really really well understood by physics.
Cheers,
Jochen
imhop, better ideas:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/
https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/
https://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm
and, of course, many others.
SH’s videos are very popular and make her a good living, but I often find them a little off center: not terrible but missing something.
Victor: – “A much longer warming trend began in 1910 and continued until 1940.”
Per the paper by Gabriele C. Hegerl et al. (2018) titled The early 20th century warming: Anomalies, causes, and consequences (bold text my emphasis):
https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.522
Victor: – “Yet rising CO2 levels are being blamed for ALL the unfortunate effects in the above list.”
Victor, I’d suggest that’s YOUR straw man.
It’s crucial to get aerosols correct in climate scenarios & models.
https://twitter.com/LeonSimons8/status/1785949402965663819
It’s crucial to get ALL factors correct in what’s driving the Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI), including:
* Enhanced greenhouse gas effect;
* Ocean heating;
* El Niño/La Niña;
* Human-induced aerosols;
* Total Solar Irradiance (TSI);
* Volcanic Eruptions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYdvn2pGyOw
See also: https://berkeleyearth.org/september-2023-temperature-update/
And this graph: https://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/ForcingSchematic-Sep2023.png
Also see the slide: Where on Earth are We Heading: Pliocene or Miocene?
CORRECTION: Professor H. J. Schellnhuber’s Aurelio Peccei Lecture was delivered on 17 Oct 2018 (NOT 17 Dec 2018 as indicated in my earlier comment).
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/03/more-solar-shenanigans/#comment-821735
V,
I’m stunned. You managed to get 15 wrong statements into one short post. You are a model for crackpots everywhere.
Victor rebunks his mantra, “…If CO2 were responsible for such rising temperatures we’d have seen a rising temperature trend from 1940 to 1979…”
OK, I’ve already shown that to be a ridiculous cherry-pick. But if Victor can repeat himself, so can I:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/02/new-study-suggests-the-atlantic-overturning-circulation-amoc-is-on-tipping-course/#comment-820451
I really must run up a comprehensive graph of 40-year anomalies, as I suggested at the end of that post. No time right now, though!
Sadly, since I was unable to sucker–er, interest!–anyone into running up the 40-year warming trends over the feasible length of the GISTEMP record, and since I had a bit of time yesterday, I decided to do it myself, despite my modest familiarity with the necessary tools. It was a much more annoying process than I expected–and my expectations were that it would be slow and unpleasant labor! How tiresome to have to infer cell addressing conventions and learn the consequences thereof, and to have to reinvent the metaphorical data-processing wheel!
However, I’m pleased to report that the result was successful:
https://www.facebook.com/kevin.mckinney.1840/posts/pfbid02gf6f9jd2RwcDjZaB3JeHsxBESYxrZQsnJwB5H7Xx4xs6x3BQt4L7J2xGmjJE5Pjtl
TLDR: of 104 40-year ‘windows,’ there were 18 cooling and 86 warming. 12 of the cooling ones came at the very beginning of the record, with the remaining 6 occurring from 1935-1940. (The window with the largest cooling trend was that beginning in 1937.) N.B.–the trends are all linear fits to the monthly data, using the “LINEST” function in Numbers.
That’s very much in line with what I previously came up with using the Woodfortrees site; while some have claimed a 40-year span mid-century with no cooling, if you use the ‘bin’ or ‘window’ approach here–which I think is much more sensible–you find not a 40-pause, but a 6-year one.
Thank you Kevin for creating this. Nice job. Bookmarked for future reference.
.
.
A note to our hosts: would this be something worth adding to your miscellaneous page following review?
In addition to David, 13 MAY 2024 AT 4:49 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-may-2024/#comment-822103
I would join David’s plea to moderators, because I do not feel comfortable on Facebook and, if possible, avoid visiting this website.
Perhaps there might be more people that are interested in Kevin’s input but have a similar attitude.
Considering how warm the winter was, the Nenana and Yukon ice-out dates weren’t that early. In Minnesota, this year broke several records https://www.newsweek.com/minnesota-lakes-setting-new-records-early-ice-out-1878331. The sticky year still is the warm 1878 El Nino winter which prevented lots more records from not being set. No data available but I wonder what the situation was that year in Alaska and Yukon ( a few years before the gold rush)?
Re my https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-apr-2024/#comment-821677
On second thought, I may have extended the definition of “Doppler effect” too far. The diurnal and semidiurnal tidal frequencies only exist because of the angular velocity of rotation (relative to orbital motions), so the effect of going around the Earth’s axis faster doesn’t seem so Doppler-y.
The guiding theme is to recall the words of Pierrehumbert in describing how Richard Lindzen “has made a career of being wrong in interesting ways about climate science.”. So that’s why I am revisiting all his early work, where Lindzen essentially closed the book on further research on the tidal effects on climate.
Lindzen, Richard S. “On the theory of the diurnal tide.” Monthly Weather Review 94.5 (1966): 295-301.
Chapman, Sydney, and Richard S. Lindzen. Atmospheric tides: thermal and gravitational. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012.
Lindzen, Richard S. “Tides and gravity waves in the upper atmosphere.”, Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 1971.
Lindzen, Richard S. “Thermally driven diurnal tide in the atmosphere.” Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 93.395 (1967): 18-42.
Lindzen, R. S. “Atmospheric tides.” Annual review of earth and planetary sciences 7.1 (1979): 199-225.
Lindzen, Richard S., and Sydney Chapman. “The application of classical atmospheric tidal theory.” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences 303.1474 (1968): 299-316.
Chapman, S., Lindzen, R.S., Chapman, S. and Lindzen, R.S., 1970. Quantitative theory of atmospheric tides and thermal tides. Atmospheric Tides: Thermal and Gravitational, pp.106-174.
Lindzen, Richard S., and Siu-shung Hong. “Effects of mean winds and horizontal temperature gradients on solar and lunar semidiurnal tides in the atmosphere.” Journal of the atmospheric sciences 31.5 (1974): 1421-1446.
And there are many more. The odds are good that Lindzen overlooked aspects of the physics and leveraged his authoritarian style to push the research in the wrong direction. I asked ScholarGPT as to”Which earth scientist (atmospheric physicist, geophysicist, climate scientist) has written most extensively (over decades) on the role of tides in atmospheric and climate science?”
https://chat.openai.com/share/6a1a7fd3-c114-49fa-b1eb-8e24b1e73a27 Lindzen!
And for one last zinger, I chuckled at what Sal had to say about Lindzen in a recent tweet: https://twitter.com/25_cycle/status/1783287499495981099
From the Shenanigans page
MA Rodger says
1 May 2024 at 5:30 AM
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/03/more-solar-shenanigans/#comment-821729
MAR: “(Hansen) began to insist that we would see 5m of SLR by 2100.”
NK: Hansen never insisted such a thing. Please stop verbaling his work, putting words in his mouth. and presenting false characterizations of his papers, articles and his actual science arguments.
eg
“Alley (2010) reviewed projections of sea level rise by 2100, showing several clustered around 1 m and
one outlier at 5 m, all of these approximated as linear in his graph. The 5 m estimate is what Hansen (2007)
suggested was possible under IPCC’s BAU climate forcing.”
https://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2012/20121226_GreenlandIceSheetUpdate.pdf
Ice Melt speaks for itself. Please stop misrepresenting it as well.
I suggest you should be forced to provide supporting quotes/evidence for all your accusations against others – against Hansen and people who post comments here because you appear to be habitually wrong.
Then there is MAR says : “Hansen’s ‘reason to be fearful,” (completely made up rhetoric by MAR) and “the seventh being Hansen et al’s argument that geo-engineering is a “required action.” “
Again this social media rhetoric by MAR at is a grossly false distortion, a misrepresentation, bordering imho on outright lying what Hansen actually said: which was in fact>
Abstract – “The enormity of consequences demands a return to Holocene-level global temperature. Required actions include: (1) a global increasing price on GHG emissions accompanied by development of abundant, affordable, dispatchable clean energy, (2) East-West cooperation in a way that accommodates developing world needs, and (3) intervention with Earth’s radiation imbalance to phase down today’s massive human-made ‘geo-transformation’ of Earth’s climate.” ,
That is the ONLY place in the entire Research Paper that Hansen uses the phrase “Required actions” – it is a cherry pick by MAR that distorts Hansen’s actual recommendations for action – being INTERVENTION and not Geoengineering!
MAR then proceeds to rephrase :”The Michael Mann comments “ in his November 1, 2023 artilce;
NK: To whit Hansen’s replies forcefully to all with this in March 2024:
“The scientists reject, without any evidence to the contrary, the evidence we presented that IPCC’s best estimates for climate sensitivity and human-made aerosol forcing are substantial underestimates. They rule out, without evidence, our suggestion that decreases of aerosols, especially those produced by ships, are a significant climate forcing that is causing global warming acceleration.” See Page 3 –
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2024/Hopium.MarchEmail.2024.03.29.pdf
MAR: claims Hansen did not provide ” a point-by-point analysis. “
NK: I put it to readers that M Mann in his artcile DID NOT provide ” a point-by-point analysis” nor REFUTATION of the major Points in the Piplenie paper – he skipped them, and offered irreleavnt or superceded information.
M Mann (and others too) say a lot. But this article and misc social media comments do not amount to a peer reviewed paper, nor genuine scientific evidence / data, nor a valid scientific argument against Hansen et al 2023.
Nor does what M Mann say equate to an IPCC Consensus that his arguments are valid or undermine what Hansen et al 2023 have concluded – which to Mann has argued is the gold standard of approval and scientific agreement.
QUOTE: Prof Michael E. Mann @MichaelEMann
27 Jun 2023 Replying to @NickCowern @LeonSimons8
IPCC represents the consensus. Individual articles don’t. Until there’s a major assessment (NAS or IPCC) saying otherwise, the claim of a sharp decrease in global aerosol forcing past 4 years must be considered an extraordinary claim lacking evidence. I’m done w/ this now, ok?
Jun 27, 2023 · 2:01 AM UTC
https://nitter.poast.org/MichaelEMann/status/1673511877790388225#m
NOW, people may choose to believe Hansen, or to believe Mann, and many others who declare Hansen;s work invalid, flawed, or ludicrous … but that is a process of BELIEF not science, nor the scientific method.
This will not stop people trying to have it both ways anyway …. Hansen has been open and provided personal and professional reasons for everything he does and has not done. Believe it or not, or remember what he has said or not does not change Hansen’s position,
Kind Regards …
Hansen et al 2023 is here https://academic.oup.com/oocc/article/3/1/kgad008/7335889
Many science references and commentary can be found here by scrolling down several posts on RC
LINKS Related to Aerosols / Temperature acceleration / Hansen et al 2023
& Much Ado About Acceleration
Ned Kelly says
9 Apr 2024 at 1:54 AM
PART 2 of 2
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-apr-2024/#comment-821110
I’m not sure why the commenter Ned Kelly et al has posted here this response to my comment on a different thread. I will take my reply back to that original thread.
Further to Ned Kelly says
1 May 2024 at 7:58 PM
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-may-2024/#comment-821746
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
About
From the Shenanigans page
MA Rodger says
1 May 2024 at 5:30 AM
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/03/more-solar-shenanigans/#comment-821729
quote MAR:
“Michael Mann. says
(1) The ‘pipeline’ warming is balanced by the draw-down of GHGs (when we stop emission them)..”
These kinds of pronouncements, of achieving Net Zero by 2050 or anytime this century, about what Mann actually said [ the “zero emissions commitment” or “ZEC” (how much warming is expected when emissions reach zero), is ZERO degrees warming ] ——— based on the current thinking of mainstream science and global economic norms are insidiously deceitful when presented by Climate Scientists and/or the IPCC and other institutions.
They are as FALSE as still saying we can hold temperatures below +1.5C now going forward, or even below +2C – both are impossible under current global economic geopolitical norms with no signs of changing in the slightest.
It is FALSE – DISHONEST to be suggesting NET Zero with a ZEC is achievable at all this century. It’s a fantasy. It is not scientifically valid at all. It’s a totally unrealistic impossible assumption.
It is NOT Science. It is NOT credible. It is POLITICAL IDEOLOGY, not climate science!
This is not real genuine Science — it’s ideology and propaganda and gross disinformation packaged as climate science findings. People who still promote or believe this ‘garbage beliefs’ are imho extremely delusional or are being intentionally dishonest, and self-serving bordering on genocidal.
They are a dangerous threat to all of us on Earth…. no better than fanatical climate change agw deniers. Same bone, different horse. (that’s a metaphor) That otherwise “intelligent” people believe this garbage is astounding, however humans have believed far worse in the past.
There IS a very long track record of extreme human gullibility and collective insanity we’ve seen before. So here we are again. On both extremes of the issue.
Why new proposals to restrict geoengineering are misguided
We need more research, including outdoor experiments, to make better-informed decisions about such climate interventions.
By
Daniele Visioniarchive page
Assistant Prof @CornellEAS studying Climate Intervention across disciplines & perspectives.
https://nitter.poast.org/DanVisioni/with_replies
April 23, 2024
To be clear, I’m not a disinterested observer but a climate researcher focused on solar geoengineering and coordinating international modeling studies on the issue. As I stated in a letter I coauthored last year, I believe that it’s important to conduct more research on these technologies because it might significantly reduce certain climatic risks.
https://www.technologyreview.com/2024/04/23/1091604/why-new-proposals-to-restrict-geoengineering-are-misguided/
NK: Please put quotation marks (or some other distinguishing mark) around other people’s writing. Otherwise some casual reader might think you are speaking for yourself. You are quite obviously not a climate researcher yourself, and should admit as much. Your outrage diminishes from rather than adding to the sum of knowledge because you tempt people to ignore the material you spend so many hours posting here, despite the fact that it may in and of itself be worthwhile.
While the SAT re-analyses are showing April 2024 as the warmest April but with an anomaly lower than most of the ‘bananas’ anomalies of 2023, UAH TLT has reported an all-month record anomaly for April +1.05ºC, a rise on March’s +0.95ºC which was the previous top “banana.”
The list of top-ranked UAH TLT months run a lot different from the ERA5 SAT top-ranking. While UAH TLT does manage to find a reduced rate of warming (compared with say RSS TLT), the main reason is the extra wobbliness seen through an El Niño within TLT relative to SAT. [Thus in RSS TLT to 2/2024, the 2016 & 1998 months in the top-14 UAH months below aren’t so misaligned.]
UAH TLT highest monthly anomalies
& (ERA5 SAT ranking) & [RSS TLT ranking]
1st … 2024 … 4 … +1.05ºC … (11th)
2nd … 2024 … 3 … +0.95ºC … (6th)
3rd … 2023 . 10 … +0.93ºC … (3rd)
4th … 2024 … 2 … +0.93ºC … (5th)
5th … 2023 . 11 … +0.91ºC … (2nd)
6th … 2023 … 9 … +0.90ºC … (1st)
7th … 2024 … 1 … +0.86ºC … (9th)
8th … 2023 . 12 … +0.83ºC … (4th)
9th … 2016 … 2 … +0.71ºC … (10th)[3rd]
10th … 2023 … 8 … +0.69ºC … (8th)
11th … 2016 … 3 … +0.65ºC … (12th)[8th]
12th … 2023 … 7 … +0.64ºC … (7th)
13th … 1998 … 4 … +0.62ºC … (147th)[17th]
14th … 2016 … 4 … +0.61ºC … (20th)[12th]
For those interested in how Wall Street could control response strategies to the climate crisis while continuing to profit from it, an interesting article on Larry Fink and Black Rock is here:
https://jacobin.com/2022/04/blackrock-climate-crisis-finance-fossil-green-esg-investments
This article Jonathon, was old news when it was written in 2022. Not even a tip of an iceberg. Who do you folks imagine wrote the IRA rules for the US? Certainly not the environmentalist Lawyers of the nation.
All of these corrupt practices happen in plain view. They even put it in the news and no one notices. Such as corporation like Black Rock who bought up almost all the agricultural lands of Ukraine after the west forced the post-Coup government to implement urgent reforms allowing non-Ukrainians to buy pristine valuable land for pennies in the dollar.
Subsequent to which What one overarching thing links Alexander Soros., Zelensky, Yermak & Fink in the rape of Ukraine and the fire sale of land to BlackRock, Dow Chemical, DuPont, BASF, etc for the dumping of hazardous waste —- UKR Govt gives 400 sq klms prime land to these corporations in perpetuity…
https://twitter.com/DannysInferno/status/1784680430978945290
https://tass.com/world/1714983
“There are too many cemeteries.” – Fink
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/evgueni-kiritchenko-986a763_this-is-not-only-your-land-said-larry-activity-7114932574619082752-oV0v
The deal is officially done now – for 400 square kilometers of land in the Ternopol, Khmelnitsky and Chernovtsy regions “for indefinite and concessional use” by Western companies.
It’s all in plain view … but ignored. Meanwhile in the US by the time (a few decades from now) when the nukes and coal fired stations are shut down, and the population realizes the RE replacements are insufficient to meet demand and the Gas fields output plummets and they will eventually figure out the black outs and massively expensive but unreliable energy supply was predicated on the govt / corporate corruption nexus based on all these lies and outright fraud.
And all in plain view in Laws such as the IRA. But that’s ok, because no one really cares — all that matters today is the nice sounding Narratives of the Future that will never arrive. This is how it is today. And this is what the future foretells – disaster in a rapidly warming world.
“corporation like Black Rock who bought up almost all the agricultural lands of Ukraine”
— reference, please?
The area of Ukraine is about 600,000 sq km.
BUT John, there’s more …… are up up to reading searching and thinking?
Ukraine’s farm minister tenders resignation over corruption allegations
Reuters
25 April 2024
Under the alleged scheme, the land worth over US$7 million was illegally taken from two state firms and transferred to war veterans on the condition they lease it to some private firms, prosecutors said.
More than 150,000 land agreements signed in Ukraine
Ukrinform
03 Mar 2023
Ukrainian Agrarian Policy and Food Ministry says a total of 153,659 land agreements, covering 344,061 ha, have been signed since the land market was launched, including nearly 100,000 ha over the past year.
Ukraine’s other land grab
Al Jazeera
09 April 2023
Harvard, Saudi Arabia and The Vanguard Group are just a few of the investors who have been buying up Ukrainian land en masse, while many Ukrainian farmers argue it should stay in Ukrainian hands.
Guerre et spoliation : la prise de controle des terres agricoles ukrainiennes
Oakland Institute
04 May 2023
Depuis l’invasion russe en février 2022, la guerre en Ukraine est au centre des questions de politique étrangère et des médias. Cependant, peu d’attention a été accordée à une question majeure qui est au cœur du conflit : qui contrôle les terres agricoles dans le pays connu comme le « grenier de l’Europe » ?
How Agroprosperis partnered with employees to create a profitable agribusiness
AgFunder
23 May 2023
When NCH Agriculture, a $1 billion agriculture investment business, founded Agroprosperis in 2006, they didn’t have a plan but they saw an opportunity to invest in cheap Ukrainian farmland.
Second phase of Ukraine’s land reform underway, critics say law will hurt small farmers
Kyiv Independent
16 January 2024
Ukrainian businesses can now legally buy land in Ukraine as of Jan. 1 as part of the second phase of a historic decision in March 2020 to lift a near 20-year moratorium on the sale of land.
Russia seizes assets of agricultural firm AgroTerra
Reuters
09 April 2024
Russia has seized companies belonging to agricultural firm AgroTerra and placed them under temporary management, including some backed by Dutch investment firms, a decree signed by President Vladimir Putin showed late on Monday.
Enough? (smile)
In Science Advances May 1st, 2024:
Efficient spin-up of Earth System Models using sequence acceleration
Author Samar Khatiwala
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adn2839
Abstract
Marine and terrestrial biogeochemical models are key components of the Earth System Models (ESMs) used to project future environmental changes. However, their slow adjustment time also hinders effective use of ESMs because of the enormous computational resources required to integrate them to a pre-industrial equilibrium. Here, a solution to this “spin-up” problem based on “sequence acceleration”, is shown to accelerate equilibration of state-of-the-art marine biogeochemical models by over an order of magnitude. The technique can be applied in a “black box” fashion to existing models. Even under the challenging spin-up protocols used for Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) simulations, this algorithm is 5 times faster. Preliminary results suggest that terrestrial models can be similarly accelerated, enabling a quantification of major parametric uncertainties in ESMs, improved estimates of metrics such as climate sensitivity, and higher model resolution than currently feasible.
I’m still trying to digest the article and would welcome any comments from RC’s hosts or any of the commentators that frequent the comments here. If this represents an advancement in reducing the time required to run the Earth Systems Models, I think this would be good news.
A followup article at phys.org by researcher Samar Khatiwala concerning the computing advance in reducing runtimes of ESM’s:
https://phys.org/news/2024-05-climate-months-supercomputers-algorithm-ten.html
The article states that “the UK Met Office and other climate modeling centers are trying it out.” Does anyone know if this is something that NOAA, NASA, or others here in the U.S. are currently “trying out?”
India TV News, following on from info posted above on “Future projections for the tropical Indian Ocean” the landmark study on the impact of climate change identified the Indian Ocean and surrounding countries as a region with the highest risk of natural hazards, more intense extreme cyclones, more intense rainfall, and the devastation of corals, marine life, and fisheries may soon be upon us.
Catastrophic Climate Change in the Indian Ocean
Report’s author Dr Roxy Mathew Koll said we are living in a frying pan.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-RGGJJSvuE
The world’s scientific opinion extends beyond the USA and Europe after all.
And now even UAH satellites are catching up with the “news”.
The UAH anomaly for Feb’24 was a huge +0.93° above the 1991-2020 mean, equaling the record high monthly anomaly of +0.93 deg. C set in October, 2023.
The Version 6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for March, 2024 was +0.95 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, up slightly from the February, 2024 anomaly of +0.93 deg. C, and setting a new high monthly anomaly record for the 1979-2024 satellite period.
UAH April 2024 – Easily records the warmest month record anomaly of +1.05 C
This dwarfs the old 1998 and 2016 super El Ninos of circa +0.6-0.7C
Will May send us Chills as the NH warms towards summertime?
Let’s wait and see before taking action. Let’s continuously keep waiting and seeing what the next sets of Data says in the months ahead, next year, and the year after and the year after non-stop. .
To Tomas,
Beyond possible issues with ESM inputs and the shallow representation of Earth System processes in computational contexts, with the associated major downstream consequences in politics, I suspect that at the heart of the matter lies in what I perceive as the outcome of narrow and insufficient teaching.
As an alternative, Jehne has a way of connecting biosystems, soils, hydrologies, and climates for young students, albeit from a somewhat idealistic Naturalist point of view. Here he offers perspective from his local teaching park in Australia.
https://vimeo.com/391991020
Jehne’s techniques could be of interest to you, Tomas, which appear to blend artificial moisture input with ecological synergies to yield beneficial outcomes even in extreme conditions.
While he runs the risk of over-selling his methods, it offers perspective which is sorely lacking in the context of commodification and myopic politicization of environmental principles.
Poignant in Jehne’s discussion is around the 9:30 mark where he reminds that we all have power to nurture our landscapes, down to a single square meter.
Instead of merely airing grievances against politicians and one-another, he advocates for investing time and effort into proactive measures.
Here on these pages the essential connections to our environments are being obscured by inadequate teaching, resulting in a skewed perspective and misguided priorities, along with ignorant arguments and distortions made in bad faith. Quite a lot of misunderstanding.
I hope this helps.
PS – I’d appreciate feedback on whether these videos from practitioners in the field (with quite different perspectives) are aiding or impeding communication here. Please note that I do not necessarily endorse every last word these stewards have to offer, and I don’t align myself with an extremist regenerative ideology advocating for exclusive solutions.
JCM,
Some feedback. So I watched the video. In so much as I was somewhat (not a lot) familiar with the material, it looked pretty good to me. The leap to inferring that we could cool the planet this way seemed pretty abrupt if not facile, leaving more questions than it answered.
A couple of observations. Jehne seems to occupy a peculiar niche in world of popular ecology. On a first pass, I’d say he provides a certain type of appealing, easily repeatable language, which IMO can be a double edged sword in politics. Not much more for me to say about that at this point.
I’m absolutely all for restoring degraded land, so as far as I’m concerned, we should do it for a whole host of reasons, including it’s impact on AGW whether or not that happens to include outsized effects of evaporative cooling– which has been a quite a point of contention here.
Of possible interest, an interview (Real Organic Project podcast) with climate activist Bill McKibben which touches on Jehne, putting him in a slightly different frame regarding industrial agriculture, politics and so forth:
https://realorganicproject.org/bill-mckibben-winning-climate-argument-losing-fight-episode-twenty-four/
Also of possible interest:
S.1356 – Healthy Soils Healthy Climate Act of 2021
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/1356/text
USDA Makes $1.5 Billion Available to Help Farmers Advance Conservation and Climate-Smart Agriculture as Part of President Biden’s Investing in America Agenda
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/news/usda-makes-15-billion-available-to-help-farmers-advance-conservation-and-climate-smart
2021 op-ed in The Hill
It pays to go carbon negative on America’s soil infrastructure
“FDR once said that a “nation that destroys its soil destroys itself.” Nearly 90 years later, his words could not be more appropriate as the future of America’s climate and economy may literally lie in our soil.”
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/556751-it-pays-to-go-carbon-negative-on-americas-soil-infrastructure/
Thank you for your input Radge Havers,
USA has a rich history of soil conservation, dating back to FDR and honest efforts during the dust bowl. Programs have emerged across the world, where UK in particular is quite advanced.
In the contemporary context of climate change, the focal point of global Climate Smart Agriculture initiatives, promoted by World Bank, is to mitigate the net emission of various trace gases, including carbon dioxide, CH4, and nitrogenous gases.
In addition to public grants, ‘natural asset corporations’ participate in carbon exchange markets, actively seeking to register producers in alleged offsetting schemes that are purchased and sold on global markets. The corporations, financialized on Wall Street, act as brokers between buyers and sellers of carbon credits. This process involves assigning a value to ecosystem services based on their capacity to sequester carbon.
In either scenario, today the ecologies have been distilled, reduced, and abstracted into balance problem of trace gas. Such programs are sometimes described as sky-money, or creative accounting schemes (to be polite).
There is a risk in sky-money conservation incentives, not least because I think very few actually believe that trace gas meddling is addressing climate issues in their communities. Does anyone truly believe a “drawdown” of atmospheric carbon dioxide is resolving the climate crisis by modifying the greenhouse effect? No, I don’t think so. Thus, producers are being unwittingly enrolled in what could be perceived as a sham. Controversies over quality, verification (or lack thereof), permanence, loopholes, and leakage still proliferate, along with acknowledged weaknesses and some accusations of fraud. If you are trying to sell a partially imaginary exchange value, the packaging will become complicated.
However! incidental co-benefits must be recognized, such that communities stand to benefit primarily from the direct use-values of organic carbon development, aggregation, reduced bulk density, lowering inputs costs, microbial development, and the intrinstic values associated with enhanced nutrient and water cycling.
These benefits must be duly acknowledged, and I am fully 100% supportive of conservation stewardship Bills; but, I must admit there is an unease among producers in participating in a facade. Regardless, there is no shortage in demand for this sky-cash (which far exceeds supply), but personally I have concerns about the political viability of a program predicated on ecological valuation by trace gas alone.
I suspect academia and climate modelers have a role to play to ensure a sustainable political landscape emerges by acknowledging the comprehensive full stack of beneficial outcomes of stable ecologies.
thanks again for the feedback.
JCM: Does anyone truly believe a “drawdown” of atmospheric carbon dioxide is resolving the climate crisis by modifying the greenhouse effect? No, I don’t think so
BPL: No, simply and solely because no drawdown has occurred yet. Would a drawdown resolve the climate crisis? Yeah, pretty much.
Well, we did have a “drawdown” ~1520-1610, about half the 7-10ppm drop
attributed to massive reforestration in the Americas, due to deaths of ~90% of the ~60M native Americans.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379118307261
Conclusion: removing CO2 is hard.
Thanks for the link, Dr. Mashey, pre-contact demographics of the Americas is a fascinating, and horrifying, topic unto itself. Comments like yours are why RC is still worth monitoring, despite being flooded with an unprecedented level of noise these days. A daily glance at the “Recent Comments” list is a small price to pay for the occasional gem.
JCM,
There’s plenty that reasonable people can disagree about on policy. However with regard to this:
That looks like some loaded rhetoric: bring down a policy because of suspicions about government by finding a way to discredit the science. Am I wrong? Either way, my observation is that that doesn’t really say much of anything about science.
IMO, and anyone please feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, the validity of the AGW model won’t stand or fall on incredulity, or hypotheses about irrigation. Rather what’s important is the mechanism driving the model; that is the physical chemistry of GHGs and their effects on the atmosphere. if you can’t address that directly, well established as it is, and without conjuring up conspiracies, then you might as well be spitting in the wind as far as the actual science is concerned.
Are you saying “Hey climate modelers! Don’t get uppity!?” But if you’re saying that we’d all benefit if we all took a more integrated, comprehensive approach to, well, just about everything, then I agree with that. All I can say is that the various geosciences are more integrated now than they were 50+ years ago. At least that’s movement in the right direction… as opposed to the very strong countervailing movements that purposely foment and capitalize on fear, suspicion, and division.
(Or Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt if you prefer).
In re to: “Am I wrong?” ?
Yes I think so. The science or politics (or whatever) about how emitting carbon dioxide could potentially be offset by a process of carbon “drawdown” into soils and trees risks being perceived as disingenuous. Because fossil fuels remain central to our societies, and governments are struggling to restrain emissions, there’s a push to bolster markets for carbon offsets. The article you provided describes it as a “revenue-producing commodity” – “Carbon farming” as a “win-win-win”; to make “farmers profitable for decades”. By leveraging government subsidy to register with Wall-Street brokers, artificial revenue is generated (sky-money).
I must admit that many find the prospect of making a livelihood based imaginary exchange value to be risky, unsustainable, and somewhat insulting. In my experience, people typically prefer to engage with concepts rooted in genuine reality and value rather than those perceived as contrived or misleading. Environmental conservation and stewardship was founded on sincere and honest efforts, and I see no reason to deviate from those principles now. While the intentions behind transforming federal conservation stewardship into “carbon farming” may be well-meaning, it poses significant risks to the integrity and long-term viability of such programs.
As FDR realized during the dust bowl, governments, communities, and individual stewards have considerable opportunity to enhance soil health, watershed process, and effective water and nutrient cycling. While these may not constitute a complete solution, they have the enormous advantage of being real and tangible, with immediate measurable benefits for watersheds, communities, and climates. This trick has been, and always will be, to avoid displacing honest and genuine efforts with a sham.
cheers
JCM,
Well, as I read it, you sort of characterize the opinion of one farmer in The Hill article you mention.
As near as I can tell, the subsidies are intended, among other things, to enable a return to some farming practices that have been abandoned in some areas. The overall aim is to “help farmers save money, create new revenue streams, enhance natural resources, and [in addition] tackle the climate crisis.” The carbon sequestration aspect of the funding is partly to benefit plant health, but since the climate part of that is not well understood, the plan is apparently to set up pilot projects to study the effects and viability of different practices on climate. (emboldened brackets mine)
As you’ve to doubt noticed, I’m not an expert, but one thing you can’t say is that soils are being ignored. Moreover, I’m not seeing how stewardship is somehow being threatened by this. But if you’re talking about carbon offsets, that’s in another policy area that is fairly open to criticism.
Eliding those two different things is obfuscation and part of the problem because it gives rhetorical permission to attack the science on the basis of policy. That way leads to confirmation bias and motivated reasoning, and is the basis for so much of the propaganda leading to the denialism that justifies kicking the climate can down the road. In a fundamental way it’s anti-science.
I define the ‘thinking’ (?) and the rhetoric of this ::
>>>> …The science or politics…
Eliding those two different things is obfuscation and part of the problem because it gives rhetorical permission to attack the science on the basis of policy. That way leads to confirmation bias and motivated reasoning, and is the basis for so much of the propaganda leading to the denialism that justifies kicking the climate can down the road. In a fundamental way it’s anti-science.
<<<<<<
… as paranoid delusional conspiratorial theorising phantasist hogwash, The disconnect from reality, and to what was being said above, could be measured in light years.
This is the speech/opining that needs to be eradicated completely from 'discussions/commentary' and if not at least publicly condemned and ignored, as I am doing now.
Deleted would be a better option, but this will not happen as we continue to circle the drain.
Interesting piece by Dr. Mann on “doomism” perhaps relevant to the resulting panic over Dr Hansen’s “Pipleline” paper
https://www.crikey.com.au/2021/02/08/new-climate-war-book-extract/
Quote from the article:
“unfocused and diffuse ‘panic’ messaging can lead to counter-productive actions. As we have seen [December 2019 Washington Post op-ed], it has led to support for potentially dangerous geoengineering schemes, which have been sold as a necessary last-ditch means of averting climate devastation.”
One can only hope that a decade or so from now you will recall what you were thinking and posting today Jonathon.
Jonathan David: – “Interesting piece by Dr. Mann on “doomism” perhaps relevant to the resulting panic over Dr Hansen’s “Pipleline” paper”
The Mann article you link to begins with:
What effective climate change action? GHG (e.g. CO₂, CH₄, N₂O, SF₆) levels continue to rise…
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/global.html
Governments around the world continue to encourage and facilitate more fossil fuel projects, which I’d suggest is contributing to an observed acceleration of global warming.
https://apnews.com/article/climate-change-hot-world-meteorological-organization-6096b3b604025aea9dee07a653907b55
See the table under the heading Key Data Points Show Accelerated Warming at:
https://parisagreementtemperatureindex.com/1000-day-climate-graphic-design/
On Apr 17, over the previous 365-days the planet’s GMST averaged +1.60 °C relative to the 1850-1900 baseline.
https://twitter.com/EliotJacobson/status/1781284909333794919
Global sea surface temperatures keep on setting records with no end in sight.
https://twitter.com/EliotJacobson/status/1784966473469071510
I’d suggest this is reality; not ‘doomism’.
I’d suggest, based on the paleo-historical data presented by Schellnhuber in 2018, and the current CO₂ equivalent atmospheric level, the Earth System is currently on a trajectory towards a Miocene-like climate. I’d suggest Reduce, Remove, Repair is non-negotiable.
https://www.climatecodered.org/2023/06/three-climate-interventions-reduce.html
Jonathan David, are you denying reality? Are you denying the evidence/data in Schellnhuber’s 2018 presentation? Would you prefer ‘hopium’? I’d suggest ‘hopium’ and ‘magical thinking’ lead to complacency and inaction.
In the YouTube video published on 8 Jun 2023 titled A True Paradise: WHERE WE ARE HEADING – Kevin Anderson, duration 0:16:25, climate scientist Kevin Anderson warns that continuing on our current path could result in a 3-4 °C temperature rise by the end of the century, a catastrophic outcome to be avoided at all costs. Kevin Anderson says from time interval 0:00:52 (bold text my emphasis):
“If we think about where we’re heading, let’s be clear, we are over 30 years, 32 years now, since the first major scientific report on climate change that came out in 1990, and so I think when we judge where we are heading, we have to say, what have we done since 1990, where we’ve watched emissions go up year after year after year. They’re now over 60% higher per year than they were in 1990. So, there is lots that you will hear, lots of rhetoric, lots of good words, lots of optimism about the future. But given we’ve known about this subject, and apparently been working on it for 30 years, the trend line tells us that we are heading towards 3 to 4 degrees Centigrade of warming across this century – an absolute climate catastrophe, and it’s a catastrophe for all species, including our own. And so that’s the direction of travel. Now, that direction of travel does not have to continue, but the current trend line tells us that all we are doing so far is giving rhetoric and optimism and greenwash, and not driving the levels of change that are necessary to stay within the 1.5 to 2 degrees framing of the ‘Paris Agreement.’”
Kevin Anderson then says from time interval 0:02:52:
“When we think about 3 or 4 degrees Centigrade, let’s be clear: We have no historical precedent in human history for these sorts of temperature changes, and they are occurring overnight, and they don’t just occur across this century. Firstly, we know that things like sea level rise will keep going for hundreds of years after that, and that we are locking-in, absolutely locking-in really high levels of sea level rise, maybe 7, 8 or more metres. So we may only across this century see one or two metres, which will be devastating for many of our coastal cities. And of course, most of the population of the world live near the coast. So that will be devastating for our existing communities. But we are locking-in this devastation for centuries to come, but we are also changing very significantly how we will produce our food, whether we will produce enough food, where will our food be produced, and that’s because we’re changing the complete weather patterns of our society, of our Earth. We’re changing rainfall patterns. We’re changing insect pollination of our crops. So all of this plays out, one disaster after another. So any single one of them we might think, oh, we can resolve, we can deal with that, but when you bring all of these together, occurring almost overnight, you’re talking about the collapse of our modern society. You’re talking about the collapse of most of our sort of emblematic ecosystems. So this is not a future that we should be in any way be, we should be heading towards, and we should be doing everything we can to avoid it. The sad state of affairs is, though, that we’re doing nothing to avoid it. There is plenty of talk, but no action. And what we have to bear in mind is the climate only responds to action. The physics responds to how much carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases we put in the atmosphere. So we can talk about efficiency, we can talk about green growth and all of this stuff. It’s meaningless! What really matters is keeping the emissions out of the atmosphere.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_FtS_HNbkc
Jonathan David, are you rejecting Kevin Anderson’s presentation/messages?
You’ve missed the point Geoff. The inference of the piece by Dr Mann is that the climate crisis will be seen as a source of potential profit by investment capital interests such as Black Rock. Such investments are much more profitable in crisis (disruptive) situations. If a sufficient level of panic can be generated by “doomers” we will reach a situation where trillions of dollars of capital will be desperately thrown at anyone claiming to have a quick fix. I find the implication of seeking profit in such a desperate and serious situation to be highly offensive.
To conclude on a lighter note. I am reminded of a classic New Yorker cartoon by Bob Mankoff actually published in 2002. To me, this cartoon perfectly captures the venture capital mindset.
https://ritholtz.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/mankoff.jpg
Jonathon, why do you believe in mysticism?
“…the climate crisis will be seen as a source of potential profit by investment capital interests such as Black Rock.”
Huh? It has been seen as such for over 2 decades already Jonathon. Where have YOU been?
“…. Such investments are much more profitable in crisis (disruptive) situations. ”
Huh? This is well known …. no one needed an article by Mann with ideas taken from others to know this – or rather, should NOT have needed it. He’s decades late and a dollar short.
…..“If a sufficient level of panic can be generated by “doomers” [ like the HOCKEY STICK Graph producer ] we will reach a situation where trillions of dollars of capital will be desperately thrown at anyone claiming to have a quick fix.”
WE are WAY past that situation decades ago Jonathon — Where have YOU been? Literally Trillions of dollars of capital HAVE ALREADY BEEN desperately thrown at anyone claiming to have a quick fix ….. wake up already!
Like the Doomers who made a movie called “Don’t Look Up” some claimed was based on the great Life of a well known celebrity “Doomer Climate scientist”!
Sophistry … DO LOOK UP what it means, then work out what it LOOKS like when you see it being applied!
It’s the ignorance, the gullibility, and denial about this topic that I find most Odd.
Ned, why are you incapable of responding to what people actually say, rather than a straw-man characterization thereof?
Ray Ladbury says
5 May 2024 at 9:03 AM
Ray, I am very capable of responding to people’s comments in context, plus adding value and a broader context. I do it all the time. I am often calling out others, for putting words into my mouth no said, nor implied, aka strawmanning me.
I maintain I was speaking about what Jonathon was saying and questioning why he was saying it. Specifically his cherry picking out hypothetical potential futures versus the known past and present.
I have no idea why you are saying what you are saying now. So, please describe the “strawman fallacy” you believe and are claiming I am making Ray ….. about what Jonathon was saying.
Or don’t. Your call. :-)
Jonathan David: – “You’ve missed the point Geoff. The inference of the piece by Dr Mann is that the climate crisis will be seen as a source of potential profit by investment capital interests such as Black Rock. Such investments are much more profitable in crisis (disruptive) situations.”
I think your point is a distraction. I responded clearly to your first statement, referring to the article you linked to, and I quoted the first paragraph of that article and responded to what I think is our glaring current reality.
Jonathan David, if you (and Piotr, and perhaps may others) wish to be distracted by what may/could happen, and ignore the reality of our/humanity’s current predicament and trajectory towards likely civilisation collapse well before 2100, and what needs to happen to avoid it – Reduce, Remove, Repair – then I doubt I can stop you.
Jonathan David: – “I find the implication of seeking profit in such a desperate and serious situation to be highly offensive.”
I’d suggest money will be come worthless if civilisation collapses. In 2019 US author Jonathan Franzen put it like this:
https://www.jonathonporritt.com/mainstream-climate-science-the-new-denialism/
Reiterating Kevin Anderson’s poignant warning:
“The physics responds to how much carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases we put in the atmosphere.”
I’d suggest those wishing to preserve their profits (for themselves and/or their progeny) for the future need to heed Kevin Anderson’s warning and act accordingly/appropriately.
Coincidentally, Geoff. I felt exactly the same about your reply. But perhaps you would like to explain exactly what actions you are advocating. I must have missed that. My own view is that climate change must be addressed by rapid drawing down of GHG emissions. Techno-fixes are the distraction and the “hopium” here and are simply enablers for those opposing decreasing GHG emmisions.
Jonathan David (at 7 MAY 2024 AT 7:09 AM): – “But perhaps you would like to explain exactly what actions you are advocating. I must have missed that.”
Reduce, Remove, Repair. How many times do I need to repeat this here at this blog before people get the message? Or is this too inconvenient for your narrative, Jonathan?
Jonathan David (at 7 MAY 2024 AT 7:09 AM): – “My own view is that climate change must be addressed by rapid drawing down of GHG emissions.”
Reiterating again, as I’ve stated before at RC (on Feb 1):
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/unforced-variations-feb-2024/#comment-818872
Jonathan David (at 7 MAY 2024 AT 7:09 AM): – “Techno-fixes are the distraction and the “hopium” here and are simply enablers for those opposing decreasing GHG emmisions.”
So what non-“techno-fixes” do you propose for decreasing GHG emissions, Jonathan?
Gavin Schmidt said from time interval 1:13:21:
“So, so, if your question is: ‘Ah, what’s the likelihood of staying underneath two degrees in the absence of any ah, climate, ah, carbon dioxide removal?’ And the answer is going to be, ah, you know, very small chance, under, under reasonable assumptions about other things.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhvNVihv5Ww
Meanwhile, ICYMI, The Guardian published on 8 May 2024 a piece by Damian Carrington headlined World’s top climate scientists expect global heating to blast past 1.5C target. The article began with:
The survey sample size response was 380 (out of of 843 contacted).
For the question: How high will global heating go?
Below +1.5 °C: _ _ _ 6
At least +1.5 °C: _ _ 16
At least +2.0 °C: _ _68
At least +2.5 °C: _ 132
At least +3.0 °C: _ 100
At least +3.5 °C: _ _33
At least +4.0 °C: _ _14
At least +4.5 °C: _ _ 7
+5.0 °C or more: _ _ 4
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/08/world-scientists-climate-failure-survey-global-temperature
Hans Joachim Schellnhuber suggests if the Earth System gets much above +2 °C then we will likely get to +4 °C because of tipping points and feedbacks which would likely spell the end of human civilisation.
https://twitter.com/CodeRedEarth/status/1751563836685942870
Jonathan David, do you wish to ignore the inconvenient message climate scientists are telling us?
Meanwhile, on 9 May 2024, the Australian Government unveiled its Future Gas Strategy, seeking to lock in the climate wrecking fossil fuel as a “crucial” energy generation and export staple through “to 2050 and beyond.”
https://reneweconomy.com.au/labor-caves-in-to-fossil-fuel-cartel-as-it-locks-in-gas-beyond-2050-amid-deepening-climate-crisis/
It seems to me many governments around the world aren’t heeding the warnings from climate scientists.
Jonathan David says
7 May 2024 at 7:09 AM
“My own view is that climate change must be addressed by rapid drawing down of GHG emissions.
I ask again – HOW do you propose implementing a rapid reduction of human GHG emissions?
I ask it of everyone here many times. No one has an answer. For 30 years there has been NO “rapid reduction” instead only a “rapid increase” of emissions and fossil fuel use.
So Jonathon, or anyone, tell the world what exactly is going to be done differently tomorrow, next year, in 5 years or 10 years that has not happened by now.
Explain the process IN DETAIL ….. how much GtC will be stopped from being emitted under your Plan, and how much Fossil Fuel and what type will no longer be used as Energy Supply, and what specifically REPLACES that energy OR what will rapidly reduce the Human Consumption of that Energy – where, when what how and why will it work?
You have no answer — all you have a protest Chant –
What do we want?
Reduce GHG Emissions
When do we want it?
Now!
That is not a realistic practical Plan to rapidly reduce GHG emissions!
Nor is what is contained in the UNFCCC COP pronouncements.
You and they have no Plan. There is no feasible Plan possible without massive reductions in ENERGY USE globally and it’s simultaneously tied reductions in ECONOMIC ACTIVITY and Material Consumption.
Why?
Because current “technology” of Renewable Energy alternatives (and ramping up Nuclear) cannot replace Fossil Fuel Energy Consumption to avert catastrophic global warming continuing.
NET ZERO by 2050 or anytime this century is a total Fiction. It is in fact a LIE Jonathon. Cannot be done.
If it was possible then they’d have to explain how the world survives the Aerosol Reduction Shock that triggers rapidly increased global warming on top of what it already was, for several decades as result.
Johnathon et al – The Hopium is in you. You’re believing in Fictions and Lies, and physically impossible things being done.
The ONLY solution going forward is massive reductions in ENERGY CONSUMPTION by HUMANITY, including your self, and all the others on this forum.
You all refuse to do this and therefore you are denying science, reality and basic Physics.
Geoff asks a great question too –
How do you Reduce GHG emissions without applying Technology Fixes?
Prof Kevin Anderson and hundreds of other wise intelligent people have been telling you the same things for over two decades. The Club of Rome since the 1970s.
My apologies for repeating myself over and over again.
Kind Regards ….
I don’t see the article “inferring” that anywhere. What I see it saying in multiple ways is that “soft doomism” is used variously to:
1) promote despair and thereby, inaction;
2) promote geoengineering solutions (this is the closest approach to Jonathan’s idea that I see);
3) focus purely on adaptation rather than mitigation (which I’ve certainly personally witnessed outright denialists doing on quite a few occasions.)
A more comprehensive quote from the piece, incorporating Johnathan’s bit:
And this, I think, rather distinguishes Geoff’s approach from the hard-core ‘soft doomers’ [sic!]–like ER, he’s calling for rapid and decisive action–something I concur with.
This is all a beat up in people’s imaginations.
Please show me the long list of examples of high profile people/orgs (please Name and Date them) actually publicly promoting despair and thereby, inaction (please prove a credible link exists) that got some traction anywhere ; and show me HOW that promotion of “despair” changed anything to do with Public/Govt Policy for actions to address Global warming, reduce GHGs or climate chnage actions repsonses or PLanning long term.
Please LIST these things happening.
Who, What, When, Where and How …. show me the evidence that goes beyond some “flaky speculative claim” – with zero evidence – being written about online by someone of no consequence.
Or someone of ‘consequence’ making claims on social media with zero evidence beyond their precious overinflated handwaving hyperactive or hysterical ‘Opinion’.
Show me the evidence for these unfocused and diffuse “panic” messaging events, leading to to counter-productive actions which had led to support for potentially dangerous geoengineering schemes which have then been sold as a necessary last-ditch means of averting climate devastation.
Please List them in Date order. Provide evidence the claims and speculations are true and correct and actually happened and actually impacted Public Policy on Climate Action.
An article in the Washington Post is a nothing-burger of made out of a hill of beans plus a vacuum. None of that was REAL … it’s a fiction story, made up for click bait and entertainment value for the hoi polloi. It’s not serious Climate Action Policy by anyone in Power.
Without substantive evidence, overwhelming in scope and numbers of times it happens, these fictional stories are ludicrous make believe fake news reports of no value and no consequence and not part of reality.
Try harder. Much better to deal with real things, with facts with evidence and not stories nor Propaganda by self-serving attention-seeking bs artists.
Kevin McK:
Exactly! [thanks]
Kevin, your point (2) is most pertinent to my comment. Inducing blind panic can encourage people to make unwise and even reckless decisions. This is especially true if climate change is shown to be accelerating. The potential resort to the use of geoengineering is a particular concern as Michael Mann expresses above and in other online comments
https://michaelmann.net/content/comments-new-article-james-hansen
Geoengineering is only one small part of it although resorting to this option has been shown to be potentially very dangerous
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/its-time-to-engineer-the-sky/
and ultimately cannot work due to induced moral hazard. This was shown repeatedly in the 2008 financial crisis. Providing a plausible “fix” will eliminate the incentive for GHG emitters to reduce emissions.
Furthermore, I am concerned that blind panic may be exploited by Wall Street investment capital in ways that would ultimately make matters worse.
https://www.wsj.com/science/environment/geoengineering-projects-cool-planet-weather-f0619bf7?st=fuli1ghzcslkru5&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/solar-geoengineering-looks-to-silicon-valley-for-new-wave-of-funding/
If you are not familiar with investment capital strategies, my link to the involvement of Black Rock in the climate crisis may be of interest.
https://jacobin.com/2022/04/blackrock-climate-crisis-finance-fossil-green-esg-investments
As far as calling for rapid and decisive action, who doesn’t call for this, besides Victor.? The question is: exactly what action?
John said: “As far as calling for rapid and decisive action, who doesn’t call for this, besides Victor?”
Well, it is pretty much the definition of “lukewarmer,” isn’t it? And they are around, including sometimes on these boards. But hey–all I said on that head was that I agreed with Geoff there.
It’s true that the question is “what actions follow?”
I’ve given my list in the past: basically, 1) substitute every FF use that can be done quickly, while also 2) promoting efficiency and reduction, and 3) beginning and/or intensifying the consideration, strategizing, planning and implementation of and for true sustainability. (That’s something that will take a deep transformation of society, which is why it’s not, IMO, the immediate solution–a point others here have been known to disagree with.)
Jonathan David says
9 May 2024 at 12:24 PM
RE –The potential resort to the use of geoengineering is a particular concern as Michael Mann expresses above and in other online comments
https://michaelmann.net/content/comments-new-article-james-hansen
————–
AS has already been pointed out, Mann’s false accusations against Hansen’s “ideas”, his scientific analysis, his Data used, and the actual contents in his paper vs what Mann incorrectly claims is written and what Hansen MEANS to an objective UNBIASED READER, is just another case of “panicked hand-waving attention seeking” as referred to by Gavin in the recent i’view I quoted.
Now Jonathon double downs and misrepresents Hansen et al (2023) and all the coauthors.
Clearly Jonathon has NOT read the Paper, nor Hansen’s subsequent articles and interviews about that. It is M Mann as well who does not have a clue what was being said. Reading his dubious article side by side with Hansen’s paper is all that is required.
JUST LOOK.
You should be ashamed of yourselves for such gross distortions and being so incompetent while imagining you;re really smart and know what you are talking about. You do not. .
Kind regards …. and good luck eventually seeing what is actually there instead of being influenced by the false online propaganda and mobbing by lightweights.
Ned Kelly
“This is all a beat up in people’s imaginations. Please show me the long list of examples of high profile people/orgs (please Name and Date them) actually publicly promoting despair and thereby, inaction (please prove a credible link exists) that got some traction anywhere ; and show me HOW that promotion of “despair” changed anything to do with Public/Govt Policy for actions to address Global warming, reduce GHGs or climate chnage actions repsonses or PLanning long term….. etcetera”
Fair questions. I found a couple of examples of scientists arguably spreading doom, namely Guy McPherson, and Jem Bendell and I certainly recall several articles on Guy McPherson so he has gained some traction in that sense. I dont have time to find details beyond that or a long list of doomers. McPherson has claimed billions of people will be dead within a decade. Source material:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/03/24/climate-doomers-ipcc-un-report/
Whether he has slowed down progress on mitigation is unknown to me and would require too much time to investigate, but given the social dynamics of our society his sort of rhetoric has likely already had some effect on some governments. We know how people look for narratives that fit their world views and beliefs. So a narrative that says we are all doomed regardless of what we do, would suit some peoples desire desire to keep burning fossil fuels.
The article in the link is from the Washington post and titled “Why climate ‘doomers’ are replacing climate ‘deniers’. How U.N. reports and confusing headlines created a generation of people who believe climate change can’t be stopped. By Shannon Osaka”.
I think the article sums up the climate doom situation quite well. I think that paragraph sums it up:. The doomy narrative is often the media spin to grab attention, where they distort the actual scientific findings.
FWIW if people want to argue we are doomed, or the climate problem cant or wont be fixed that does seem like their right to do so and their freedom of speech. In principle they could be right and so shouldn’t be silenced. But it doesn’t help when their arguments are nonsensical and lacking in decent evidence, like many of Guy McPhersons. Many of these people should think before they open their mouths and that is the problem because they do end up feeding the people who want to go on burning fossil fuels.
Whether the various climate solutions will work is open to debate. I don’t believe anyone can credibly claim 100% certainty either way. I’m personally satisfied the renewables solution could be scaled up and society will increasingly embrace it but Im certainly not 100% certain it will be adequately embraced to fix the problem. There are many obstacles in the way so its maybe 50 / 50. I try to be a realist.
James Hansen makes some very extreme climate predictions. I think thats good because you need someone exploring the outer limits of the physics what might happen, but he is not claiming he is 100% certain, or that we are all doomed and he’s not arguing solutions wont work, quite the reverse. So his framing of things seems generally good.
Ok that was a bit of a rant but read the link people.
Kevin, your list makes sense but this is a very complicated question, it seems to me, with ramifications at the governmental, societal, corporate, financial and personal levels. I have no answers for this. It’s not too difficult to identify strategies that will not work, such as geoengineering, but difficult to identify those that will. Also, what is the best strategy on a personal level? Is activism a good option? And where should we be applying pressure? To the politicians? They are the ones who make the laws and have real power. Or to corporate and other institutions that actual generate emissions?
Geoff Miell: 3 MAY: “What effective climate change action?”
To whose words you take exception? I ask because “ Effective climate change action” does not appear in Jonathan David’s quote from Mann’s article, nor in your quote from the same article, nor in the article itself.
What Mann did say is that doomism’s:
“ unfocused and diffuse “panic” messaging can lead to counter-productive actions. As we have seen, it has led to support for potentially dangerous geoengineering schemes“, with trillions of dollars potentially diverted from GHG mitigation toward the geoengineering schemes and toward adaptation.
So your objection: “What effective climate change action?” not only is a strawman, but a faulty strawman at that:
1. an “all-or-nothing” fallacy and lacking counterfactual comparison – the effect of past GHG mitigation has to be measured by the difference between realized AGW and the AGW that would have been in the absence of that mitigation.
2. uncritically extrapolates past into the future – you dismiss future GHG mitigation with the underestimated (see p.1) effects of the past GHG mitigation, as if the society awareness of the problem today was as it was 1970s, or 2000s.
To conclude – your criticism of Mann’s point would have a leg to stand on ONLY if you could show that redirecting trillions of dollars from GHG mitigation to geoengineering and adaptation is for the lack of a better word: “ good“.
Rolling the floor laughing out loud. I can’t ignore and walk past this one.
Piotr says
5 May 2024 at 6:23 PM
” I ask because “ Effective climate change action” does not appear in Jonathan David’s quote from Mann’s article, nor in your quote from the same article, nor in the article itself.”
Michael Mann’s quote by Geoff at the top went like this —-
“… and what it means for climate change action.”
When Geoff addresses that specific aspect, he adds the word effective and bolds it to make it stand out …..
Piotr has a major problem with that. A very serious major problem with it ….. and I love it that he does!
I’ll leave the rest for Geoff. (smile)
– Geoff, 3 May: “What effective climate change action?”
– Piotr, 5 May: “To whose words you take exception? “ Effective climate change action” does not appear in Mann’s article”
– Ned Kelly “ Rolling the floor laughing out loud. I can’t ignore and walk past this one.”
Those who can counter – do, those who can’t … assure the reader how laughable is the opponent’s argument.
Ned: “ Geoff addresses that specific aspect, he ADDS the word effective and BOLDS it to make it stand out ….. ”
Thank you for unwittingly supporting my point about Geoff employing a strawman:
def.: “ A straw man fallacy is when someone distorts or exaggerates another person’s argument
– “distorts”: Geoff putting in Mann’ mouth words he didn’t say, because he wasn’t talking about the effectiveness of past GHG mitigations.
– “exaggerates”: Ned K.: “ Geoff BOLDS [the ascribed to Mann claim] to make it stand out”
With defenders like you, who needs enemies?
Ned: I’ll leave the rest for Geoff. (smile)
You may be waiting a while – Geoff have already seen my response – and the best he could come up with – was to say that me and others who questioned his specific reading of Mann’s article … “ ignore humanity’s trajectory towards likely civilisation collapse“.
Since you can’t count on Geoff to do you work – how about you put your money where your mouth is, perhaps during a short break in your rolling on the floor?
To help – here it is:
== Piotr May 5: “1. It’s an “all-or-nothing” fallacy and lacking counterfactual comparison – the effect of past GHG mitigation has to be measured by the difference between realized AGW and the AGW that would have been in the absence of that mitigation.
2. It uncritically extrapolates past into the future – you dismiss future GHG mitigation with the underestimated (see p.1) effects of the past GHG mitigation.
To conclude – your criticism of Mann’s point would have a leg to stand on ONLY if you could show that redirecting trillions of dollars from GHG mitigation to geoengineering and adaptation is, for the lack of a better word: “ good“.
==========
Since you are still rolling on the floor – how hard would be for such smart guy like you to falsify it? And no, “you must be ignoring humanity’s trajectory towards civilisation collapse” – is already taken.
RE Piotr says
6 May 2024 at 6:21 PM
“I came for the Science, but stayed for the Humour.”
This song sums it up beautifully. . . . .
Blood, Sweat & Tears – Spinning Wheel (Official Audio)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFEewD4EVwU
Piotr: “ your criticism of Mann’s point would have a leg to stand on ONLY if you could show that redirecting trillions of dollars from GHG mitigation to geoengineering and adaptation is good”
Ned Kelly: “Rolling the floor laughing out loud. ” and
“I came for the Science, but stayed for the Humour. This song sums it up beautifully. . . . .Blood, Sweat & Tears – Spinning Wheel ”
– “What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence” (Hitchen’s razor)
Piotr: – “So your objection: “What effective climate change action?” not only is a strawman…”
Um… It’s the principal problem facing humanity and is an existential threat to our civilisation, and the consequences that likely brings to billions of people around the world! Did you not get the memo, Piotr?
Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, founder, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Germany is quoted in an article published by the European Commission’s Horizon EU research & innovation magazine on 24 Sep 2019, headlined ‘I would like people to panic’ – Top scientist unveils equation showing world in climate emergency:
https://projects.research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/en/horizon-magazine/i-would-people-panic-top-scientist-unveils-equation-showing-world-climate-emergency
Piotr: – “1. an “all-or-nothing” fallacy and lacking counterfactual comparison – the effect of past GHG mitigation has to be measured by the difference between realized AGW and the AGW that would have been in the absence of that mitigation.”
It seems to me you ignore my apparently inconvenient point: I’d suggest “past GHG mitigation” has not been effective to avoid our current trajectory towards civilisation collapse. Atmospheric GHG concentration levels continue to rise.
https://wmo.int/news/media-centre/greenhouse-gas-concentrations-hit-record-high-again
Global warming is accelerating.
https://twitter.com/rahmstorf/status/1749129415550706101
Do you deny the evidence/data I’ve presented, Piotr? Do you deny/disagree with the comments I’ve quoted by Schellnhuber, Anderson, etc?
Piotr: – “2. uncritically extrapolates past into the future – you dismiss future GHG mitigation with the underestimated (see p.1) effects of the past GHG mitigation, as if the society awareness of the problem today was as it was 1970s, or 2000s.”
Governments around the world, like state and federal governments in Australia, continue to encourage and approve more fossil fuel projects, which will make the climate worse for us/humanity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FLqYpD6eYw
Substantial sections of US society still think climate change is not the ‘top issue’.
https://theconversation.com/climate-change-matters-to-more-and-more-people-and-could-be-a-deciding-factor-in-the-2024-election-222680
Most Australians don’t see climate change as an extremely serious problem right now.
https://reneweconomy.com.au/not-listening-to-scientists-most-australians-dont-think-climate-change-is-a-serious-problem/
Half of Britons say they are too worried about the cost of living to think about the impact of climate change (52%) or would like to do more to reduce climate change but cannot afford to (51%).
https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/britons-concerned-about-climate-change-cost-living-barrier-action
Piotr: – “To conclude – your criticism of Mann’s point would have a leg to stand on ONLY if you could show that redirecting trillions of dollars from GHG mitigation to geoengineering and adaptation is for the lack of a better word: “ good“.”
As I’ve stated before at RC (on Feb 1):
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/unforced-variations-feb-2024/#comment-818872
I’ve just started to hear some of the comments by Dr. Gavin Schmidt in the YouTube video published by Climate Chat on 6 May 2024 titled Much Ado About Accelerating Warming with Climate Scientist Gavin Schmidt, duration 1:56:03. I thank Gavin for his comments/perspectives and his engagement with host Dan Miller, and in a Q&A including with Leon Simons.
For example, Gavin Schmidt, from time interval 1:13:21:
“So, so, if your question is: ‘Ah, what’s the likelihood of staying underneath two degrees in the absence of any ah, climate, ah, carbon dioxide removal?’ And the answer is going to be, ah, you know, very small chance, under, under reasonable assumptions about other things.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhvNVihv5Ww
Piotr, I think your comments are a distraction from what really matters (i.e. for preserving human civilisation, and the lives and livelihoods of billions of people beyond the next few decades) – Reduce, Remove, Repair. Nothing less will do.
Geoff Um… It’s the principal problem facing humanity and is an existential threat to our civilization, and the consequences that likely brings to billions of people around the world! Did you not get the memo, Piotr?
since you don’t get direct answer, here is a (hypothetical) analogy:
===
– G. : Mann claimed that 2+2= 1
– me: Mann said nothing of the sort
– G: Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, founder, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Germany is quoted as saying that 2+2 =4, i.e. NOT = 1. Mathematics is essential for the survival of our civilization. Did you not get the memo, Piotr?
==
You see the problem with the argument by that hypothetical G.?
If not – back to the straight talk – the existentiality of the threat of AGW – does not give you with blanket immunity for your misinformed? ego-driven? attacks on climate scientists who have contributed more to the knowledge of this threat than you.
Geoff: [questioning my q. 1] “ you ignore my apparently inconvenient point: I’d suggest “past GHG mitigation” has not been effective to avoid our current trajectory towards civilisation collapse
No, I conveniently pointed out that when comparing
the effectiveness of GHG past mitigation with those of geoengineering and adaptations (i.e. the point of the discussed here Mann’s article) – the effectiveness of past GHG mitigation on GW has to be quantified as a difference between the observed GW, and NOT 0, as you do, but with GW that would have been in the absence of GHG mitigation.
Geoff [puts here links to GHG concentration and GW trends and asks:} “Do you deny the evidence/data I’ve presented, Piotr? ”
No, I question your ability to understand what the arguments you patronizingly dismiss are about, or ability to admit that you were wrong: Your “data/evidence” does not address the question at hand – tells ONLY what GW was under GHG mitigation, but does not say what GW would have been WITHOUT it. See my previous paragraph.
Piotr 5 May – “2. uncritically extrapolates past into the future – you dismiss future GHG mitigation with the underestimated (see p.1) effects of the past GHG mitigation, as if the society awareness of the problem today was as it was 1970s, or 2000s.”
Geoff: Governments around the world, like state and federal governments in Australia, continue to encourage and approve more fossil fuel projects
That’s a “all or nothing” fallacy. The question – can you prove that the social awareness of the AGW threat and political will to mitigate GHG emissions TODAY and in the next few decades, IS/WILL be unchanged from those in 1970ies or 2000ies? If you can’t – then your argument against me backfires against you.
PiotrMay 5 –“To conclude – your criticism of Mann’s point would have a leg to stand on ONLY if you could show that redirecting trillions of dollars from GHG mitigation to geoengineering and adaptation is for the lack of a better word: “ good“.”
Geoff: “ As I’ve stated before at RC (on Feb 1): Reduce. Remove. Repair. ”
By their fruits, not their good intentions, you shall know them. And the fruits of doomists, whether the sincere ones,
as you seem to be, or the ego-driven (Ned Kelly?), may well be OPPOSITE to what they want (or declare):
– social apathy – if it SO bad, then what’s the point of even trying, let’s enjoy our consumption, while we can, and
After us, Deluge”
– be used by the corporate interests to divert the funding from GHG mitigation into geoengineering and adaptation.
And it is the latter that has been the subject of the Mann’s article.
Piotr (at 9 MAY 2024 AT 7:56 AM): – “since you don’t get direct answer, here is a (hypothetical) analogy:
===
– G. : Mann claimed that 2+2= 1
– me: Mann said nothing of the sort
– G: Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, founder, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Germany is quoted as saying that 2+2 =4, i.e. NOT = 1. Mathematics is essential for the survival of our civilization. Did you not get the memo, Piotr?
==
You see the problem with the argument by that hypothetical G.?”
It seems to me you are unable to argue on merits/evidence/data and resort to engaging with disingenuous/dishonest analogies. It suggests to me you have difficulty dealing with reality and would rather engage in fantasies, if not outright lies.
Piotr (at 9 MAY 2024 AT 7:56 AM): – “If not – back to the straight talk – the existentiality of the threat of AGW – does not give you with blanket immunity for your misinformed? ego-driven? attacks on climate scientists who have contributed more to the knowledge of this threat than you.”
I’m highlighting our/humanity’s reality with evidence/data/analyses from various credible sources (including links). It seems to me you’d much rather engage in ad hominem, fantasy analogies and straw man arguments, than provide factual/evidentiary counterarguments.
Piotr (at 9 MAY 2024 AT 7:56 AM): – “No, I conveniently pointed out that when comparing
the effectiveness of GHG past mitigation with those of geoengineering and adaptations (i.e. the point of the discussed here Mann’s article) – the effectiveness of past GHG mitigation on GW has to be quantified as a difference between the observed GW, and NOT 0, as you do, but with GW that would have been in the absence of GHG mitigation.”
It seems to me you can’t deal with the data/reality I’ve presented that indicates “past GHG mitigation” is clearly ineffective because evidence/data indicates atmospheric GHG concentration levels continue to rise and the rate of GMST is accelerating (i.e. from average 0.18 °C/decade for period 1970-2010 to circa 0.30 °C/decade post-2010).
Fig. 10 at: https://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2024/Hopium.MarchEmail.2024.03.29.pdf
Have you any data/analysis that quantifies the global warming difference between the effects of “past GHG mitigation” compared with a scenario of NO “past GHG mitigation”, Piotr? Put up or shut up! It seems like you would much rather engage in emotive ‘hand waving’ than deal in evidence/data.
Piotr (at 9 MAY 2024 AT 7:56 AM): – “That’s a “all or nothing” fallacy. The question – can you prove that the social awareness of the AGW threat and political will to mitigate GHG emissions TODAY and in the next few decades, IS/WILL be unchanged from those in 1970ies or 2000ies? If you can’t – then your argument against me backfires against you.”
Um… It’s what’s happening right NOW. Whether the political will to effectively mitigate GHG emissions changes in FUTURE AND IN A TIMELY MANNER is anybody’s guess. If constituents keep voting for politicians/governments that continue to encourage and facilitate more fossil fuel projects, then I don’t see any hope for a significant/effective change. It doesn’t help that many governments appear captured by fossil fuel interests. It is what it is.
I’d suggest most people around the world are probably not aware of how grim our/humanity’s predicament is and will be in the coming years/decades. Perhaps if they did become fully aware then perhaps they might get irate enough and protest (whether that manifests at the polling booths and/or in the streets, etc.) for better action?
Piotr (at 9 MAY 2024 AT 7:56 AM): – “PiotrMay 5 –“To conclude – your criticism of Mann’s point would have a leg to stand on ONLY if you could show that redirecting trillions of dollars from GHG mitigation to geoengineering and adaptation is for the lack of a better word: “ good“.””
We/humanity need to do many things to avoid civilisation collapse – simplistically it’s: Reduce, Remove, Repair.
Broadcast on ABC RN Breakfast on May 9, host Patricia Karvelas (PK) interviewed guest Professor Mark Howden (MH), Director of the Institute for Climate, Energy & Disaster Solutions at The ANU and a lead IPCC author. He spelled out what happens on a planet that’s more than +1.5 °C hotter & explains why the Australian Labor government’s future gas strategy doesn’t stack up. From time intervals:
0:01:18 PK: “What temperature rise are we on track for?“
0:01:21 MH: “Well, at the moment ah, the assessments under existing policies are around three degrees Celsius.“
0:01:28 PK: “What does that look like? We talk about these figures, and I want to make them meaningful for people listening that aren’t climate scientists. What, what scenarios can we expect with that trajectory?“
0:01:43 MH: “Well, one of the things is that when we say something like three degrees Celsius, that means very little to most people. Is that big, or is that small? And the answer is: It’s absolutely huge, in terms of the Earth System. So, if we look at the last ice age, last glaciation, the temperature during that glaciation was roughly five degrees lower than our historical temperatures. So, at five degrees is a glaciation that fundamentally changes the face of the world. Our sea levels were 120 metres below where they currently are. That’s what five degrees does. So, if we go three degrees up, it’s like two-thirds of, of the same sort of temperature change, but obviously in the other direction. We can’t have that temperature change without changing the face of the Earth.“
https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/radionational-breakfast/scientists-believe-warming-above-1-5c-unavoidable-/103823560
Much above +2.0 °C global warming means the Earth System will likely quickly get to +4 °C warming.
https://twitter.com/CodeRedEarth/status/1751563836685942870
We/humanity likely cannot adapt to +4 °C global warming level. Professor Shellnhuber said:
“‘Avoiding the unmanageable and managing the unavoidable.’ So you see, avoiding the unmanageable would be three, four, five, six degrees. I’m, I’m pretty sure we cannot adapt to that.”
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/unforced-variations-feb-2024/#comment-818872
Geoff Miell 10 MAY: “ you are unable to argue on merits/evidence/data and resort to engaging with disingenuous/dishonest analogies
Seeing an imaginary straw in the eye of an opponent and not noticing a beam in your own, Mr. Miell? I resorted to an analogy only AFTER you were unable to UNDERSTAND the straight short criticism of your attack on Mann.
Below are these 3 falsifiable points so everybody can check for themselves – how on topic is you multipage answer:
= Piotr May 5:
“ 1. It’s an “ all-or-nothing ” fallacy and lacking counterfactual comparison – the effect of past GHG mitigation has to be measured by the difference between realized AGW and the AGW that would have been in the absence of that mitigation.
2. It uncritically extrapolates past into the future – you dismiss future GHG mitigation with the underestimated (see p.1) effects of the past GHG mitigation.
[3] Your criticism of Mann’s point would have a leg to stand on ONLY if you could show that redirecting trillions of dollars from GHG mitigation to geoengineering and adaptation is OK.
==============================
And no – additional 5 screens of your fighting your own strawman (your imaginary opponent claiming that climate change is not that bad) – won’t change that.
I guess Mann’s argument that doomists, regardless of their motivations, are USED by the corporate interests to divert money from GHG emissions to geoengineering and adaptations must have hit home. By their fruits you shall know them.
Geoff Miell says
10 May 2024 at 9:46 PM
The officious activist Anti-doomer crowd of ‘scientists’ on the twitterverse are now digging up past info from COPs the IPCC reports etc about the +1.5C was never really expected not to be broken …. in the Grandiose Hopium SSR scenarios and Net Zero by 2050 Phantasy etc they say, were all founded up temporarily breaching the 1.5C then using CDR and other non-existent technologies to draw-down CO2 from the atmosphere again and store it forever down some hole in the ground.
Yes they are (imho observation) Bat Shit Crazy people …. or for want of a better words, Seriously Unhinged from Reality, despite being highly intelligent ‘popular’ climate scientists ….
The notion of remaining under +1.5C is in fact undeniably dead as a door nail already.
The +2C I’d suggest as do many others will be breached during the 2030s next decade, undoubtedly so.
WE have no capacity as species to return this earth below those temps in any possible futures from here – barring some extraordinary as yet unknown technology and capacity.
In recent i’view posted here, Gavin suggests +2.5C is basically baked in / a certainty iow this century.
You Geoff posit some saying +3C, and the recent survey of climate scientists author in the IPCC reports the majority midpoint sits around +3C to +3.5C before 2100.
I think that so a given. Past results are the highest determinate of future results. There is absolutely zero indication of concrete cooperation amoinf nation sot seriously practically or effecively rapidly draw down GHG emissions therefore more of the same is baked in.
Until miracles begin to happen …. sorry, they are not going to happen anytime soon.
Every govt comes to power (democratic or not) to ensure economic stability and growth – that then helps ensure their remaining in power going forward. Both those drivers demands maximising the supply of Energy at as low a cost as possible going forward.
Therefore, when you and others continue to point ot this — It doesn’t help that many governments appear captured by fossil fuel interests. It is what it is. …..
as being a core issue you are completely wrong – these claims are False.
They are NOT Captured by Fossil Fuel interests they are Captured by their OWN Self-Interests … and that deems it a necessity of continuing on the current global trajectory while giving LIP SERVICE to and minimising anything to do with Climate Change Action or International Agreements around the UNFCCC system and COP meetings each year.
And the horror of horrors, it is in fact the PEOPLE (ourselves) collectively in ALL NATIONS that demand the Governments continue to act in this way …. including those such as right here who continue mouth the pseudo-demands, street protest chants, and insincere platitudes of we need to rapidly reduce GHG emissions!
The majority continue to demand living in denial in that the results of a fossil fuel energy dominated global economy must continue on unabated – no questions asked!
And this is what you get. Ongoing acceleartion of global wamring from now through thr ene of the cenutury.
Until push comes to shove and the entirety of the present system collapses around us. Maybe only then some “miracle changes” might start ahppening.
Until disaster strikes and strikes and strikes nothing is changing. Stop blaming the fossil fuel companies and shareholders — they are giving us exactly what we demand — Cheap Energy on Tap, and a good Economy and High Standards of Living without really needing to work hard for it.
US I say are the Golden Billion …. it is US all who rule this world, both in the rich west and the rich in the global south / rest of the world.
You are all (collectively) getting exactly what you (the majority) want and have continually demanded since the words global warming and climate change became common.
Plus 3.5C here we come baby!
Piotr (at 11 MAY 2024 AT 6:02 PM): – “Seeing an imaginary straw in the eye of an opponent and not noticing a beam in your own, Mr. Miell?”
Says the apparent fantasist.
Piotr (at 11 MAY 2024 AT 6:02 PM): – “I resorted to an analogy only AFTER you were unable to UNDERSTAND the straight short criticism of your attack on Mann.”
I’d suggest you resorted to a false/disingenuous/dishonest analogy because you seem unable/incapable to argue with credible evidence/data or anything near a credible counterargument. It seems to me you employ similar tactics that it seems RC’s climate science and reality denier resident Victor might use, aye Piotr?
IMO, Professor Mann’s heavy ‘sugar-coating’ of the dire climate situation is likely to figuratively give one ‘diabetes’. I continue to stand by that statement since I made my comment on 1 Oct 2023.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/10/unforced-variations-oct-2023/#comment-814799
Since my comments were made in Oct 2023, it seems there are increasingly more climate scientists that are willing to highlight publicly the reality of our current climate trajectory.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/08/world-scientists-climate-failure-survey-global-temperature
https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/radionational-breakfast/scientists-believe-warming-above-1-5c-unavoidable-/103823560
IMO, that doesn’t negate the major contribution to climate science by Mann, Michael E.; Bradley, Raymond S.; Hughes, Malcolm K. with their Mar 1999 paper titled Northern hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: Inferences, uncertainties, and limitations, and what’s followed from that
https://doi.org/10.1029/1999GL900070
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph_(global_temperature)
Piotr (at 11 MAY 2024 AT 6:02 PM): – “I guess Mann’s argument that doomists, regardless of their motivations, are USED by the corporate interests to divert money from GHG emissions to geoengineering and adaptations must have hit home. By their fruits you shall know them.”
It seems Mann suggests the “Reduce” bit is primarily what’s needed:
https://michaelmann.net/content/best-climate-science-you%E2%80%99ve-never-heard
The paleo-historical record indicates that’s false and entirely inadequate/insufficient. I’d suggest Mann ignores what Hansen says is our ‘Faustian Bargain’ with the cooling effects from aerosols. Reduce, Remove, Repair is what is required to maintain a habitable planet compatible for our civilisation. Nothing less will do!
Indeed, by their fruits you shall know them. Piotr, I’d suggest you are revealing yours.
Geoff Miell 12 MAY I’d suggest you resorted to a false/disingenuous/dishonest analogy because you seem unable/incapable to argue with credible evidence/data
You either are unable to stay on topic and understand what is being said to you,
or you deliberately try a strawman fallacy where you try to discredit me by pretending
that I deny or minimize the civilizational threat posed by climate change. And to prove my point about you that – I don’t need any external links to “credible evidence/data” when your posts here make my case against you.
The discussion is NOT about the existence or severity of the climate change, but about the doomists making situation worse, not better, by playing into the hands of climate change deniers and corporations:
– doomism, regardless of its motivations, promotes social apathy – as I wrote:
“ if it SO bad, then what’s the point of even trying, let’s enjoy our consumption, while we can, and After us, Deluge”
– Mann pointed out that doomists play straight into the hands of the corporations trying to divert the money from renewables and other ways to mitigate GHG emissions, by discouraging them, and toward geoengineering schemes and toward adaptation, neither of which addresses the root cause of the problem. And he gave a specific example:
Mann (2021) Read no further than the headline of the December 2019 Washington Post op-ed: “Climate politics is a dead end. So the world could turn to this desperate final gambit.”
And you can’t wave off the criticism of the fruits of your and other doomists actions, by your patronizing lecturing Mann and me about …. the existence of the climate change, a subject that Mann knows more, and to understanding of which he has contributed much more, than you.
And typical for fundamentalists of any sort – doomist energy and venom is reserved to their “own side” – toward the people who consider GHG emissions existential danger to our civilization, NOT to those on the other side of the divide :
– see the warm words of support of your fellow doomist Ned Kelly to Tomas Kalisz who pushes geoengineering schemes of manipulation of the water cycle as an alternative to GHG mitigation, which he dismissed as “ brute force approach” that by relying “ on unsuitable tools may cause more harm than good“
“ By the fruits you shall know them ” and you can’t deflect it by pointing at me – it is your doomism that spreads apathy about climate and unwittingly, I hope, those who claim “ Climate politics is a dead end” and say it is time to divert money from GHG mitigation toward geoengineering and adaptation.
Piotr, Regarding the appeal of geoengineering solutions to Wall Street and the Fortune 500, the big money is currently in carbon capture and storage
Both Exxon, which does not include renewable sources in their strategy of energy transition:
https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/exxon-sees-carbon-capture-market-4-trillion-by-2050-2022-04-19/
and Occidental Petroleum, together with 500 million USD investment from Black Rock:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-11-07/blackrock-bets-550-million-on-occidental-carbon-capture-plant
https://www.npr.org/2023/12/27/1210928126/oil-climate-change-carbon-capture-removal-direct-air-capture-occidental
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/occidental-ceo-sees-potential-license-1000-carbon-capture-plants-2023-11-08/
Expect carbon capture to grow to a 3.5-4 trillion USD market per year by 2050. Aside from profits from technology licensing, Occidental also plans to use carbon capture to improve oil production. So it’s a win-win for them.
At this point it’s unclear if this technology can be scaled up sufficiently to actually make a difference. Occidental’s STRATOS venture is only designed to capture up to 500,000 tonnes of CO2 per year vs global emissions of 36.8 billion metric tons in 2023. Nevertheless, the technology is useful as a public relations gambit although some have raised questions that both Occidental and Exxon are simply serving their own interests:
https://electrek.co/2022/06/26/exxon-no-new-gas-cars-by-2040-wolf-in-sheeps-clothing-co2/
https://www.eenews.net/articles/carbon-removal-isnt-weird-anymore-that-worries-scientists/
According to Occidental CEO Vicki Hollub “This gives our industry a license to continue to operate for the 60, 70, 80 years that I think it’s going to be very much needed,”
In the NPR article an amusing quote from a Midland Texas oilman is included (which strikes me as pure Texas)
“Waymon Pitchford of Midland, Texas, thinks the idea of sucking carbon out of the atmosphere is as absurd as ‘draining the ocean with a straw.'”
“But, he says, the idea of it could ‘shut some people up’ — specifically, people who keep talking about the need to cut oil consumption.”
“‘So let’s go run out there and build all these plants we can build to shut up whoever we need to shut up,’ he said.”
I guess the problem is that some people just won’t shut up.
in Re to Geoff Miell, 12 MAY 2024 AT 9:46 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-may-2024/#comment-822099
and Piotr, 14 MAY 2024 AT 4:03 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-may-2024/#comment-822135
Dear Sirs,
As I noted my name in your interesting debate, let me say a word as well.
Personally, I am not so much afraid of the climate change itself, rather of inadequate actions that have to fix it, while in fact nobody knows how.
I think that reducing many activities as proposes Geoff is definitely reasonable and may become a good start. An unresolved question is in my opinion, how much reduction is reasonable and if it will be enough. Definitely we can invest resources spared by the said reduction into some active mitigation efforts. However, in which efforts exactly?
You have not responded to Geoff’s question (“Indeed, by their fruits you shall know them. Piotr, I’d suggest you are revealing yours.”) asked in this regard, Piotr.
What is, actually, your idea? Which priorities do you see? Which goals have to be set, in your opinion, by responsible politicians? And, how shall they achieve them?
And a slight correction at the end:
I have never said that active water cycle management should replace any other efforts.
I rather proposed considering it as an additional option that could perhaps exhibit positive synergies with other means (like solar energy exploitation) and perhaps be advantageously implemented therein.
Greetings
Tomáš
Tomas Kalisz: “Dear Sirs, As I noted my name in your interesting debate”
It’s not a debate (for that you’d need both parties to address opponents points – yet here I comment on Mann’s article, and in response Geoff lectures me that …. global warming is real and dangerous …). Because of that – not that interesting,
And your appearance is only incidental – an illustration of my point that les extremes se touchent: doomist Ned Kelly attacks Gavin or Mann, yet sides with and finds warm words of encouragement to the denialist Tomas Kalisz.)
TK: let me say a word as well.
what for – your opinions and intellectual quality can already be seen in 100s(?) 1000s (?) of your earlier post.
“ Personally, I am not so much afraid of the climate change itself ”
Not surprising, since you questioned its reality: TK: “the so called anthropogenic warming” . And even it was real – not very urgent – you asked us to WAIT with the action for … human ingenuity to come up with a magical technological fix.
rather of inadequate actions that have to fix it”
for which you dismissed GHG mitigation as a “brute force” approach, that can “ do more harm than good“, and pushed as its alternative – your water-cycle schemes – increasing present global desalination THOUSAND-fold – and by spraying many trillions of tons of desalinated water over 5mln km2 of Sahara ANNUALLY -after keeping it up for 100s (?) 1000s(?) of years, approach at maximum, …. 0.3K cooling.
By their fruits, not their declarations about themselves, you shall know them.
in Re to Piotr, 16 May 2024 at 9:34 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-may-2024/#comment-822193
Dear Piotr,
Please be so kind and do not deprive me of a right to correct you wherever you twist and misinterpret what I said. You wrote:
“.. to Tomas Kalisz who pushes geoengineering schemes of manipulation of the water cycle as an alternative to GHG mitigation, which he dismissed as “ brute force approach” that by relying “ on unsuitable tools may cause more harm than good“
and I corrected that I have never proposed acive water cycle management as an alternative to GHG mitigation.
I think that the two-billion-dollar DAC project criticized on 16 May 2024 at 2:30 PM by Jonathan David,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-may-2024/#comment-822181 ,
might serve as a good example of the “brute force approach” that, by “relying on unsuitable tools” for climate change mitigation, “may cause more harm than good”.
And, last but not least, when you again mention the fruits, you are still resisting to answer Geoff’s question asked in the same direction to you.
The reason why I approached in my post also Geoff was my desire to say him that it is quite usual in human life that we face situations in which we do not see any good prospect and all available solutions look bad. It is also quite usual, however, that the solutions which we do see are not all the existing solutions at all.
Greetings
Tomáš
Tomas Kalisz 17 May: “ you twist and misinterpret what I said. […] I have never proposed acive water cycle management as an alternative to GHG mitigation.”
That’s a LIE and you know it – because I proved it to be a lie 2 months ago, when to the same lie – I QUOTED of your own words from May 2023, where you calculated how much we need to artificially increase the evaporation to CANCEL OUT the entire radiative forcing of GHGs of ~ 2 W/m2:
– Tomas Kalisz, May 30, 2023 : “Dear Piotr […] For transforming 2 W.m-2 into latent heat flux, we should artificially [evaporate] ca 12750 km3 water ”
AND
– Tomas Kalisz , May 31 2023: “ I can imagine that the intensified water cycle could REVERSE the sign of EEI – in other words, we might be able to COOL the Earth this way”
So much for your protestations that you “ have never proposed active water cycle management as an alternative to GHG mitigation.” and you accusing me of “ twisting and misinterpreting” your claims.
And no – nobody “deprives ” you of anything – you are free to remind the readers what a liar and a coward you are.
In Re to Piotr, 20 May 2024 at 7:57 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-may-2024/#comment-822257
Dear Piotr,
You hate me, for some reason, don’t you?
Otherwise, I suppose you would have already recognized that your repeated accusations are unjustified.
I offered the cited example in a discussion with you a year ago merely as a support for my opinion that an increase in water evaporation from land can have a cooling influence on the global climate and that this effect can matter. Just to remind you, you then fiercely opposed to my view and asserted an opposite (warming) effect, based on your assumption that greenhouse effect of the released water vapour must overturn any surface cooling caused by the increased latent heat flow from the Earth surface.
As regards the idea that EEI reversal might be perhaps achievable by providing more water for evaporation from the land; I still think it deserves an attention. It does not seem that there are many other options how to stop (or even reverse) further heat accumulation in ocean and its potentially harmful consequences like global sea level rise etc.
I fully agree to you that any such measure for the EEI reversal alone, without stopping further increase of the concentration of non-condensing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, would have had a short duration only and thus would have not represented a sustainable solution.
Your repeated assertions that I push active water cycle management as an allowance for further unlimited fossil fuel consumption have hardly any support in reality. I have never suggested anything like this, and there are hardly any indirect hints supporting such an interpretation – rather oppositely:
If I was an agent of fossil fuel industry, it would be hardly understandable why I asked my questions about possible synergy between the active water cycle management and massive solar energy exploitation. Nor seems to be well understandable why my main goal is providing an electricity storage technology that might enable a complete fossil fuel replacement in electricity production by renewable energy sources without public subsidies.
If your main goal in a discussion is to discredit your opponent, it may be tempting to ascribe a a diabolic intention to something he said. A successful denigration of the unpleasant opponent may bring a personal satisfaction, however, is it really all you would like to achieve?
Last but not least:
A friendly reminder that you are still resisting to answer Geoff’s question asked with respect to your own contribution to the public in these discussions.
What are your fruits, Piotr?
Greetings
Tomáš
Tomáš Kalisz 20 MAY: “ Dear Piotr,You hate me, for some reason, don’t you?
Don’t flatter yourself. As a troll, you don’t elicit such strong feelings. Pinning down your lies and seeing you squirm – is enough:
TK: “ my opinion that an increase in water evaporation from land can have a cooling influence on the global climate and that this effect can matter.
Except that’s not what you said a year ago. You calculated HOW MUCH extra evaporation we’d need to CANCEL OUT the entire radiative forcing of GHGs of ~ 2 W/m2, I quote:
TK May 31,2023: “Dear Piotr […] For transforming 2 W.m-2 into latent heat flux, we should artificially [evaporate] ca 12750 km3 water ”
The only reason to CHOOSE the target of 2 W.m-2 cooling would be IF it could OFFSET the entire effect of GHGs (~2 W.m-2 warming) WITHOUT doing ANY GHG mitigation.
And if there was any doubt about it, you CONFIRMED this in your next post:
– Tomas Kalisz , May 31 2023: “ I can imagine that the intensified water cycle could REVERSE the sign of EEI – in other words, we might be able to COOL the Earth this way ”
See? If the evaporation is increased by “ ca 12750 km3 water” you claimed
it would CANCEL the entire global warming without the need to do ANYTHING about GHGs. Ergo on May 30 and 31 you implied that we can REPLACE all GHG mitigation with increasing evaporation by “ca 12750 km3 water”
So your loud proclamations: TK: “ I have never proposed acive water cycle management as an alternative to GHG mitigation.” is a LIE.
And you KNOW it’s a lie because I have already quoted your May 2023 words when you made the same lies 3 months ago, yet you try, AGAIN, discredit me by ACCUSING me, AGAIN: of dishonesty: TK: “ you twist and misinterpret what I said ”
Your posts are all we need to know you:
– you a LIAR, since you lied (“I have never proposed acive water cycle management as an alternative to GHG mitigation.”)
– you are a MANIPULATOR – ACCUSE other based on something that you KNOW is a lie
– you are a COWARD – after being caught red-handed in March – you didn’t have the balls to take responsibility for your actions, the opposite – you REPEAT now the same accusations based on the same lie.
TK: “ A friendly reminder that you are still resisting to answer Geoff’s question ”
Unable to defend your actions, you try enlist the help of other people ? “A friendly summary” of the discussion you are calling upon:
– I challenged Geoffs comments on Mann’s article on doomists
– Geoff unable to defend his comments , or perhaps even understand what I was talking about, patronizingly lectured me on … the existence and severity of AGW, as if it was something Mann never heard of.
Which renders Geoff opinions about Mann and me moot: garbage in, Geoff opinions about others out.
So no – you can’t use Geoff to divert attention from YOUR lies and YOUR accusations YOU based on them.
In Re to Piotr, 22 May 2024 at 1:12 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-may-2024/#comment-822306
Dear Piotr,
Thank you for your clarification.
I am happy that at least you enjoy our exchange, while I can hardly say that I experience a particular pleasure.
Anyway, I do not think that my posts of May 31, 2023 provide an evidence for your suspicions and accusations.
On one hand, I am not sure that 2 W/m2 of latent heat flux would have been a full compensation for all the cumulated radiative forcing caused by increased greenhouse gas concentration during the entire industrial era, and even if so, this compensation would have not persisted for long if we will not restrict GHG emissions substantially.
On the other hand, you will perhaps admit that such a change would have indeed reversed the present EEI, and thus prevented further heat accumulation in oceans, if we in parallel managed a sufficient emission reduction to reach or at least significantly approacg the “net zero”.
If you review my posts more carefully, you will find out that I proposed my “TK scheme” not as an alternative for GHG emission mitigation, but as an alternative to “direct air capture” (DAC), an artificial drawdown of CO2 from Earth atmosphere by technical means. Which, by the way, already starts to consume significant resources, as correctly noted by Jonathan David on 16 May 2024 at 2:30 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-may-2024/#comment-822181
without substantial attention in discussions on this website.
As a chemist, I am quite convinced that the money spent on DAC might be in fact spect much more reasonably on anything else. It is quite sad that the responsible US politicians that approved the respective subsidies are willing to believe that it can make sense to emit concentrated carbon dioxide into atmosphere, let it dilute thousand times by ambient air, and then collect it therefrom back.
Do you perhaps also see the DAC as a necessity? This feeling was, by the way, the ground for my question what is actually your idea for an optimal climate change mitigation. I am reproducing it for your convenience from my post of 16 May 2024 at 3:07 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-may-2024/#comment-822183
I asked:
“What is, actually, your idea? Which priorities do you see? Which goals have to be set, in your opinion, by responsible politicians? And, how shall they achieve them?”
Greetings
Tomáš
Piotr says
9 May 2024 at 7:56 AM
11 May 2024 at 6:02 PM
14 May 2024 at 4:03 PM
16 May 2024 at 9:34 PM
20 May 2024 at 7:57 PM
and
22 May 2024 at 1:12 PM
This definition definitely applies to these kinds of personal attacks imho
Pathological lying, also known as mythomania (from Greek μυθομανία) and pseudologia fantastica (Latin for “fantastic pseudology”), is a chronic behavior characterized by the habitual or compulsive tendency to lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_lying
While this exceptional logical fallacy equally fits perfectly:
The celeber cavilla fallacy involves categorizing and condemning individuals for thinking differently, not through mere categorization, but by misusing these categories without evidence or context to intimidate neutral observers.
This fallacy combines elements of ad hominem attacks, the Truzzi fallacy, negative stereotyping, associate condemnation, false authority claims, and the fallacy of composition. It uses buzzwords and catchy phrases to enforce political and religious views on a target audience.
These phrases intimidate fence-sitters by showing them the social ridicule they might face if they take the “wrong” side of an issue.
The elements of a celeber cavilla fallacy include:
Assuming the definition of the phrase or buzzword
Assuming the context in which it’s used
Assuming knowledge of your thoughts
Assuming evidence to label those thoughts as pseudoscience
Assuming Popper’s falsification of the ideas involved
Assuming acceptance of this falsification by science
Assuming acceptance of this falsification by society
Assuming accurate application of this principle to you personally
Assuming uniform belief among those who hold related views
Thus, we introduce the term:
Celeber Cavilla Fallacy
A fad condemnation phrase with assumed immediate definition and gravitas. Also known as the ‘wink-wink, nudge-nudge’ fallacy.
This fallacy involves a specious counter-claim, often ad hominem, based on the false belief that popular usage gives the claim automatic credibility, definition, evidence, and acceptance. It differs from other fallacies by its aim to pejoratively categorize and permanently neutralize a specific person or group without merit or effort.
You are more than welcome.
Tomas Kalisz May 23″ I am happy that at least you enjoy our exchange, while I can hardly say that I experience a particular pleasure.”
vacillating between extremes, Tomas? I neither “hate you” nor you give me “a particular pleasure” – as a liar and coward you typically elicit a “Meh ” and/or rolling of the eyes.
TK May 23: I do not think that my posts of May 31, 2023 provide an evidence for your suspicions and accusations
What you “ think” or “believe ” is irrelevant – counts only what you can prove. And aside from proving the quality of your character, you have proved nothing else:
TK:May 23: “ 2 W/m2 of latent heat flux would have been a full compensation for all the cumulated radiative forcing caused by increased greenhouse gas concentration during the entire industrial era,
these “2 W/m2′ YOU HAVE CHOSEN is equivalent to the radiative forcing of the today’s GHGs conc. that has accumulated “ during the entire industrial era ”
Therefore in your claims:
– Tomas Kalisz, May 30, 2023 : “Dear Piotr […] For transforming 2 W.m-2 into latent heat flux, we should artificially [evaporate] ca 12750 km3 water ”
AND
– Tomas Kalisz , May 31 2023: “ I can imagine that the intensified water cycle could REVERSE the sign of EEI – in other words, we might be able to COOL the Earth this way”
you DID IMPLY that artificial evaporation of 12750 km3 water would CANCEL OUT the ENTIRE effect of SURPLUS GHGs accumulated “ during the entire industrial era“, that it could even “ REVERSE the sign of EEI” thus “we might be able to COOL the Earth this way”.
Therefore, you accusing me, AGAIN, of dishonesty: TK: you twist and misinterpret what I said” is based, AGAIN, on your LIE:
TK:” I have never proposed acive water cycle management as an alternative to GHG mitigation.”
And, therefore you are still a LIAR and a COWARD, who does not have the balls to admit the dishonesty of his accusations. Tomas Kalisz – everyone!
In Re to Piotr, 25 MAY 2024 AT 12:38 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-may-2024/#comment-822384
Hallo Piotr,
I think that I indeed somewhere read that 2 W/m2 value does represent this integral / cumulative radiative forcing of the increased atmospheric concentration of non-condensing greenhouse gases during the industrial era. I tried to show that an artificial change in latent heat flux can reach the same magnitude, to make apparent that it can really matter as well.
Nevertheless, I still wonder how I could by this example (implicitly) suggest water cycle management as an alternative for GHG MITIGATION.
Might perhaps the following chain of thoughts be a clue?
1) It is true that I suggested considering artificial water cycle management as possible alternative to “direct air capture” (DAC, an artificial removal of carbon dioxide from ambient air by technical means).
2) There are loud voices touting DAC as a “silver bullet” that will save the “planet” (and humanity thereon) from being baked by anthropogenic greenhouse effect.
3) It came finally to my mind that you perhaps consider DAC as a necessary part of climate change mitigation.
4) If so, the seemingly missing logic of your accusations (that I strive to replace “GHG mitigation” with artificial water cycle management) would have been finally found and clarified.
Let me therefore repeat again my question:
Do you indeed believe in DAC as a humanity salvation from climatic hell?
If so, I could understand that you may be angry on me, because I assigned it as a “brute force approach” and “unsuitable tool” for climate change mitigation.
Please be so kind and clarify, so that we can finish this fruitless exchange that does not enjoy anyone.
Greetings
Tomáš
Tomáš Kalisz 25 MAY “ I think that I indeed somewhere read that 2 W/m2 value DOES REPRESENT this integral / CUMULATIVE radiative forcing of the {GHGs accumulated] during the INDUSTRIAL ERA
I won’t get to slither away from that one: in your May 23 you wrote the OPPOSITE:
Tomas Kalisz 23 MAY: “ I AM NOT SURE that 2 W/m2 of latent heat flux would have been a FULL COMPENSATION for ALL the CUMULATED radiative forcing caused by increased GHGs during the entire INDUSTRIAL ERA,
And BASED on THAT “I am not sure that’ – without any hesitation you accused me of … hatred (“ You hate me, for some reason, don’t you?“) and of dishonesty: “ you twist and misinterpret what I said”
Which only further supports my opinion of you being a LIAR and a COWARD – unable to own up to your actions (your accusations toward me based on your lies about what you said in the past).
By their fruits you shall know them – Tomas Kalisz.
In Re to Piotr, 27 May 2024 at 3:25 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-may-2024/#comment-822434
Dear Piotr,
I asked you if you hate me to just find out why you are so obsessed by attacking my posts and me personally. You replied that you do not hate me at all, and I am really happy about it.
In a further attempt to find a reasoning for your behaviour, I asked if I hurt you by my opinion that “direct air capture” (DAC, an artificial carbon dioxide removal from the atmosphere by technical means) is an inappropriate measure for GHG (and climate change) mitigation, and/or by my proposal of artificial water cycle management as a possible alternative to DAC.
It appears that you decided to let this additional question unresponded. If so, I think we do not have any further points to discuss and can hereby close this fruitless conversation.
Best regards
Tomáš
Tomas Kalisz, May 29 “It appears that you decided to let this additional question unresponded ”
I have no interest in your “additional questions” until you own up to being caught on lie in your _intitial_ “questions”:
====
Initial lie: Tomas Kalisz“ I have never proposed acive water cycle management as an alternative to GHG mitigation ”
My proof that it was a lie – quotes from the same Tomas Kalisz from a year ago:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-may-2024/#comment-822306:
==
TK May 30,2023: “Dear Piotr […] For transforming 2 W.m-2 into latent heat flux, we should artificially [evaporate] ca 12750 km3 water ”
with (~2 W.m-2 warming but GHG CUMULATED since the industrial age ) WITHOUT doing ANY GHG mitigation.
And if there any doubts – then Kalisz claimed that we can CANCEL the effect of all cumulated GHGs in the atmosphere – just by increasing evaporation, i.e. without doing ANYTHING to reduce the levels of GHGs:
– Tomas Kalisz , May 31 2023: “ [with] the intensified water cycle we could REVERSE the sign of EEI – in other words, we might be able to COOL the Earth this way ” ===============
Unable to defend his own words – Tomas Kalisz first tried … to solicit support from others:
TK Mar. 13 “ Dear Nigel, Do you also agree to Piotr that it is the only possible way how my posts can be read?”
And this yielded nothing – TK tried to wiggle out on a technicality:
TK: I AM NOT SURE that 2 W/m2 of latent heat flux would have been a FULL COMPENSATION for ALL the CUMULATED radiative forcing caused by increased GHGs during the entire INDUSTRIAL ERA
Which I have shot down by pointing that his “2 W/m2” IS the radiative forcing of ALL GHGs accumulated “during the entire INDUSTRIAL ERA”.
Not having a comeback from that, Tomas Kalisz … tries to change the subject on some …. “additional questions“. ;-)
I have no interest in your “additional questions” – all I would ever need to know about what kind of man are you – I already now from the way you dealt with your initial lie. By their inability to own up for their lies you shall know them.
Doomisn is based on humanity bothering to do anything about it. So far I’d say that all available fuels and fuel sources are being expanded to keep up with our demands globally. I know due to Paris 2015 agreements if trying to limit emissions to 1.5/2C is what everyone aspires too but the facts presently arnt looking great. Sure we have 5-8 years to avoid 1.5C and x years after that to avoid 2C but as we haven’t as yet mitigated our carbon emissions at all globally the jury is out on achieving 2.5/3C let alone lower levels. Therefore doomism isn’t a great take but you can see why some people see it
Personally I’d say let’s keep trying but we say that at every climate summit
Pete best: – “Sure we have 5-8 years to avoid 1.5C and x years after that to avoid 2C…”
Overshooting the longer-term (20-year mean?) +1.5 °C GMST anomaly threshold (relative to the 1850-1900 baseline) is INEVITABLE, and likely sometime around the end of this decade. I’d suggest there’s nothing we/humanity can practically do in the limited timeframe available. This is our reality.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-may-2024/#comment-821818
Gavin Schmidt suggests the likelihood of staying underneath two degrees in the absence of any carbon dioxide removal is a “very small chance”.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-may-2024/#comment-821915
Professor Mark Howden, Director of the Institute for Climate, Energy & Disaster Solutions at the ANU and a lead IPCC author, suggests that under existing policies the Earth System is currently on a trajectory towards “around three degrees Celsius.”
https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/radionational-breakfast/scientists-believe-warming-above-1-5c-unavoidable-/103823560
Pete best: – “Personally I’d say let’s keep trying but we say that at every climate summit”
I think a vote for politicians/political parties that encourage and facilitate more fossil fuel projects is a vote for civilisation collapse. Why would anyone vote for people and political parties contributing to facilitating one’s own future suffering?
Q. Why would anyone vote for people and political parties contributing to facilitating one’s own future suffering?
A. TINA
There is no alternative to vote for. They are (essentially) all the same.
The (rare exception to the rule) one’s that are “different”, have zero chance of winning a seat at an election. If by accident they do, the 99% of the others vote in Laws that oppose them.
eg the IRA Laws in the US are not designed to solve climate change or global warming, or even to meet COP ambitions (which are useless/self-defeating) anyway.
It never takes long for ‘radicals’ like AOC to be subdued by the ‘system’ and temper their original high ideals. It happens everywhere not only in the US and not only in democracies (or partial faux democracies).
Ooops, see my other wordy response above Geoff.
Good refs you always add.
The short version goes: Fossil fuel energy supply under our current global economic financialization system & geopolitical regimes is now and will remain economically and materially ‘irreplaceable’ into the future. As such everyone acts accordingly including govts and voters.
Once the climate catastrophes really begin to hit, and civilization level collapse starts manifesting in ways that can no longer be denied (like we are doing now) then maybe wiser choices will begin to be made. But still no guarantees they will be even then.
But we will have to wait and see. In the meantime it is more of the same. cheers
Ned Kelly: – “The short version goes: Fossil fuel energy supply under our current global economic financialization system & geopolitical regimes is now and will remain economically and materially ‘irreplaceable’ into the future.”
Until it isn’t…
Nate Hagens tweeted on Apr 19 (bold text my emphasis):
https://x.com/NJHagens/status/1781301488104440009
US petroleum geologist Art Berman tweeted on May 7:
https://x.com/aeberman12/status/1787806420374626772
Art Berman tweeted on May 20:
https://x.com/aeberman12/status/1792243455474761832
Art Berman also tweeted on May 20:
https://x.com/aeberman12/status/1792266186245177647
I’d suggest what people should be pondering now is: Where is our affordable, reliable, sufficient-for-our-needs energy coming from in the years/decades to come? By the time blackouts, energy/fuel rationing and unaffordable energy begins to manifest it’s already too late to avoid a likely longer-term pain of energy scarcities, IMO a consequence of decades of energy policy mismanagement from a succession of governments.
NK: Fossil fuel energy supply under our current global economic financialization system & geopolitical regimes is now and will remain economically and materially ‘irreplaceable’ into the future.
BPL: “Is,” but not “will remain..” We need to replace it as fast as possible, and that process is already happening. Not enough yet, but getting there.
“Fossil fuel energy supply under our current global economic financialization system & geopolitical regimes is now and will remain economically and materially ‘irreplaceable’ into the future.”
I don’t think so. If you measure RE by economics, it’s already a better deal than FF most of the time:
https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/2023-levelized-cost-of-energyplus/
And if you measure by lifetime EROEI, it’s also a better deal:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/05/we-get-more-useful-energy-out-of-renewables-than-fossil-fuels/
Fossil fuel is rapidly becoming a fossil technology. Not rapidly enough, given that harm has already been accruing, but rapidly enough to invalidate the quoted statement.
Kevin McKinney says
22 May 2024 at 1:14 PM
Dear Kevin, thanks for the article ref about lifetime EROEI. Up front I will say (after some preliminary inquiries and what I already know about these matters from years of being well informed) this narrative is what I describe as ‘sophistry’ – maybe not intentional (likely gullible), but the outcomes remains so.
I went to the actual paper just published to review it’s claims/methods …. following my instincts I see this comment – in Implications for renewable energy systems section:-
Supplementary Fig. 2 shows that the main result remains valid when comparing the estimated EROI equivalent with the EROI estimation for solar PV and wind power by de Castro and Capellán-Pérez 45. These findings suggest that on average, renewable energy systems currently deliver more net useful energy per unit of final energy invested than fossil fuels.
I then go to the 2021 paper de Castro and Capellán-Pérez 45 to check what it says:
There’s a hint in the abstract — These results indicate that, very likely, the global average EROIext levels of variable RES are currently below those of fossil fuel-fired electricity. It remains unknown if technological improvements will be able to compensate for factors, which will become increasingly important as the variable RES scale-up. Hence, without dynamically accounting for the evolution of the EROI of the system, the viability of sustainable energy systems cannot be ensured, especially for modern societies pursuing continuous economic growth.
I recommend to at least go read the 6. Conclusions section.
Standard, Point of Use, and Extended Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROI) from Comprehensive Material Requirements of Present Global Wind, Solar, and Hydro Power Technologies
by Carlos de Castro
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/13/12/3036
Therefore the ref you’re providing uses a REF to another paper that actually undermines and is opposite to the “claims and assertions” being made in your article. How weird is that? :-)
These matters are far too complex to argue here (or anywhere actually). The devil is in the details and the details are widely distorted and unverifiable.
The fact is — the factual proof of the efficacy of fossil fuel energy use is already self-evident in a century or two of it’s use that it’s EROEI and LCOE is economically and practically sound and economical.
The stories being told that RES is as good as or better is PURE THEORETICAL HYPERBOLE. which at best is unproven and worst a fantasy story.
I strongly recommend a much firmer application of skepticism about what you (and others) read and subsequently believe on these matters. After years of looking at this issue, I believe your hope is unfounded.
But I know nothing will change your mind, or that of others, especially here so I won’t be bothered by that or the usual push backs based on emotion and not the available facts.
“I think a vote for politicians/political parties that encourage and facilitate more fossil fuel projects is a vote for civilisation collapse. Why would anyone vote for people and political parties contributing to facilitating one’s own future suffering?”
In the UK voting for a minority party such as the Green party makes it more likely one of the status-quo parties (conservative or labour) will gain power, That is an unfortunate side effect of our munted FPTP system and why the main political parties are perfectly happy with that status-quo as well.
It does not help that the majority of the UK population is very bad at critical thinking and very suseptible to emotional manipulation (read the Daily Mail, one of the most popular right wing newspapers that thrives on stimulating conflict, for numerous examples of this), hence the conservatives can program people into believing a number of bogeymen are the biggest threat to quality of life (e.g. the EU, immigrants, small boats, green taxes) hence one reason why climate change issues are irrelevant when it comes to general elections.
Adam Lea: – “It does not help that the majority of the UK population is very bad at critical thinking and very suseptible to emotional manipulation…”
Indeed. Unfortunately for us/humanity, the Laws of Physics don’t ‘care’. Reiterating Kevin Anderson’s poignant warning:
“The physics responds to how much carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases we put in the atmosphere.”
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-may-2024/#comment-821787
And I’d suggest at least some of the the media rely on this:
https://themindsjournal.com/quotes/most-people-dont-really-want-the-truth/
Until we/humanity understand this:
https://projects.research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/en/horizon-magazine/i-would-people-panic-top-scientist-unveils-equation-showing-world-climate-emergency
…and act accordingly while there’s still time, then I’d suggest there’s not much hope for us/humanity in future.
Most of the labor done in the global economy is not done by humans at all but by fossil
coal, oil, and natural gas, and it’s done thousands of times cheaper. At 4.5 years per
barrel and 105 billion barrels per year of coal oil and natural gas, human economies
are currently supported by a fossil army equivalent of 500,000,000,000 human workers
(eq. the work energy output of 500 billion people, or about X 100 times the amount of
work done by real human workers)
This is why fossil fuel energy use has been and still such a success story, and why fossil
fuel energy demand continues to increase despite the availability of alternative energy
sources. Energy Supply which do not have an equivalent energy output capacity, low
cost, or level of delivery convenience.
The world’s energy and climate path has good reasons for being like it is: fossil fuels are
what powered the industrial revolution and raised living standards dramatically. They
also empowered nation states and empires to become much more powerful and expand
their national wealth and geopolitical strength on the back of economic and military
power.
Fossil fuels still provide most of the world’s energy but unfortunately produce most CO2
emissions. Much of the world is still in early or middle stages of economic development.
Energy is needed and fossil fuels remain the most a convenient, affordable source of
energy for the developing world.
One gallon (3.8 l) of gasoline (petrol) provides the work equivalent in energy of more than
400 hours of manual labor by a healthy adult. These benefits are the basic reason for the
continued high emissions and consistent growth in fossil fuel supply and demand. The
global reliance on fossil fuels is not because the fossil fuel companies lied or denied or
manipulated the climate science or corrupted the political processes of the world. The
demand of fossil fuel energy supply is purely on the basis of what fossil fuel energy is
able to provide the entire world – inexpensive, readily available and convenient Energy!
The Covid pandemic dented emissions in 2020, but 2022 global emissions were again at
a record high level. Fossil fuel emissions from mature economies are beginning to fall
slightly due to increasing energy efficiency, introduction of carbon-free energies, and
exporting a significant amount of manufacturing to the emerging economies like China.
However, at least so far, those reductions have been more than offset by increasing fossil
fuel use and their accompanying GHG emissions in developing nations.
Consider that one gallon (3.8 l) of gasoline (petrol) sells for somewhere between $4 to
$10 a gallon at the pump. Where the current market price for a barrel of Oil is around
$80 US.
That one gallon of gasoline provides the work equivalent in energy of more than 400
hours of manual labor by a healthy adult. The value in Hourly pay rates varies across a
wide range.
That $10 worth of gasoline at the high end equates to a human energy equivalent :
$ 800 @ $2 per hour manual labor
$2,000 @ $5 per hour manual labor
$4,000 @ $10 per hour manual labor
$8,000 @ $20 per hour manual labor
This is what alternative Renewable Energy supply is competing against. Not climate
science denial or politics.
Ned Kelly.
You mention the importance of fossil fuels in the development of the economy etc, etc which is all true of course, however these are all common climate denialist talking points, repeated all over the internet to imply fossil fuels are essential , so you make yourself sound like a denier.
You do not mitigate that problem by giving an explanation of what your basic position is. The bit at the end “This is what alternative Renewable Energy supply is competing against. Not climate science denial or politics” is not really sufficient. By the time people read that they have probably decided you are a denier. And yet you lecture everyone else about their poor communications skills. So not your best work today :)
The statement “This is what alternative Renewable Energy supply is competing against. Not climate science denial or politics” is also only half true, because renewables are competing against misinformation about renewables, with much of it originating with fossil fuels companies and certain politicians eg Donald Trump.
You also don’t propose a better solution to renewables. Of course you are not obliged to but it doesn’t help your point of view,
Ultimately I believe its about promoting the best solution with the most chance of success and of being adopted. I believe this is renewables and electric transport. The chances of a massive degrowth or simplification agenda being adopted look like near zero given peoples goals in life and sense of priorities and also the potential downsides of degrowth, and its hard to see that changing. The chances of renewables continuing to expand and replacing fossil fuels by 2050 or about then look at best 50 / 50, but is way higher than degrowth.
Could renewables leave us short of energy? Its possible in theory, but if problems emerge its not as if we wont modify the plan as we go along, if necessary. Several countries are managing with a large part of their energy coming from renewables. I’m a bit optimistic we will cope and I don’t think there’s a better alternative to renewables, ALL THINGS CONSIDERED.
Nigelji– so you make yourself sound like a denier.
No I don’t Nigelji, you just did that yourself. Not me.
I have nothing to defend here. What I said, and you acknowledged it, is TRUE.
My comment stands and does not require you misrepresenting it nor the context of what was being said and why it was being said and what it means.
You may attempt to distort and misrepresent all you wish, but I was said is true and correct.
Deal with it without lying about it, if possible.
And stop placing demands upon me to do or say XYZ. I will decide what I will speak about and how I will speak about it.
If you have any grandiose plans or ideas of a better solution to renewables …… or that “renewables” even ARE a solution … then speak up. Do not put that onto me.
It is NOT my problem to address nigelji. I’ll skip the rest of your distortions and twisted rhetoric and demands.
Other people can read what I wrote and know what it means well enough without saying another word.
Kind Regards and belated Anzac Day greetings
NK
Nj: so you make yourself sound like a denier.
NK: No I don’t Nigelji, you just did that yourself. Not me.
BPL: I have already assigned you to the denier bin. I’m not surprised that other people are catching on. You repeat denier memes, you try to foment fights between scientists, you constantly criticize and insult scientists, and you attack all the means by which we might actually combat global warming. Of course you’re a denier. The rest of us here will catch on eventually.
Ned Kelly.
I didn’t distort anything you said. Nothings was misquoted or twisted.
I merely observed that by posting all that material about the virtues of fossil fuels you make yourself sound like a denier, because its the same as what deniers regularly post, and you said nothing to change that impression.
Ironically BPL classifies you as a denier – supporting my point.
You could avoid being labelled a denier if your comments about the usefulness fossil fuels started with a statement saying something like that ” I accept humans are warming the climate, its dangerous and we should mitigate the problem” or something similar and unambiguous. Its what I do when I post that sort of thing. Or put it at the end if you prefer.
But if you want to be thought of as a denier, please feel free to ignore my advice. Ha ha.
It will not be possible to limit the global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius without major
interventions by nations. This means that in addition to (theoretically) rapidly lowering the
global greenhouse gas emissions, by rapidly decreasing fossil fuel use, ruminant emissions,
and through large land use changes along with various forms of solar radiation management ,
greenhouse gas removal and permanent long term storage will be required.
It will not be possible to limit warming to 2 degrees Celsius this century with the same kind of
interventions. Nor is it possible to achieve Net Zero emissions by 2050 or anytime between
now and 2100 without doing the above. The Zero Emissions Commitment (ZEC) is not
achievable this century on current Paris Agreement and IPCC recommended mitigation
Modeling parameters and prevailing economic assumptions.
The SSP scenarios are unachievable theoretical modeling. As are the ESM and the various
economic pathways assumptions because they are not grounded in the real world. Ignoring
the proven credibility of the Limits to Growth models while promoting hyperbole assumptions
for the future is not a viable solution to any of our global meta crises.
The current global economic system is unsustainable. It cannot survive without low cost
abundant fossil fuel energy supply. Irrespective of actions to curtail ongoing global warming
this period of cheap abundant conveniently available fossil fuel energy supply is coming to
an end anyway.
Nor can the economic system survive implementing the goals and plans of the UNFCCC Paris
Agreement and ongoing COP negotiations without a complete makeover of the goals and
expectations of what the economic system is required to provide the people of the world.
The theoretical assumptions that 100% clean and renewable wind, water, and solar energy
supply are achievable will not come to pass. Not without a massive reconfiguration of the
worlds economic systems and what it is designed to do. This will undoubtedly entail a root
and branch reconfiguration of business models, economics and politics which must include
the significant rapid and sustained reduction in global material, economic, agricultural and
energy consumption.
Along with the restoration and regeneration of essential ecosystem services along the lines
of the reduce remove and repair model. Our current trajectory only leads to catastrophe and
global scale disasters.
Consider Kevin Anderson’s most recent commentary as to the scale and urgency of what is
now required to avoid a prolonged climatic catastrophe from unstoppable global warming
and enable global equity at the same time. The advanced economies of the world, the OECD
and so on, need to bring their fossil fuel emissions to zero by 2030. Unfortunately, of course,
this will not happen. One reason is that empire colonialism never ended.
This is a class war founded on the inequities of Wealth Concentration and their abuse of power.
It has always been a Class War of the Wealthy versus Everyone else. There are of course real
solutions but they have been constantly blocked from being aired or considered as viable.
Non-solutions win approval instead at places like the IPCC and COP meetings, at the UN and
in parliaments and governments all over the world.
Our globalized economy is based on Financialization which is the opposite of an economy
that is productive and benefits people. This present civilization is finished. Slowly at first and
rapidly it will collapse because it is no longer sustainable. Everybody everywhere is fudging,
cheating, obscuring, pretending, living in denial and avoiding reality.
If you think there is a solution you are part of the problem. This level of denial is one of the
joys of privileged self-delusion and the arrogance of concentrated excessive wealth.
Oddly, Ned, I largely agree with your comment. In my view, AGW is only one aspect of the broader problem of over-consumption of resources within the context of a finite planet and resource base. It’s true that a rapid draw-down of GHG emissions may present a possible solution to that particular problem. However, per the video of Kevin Andersen this is probably unlikely to happen. In any case, the abandonment of the perpetual growth paradigm is inconsistent with Capitalism, for one problem, so any real solution seems unlikely.
I very much disagree, though, that technological fixes such as “solar radiation management” would be part of any solution (such as is). The fundamental problem would be the introduction of moral hazard into the mix. There is ample precedent in how this would play out.
Consider the financial markets post the 2008 crisis. Once it became accepted that the Federal Reserve would step in and intervene with “whatever it takes” to prevent a major melt-down, the concept of risk flew out the window.
Techno-fixes solve nothing, the real requirement is the continued reduction of GHG emmissions. The “hopium” is that these fixes will somehow “give us more time” to solve the underlying problems. It won’t and cannot work this way, especially if Wall Street investment capital is driving their introduction. Moral hazard would allow emitters to delay or ignore continued reductions in GHG emissions by pointing out that a “fx” is in place and rapid reductions of GHG emissions are no longer necessary. The inevitable result would be to make the problem worse. This is a very obvious insight which I would imagine you would arrive at yourself.
I am also somewhat puzzled, that if your philosophical positions reflect those of the Club of Rome, that you have chosen Dr Hansen as a guiding light. Dr Hansen is rather undeniably pro-growth, pro-development and pro-increased resource exploitation and energy utilization. Read what you yourself have posted in his list of “required” actions particularly his point (2). There are many other examples in his writings.
Techno fixes are the only game in town it would appear. I can’t see anyone phasing out anything fossil fuel related so ccs tech gets lots of mentions along with cdr due to allowing us to continue burning now whilst researching these technologies. It’s appears to be a sham along with dimming technology.
We could phase out coal with renewables and then phase out transport technology for EV at the very least but there appears to be too much of the third world needing our technology to be given a reasonable living standard. So more and more research is needed to improve everything.
Are we fighting a losing battle here – 8 billion want to a similar living standard to the west. After China comes India and Malaysia and others
Pete,
Lots of the third world rides around on bicycles and ICE scooters/motorcycles. They aren’t going to replace them with giant ICE pickup trucks and SUV. But they are being replaced by electric versions, because these people often have better economic sense than many people in the USA…. electric scooters are just as much better than ICE as EV are than cars, and money is saved over time. (And one would think for those people who do “make it” and move up to a car, the lesson will stick.)
As for population, the solution is simple. If women have a choice, they will opt for fewer children if any. That’s out of rational self-interest, not environmental virtue.
If China and Korea and other high-consumption countries follow current projections and end up with half their current populations by the end of the century, that’s a lot of coal plants shut down.
The point being that, as you say, direct intervention is unlikely, but there are ways to nudge things along.
It’s great that ice vehicles are being replaced by EV ones but they need roads, tyres, etc – yes it’s better but it’s still to some degree Carbon pollution. So transport is better but they still need electricity and a grid so for the moment they use all sorts of options and coal is one of them.
I don’t know how quickly these economies will become zero carbon (never I guess) but they can be better than ours. However it’s still a factor that carbon will be produced along with the rest of the world’s carbon.
I’m sure it can be done with renewables and batteries with some industries – shipping and aviation staying as they are but it’s slow. Is it too slow ?
WHO LIKES PROF. KEVEN ANDERSON’S RECOMMENDED CLIMATE ACTIONS & THINKING?
Avoiding dangerous climate change demands de-growth strategies from wealthier nations
KevinKevin November 25, 2013
https://kevinanderson.info/blog/avoiding-dangerous-climate-change-demands-de-growth-strategies-from-wealthier-nations/
Pb: there appears to be too much of the third world needing our technology to be given a reasonable living standard
BPL: Renewable energy can develop a country. They don’t have to use fossil fuels.
Did someone mention something related Degrowth and the problem of Capitalism?
Some of my handy references collection include:
Jason Hickel @jasonhickel
Here’s a quick round-up of highlights from our research and writing published in 2021, on degrowth, imperialism, decolonization and global justice.
Free PDFs of all of these papers are available via the link at the end of the thread.
https://nitter.poast.org/jasonhickel/status/1480855854274514948
William Rees // Part 1 of 3 // Why Degrowth?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJQdVCwOZ1Y
Campaigners for degrowth have thrown into question the dogma that holds that a growing economy is always a sign of progress.
https://www.greeneuropeanjournal.eu/degrowth-is-about-global-justice/
https://www-heidi-news.translate.goog/climat/un-mouvement-pour-la-decroissance-voit-le-jour-en-suisse?_x_tr_sl=fr&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-GB
https://www.ppesydney.net/content/uploads/2021/06/19_Baumann-Alexander-and-Burdon1.pdf
“It’s either Degrowth for the rich or climate disaster”
https://podcast.dissenspodcast.de/172-degrowth
NATURE SCIENCE JOURNAL
1.5 °C scenarios reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) rely on combinations of controversial negative emissions and unprecedented technological change, while assuming continued growth in gross domestic product (GDP). Thus far, the integrated assessment modelling community and the IPCC have neglected to consider degrowth scenarios, where economic output declines due to stringent climate mitigation.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22884-9
REVIEW PAPER 2018 Old News
Research On Degrowth
Scholars and activists mobilize increasingly the term degrowth when producing knowledge critical of the ideology and costs of growth-based development. Degrowth signals a radical political and economic reorganization leading to reduced resource and energy use. The degrowth hypothesis posits that such a trajectory of social transformation is necessary, desirable, and possible; the conditions of its realization require additional study. Research on degrowth has reinvigorated the limits to growth debate with critical examination of the historical, cultural, social, and political forces that have made economic growth a dominant objective. Here we review studies of economic stability in the absence of growth and of societies that have managed well without growth. We reflect on forms of technology and democracy com-patible with degrowth and discuss plausible openings for a degrowth transition. This dynamic and productive research agenda asks inconvenient questions that sustainability sciences can no longer afford to ignore.
https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-102017-025941
Pete, coal is dying in front of our eyes, and it’s doing so because it’s no longer economically competitive. Spend some time browsing Coal Tracker, here:
https://globalenergymonitor.org/projects/global-coal-plant-tracker/dashboard/
Here’s what you see, in a few bullet points:
G7 operating capacity: down ~37% since peaking in 2010
E27: down ~35% since 2000
OECD: down ~30% since peaking in 2010
Yes, we haven’t yet hit the inflection point where global capacity has started to drop–even in the pandemic years of 2020 and 2021 there were tiny increases–but it’s clearly coming; the trend toward lower and lower net additions has been on a pretty robustly downward (if admittedly ‘bumpy’) ride since 2006.
So coal’s a clear ongoing example of “phasing out” an important segment of fossil fuel.
I’d add that the global and G20 coal capacity increases are driven primarily by–no surprise!–China. We heard a lot about China’s coal plant surge in the last couple of years, including some, er, inflated claims. The coal tracker has their 2023 capacity at 1,137 GW. But the statement I made about a downward trend in net additions is true for China specifically, too–their peak year for net additions was also 2006, and the downward trend seems robust (though again bumpy).
On the other side of the ledger, per Statista, global solar power hit the terawatt milestone in 2022, and has been doubling every 3-4 years since the turn of the millennium or so. Much of that capacity–40% or a bit better–is Chinese:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/264629/existing-solar-pv-capacity-worldwide/
(Folks here frequently bemoan the inability of most of us humans to appreciate exponential growth as it applies to economic growth, emissions growth, or some climate impacts, but ironically enough appear seldom to appreciate parallel consequences in the growth patterns of RE deployment or EV adoption. The growth of RE capacity isn’t going to stop, and that added capacity will usually end up displacing coal because of the financial ‘merit order’ effect. Every year that ‘displacement’ will be bigger, and probably much bigger.)
I could go on with this, but the point is we are now seeing a massive “phasing out” of FF capacity in the form of a widespread shift to RE. There’s a lot of ‘inertia’ in the system, in the form of long permitting, financing and build times, and just a huge stock of existing (often newish) infrastructure. But the shift has a lot of ‘inertia,’ too, and is only going to gain momentum over time.
I’d only add here that Zebra is right: the Third World (as it used to be called) certainly aspires to better lives, and who can blame them? But that doesn’t mean that they either must, or necessarily even want to, follow the past trajectories of more developed nations. In the past I’ve posted information about home-grown Kenyan financial apps, e-scooters and battery swap start-ups, and solar microgrids complete with micro-financing schemes. Worry about climate change isn’t just a ‘rich nation’ thing; in fact, many developing nations have higher levels of concern than do the US or the UK. (And for good reason, since their citizens and economies are often also much more exposed to climate impacts!)
For example, ‘climate concern’ in:
China: 85%
India: 89%
Nigeria: 90%
Mexico: 91%
Kenya: 91%
Vietnam: 92%
Tanzania: 93%
Brazil: 93%
Chile: 93%
Turkey: 93%
Cherry picks, to be sure, but representative of about a third of the global population, and probably representative of quite a few of the “no data” countries, too.
I’d add that the global and G20 coal capacity increases are driven primarily by–no surprise!–China.
Yes indeed, they have been using all that Coal and increasing amounts of Gas to build all the solar panels, wind turbines, towers, lithium batteries, and BEVs and ICE cars and trucks by the millions and millions and exporting them all over the world and into the USA as well.
Thank god for the Chinese burning more Coal than ever. And for Oil. Without Oil they would be so much less roadways and carparks.
And sorry folks but added RE capacity does NOT usually end up displacing Coal use. Gas and Nuclear is what replaces Coal consumption directly. Not RE tech. That merely helps the booming economic growth be fed by more and more energy.
Without all that Coal, Gas and Oil at work, there would be no Renewable Energy growth to speak of. There is no reduction if fossil fuel energy supply nor their direct GHG emissions either.
The only reduction has been in those pesky cooling aerosols like SOx in the exhausts. All the data you need to know this is publicly available. Not my job to supply it. Ask a scientist. Cheers
NK: Without all that Coal, Gas and Oil at work, there would be no Renewable Energy growth to speak of.
BPL: That doesn’t even make sense.
Barton Paul Levenson (at 11 MAY 2024 AT 1:45 PM): – “BPL: That doesn’t even make sense.”
Until renewables can be replicated at every single step of their life-cycle using renewable energy, they are not sustainable. There are critical issues of scale, resource availability, and timing that I think are not being honestly acknowledged.
Per the Energy Institute’s Statistical Review of World Energy 2023, on page 10, in 2022, oil consumption represent more than 30% share of global primary energy, followed by coal (above 25%) and then gas (circa 24%). Renewables (circa 7.5%) and hydro (circa 7%) are well down.
Currently, renewables are dependent on petroleum oil — from mining, to crushing ore and smelting it, to delivery (via petroleum-fueled trucks, trains and ships) to fabrication plants, to the supply chains for numerous parts, to the final delivery sites, along roads that need constant repair with diesel construction trucks laying more asphalt, which is found only at the bottom of a crude oil barrel. When they wear out or fail, the components then need to be recycled as close to 100% as possible. The process from start to finish would need to be electrified.
Petroleum oil is a finite resource.
Has US tight oil production reached an all-time peak, or are there more peaks to reach? We will only know for sure in hindsight.
https://twitter.com/aeberman12/status/1780199422304936149
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeM5m2uUnr8
US tight oil is not suitable for refining into diesel unless extensively blended with heavier grades of crude oil. Diesel is currently the workhorse of the global economy. Without diesel the global economy would collapse.
https://crashoil.blogspot.com/2024/01/el-pico-del-diesel-edicion-de-2023.html
BPL: That doesn’t even make sense.
Why not?
JD: the abandonment of the perpetual growth paradigm is inconsistent with Capitalism
BPL: No it isn’t. Capitalism simply means a system where capital is privately owned. The idea that capitalism means endless growth was made up by people with an axe to grind about capitalism. Neither the Soviet Union nor Communist China is/was capitalist, but they had even worse pollution and (for a time) higher economic growth than the west.
I would ask both JD and BPL to define the term “capital”. Also “growth”.
A modern civilization can’t function on a barter system, so the system of exchange must involve tokens of some kind. An obviously, it is possible for some individuals to accumulate and control such tokens. These can then be used to finance some activity in the hope of acquiring more tokens. That in itself does not require increased consumption of resources.
But I’m pretty sure this was also true in in Soviet Union and China when they were claiming to not be Capitalist. What is the difference between an administrative ‘Commissar’ and a Feudal Lord?
The point being that the real issue is growth of population, and control of resources, not tokens. A more nuanced topic to consider.
Well, I suppose this depends on how one defines “capitalism”. I am referring to the overriding economic system currently in place in the world today. I am neither a business man nor an economist so my definition is that of my own lay observations. However, a standard definition of “growth” in investment circles is:
“an increase in the production of economic goods and services in one period of time compared with a previous period”
Economic growth rates are always considered the centerpiece of economic health. Growing population levels, for example, are considered to be an essential pillar of economic prosperity. Population decreases, which zebra likes to talk about, are regarded as existential catastrophes by the more extreme proponents such as Elon Musk. Potential benefits of lower populations are never mentioned. Absent growth, it is difficult to understand how profits can accrue, and without profits Capitalism cannot exist.
As for whether I have an “ax to grind” about Capitalism, since I regard the current financial-economic system as “Capitalism” and since economic activities of this system appear to be leading to environmental catastrophe, I guess I kind of do. However, most of the pro-growth drum beaters I have encountered are cornucopianists such as Julian Simon. It’s news to me that he had an ax to grind about Capitalism.
Jonathan, it isn’t necessary to be an economist to have a basic understanding of the terminology and fundamental categories… just like you don’t have to be a physicist to realize how the First and Second laws affect the climate issue.
There’s Free Market capitalism, and then there’s what we have now, which is functionally Laissez-Faire capitalism on an international level with local variations.
Laissez-Faire destroys free markets and leads to unpleasant conditions like extreme poverty and environmental degradation. BP is incorrect about the definition because State capitalism… Soviet Union, China, Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, Oligarchic/Fascist Russia, and other such… is by definition Laissez-Faire.
To have free markets and the benefits of “capitalism”… the latter which includes the ability to do science and make life better through technology… you have to have strong regulation by a government responsive to the needs of the population as a whole.
If this seems reasonable, I will continue with a discussion of population and the control of resources.
Zebra, overpopulation is an important topic so please share your thoughts.
z: State capitalism… Soviet Union, China, Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, Oligarchic/Fascist Russia, and other such… is by definition Laissez-Faire.
BPL: No, because laissez-faire means let buyers and sellers do what they want without state interference. State capitalism or Communism is the exact opposite of laissez-faire, by definition.
Zebra, overpopulation is an important topic so please share your thoughts.
Moving from approx 9 billion global population in 2040 down to 3 billion or less towards at the end of the 21st century could be the most significant driver of curtailing catastrophic global warming millennial impacts and the almost complete ecosystem destruction on the planet.
Volunteers will not be required. This outcome is already embedded in the system.
As Bob Dylan sang: ‘A hard rains gonna fall.’
One day, so called antisemitism and what was being done to the Palestinians won’t matter in the least.
…“from a certain point of view” https://www.starwars.com/news/from-a-certain-point-of-view-return-of-the-jedi
Re BPL – Z may have meant that in the context of nations acting as agents within a relatively lawless international framework.
I suspect we could come up with different definitions of socialism and communism as well as capitalism. “A rose by any other name…”
Crony-capitalism,
laissez faire (that lazy fairy again! Moving my stuff around with his invisible hand!),
well-regulated capitalism,
0-growth capitalism… Are banks and/or stocks/bonds (loans (risk + time cost + inflation =? interest rate?), dividends) necessary for it to be called capitalism (as opposed to just a free (aside from basic rights protections and reasonable regulations, etc.) market system)? I argued here a few years ago that these don’t actually need net growth in aggregate. I suspect people have just really gotten used to growth as a good thing (and in much of the world in still really would be). (of course, other things being =, it would tend to be a good thing(?) maybe…
PS IMO There’s good capitalism and bad capitalism, good socialism and bad socialism, good communism and bad communism, good individualism and bad individualism, good collectivism and bad collectivism…
z: I would ask both JD and BPL to define the term “capital”. Also “growth”.
BPL: Capital is product, plant, and infrastructure necessary to produce or distribute goods and services. For example, the cost of building a power plant is its “capital investment.”
Growth refers to the first time derivative of the goods and services created in the whole economy, usually measured by GDP (some decades ago, GNP was used). Thus if the national total of production + services is 3% higher than the previous year, the economy is growing at a rate of 3% per year.
This can be confusing because the media often use annualized figures for the monthly data released by the federal government, e.g. “the economy experienced a 3% growth rate in March.” No it didn’t; it experienced a 0.083% increase in March which was then extrapolated by compound-interest expansion to get the 3% per year figure.
BPL,
Methinks you are a bit confused yourself. I gave the definitions which are pretty standard.
Laissez-faire capitalism inevitably results in monopoly/oligopoly, which means consumers have no choices. Maybe you didn’t read carefully… it doesn’t matter if you call the monopoly “communist government”; the result is the same. CEO of Cargill, Commissar of Meat Production, meh difference. In Florida…. no cultured meat for you!!
To maintain actual Free Market, with competition and reasonably balanced market power between producers and consumers, requires targeted government intervention… anti-trust legislation and other policies.
As to “capital”, again I gave the definition… it’s the use of accumulated tokens of value to “invest” with the hope of increasing one’s accumulation. Even if a government “prints money” to support scientific/technological research, the goal is obviously to improve its market position with respect to the international economy and/or benefit its citizens.
Again, this seems pretty basic. If you disagree, please address what I actually said.
Jonathan David.
I read through it a couple of times, and I think you are talking about “too big to fail”, and, as you say, the moral hazard of such a situation. But I believe that is covered under what I pointed out to BPL in terms of Laissez-Faire Capitalism.
Government is supposed to (in an actual democracy) look out for the best interests of its citizens. But if its regulatory mechanisms are “captured” by the entities it is supposed to be regulating, then it is not actually regulating… so we have the monopolistic characteristics of Laissez-Faire, but where the government is part of the monopoly/oligopoly.
We see this all the time in the USA; banking is one area but utilities, insurance, fossil fuel subsidies, agriculture subsidies, health care, and so on, all exhibit such issues.
So, I’m not sure the problem has to do with the abstract nature of “financialization”. Rather, if the government limited the size of the institutions to promote real competition, and required higher reserves, which I think used to be the case, the system would work.
That, again, is the government’s job in a Free Market Capitalist economy… to see to it that the existence of tokens of value improves conditions for the population in general.
It should be pointed out that there is a fundamental difference between “industrial capitalism” , which generates actual wealth and requires high levels of base labor input, and the current finance based capitalism. Industrial capitalism was the predominant form in the US prior to the end of the 70s. The current system is finance based capitalism (the so-called “fire economy”). In this system, little actual wealth is created, rather the system relies on wealth redistribution in which the banking system is the core. The survival of the banking system requires a perpetual inflationary process to roll over due loans through generation of additional debt once the level of debt has exceeded the realizable level of the ability of debtors to repay their loans.
Jonathan, what is “actual wealth”?
Of course you are correct that what I call tokens (money) has been redistributed… I even said in my earlier comment:
“Laissez-Faire destroys free markets and leads to unpleasant conditions like extreme poverty and environmental degradation.”
And ending that comment:
“If this seems reasonable, I will continue with a discussion of population and the control of resources.”
So, I make a distinction between what you seem to be calling “actual wealth”… the product of labor, which is financed by tokens so that the workers can eat… and the control (“ownership”) of resources, which may be necessary for the creation of that product (and the food for the workers).
To keep things short and simple, it seems to me that there is an obvious relationship between the ratio of population to resources and the exchange values of labor and resources. It’s not fancy economic stuff, just supply and demand.
Fewer people make labor more valuable, and resources less valuable. So the ownership of resources can be more evenly distributed.
But here’s an interesting question. I saw one article in NYT and one in WAPO, talking, respectively, about a fellow in Maine who makes remarkable baskets from black ash and sweetgrass that sell for $100,000, and the market for pet portraits costing $20,000.
Lots of labor involved in both, no question, but not much in the way of materials. So waddaya think? Are they “actual wealth”, and would they exist absent the obscene concentration of tokens in the hands of a minority?
Jonathon David. Agreed. A good book is the fire economy by Jane Kelsey.
@zebra Jonathan, what is “actual wealth”?
A very good question. We live on a finite planet with limited physical resources. This is a simple physical fact. Resources that are economically useful, such as fossil fuels, create marketable wealth when developed by labor input. A car, for example, requires resource inputs to be produced. Due to resource scarcity the number of cars possible to produce is limited. It’s very large, true, but not infinite.
What is more interesting is the converse. That is the “non-actual wealth” assets. In the modern world these are various financial instruments. In the US, mortgages and commercial bank loans are some of the more important to the mass market economy.
When one wants to buy a car, which is a real physical asset, one secures a loan from a bank. This is an obligation to the borrower and represents an asset of bank. When the loan is issued, the account of the borrower is credited with the amount of the loan. The money credited to the borrower’s account is effectively created out of nothing.
Due to fractional reserve banking, banks can lend more than their actual reserves. The value of outstanding loans is only limited by the reserve requirements of the Federal Reserve. In principal, the value of outstanding loans can increase without limit. Although a crisis can occur when a debtor defaults on a loan, it is possible to issue new credit to pay off the old by rolling over the loan, with a net increase in debt, of course. This is especially useful for sovereign debt or where a default could actually collapse the banking system.
Regarding the Maine basket weaver, I would say yes, he is creating actual market wealth. However, artisan production is a special case compared to industrial mass production. The rarity of his output in the market results in the high dollar value.
I do agree with your statement that: “Fewer people make labor more valuable, and resources less valuable”. Your second statement that “the ownership of resources can be more evenly distributed” I would also agree with, in principal, depending on the exact circumstances.
BPL defines capitalism as private ownership and argues it doesn’t need economic growth. This sounds correct to me for the reasons he states , but if you define capitalism as also a requirement to make a profit you need economic growth as per this study:
“This paper postulates the existence of a growth imperative in capitalist economies. The argument is based on a simple circular flow model of a pure credit economy, where production takes time. In this economy, positive growth rates are necessary in the long run in order to enable firms to make profits in the aggregate. If the growth rate falls below a certain positive threshold level, firms will make losses. Under these circumstances, they will go out of business, which moves the whole economy into a downward spiral. According to the model presented, capitalist economies can either grow (at a sufficiently high rate) or shrink if the growth rate falls below the positive threshold level. Therefore, a zero growth economy is not feasible in the long run.”
https://www.jstor.org/stable/27746875
So to get around this you would need a not for profit economy? Would that enable stable zero gdp growth?
I would also argue that economic growth (increased output or value of goods and services) is just the inevitable result of humans wanting to improve their living standards and innovating to do this and this goes back to the invention of stone tools. The actual economic ‘system,’ or system of ownership is just something added on to facilitate the process or achieve additional goals.
Given all this, it seems people are unlikely to vote to freeze economic growth, but IMO economic growth looks destined to slow down and even stop due to resource limits and aging demographics.
Nigelj, even more so that profits, the issue the underpins Capitalism (note the word Capital and what it is) is Interest on Borrowings demands economic growth of the Lenders lose their Capital.
Many sites cover this issue, Nate Hagens has many guests who nail this down, as did his Reality Blind book that all lending is a Claim on future Energy.
Once the Growth stops and turns negative the entire Capitalist system collapses. BPL is as usual extremely simplistic and restrictive in his application of definitions. Yes “ownership of the MEANS of Production” is true …. by this it means CAPITAL … ie Funds, Cash, Money, Gold, wealth … that is what Capital is. That is what was created in the 1400s in Italy.
Capitalism is NOT me owning a dozen sheep and selling their wool each season VS the USSR Communist Govt owned the dozen sheep instead and paid me a meager salary to look after them.
The Sheep are NOT necessarily the MEANS of Production. They are merely Sheep.
Today, life is complex, but it really is all about who Owns the Banks and all the “Capital” in them Nigelj. The Elite 1%, who used to be the Churches and the Royal Monarchs, or The People of the Commons. China is good place to look to see the difference and to find out who and where the real Totalitarian Authoritarians are located..
But don’t tell BPL that. (smile)
A PS to nigels comment
I would also argue that economic growth (increased output or value of goods and services) is just the inevitable result of humans wanting to improve their living standards
I was going to ignore this because it is such an accepted ‘truth’ it has become as natural as the air we breath so pushing back such majority views is simply not worth the pain and effort required. Then a couple of things popped up on this topic tangentially, so why not?
Because it isn’t true for starters – it is real yes, but it is not a natural, normal or inevitable human want or desire. It’s only where we are after a long period of successfully being entrained into this state.
eg the death of the commons was not natural nor desired or inevitable.
In the words of business leaders themselves, the task is to direct people to “the superficial things” of life, like “fashionable consumption.” That way people can be atomized, separated from one another, seeking personal gain alone, diverted from dangerous efforts to think for themselves and challenge authority.
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2012/07/23/destroying-commons-shredding-magna-carta
Of course nothig is going to chnage in this regard, it’s merely an academic observation of how different things might have been, once upon a time …. and then there’s this little lightweight review out of Exeter Uni only 12 mins but hits the high notes well – the sting is in the tail.
Global Economy or Climate Emergency. Is that our choice?
If you want to know the truth…FOLLOW THE MONEY! The people who control the world’s money rely on financial risk assessors to give them accurate data about future scenarios that could adversely affect their vast portfolios. The message coming from those risk assessors right now is…your money is in grave danger if the world does not act urgently to mitigate the worst consequences of our rapidly warming climate. Now a new report sets the challenge out in painful detail.
and
Risk management techniques from a variety of disciplines should be used to develop a
global risk management framework that explores the interconnected societal, natural, climate and economic risks we face and recommends actions to address them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8A8YIc6Ru6g
Nah it will never catch on. The more we know the more we know we’re all screwed. How bad could it get?
Nigelj, your comment regarding a not-for-profit economy is interesting. In the current for-profit economy, economic interactions are based on maximizing individual advantage. A response from this point of view might be to question what then is the rationale for economic activity? Why even have an economy at all? Personally, I believe that the individualist interpretation of human behavior is only one aspect of human nature and people do feel that others: the family and society are important. In that sense, a rationale for a not-for-profit economy might be to provide for the economic needs of the associated population. This of course, would be regarded as a socialist philosophical viewpoint.
On your point regarding economic growth, I agree that people want to improve their lives. But at some point most people become satisfied with their lives and can actually resent change. In any case, economic growth, as embodied in such metrics as the GDP has not, unfortunately, improved the lives of the average wage earner.
In my lifetime, for example, in 1972 minimum hourly wage in the US was 1.60 USD. Per capita GDP was 4857 USD. The average house cost 30000 USD. In 2024, per capita GDP is 68531 USD, more than a 14 fold increase. So are we all rich? Not quite. Mean home price is 393500 USD (about a 13 fold increase). In 1970 per capita health care expenses were 353 USD. Per capita health care expenses in 2022 were 12555 USD almost a 35 fold increase. By comparison, US Federal hourly minimum wage was 7.25 USD only an 4.5 fold increase. So the average wage earner has seen a considerable fall in living standards. These numbers are specific to the US of course.
Jonathan David.
Regarding the stagnating or falling material living standards and real incomes of the middle and working classes in the USA, and growing income and wealth inequality.
I think what’s happened in the USA and some other countries is that total gdp and per capita gdp has increased since the 1970s but most of those gains have accrued to people in the high skilled / high income bracket despite lower skillled people working harder than ever. From what I’ve read the causes look like globalisation, including the removal of tariffs. This has in effect pushed down incomes of lower skilled people in the USA. Globisation has caused the collapse of some heavy industry in the USA, with its quite decent paying low skilled jobs. This has migrated to China.
Other factors are the neoliberal small governmnet revolution starting in the 1980s, and the removal of inheritance taxes and downgrading of progressive taxes. And you mention minimum wages have also not kept up.
On the positive side globalisation has raised the incomes of people in developing countries and made goods cheaper in the USA and lead to decades of low inflation. But overall the result has been skewed in favour of high skilled people in the USA, and many low skilled people have been left working two jobs living in trailor parks and generally going backwards. .
This has fed into distrust of globalisation and elites promoting globalisation and has fueled partisan politics. Its unfortunate as we need a globalised effort to combat climate change effectively.
Other countries like the Scandinavian countries have mitigated the downsides of globalisation by government’s having wealth redistribution targeting low skilled / poor people with financial support. They do not have the dire poverty you see in parts of the USA. Its a practical thing: “Globalisation good overall, but has some downsides, so fix this in practical ways with help for people hurt by globalisation”.
Im not adverse to that approach and I believe globalisation is good overall, however wealth redistribution is a dirty word in the USA so this limits your options to fix the problem. Instead it looks like globalisation is now disintegrating with a return of Nationalism, border protection and high tariffs. Not sure that is a wise move..
I agree beyond a certain point incomes and wealth accumulation has very diminishing returns in terms of happiness. But society is very addicted to wealth accumulation, and highest possible gdp growth.
In New Zealand the Labour government tried to take a “well being” approach to its goals rather than just economic growth. I think that’s the way to go but its meeting a lot of resistance.
Jonathan David says
4 May 2024 at 12:58 PM
“Oddly, Ned, I largely agree with your comment.”
Why would you say “oddly”?
What I find extremely “odd” is that anyone, genuinely concerned about global warming and it’s impacts, would disagree with my comment/s.
But, Life’s a box of chocolates.
And why is it you can say here without any complaint or censorship: “so any real solution seems unlikely.” and not be viciously attacked as a Doomer or Anti-Climate Science Denier as well? What’s your secret?
I’ll skip all your strawman projections and mischaracteriztions. Cheers
Ned Kelly: – “It will not be possible to limit the global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius without major interventions by nations. This means that in addition to (theoretically) rapidly lowering the global greenhouse gas emissions, by rapidly decreasing fossil fuel use, ruminant emissions, and through large land use changes along with various forms of solar radiation management , greenhouse gas removal and permanent long term storage will be required.”
On Apr 17, over the previous 365-days the planet’s GMST averaged +1.60 °C relative to the 1850-1900 baseline.
https://twitter.com/EliotJacobson/status/1781284909333794919
Global sea surface temperatures keep on setting records with no end in sight.
https://twitter.com/EliotJacobson/status/1784966473469071510
Overshooting the longer-term (20-year mean?) +1.5 °C GMST anomaly threshold (relative to the 1850-1900 baseline) is INEVITABLE, and likely sometime around the end of this decade. I’d suggest there’s nothing we/humanity can practically do in the limited timeframe available. A nuclear war, major volcanic eruption and/or major meteor ground strike may postpone (but not stop) crossing the longer-term +1.5 °C warming threshold, but the Earth System is already committed due to the current levels of atmospheric GHGs (e.g. CO₂, CH₄, N₂O, SF₆).
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/global.html
The Earth System is also committed to more than 20 metres of sea level rise at current atmospheric GHG levels, per Prof Jason Box, from time interval 0:15:27.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iE6QIDJIcUQ
See the slide: Where on Earth are We Heading: Pliocene or Miocene? in Shellnhuber’s 2018 Aurelio Peccei Lecture.
CORRECTION: Professor H. J. Schellnhuber’s Aurelio Peccei Lecture was delivered on 17 Oct 2018 (NOT 17 Dec 2018 as indicated in my earlier comment).
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/unforced-variations-feb-2024/#comment-818872
Reduce, Remove, Repair is non-negotiable if we/humanity wish to have a livable planet beyond the next few decades.
This is our reality.
Meanwhile, governments remain in denial, like it seems the Australian government…
https://www.aslcg.org/reports/too-hot-to-handle/
NK: If you think there is a solution you are part of the problem.
BPL: No, if, like you, you’re trying to denigrate every solution offered, you are part of the problem. Stop being part of the problem.
Came across the following this evening (my apologies if this was previously addressed here in March)…
From Univ. of Columbia:
https://climate.law.columbia.edu/content/noaa-budget-cuts-proposed-fy2025
NOAA Budget Cuts Proposed for FY2025
On March 11, 2024, President Biden released his budget proposal for Fiscal Year (FY) 2025. The proposed budget would decrease overall funding for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) by 2.4% from FY24 and drastically cut several key programs.
While the budget proposes increases in funding for weather satellites, marine and aviation operations, and programs to support climate resilience, these come at the cost of significant cuts elsewhere. Notably, the proposed budget includes severe cuts to research and educational programs, a 42% decrease in funding for the coral reef program, and the termination of community project funding and NOAA special projects.
The shift in funding priorities strengthens the federal government’s ability to predict and respond to extreme weather events. However, many of the proposed funding levels for research and other programs are the lowest seen in decades – and, in some cases, the lowest ever seen.
I realize a proposed budget is just that and likely not the end result following legislative committee markup and so forth, but I confess I am surprised and disappointed. As a conservative, I’m not prone to always lobby for bigger is better, but I feel funding the science NOAA does has been and remains critically important given what’s at stake.
Time for a cocktail ;-)
David, they could completely shut down NOAA, and shut down NASA in it entirety as well, switching off all the satellites, and it would still not make any difference to the climate going forward, nor cause a shift in the so-called climate mitigation actions in the US or globally.
The US would be better off redirecting those funds to supplying more long range missiles for Ukraine to blow up residential buildings full of civilians in Russia and blow up their Oil refineries, or strike the Kremlin.
The US would be more included to send even more troops with missile batteries to Taiwan and stir up even more fanatical lies in order to start their war with Chinese people asap.
More than that, shutting down NASA and NOAA would enable Biden to give away even more Tax Credits to the Mega Wealthy who own the anti-human anti-planet corporations like Blackrock to build out even more Solar Farms without costing them a penny to do so, and then making a killing when they sell them for cash a few years later once they are operational.
This is what crocodile tears over NOAA funding a d hand-waving hysterics at COP meetings is really all about. Nothing!
I suggest people would better invest their time reading Geoff’s notations from Kevin Anderson today … and doing some research on the hard evidence which underpins his conclusions – as well as those of James Hansen et al. and dozens of other climate scientists who are not in the business of attention seeking self-promotion and self-importance.
David, if you are looking for solutions and intelligent programs to solve climate change out of the USA, or Washington DC or NOAA and NASA or the Washington Post’s articles on climate, or evne here on Real Climate, then you and everyone else so inclined are looking in all the wrong places.
NK: The US would be better off redirecting those funds to supplying more long range missiles for Ukraine to blow up residential buildings full of civilians in Russia
BPL: I’m beginning to wonder if Ned is posting from Internet Research, or some underground GRU or SVR facility in St. Petersburg. Ukraine is not trying to blow up residential buildings full of civilians. That’s what Russia is doing.
Viy Chekista, Gospodin Kelly?
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, yes? People who rely on the mainstream news media for their knowledge about climate change and international conflicts are doomed to be badly misinformed.
Such as Barton who falsely believes – “Ukraine is not trying to blow up residential buildings full of civilians.”
The facts disagree with Barton:
And then there were the hundreds of civilians murdered in the Crocus City Hall terror attack by Ukraine’s Government and Secret Services. These news reports are confirmed via multiple sources. Including –
Just because no one tells you does not mean these things do not happen. Now all we need are the Hasbara to appear to start denying the Palestinian Genocide & Apartheid abuses and Land thefts. Then I’ll really be in trouble for being an evil outlier instead of the only Truth Teller! (grin)
in Re to Ned Kelly, 5 May 2024 at 9:10 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-may-2024/#comment-821876
and 3 May 2024 at 9:12 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-may-2024/#comment-821783
Ned,
Presenting the victim of violence as the perpetrator is one of the ugliest insults to human dignity that a person can commit.
Due to my personal experience with trustworthiness of official Soviet / Russian information, I would have NEVER cited TASS (by the way, this acronym comes from “Press Agency of Soviet Union”, in Russian) as a source with any credibility.
I suspect you do not personally know any Ukrainian, do you? I do, including several families of war refugees among them. I also know Russians who are deeply ashamed of their government and their countrymen, and they would probably only smile bitterly at your posts.
Are you able to admit that there may be topics you have no clue about? If so, please do me a big favour and stop posting thereon.
Best regards
Tomáš
There’s zero evidence that the Crocus City attack had anything to do with Ukraine, though predictably Putin tried to blame it on them. (Actually, I did predict this, immediately upon hearing of the attack–not that that was any great insight.) The folks arrested so far have no evident connection with Ukraine, rather coming mostly from Tajikistan, and having traveled to Turkey in connection with the attack planning. And ISIS actually claimed responsibility.
As for those other attacks, Belgorod is a major crossroads supplying most of the logistics for the Kharkiv front, and “border villages” are in the actual combat zone.
Sevastopol is currently home to any number of legitimate military targets, and when a source says that “A part of the projectile struck a home,” it’s a pretty safe bet that the home was not the target, else it would have likely been struck by the entire weapon.
There’s no information given about where exactly the Kursk fatality occurred, but the city is a significant crossroads north of Belgorod and not so terribly far from the Ukrainian border, while Kursk Oblast actually borders on Ukraine’s Sumy oblast. So there’s every possibility, at least, that that strike was intended for a legitimate target as well.
Summing up, Ned, you’ve presented claims that that some strikes have killed civilians–and I’d say they are likely correct–but zero evidence that Ukraine is targeting civilians intentionally.
Of course, being “collateral damage”, to use the disgusting euphemism, does not make civilian deaths less tragic. But it couldn’t possibly be clearer on the face of it that this was an elective war initiated by Russia–that is, by “Tsar” Putin. Ukraine has basically two choices: submit, or be erased from the face of the planet culturally and politically, if not demographically. (Though there was already one “Holodomor.” So there’s that.)
Tomáš Kalisz says a lot, makes a lot of unfounded claims.
Control yourself and your emotions. Get a grip. Your beliefs are unhinged and not founded in evidence or reality but in bigotry and ignorance.
Kevin McKinney says
7 May 2024 at 10:31 AM
You keep talking about “zero evidence” when what that actually means is zero evidence you know about and have seen and explained to you why it is not only true but credible and accurate. You’re living in a bubble of make believe folks.
No different than the economy is going gangbusters and property values will keep increasing from here — circa the mystical beliefs of 2007. Nothing has changed, the myth making and bullshit has not changed one bit.
Therein lays your problem, and everyone else’s who reacts about things that shock you. Your main problem is the constant stream of propaganda and blatant intentional lies you’ve been fed for decades which has only got worse the last decade; and you insist on continuing to believe it. They wouldn’t lie to to you, oh no, never.
Of course you will insist the ONLY people who have succumbed to such wild obscene propaganda are MAGA Voters ….. and Climate Science Deniers hey, never yourselves. ROFL
Hey, knock yourself out, believe what you wish. It makes no difference to reality. Nor to me.
In Re to Kevin McKinney, 7 MAY 2024 AT 10:31 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-may-2024/#comment-821941
Dear Kevin,
I would just add that, basically, no targets are legitimate for Russia in Ukraine, whereas any targets are legitimate for Ukraine in Russia.
So simple it is, because Russia invaded Ukraine, not oppositely.
There can be hardly a better example off a willful aggression, wherein the victim fighting for his/her very existence has full justification for any available means of defense, whereas the aggressor has no right to complain about any suffering inflicted to him in defense.
Many thanks for your comment and greetings
Tomáš
NK said:
No, Ned. What it “actually means” is that what you supplied as “evidence” didn’t support your claim.
Tomas further commented:
Tomas, while I agree with your basic point that no Ukrainian target is legitimate, since the entire invasion is an illegitimate exercise in neo-colonialism, I certainly would not agree that that renders *any* target in Russia legitimate for Ukraine. Nations of all stripes too frequently target civilians and civilian infrastructure, but that doesn’t make it “legitimate.”
In Re to Kevin McKinney, 10 MAY 2024 AT 5:27 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-may-2024/#comment-822020,
and Ned Kelly, 9 MAY 2024 AT 2:56 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-may-2024/#comment-821978.
Dear Kevin,
Many thanks for your kind comment!
I would like to add only that I was not going to say that Ukraine should bomb Russian cities to inflict the same suffering to Russia as Ukraine experiences.
I just tried to express that I see absolutely inappropriate if someone condemns Ukraine for any civilian death in Russia, because a victim has a full right to defend and if someone deliberately sets a requirement that no civilians can be hit, any effective defense becomes basically impossible. What is, of course, the goal of Russian propaganda spread by Russian trolls.
Ned,
I simply trust rather to my own experience than to assertions of people who are able to present Russian officials as a reliable source of information. If is, of course, up to you if you believe that you are any time right and that your opponents must be therefore stupid and ignorant. I just expressed my belief that you do not have any personal experience, nor a shared experience of your closest relatives, with nacism and/or communism, and that the same applies for your experience with Russia and Ukraine. You have not tried to disprove it.
For me, the story of the true, historical Ned Kelly is not sad because he was finally sentenced as a murderer and executed, but because he was originally, as a boy, capable to risk his own life to save another one. I strongly doubt that in a hindsight, his armed “fight against unjustice” that he fought for years brought any good to anyone, perhaps except some satisfaction that he experienced personally. That is why I am really sorry that he finally ended up as a murderer, while he perhaps to this bitter end believed that he does the right thing.
Best regards
Tomáš
It’s not always Russia. I would point out that China has developed considerable inroads into influencing Australian society. I’ve encountered a number of heavily pro-China trolls from Australia on line. Probably using the line “empire of lies” to describe the US is a bit too much of a giveaway.
“The Moscow Concert Hall Attack May Have Been A Staged Event”?
https://swprs.org/the-moscow-concert-hall-attack-may-have-been-a-staged-event/
Jonathan David says
7 May 2024 at 8:21 AM
James Charles says
17 May 2024 at 5:28 AM
I much prefer to be labelled as Pro-China and Pro-Russia and Pro-Truth aware knowledgeable person than be a gullible propagandized conspiracy theorist reactionary fool who believes they are smarter and know more than anyone else on the planet. Enjoy your high minded self-delusions and the cognitive dissonance buttons that are triggering you to react instead of think. Tomas and BPL as well of course. All to be expected and normal
Carry on. It makes no difference to reality. Climate change will continue to not be addressed. Systemic collapse in the West will continue unabated. Biden or Trump, Labor or LNP, the ABC or Sky News, makes no difference. We’ve seen it or heard about it all before. :-)
Conspiracy?
“2019 RAND Paper . . .
As far back as 2019, US Army-commissioned studies examined different means to provoke and antagonize Russia who they acknowledged sought to avoid conflict. “
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqVPM0KSUpo&t=5s
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3063.html
Sure, that has credibility. Lots and lots of credibility. Which is why the credulous love it so much.
NK: The US would be more included to send even more troops with missile batteries to Taiwan and stir up even more fanatical lies in order to start their war with Chinese people asap.
BPL: And again. China is clearly the aggressor; Taiwan isn’t trying to conquer China; rather the reverse. NK is posting Russian propaganda. I really, really think he’s a Chekist.
Gavin et al,, have you checked Ned’s IP address? Of course, it may be spoofed.
Tankie says what?
Ned, As with China, if the US is not part of the solution, there will not be a solution.
NASA and NOAA provide critical data that tells us how critical the situation is. Flying blind is not the answer.
In Re to Ned Kelly, 4 MAY 2024 AT 6:46 PM
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-may-2024/#comment-821816
Dear Ned,
A few days ago, you responded tp my remark that I grew up in communist Czechoslovakia and know how both nacists and communists treated their opponents. You wrote that it was not communism what I expoerienced but a tyranny. So far, I could accept your idealism. I must, however, strongly protest if you, again, try to equal gangster regime in today Russia with United States of America.
Together with Ukraine, Russia attacks all other European countries as well as all countries that have some respect to others. Russia does not attack countries like Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania as openly as Ukraine yet only because Russia knows that Ukraine cannot retaliate, whereas the above mentioned European countries are allied with United States in NATO and an open attack to a NATO country could be too risky.
In other words, if you spread Russian propaganda (I have already noted worst forms thereof in an article about “Western decline” you have cited) and attack United States, you support Russian war against my country.
You may not like corporations like Black Rock, however, you cannot think you stop them by taking Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, South Africa, Zimbabwe and like as your allies. If you are going to do so anyway because you think it is right, please stop contributing to Real Climate, quit your job in the West and move to one of these countries.
Best regards
Tomáš
Ned, thank you for your thoughts. That said, you don’t have a clue what I use as resources in my pursuit of understanding Earth systems and anthropogenic impacts upon said. I do feel your suggestions on what sources to use/not use betrays your stated conviction to “learn more” and thus undercuts your entire argument.
I have previously chosen to ignore your past and more recent visceral emotional statements about the United States, and for now I’ll only offer that I concur with Ray Ladbury’s accurate assessment in this thread that the U.S. is a key piece of any viable solutions.
David says
5 May 2024 at 10:01 PM
Fine David, be like that. I don;t care how irrational you are or your difficulties in comprehending what is being said, or what it means. Use all the strawmen you can build, start a wildfire with them, it’s fine by me.
The US offers no viable solutions to date. The US is the obstacle to all and nay viable solutions. Until people realize this, BAU continues on and the world (the people and ecosystem) burns to a crisp eventually. Of course you are incapable of seeing this David. That’s your and Rays problem (and the rest of your cohort here) to resolve not mine.
You will of course double down and deny you have a problem and instead project onto other people including myself. I don’t care what you do or what you think. Why is that so? Any ideas? :-)
Ned, trolling I suspect, wrote this:
Don’t be a git. Of course it would affect actions going forward if some of the largest data collection efforts went dark. Or don’t you think planners actually, you know, plan?
Having all that DATA has not helped genuine serious effective actions going forward so far.
So dumping all that DATA would not make it any worse than it is.
It might help by clearing people’s head spaces so some rational intelligent and creative problem solving thought would have the mental space to occur.
So, what’s the difference between trolling and provoking some functional thought? No difference here apparently. It’s all just trolling.
“The US would be more included to send even more troops with missile batteries to Taiwan and stir up even more fanatical lies in order to start their war with Chinese people asap.”?
Unless policy has changed?
“By the time you got to the first Bush administration, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, they came out with a national defense policy and strategic policy. What they basically said is that we’re going to have wars against what they called much weaker enemies and these have to be carried out quickly and decisively or else there will be embarrassment—a way of saying that popular reaction is going to set in. And that’s the way it’s been. It’s not pretty, but it’s some kind of constraint. “?
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2018/03/noam-chomsky-populist-groundswell-u-s-elections-future-humanity.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NakedCapitalism+%28naked+capitalism%29
“Presidential hopeful General Wesley Clark says the White House devised a five-year plan after the 9/11 strikes to attack seven majority-Muslim countries. “?
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2003/9/22/us-plans-to-attack-seven-muslim-states
‘They’ had the ‘excuse’ they needed to attack Iran?
It appears that it is not going to happen?
Short addendum to my first reply:
By shutting down NOAA and NASA the US could further expand their military bases and CIA black sites in African, Asia/Pacific, and Eurasian nations that no longer want them in their countries.
The USA could grow their Military Forces and Military Armaments / Export Industries even more so that the massive fossil fuel consumption and global contributions to increasing GHG emissions from the US Military sector keeps ahead of the equivalent global warming impacts from ~160 individual nation states!
The US Military – that massive global warming contributor that never needs to attend a COP Meeting and explain itself.
You all choose which side of this issue you stand for. Every day.
NK: By shutting down NOAA and NASA the US could further expand their military bases and CIA black sites in African, Asia/Pacific, and Eurasian nations that no longer want them in their countries.
BPL: The people expanding their bases in Africa are the Wagner Group, not the US. Stop posting Russian propaganda, Comrade Ned.
Maybe Dyslexia? Or impatience? Or ….?
NK – “says the US could further expand their military bases and CIA black sites in Africa…”
BPL – “The people expanding their bases in Africa are…… not the US. ”
Or could be what Ray Ladbury has said about Americans?
REF – https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/much-ado-about-acceleration/comment-page-2/#comment-821840
Quote:
“Such people are hopeless. They simply dismiss evidence unless it supports their pre-existing opinions.”
I don’t know the answer. What do you think?
Re https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-may-2024/#comment-821926
Obviously Darth Nedius is unfamiliar with the scope of news and perspectives expressed and available in the U.S. and at least some other ‘Western’ nations:
ABC, CBS, NBC
CNN
MSNBC
PBS , NPR
…
New York Times
Washington Post
The Nation
Newsweek
…
Axios, Vox, The Guardian …
BBC
Al Jazeera
The Daily Show, Late Night, SNL, etc.
…
Wall Street Journal
…
And of course Fox News, National Review, and some others I won’t mention.
Eg.: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/apple-cofounder-steve-wozniak-was-expelled-from-the-school-where-he-just-delivered-his-commencement-speech-be-leaders-not-followers/ar-BB1mdrCj?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=a761178214c243c387bf735e97a77ffb&ei=36
…
Re https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-may-2024/#comment-821873 , …
There goes ol’ Darth Nedius,
Spreading Putin’s Lies
One might suppose his/her values
have been ‘vaporised’ (*re https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/03/unforced-variations-march-2024/#comment-819986 )
Fortunately I have the wisdom
To know not all Russians are the same
As it is for Palestinians,
Israelis, Americans, and the people of Ukraine.
*accepting the implicit metaphor that a values system that is otherwise good, is bad in a gaseous state.
(Ray Ladbury was obviously neither referring to *all* Americans nor *only* Americans.)
The denial and narrative management continues unabated.
First – But when he and his colleagues compared the observed summer warming in Europe between 1980 and 2022 with the projections of global and regional climate models, they found the regional models underestimated the actual warming by more than 1°C, on average. The global models did better, only underestimating by an average of around 0.5°C.
and then become – It has been suggested that falling air pollution is partly responsible for the record-smashing global temperature rises in the past year or so, which were even higher than expected due to rising greenhouse emissions. Schumacher says the team’s study doesn’t shed any light on this question, but that other studies presented at the meeting found this isn’t the case.
And why did these European regional models underestimate warming?
THIS –
“The key reason why these regional climate models failed to reproduce this human-induced warming is that most of them assume that air pollution is constant,” says Schumacher, who presented the finding at a meeting of the European Geosciences Union in Vienna, Austria.
This means the regional models are underestimating how much warmer European summers will be by 2100 by more than 2°C, the team concludes. The underestimation of heatwaves is even greater, because during heatwaves there are usually clear skies and even more sunshine than normal, says Schumacher.
Regional models will now all be altered to take account of falling air pollution, but this will take time, he says.
BUT apparently Europe is not part of the world now. The global models were out 0.5C for some other unknown reason? And it’s round and round we go.
“We say don’t know but then we say we do.” :-)
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2428124-european-summers-will-be-hotter-than-predicted-because-of-cleaner-air/
and
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg26234873-400-old-fashioned-pessimism-might-actually-help-us-fight-climate-change/
Nah, that can’t right.
So if we don’t do what Michael Mann has been telling the world to do since his Hockey Stick paper what happens to global temperatures, agriculture, ocean acidification, extreme weather events and sea level rise and global civilization by 2100 along with them?
Aaaah people’s narratives say so much :-)
No i’m not a scientist or in any of the fields. Just a layman who’s read a lot, sees the science from what i can understand is sound. I’ve had this on my mind for a while now because i see both sides of the debate.
The pro side for which i’m for, the opposing side for who i want to vote for, for other reasons.
As things are going right now from what I’ve seen, if you continue on this path, you’ll lose the debate. May even lose it so badly, people who are doing honest science may face ‘legal’ consequences to appease the more vocal critiques in the opposing camp for a unifying mentality in the opposed camp.
Which if i am being honest, doesn’t surprise me due to our stone-age brains and lack of evolutionary precedent for dealing with global systems. Thus there’s a baseline of IQ and education needed to pass before one is even able to understand the phenomenon.
(insert popular meme about understanding ‘statistical averages’ and if someone tries too, the person they’re talking to says ‘what about X outlier example’ that they just admitted they don’t understand the concept.)
“The enemy is within the gates; it is with our own luxury, our own folly, our own criminality that we have to contend.”
No scientist, nor advocate gate-keeps nor police’s this side of the debate. Unintentionally giving ammo to the opposing camp, which you must view as the opposing camp. I understand many scientists and those in adjacent fields are not people persons. thus they think this is mainly just a lively debate.
It’s not, at least not anymore. Because you’ve let people into your camp who are following the old maxim. ‘Never let a good crisis go to waste’
If they were, there wouldn’t be such a need for poor to bad scientists like neil-degrass or bill-nye who’s only job is to further along the cultural myth that if you’re a scientist, you must know everything about science no matter the field.
Which is the first part of the gate-keeping and policing.
No one in the pro camp gate-keeps ‘who’ can speak for them, along anyone from the a-fore mentioned ‘scientists’, to random media hacks to do stuff like. It give’s ammo to the critics, giving them sound bite media ‘slam dunks’ to the general populace.
claim eclipses are caused by climate change.
claim earthquakes are directly caused by climate change. (ones theoretically caused by the earth rebounding from the weight of ice sheets non withstanding as those may not happen unless there’s a ‘movie’ style collapse of a major ice sheet in our lifetime.)
claim the existence of, or the severity of ‘weather event here’ was caused by climate change. When in fact it’s more about the over all trend over time and the day to day variations across the planet are impossible to either prove and have no method of to try and disprove, thus are not scientific statements.
claim (insert other phenomenon OR not even tangentially related thing) is caused by climate change. Just to get attention and or funding.
example: Methane produced by cows are part of the problem so people should give up meat to fight climate change. When in fact it’s due to what the bovines are ‘fed’ by the industrial farming method. Corn and bonemeal when they evolved to feed on grass and low hanging leaves. Once fed a proper diet, they cease ‘producing’ excess methane. Also there’s other methods to curtail this than giving up meat. I mainly see this message pushed by pro-vegetarian / vegan groups.
Not controlling the public message is overall harming the movement and without some serious work to fix this, it’s going to be the one of the two main torpedo’s that sinks it. Ensuring the worst possible outcome.
Now as for policing, I’ll re-post the old quote ‘Never let a good crisis go to waste’
This is the hardest, and possibly the part that you’ll attack me on the most on. But you need to clean house, because there’s those who ‘claim’ to be in the pro camp, who are in it for nothing other to USE the real crisis as a way to further their own agenda.
Politicians to a certain extent, though that’s a bit of the devil you have to work with. No it’s the rich with nothing better to do that want to reshape the world in their image. The ‘you’ll own nothing and be happy’ etc etc. crowd
No ‘that’s’ not fake, he wrote an entire book that lays it out plainly. The fourth industrial revolution.
For the worst thing you can do as a movement is let those who wish to use it to curtail freedoms and liberties the populace is used to having, in the name of solving it, to run free and control the narrative. Because as a simple matter of fact, it’s easier for the ‘average’ person to understand the against camp’s message in such a situation vs. the pro camp, when the pro camp seems to want to; stop people from eating what they want, go where they want(even though that’s ‘not’ what walkable/15-min cities ‘are’. it’s the publ;ic view of them though), drive what they want or how far they want. etc.
It can be solved without curtailing any freedom or liberty, but that means the pro group needs to oust these parasites.
Kudos!
The fanatical extremists on both sides of this “argument” lost the plot long ago.
Doesn’t matter if you think they did or not. It’s what the public sees that matters.
Major news networks, nbc and the like linking g.w. to the April 8th eclipse, giving ammo to the deniers because at most the movement of the moon affects the tides. The w.e.f. more or less saying the solution to the problem is to give up things they publicly enjoy. Like flying, and eating what they want.
Without the scientists and others who understand the issue gate-keeping. Mainly being able to release press reports to counter or clarify bad news reports like that, or to public denounce actors who want to use the real crisis to limit freedoms or ‘change’ society in ‘their’ view.
The BEST possible outcome of the entire crisis from what i see unless something is done, is similar to a early scene in the movie interstellar. Just replace the public school telling the former nasa astronaut before the world war before the film takes place that space and the moon landing’s fake. With a full denial-ist position. As people suffer due to crop failures and less stable weather.
Because like it or not, as soon as the field decided to let in politics and the media, their lack of p.r. control doomed any and all attempts to stop the problem. Because the soundbites of the former make them look like idiots as an example.
And the pure hypocrisy of those like the w.e.f. and others ‘not letting a good crisis go to waste’, while very publicly enjoying things they want to take away from the population. associates you with authoritarian politic that most people will on reflex reject.
L: claim eclipses are caused by climate change.
BPL: [CITATION NEEDED]
“claim eclipses are caused by climate change.”
It’s the converse. Cyclic alignments of Sun, Moon, & Earth as in eclipse geometries create maximum gravitational forcing on the ocean leading to extrema in tides and on the depth of the subsurface thermally stratified layers. Of course conventional tides don’t effect climate, but internal tidal waves do impact the temperature at the surface — as the thermocline rises it acts as a massive heat sink. A cool regional SST will create pressure differentials, shifts in wind, and in convection patterns, which ripple throughout the rest of the planet.
Of course this is zero-sum cyclical so it doesn’t impact AGW, but it certainly should be accommodated in climate models. This review paper titled “The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation” is full of discussion as to how tides can play a role
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/07055900.2022.2086847
It is qualified by the conclusion “If the model experiments confirm that lunar tidal forcing drives the AMO through tidal mixing for AMOC, this key new physics will provide valuable long-range predictability, and help to improve the decadal to multi-decadal predictions of global climate change”
Paul Pukite No, it’s not the converse. Eclipses and climate change are unrelated. The Sun, Moon, Earth alignment at every new moon is so nearly identical to that of a solar eclipse as to be gravitationally indistinguishable, The Lunar orbit tilts 5 degrees from the ecliptic; the angular separation seen from Earth cycles between 0 and 5 degrees. An eclipse offers no unique “maximum gravitational forcing” beyond what occurs every 28ish days.
“as to be gravitationally indistinguishable”
That’s why it gets dismissed. There’s a knee-jerk response whenever any mention of tidal forces enters the picture. I mentioned eclipse geometries not eclipses, which involve the moon crossing the ecliptic plane. Yes, extremes in tide are separated by longer periods than a month as the moon’s perigee cycle as well as the longer nodal precession cycle will separate these occurrences as the gravitational impact is maximized in these alignments.
And once again the model is for natural climate change. Any effects of the tidal forces on the surface of the ocean are magnified by orders of magnitude along buoyancy-sensitive regions such as the thermocline. This creates a significant heat-sink modulation exposed at the surface as per the fluid dynamics solution to Laplace’s Tidal Equations. See ENSO and AMO.
Ligerstripe 4 MAY “i’m not a scientist or in any of the fields”
I would have never guessed…
L: “[scientists] claim eclipses are caused by climate change”
BPL: [CITATION NEEDED]
L:”[scientists] claim earthquakes are directly caused by climate change ”
me: [CITATION NEEDED]
L: Methane produced by cows […] it’s due to what the bovines are ‘fed’ by the industrial farming method. Corn and bonemeal when they evolved to feed on grass and low hanging leaves. Once fed a proper diet, they cease ‘producing’ excess methane
Again: [CITATION NEEDED] I have thought that cows produce CH4 precisely because they eat grass and leaves – containing cellulose i.e. the carbohydrate extremely difficult to digest – they need the help of those who can – in case of cows and other ruminants – some specific symbiotic cellulolytic bacteria. These bacteria don’t like oxygen, so the cow creates a good microenvironment for them – in the part of their stomach called rumen. But when you decompose carbohydrates under low O2 conc. some of them undergo methanogenic fermentation: in a simplified form: 2’CH2O’ => CH4 +CO2, and these gasses leave the cow – either at the front (burps) or at the end (farts).
Substituting high-cellulose food with low cellulose food that cow can break down WITHOUT the help of ruminal bacteria (with easier to break down starch in corn or added dietary lipids) -if anything REDUCES the emissions of CH4.
Bone-meal is irrelevant to this question – not the source of energy, but minerals – mainly Ca and P, that cows need for their growth and for their milk. Since bonemeal does not contain cellulose – it’s breakdown and assimilation does not produce CH4. So whoever convinced you that switching cows to high-cellulose diet would solve the problem of CH4 emissions – lied to you.
Then again – what do “ poor to bad scientists like neil-degrass or bill-nye ” know – compared to you and your sources of knowledge?
Ligerstripe: No. Unless I misread you, you have no idea. It’s hard to know where to start on this, but two areas of study might open your vision. The presentation on the relatively new Attribution Science has not yet been posted, but here are some of the resources available:
First attribution paper published in Nature in 2004:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature03089
World Weather Attribution:
https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/
Climate Matters: https://www.climatecentral.org/climate-matters
Climate Shift Index map: csi.climatecentral.org
Climate Shift Index: https://www.climatecentral.org/climate-shift-index
“classic bell curve”:
https://www.climatecentral.org/graphic/introducing-the-climate-shift-index
Here is our open-access primer on attribution science:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590332220302475
Recent WWA study on the Panama Canal:
https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/low-water-levels-in-panama-canal-due-to-increasing-demand-exacerbated-by-el-nino-event/
As for our leaders here, you might benefit from some history of the DDOS attack and ClimateGate to understand why this is so old and exhausting. Ignorance is not bliss, and uncertainty is not your friend.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/11/one-year-later/
“Things have clearly calmed down over the last year (despite a bit of a media meltdown in February), but as we predicted, no inquiries found anyone guilty of misconduct, no science was changed and no papers retracted. In the meantime we’ve had one of the hottest years on record, scientists continue to do science, and politicians…. well, they continue to do what politicians do.”
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019/11/10-years-on/
If you’re really worried about your ‘freedoms’ being ‘curtailed’ just cultivate your blind side and pretend it’s all OK while messengers are killed or jailed or silenced. That’ll give you an idea of why the truth, expertise, and civilization might have been worth defending.
Susan, your interpretation of the results of Climategate investigations is not accurate. That’s unfortunate as it taints the rest of an otherwise excellent comment.
We owe Victors doxology :
Forest fires are not created by CO2.
Floods are not produced by CO2.
Droughts are not produced by CO2.
Heavy rainfall is not created by CO2.
Ice loss in the Arctic is not created by CO2.
Ice shelf erosion in the Antarctic is not produced by CO2.
Hurricanes are not caused by CO2.
Heat waves are not caused by CO2.
The AMOC is not being destabilized by CO2.
Sea-level rise is not caused by CO2.
Glaciers are not melting because of CO2.
is one Anthony Watts presented to a denial-friendly Houston audience in 2013.
He gave Matt Ridley credit for compiling it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_-A-uDu2fQ
RS: … Victors doxology … is one Anthony Watts presented to a denial-friendly Houston audience in 2013.
He gave Matt Ridley credit for compiling it:
BPL: Good catch. Thanks for posting.
Russell Seitz, a good catch indeed! I just don’t know whether to chuckle or feel a tad discouraged, but thank you for connecting those dots.
My “doxology” is based on a vast array of media reports, “scientific” claims and comments on this very blog. This is what I get continuously from a wide variety of alarmist sources. And no I never saw the report presented by Watts.
Off-topic, but hey, if there’s a nit to pick somebody has to pick it, right? (Pretty sure BPL knows the following factoid very well, but was more focused than I apparently am and chose not to mention it.)
So on to the nit-picking–that screed of Victor’s is not a “doxology,” which is defined as “An expression of praise to God, especially a short hymn sung as part of a Christian worship service.”
But it could reasonably be described as a “litany”–that is:
Carry on!
Or ‘doxology’ the study of how to publish an individual’s personal information on the Internet?
OK, last one for today.
Breaking news – A must see 2 hour really insightful and interesting n depth discussion with Dr Gavin Schmidt of Nasa-Giss, by Dan Miller of Climate Chat (an excellent well respected interviewer on the topic)
Much Ado About Accelerating Warming with Climate Scientist Gavin Schmidt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhvNVihv5Ww
In this Climate Chat episode, we interview Dr. Gavin Schmidt about the recent acceleration in global temperatures and the debate in the climate science community about the cause. We will also discuss the usefulness of climate models, carbon budgets, tipping points, and other subjects.
NK- The acceleration appears to be a given now. I will post a few really good extracts down the track …. for those who don’t have the time to watch it themselves.
But not today, as I am exhausted from answering all the questions being put to me today. What I say and think has never been so important to other people before in my life, so this has truly been a humbling experience.
Kind Regards ….
Ned Kelly 5 May: “ But not today, as I am exhausted from answering all the questions being put to me today. What I say and think has never been so important to other people before in my life
See also: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=attention%20whore
You must not have any direct experience with Dan Miller. I do. He is dishonest, dismissive of anything not a tech solution, and is rude and patronizing.
Further, I never once heard him state, over many hours of climate discussions over many months that he was invested in the technologies he supported as climate solutions.
If you listen to Dan Miller on climate mitigation and adaptation, you are being misinformed. IIRC, in the interview you mention, Miller once again states declaratively SRM schemes are unavoidable to deal with climate – which he is invested in. (I have not checked his investment status for a while, but I am sure this is still true.)
E.g., I have done presentations on simplification approaches to climate where Dan Miller popped in long enough to get a chance to speak, flatly lied by saying what I had been talking about for an hour, and had discussed in full multiple other times he was already aware of, I had never said. He did this six times. (All recorded.)
Careful whom you listen to.
Killian says
14 May 2024 at 9:34 PM
“Careful whom you listen to.”
Thanks Killian, appreciated the info.
fwiw I am less careful about “who” I listen to than I am believing in / accepting what they what they say, and being careful what their motivations might be. So thanks the info on investments in SRM, I wasn;t aware about that.
However, I was already questioning his often “odd behaviours” and comments in other interviews.
My purpose was to let others know what Gavin had to say, not Dan. Readers can see some quotes refs highlights of that on the other Much Ado page ….. eg start here and keep scrolling down to the bottom.
Ned Kelly says
7 May 2024 at 8:00 PM
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/much-ado-about-acceleration/comment-page-2/#comment-821952
plus
Ned Kelly says
13 Apr 2024 at 10:02 PM
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/much-ado-about-acceleration/#comment-821294
This scientific ref is also excellent: Geeta Persad
Title: Anthropogenic Aerosol as a Driver of Climate Risk
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/much-ado-about-acceleration/#comment-821516
Killian, listening to people does mean the listeners believe them or are being conned/manipulated by those people. It depends. eg I can read what Piotr and MAR etc etc here write and easily dismiss it as misguided irrational gibberish unfounded in science or rational logic or reality.
For example my comments here: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/much-ado-about-acceleration/#comment-820967 and here
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/much-ado-about-acceleration/#comment-821204
The “advice” I gave there is my standard line:-
Trust your own instincts. Make your own decisions anyway.
My best regards Killian. Keep up the good works! I am counting on you.
NKNews :-)
Regarding a question about taking the warnings from climate scientists seriously and the the world taking effective climate change actions, (What will it take to get people to change what they’re doing) Gavin Schmidt responds:
“How do I know? [People have tried all kinds of things.] Nothing has worked at the level that is commensurate with the size of the problem. But I don’t know why people ask scientists who are spending their time trying to understand what’s happening in the climate system to suddenly tell them how to shift whole societies to do something that is going to effect 8 billion people. I don’t know the answer to that. “
Quote @ 1:35:30 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhvNVihv5Ww
Between Ned Kelly and Weaktor and people wasting time responding to trolling, there’s not a lot of substance this month.
Moderator???
I came for the Science, but stayed for the Humour.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/5/3/russian-troops-deploy-to-airbase-housing-us-military-in-niger-us-official
NK: russian-troops-deploy-to-airbase-housing-us-military-in-niger-us-official
BPL: Viy Chekista?
Unusually right for a change.
Facts get lost and emotions dominate on the internet, the US Secretary of State has said
Interview with Dan Miller cont’. extracts as promised
Much Ado About Accelerating Warming with Climate Scientist Gavin Schmidt
Dr Schmidt made a very rare (and to me) surprising admission about Modeled Scenarios used by the IPCC and COP agreements etc.
@ 1:40:45 https://www.youtube.com/live/mhvNVihv5Ww?si=t9b_BrA4NNuhkHrb&t=6045
Dan Miller asks (edited):
You just brought up with your CDR comment because as we just had a little discussion about how it’s in some of the scenarios that the models used to say ‘we can stay under two C’, so it sounds to me like you’re saying we won’t stay under two C, maybe you are maybe you’re not. Michael man like fairly recently said, and I was very surprised by this, wrote that we can stay under one and a half C if we get to Net Zero I think by 2050. And Zeke Hausfather said ‘we can stay under two C if we get to Net Zero by 2070. Now from everything I know that doesn’t make any sense at all, but what are your thoughts on our ability to stay under two C assuming no SRM and no CDR?
DR. Schmidt responds:
I don’t know that that’s a particularly interesting conversation to have.
[ Dan-Really? ]
Let me re-frame it though right? The faster we get to Net Zero the happier we’re all going to be.
[ Dan-All agreed ]
That’s so, you know we can argue about scenarios that are all, like basically, just fantasy scenarios. They are not based on anything real or any real policies or anything like that. They are Top- down, you know kind of accounting exercises.
[ Dan-cut your emissions along this slope and then things obviously, the Carbon budget you know ..]
Whatever, that’s not gonna happen, like we know, we all know that that’s not gonna happen.
[ Dan-well there’s a lot of presentation, a lot of people presenting that..]
No, then they are presenting that as what would be required and obviously we’re not going to cut emissions by 8% every year for the next 10 years, right.
So I mean, you know, there are people that like talking about things that are never going to happen (for example) Theologians, um, ah…
[ Dan-COP28 maybe. no no no this is quite a serious issue isn’t it? ]
My interest is slim. Like I mean, you know, if we can get close to Net Zero emissions then that would be great,
[ Dan- BUT by the way this is like maybe you know maybe some the most important questions in the world. Politicians whoever you want to say COP, I mean whoever the governs whatever we’re doing here, AND there’s no one really governing any of this, BUT they take comfort in the fact that they see Modeled Scenarios where we stay under two C, and now we can and I was trying to argue what over two C is a total catastrophe, so that’s a terrible plan, BUT for some people they think ‘oh that will be okay’. NOW Gavin you are saying that that’s fantasy anyway = just to stay under two C and if they knew that, if they knew we are really on a path to PLUS three to maybe four C, these things are …]
DR. Schmidt responds:
No, no, no. So I mean, you know, people have done uh ‘estimates’ of you know where are we based on current policies. Where are we based on uh ‘promised policies’, and you know if you look at the ‘promised policies’, which obviously have to be realized, then know you’re looking at plus 2.5 C right.
[ Dan-doesn’t that assume CDR? ] No. [ Dan-That assume CDR? ] No, no, not as far as I know.
[ Dan-Mmmmm. I was under the impression that the vast majority, almost all scenarios …. um, well maybe that’s not right – I think it’s all that keep us under two have CDR built in so maybe .. .]
Yes. The current policies and current promises do not keep us under two C.
[ Dan-Okay ]
Right, so you know that we should all be aware of that.
[ Dan-and 2.5 C is, and by the way that’s assuming and of course the other thing is it’s not 2.5 it’s not a fixed number it’s like something with ONLY a 66% probability right? ]
NO, no, no, that’s I mean, that that’s a different kind of calculation. It’s not a limit and then like a probability. It’s not like you know that’s the mean and then there’s a spread around that, you don’t understand.
[ Dan-well the spread has a distribution probability right? But …… (it’s raises the question of) would I put my child on a plane that had a one-third chance of crashing, and the answer is no. I wouldn’t do it if it was a only 1% chance of crashing and yet we’re we’re going forward with these Assumptions (Projected Scenarios) that …. ]
NO, no, no we are not going forward on those Assumptions. We are going forward with a lack of action to reduce emissions, right. That’s the fundamental issue. It is NOT predicated on some fantasy of CDR (COP scenarios, or SRM etc) it’s predicated on the fact that right outside our window we are burning a shit ton (that’s the technical term) of fossil fuels.
[ Dan-That’s correct but then the question is, well (pause) I guess the question I have is: ‘If climate scientists, everyone not just climate scientists, were scared out of their mind about the path we are on, and that got reflected into the public, like the public saw that you climate scientists and everybody else you can’t believe what we’re doing ….. ]
You greatly overestimate how important climate scientists are (in the scheme of things, we are just (one voice there) (?)
[ Dan- I’m one who said look it’s not your job, I mean your job is to figure out the science and to present that to the policy makers but somewhere along the line this …. about existential threats to society and whether we can survive as a species or not, or as a civilization I should say, and this is not being dealt with in a in a way that’s going to work out well right, I mean we’re not taking it seriously. ]
DR. Schmidt responds:
THIS goes to what your Theory of Change i, right. So how does a society change right, how does it move to do
something different than it has been doing. Now we know that societies do move we do, we can see that they have changed over time before. Sometimes those changes have come all at once and sometimes they have taken a very long time indeed and quite frankly there isn’t a totally mature theory of change that fits all circumstances, in particularly this one right.
[ Dan-My theory of change, as someone who’s been giving climate talks for 20 years and seen very little change the only thing I’ve seen that have changed the conversation, the only thing, in the public and the mainstream media understanding, the only thing is climate damage that has been assigned to climate change. I mean it’s happened before but we’re going to get a lot more of that so we are guaranteed (more damage is on the way) so we’re guaranteed to have more interest in the subject ]
DR. Schmidt responds:
I think you may be right. People have done surveys on attitudes post Katrina post Wildfires post the Heat Waves and yes I think a lot of the broader acceptance that the climate is changing is because of the facts on the ground. You can’t go anywhere anymore and then find people saying ‘oh well nothing has changed here’; like because things have changed everywhere right, and we’re seeing that. Just in the last five years we’re seeing a much greater impact on weather extremes and attributable weather extremes than we have done before.
But it’s not because I’ve been running around or my friends have been running around saying that you should be scared for people to notice these things. NOBODY is listening to climate scientists. We have no platform that makes any difference. It’s a problem it;s not a problem, whatever you know.
Even with the pandemic how much serious information were you getting directly from scientists? Very little unless you were like really obsessively following them on Twitter right. You know most of the stuff gets translated through multiple different levels and then gets distorted beyond all recognition by the various grifters and morons that we have. Who you know spend all their time trying to make a name for themselves!
end quotes section – 1:49:50
In the Much Ado about (Nothing) Acceleration interview with Dan Miller, Dr Schmidt mentions how GCMs and ESMs take a year to compute
…
https://theconversation.com/supercomputers-can-take-months-to-simulate-the-climate-but-my-new-algorithm-can-do-it-ten-times-faster-229041
Efficient spin-up of Earth System Models using sequence acceleration
Abstract
Marine and terrestrial biogeochemical models are key components of the Earth System Models (ESMs) used to project future environmental changes. However, their slow adjustment time also hinders effective use of ESMs because of the enormous computational resources required to integrate them to a pre-industrial equilibrium. Here, a solution to this “spin-up” problem based on “sequence acceleration”, is shown to accelerate equilibration of state-of-the-art marine biogeochemical models by over an order of magnitude. The technique can be applied in a “black box” fashion to existing models. Even under the challenging spin-up protocols used for Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) simulations, this algorithm is 5 times faster. Preliminary results suggest that terrestrial models can be similarly accelerated, enabling a quantification of major parametric uncertainties in ESMs, improved estimates of metrics such as climate sensitivity, and higher model resolution than currently feasible.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adn2839
The mainstream media attempts to turn our perception into that of a young child that only lives in the present, with no ability to connect one event to another and considered thought lost to emotions and feelings; for example the curated hatred of the official enemies and the uncritical support for the official allies.
More of the manufacturing of ignorance that suggests agnotology only works upon the willing.
From Thoughts for Today
What’s the current rate of warming?
From what I understand, it was ~0.3K/decade during A.D 2010-2023 (according to Hansen et al.). However, in his recent communication (from 13 December A.D 2023), he says this:
>For the six months since the El Nino began, the average difference between 2023 and 2015 (the prior El Nino) is 0.39°C, a decadal warming rate of 0.49°C/decade, more than double the 1970-2010 rate of 0.18°C/decade, consistent with expectations (…).
Does this mean the current rate (measured by the peaks of El Niños) is now 0.49K/decade? I may be wrong (and probably am), but it seems like his comparing apples to oranges here, i.e. the rate measured over a timespan of A.D 1970-2010 (with all El Niños and La Ninas) to a rate measured from two most recent El Niños. Am I reading this correctly?
Julian,
The +0.49ºC/decade was calculated by Hansen et al back in December, it being simply the rise in global temperature over the eight years since the 2015/16 El Niño, what Hansen calls the “El Nino Measuring Stick”. The comparison at that time was only for the first six months of the El Niño period with Hansen et al asserting that the 12-month period June24-May24 would ” eliminate any doubt about global warming acceleration.” Using the GISTEMP (as per Hansen), we are still two months short of the full 12-months and Hansen’s “El Nino Measuring Stick” will yield something like +0.33ºC/decade with the final two months likely to further reduce Hansen’s “El Nino Measuring Stick” result.
(For the record, using GISTEMP this “El Nino Measuring Stick” 1997/98 to 2015/16 yields a warming rate of +0.25ºC/decade, well above the rate calculated using more normal methods. For instance, OLS 6-97 to 5-16 yields +0.19ºC/decade. Your suspicions of an apple & oranges comparison appear vindicated.)
Hansen et al did address the relative strength of the present El Niño and the 2015/16 version, arguing back in December that the strengths would be equivalent. That doesn’t now hold true, the present El Niño being significantly weaker (as Hansen notes in a comment piece in March where the present El Niño is described as “half-baked”).
But while these two El Niño remain both biggish, I would suggest the response of a warming world to an El Niño is appearing to be changing and this size of response is thus the deciding factor. For instance, there is the question as to why the global SAT back in 1997/98 peaked in May, in 2009/10 peaked at the end of March, 2015/16 peaked in February and today’s 2023/24 El Niño peaked last November. It seems to me that the El Niños are creating earlier (and bigger) global SAT responses. If this is the case, Hansen’s “El Nino Measuring Stick” won’t be telling us much about the underlying rate of AGW or changes thereof.
All this does make any form of “El Nino Measuring Stick” far from straightforward.
I would suggest the SAT record does show a warming rate of roughly +0.27ºC/decade for the period 2015-22, a significant increase on the preceding decades of AGW (ie 1970-2010). As for future years, who knows? I find Hansen’s arguments far from convincing.
“I find Hansen’s arguments far from convincing.”
Do you know what you are even arguing against MAR? I do not think you do.
Hansen’s arguments posit an accelerated global warming. The Your own comments and data wholeheartedly agree with that position.
The “El Nino Measuring Stick” is a non-critical additional data point which supports Hansen et al and your own contention global warming is accelerating now and will going forward. BUT no one needs the “El Nino Measuring Stick” to assert this fact which is supported by multiple streams of real world observations data and evidence.
Your own words condemn your criticisms of Hansen et al and common sense math.
– OLS 6-97 to 5-16 yields +0.19ºC/decade.
– SAT record does show a warming rate of roughly +0.27ºC/decade for the period 2015-22
That is what is known in the field as an Acceleration in global warming.
Other well known scientists have claimed “there is no evidence of acceleration in warming”.
I ask again – do you really know what you are talking about and arguing against?
Ned Kelly,
I appreciate your difficulties at grasping the issues at play within this AGW acceleration business (and we know this not least thro’ the old adage about ’empty barrels’).
You ask if ‘I know what I’m even arguing against’ before telling me you believe I do not, as even ‘my own words condemn my criticisms of Hansen et al and common sense math.’ (I must say that I was not aware that there was such a thing as ‘common sense mathematics’ so any “criticisms” I have made of such a thing would be entirely inadvertent.)
My understanding of the Hansen thesis is that the reducing global aerosol load has boosted the AGW rate post-2010, from a rate of +0.18ºC/decade pre-2010 to somewhere in the range +0.27°C to +0.36°C per decade. He also argues that the earlier +0.18ºC/decade rate resulted from less AGW forcing (it being masked by a larger aerosol forcing) and thus the ECS is greatly underestimated and Hansen supports this with some simple calculations involving the LGM finding ECS 4.5ºC(+/-1.1ºC) which is well above the usual ECS=3.0ºC value. And in support of this thesis he points to the wibbly-wobbly SAT record and the data showing increasing EEI.
So Ned Kelly, is that a fair account of what I am “arguing against”? And if that is a fair account, I should add that I do find it “far from convincing.”
You’re too kind,Mr Rodger. But let me assist you again:
RE “My understanding of the Hansen thesis is that the reducing global aerosol load has boosted the AGW rate post-2010, from a rate of +0.18ºC/decade pre-2010 to somewhere in the range +0.27°C to +0.36°C per decade.”
Well sagain your understanding is not correct. Or at best your description of Hansen’s hyostheses are in his Pipelin paper, and subsequent website articles is technically flawed and in error.
Hansen et al (2023) nor Hansen, nor Leon Simons personally say that : the reducing global aerosol load has boosted the AGW rate post-2010, from a rate of +0.18ºC/decade pre-2010 to somewhere in the range +0.27°C to +0.36°C per decade
If you believe they do you will need to provide a direct reference supported by a copy&paste of the actual text or material asserting this. I say you are wrong. I cannot prove a negative.. The onus is upon you Mr Rodger.
It is my view your subsequent comments are also faulty – some call this building a Strawman Fallacy or putting words into others mouths not said nor intended. But unless the above misunderstanding can be corrected – or you can prove your assertions are correct, and I agree, there is no point proceeding further at this point.
Unless a common ground in a shared reality of the facts can be found little to no progress can be made. It has been a long time issue here – just look at the circular discussions with ‘deniers’ such as Victor and Mr KIA et al. I refuse to become involved in such unproductive rhetoric.
Good luck, Kind regards ….
PS MA Rodger,
noting the shift in the discussion from the temperature gap between two El Nino periods (which my former reply questions were about) to this new “argument” from Rodger about reducing aerosol emissions impacts on temperatures.
Happy to deal with the latter first, but highlighting the first issue has not gone away and still needs to be addressed by Rodger. I am not filled with confidence any progress will be made. But, we’ll see.
Oh dear. It seems the commenter Ned Kelly has become entirely a bullshit-wielding troll. This is not good given his present ubiquity within RC’s comment threads.
…
Ned Kelly,
People will be surprised that you of all people would be so ignorant of the content of Hansen et al (2023) ‘Global warming in the pipeline’ as it is you who has so often accused others of needing to read said paper. But now it is you asking to be spoon-fed quotations like a baby.
You insist I am wrong to characterise Hansen’s work by saying:-
Yet, plain as a pikestaff, the abstract of said paper tells us:-
and the graphic which has featured on so many of Hansen’s commentaries of late, fig24 of the said paper, is helpfully captioned
Perhaps I should also point out, Ned Kelly, that your ‘PS’ comment here talks of your interdiction into this particular interchange being a question about “the temperature gap between two El Nino periods,” that is Hansen’s ‘El Niño Measuring Stick’ which you go on to tell us “no one needs.” I see no questioning from you within that comment on that subject.
Your questioning was plain and entirely about whether ‘I really know what I am talking about and arguing against?’
MA Rodger says
14 May 2024 at 4:13 AM
MA Rodger says
12 May 2024 at 4:36 AM
RE “And if that is a fair account, I should add that I do find it “far from convincing.”” etc etc
Addition information- #1 Gavin S supports the notion that warming is accelerating, and that it is generally expected that it would, and will continue to do so in the future. But he recently said he is waiting on the substantive data analysis (beyond the preliminary data) as to likely causes (forcing) coming out soon in various papers he has seen / access to – as well as the updating of models via the CERESMIP project which will take much longer.
Ref “Much Ado About Accelerating Warming interview with Climate Scientist Gavin Schmidt”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhvNVihv5Ww
Next #2 “Accelerating” Debate on Global Warming: Interview with Dr. Zeke Hausfather
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoegRrN-yvw
And #3 Hansen’s commentary in July 2023 says:
MA Rodger
Thank you for explaining the nuance. One of the things that I find particularly frustrating in our current predicament is the amount of misinterpretation and information void of context flying around the Internet. I’m not a climate scientist or ecologist (although I’m slowly getting there), so I have to rely on information available online to make any future plans. And while I can read academic papers, putting them into bigger picture without formal education is difficult to say the least. To add insult to injury, there are also people who just love to throw numbers and data without contextualizing it (I have seen a fair share of permafrost predictions only to realize that the issue is more complex than it seems).
MA Rodger says
14 May 2024 at 4:13 AM
The lengths one most go to to get Mr Rodger to “quote verbatim” have finally paid off. Well done. Success. Let’s quote some more:
Ned Kelly says
10 May 2024 at 9:40 PM
I write: “The “El Nino Measuring Stick” is a non-critical additional data point which supports Hansen et al and your own contention global warming is accelerating now and will going forward. ”
So contrary to MAR “I see no questioning from you within that comment on that subject.” is again showing you outright you are wrong, It is equivalent to “questioning” what you said Mr Rodger. It is you who ignored the inherent questioning embedded within the comment. Maybe it was an ‘honest’ mistake or disingenuous? I cannot know.
Now to Hansen’s abstract – itself a minute summary of a very very long and complex paper – is what Mr Rodger is entirely relying upon here, and it is fraught with problems. (I’m ignoring other refs as an unnecessary distraction from the critical issue here, which is Mr Rodger’s judgment of what Hansen et al “means” and “was intended to mean”.)
First Hansen et al abstract says “should” – they do NOT say will, definitely will, must, has, or have, nor is proven to be, nor clearly shows that …., The word “should” refers to the detailed content in the paper which combined leads to an Hypothesis, a Prediction in fact, being summarised in the Abstract as the simple singular word: “should.”
The Abstract is NOT a DEFINITIVE declarative statement about reality past present or future about Reality nor Observations nor the Data in this case. The Abstract does NOT make claims nor assertions beyond that included in the detailed Content of the entire Paper.
An individual’s misinterpretation of the single word “should” should not be relied upon to gauge or judge what it is Hansen et al (2023) presents as their Hypothesis and on what Science that Hypothesis is founded upon.. imho. If others think differently let them make their case.
In fact Hansen et al and the articles reinforce the GUIDANCE specifically that it will take 2024 and for years ahead to obtain the Data required which will indicate the Hypothesis of “warming in the pipeline” has been correct or not. All these clarifications, warnings, and advice are written in the text you claim to have read.
Whereas Mr Rodger continues to assert that Hansen et al is WRONG / FAULTY (?) based purely on an ABSENCE OF DATA. Such conclusions are spurious and unscientific. imho.
Which naturally leads to the question of whether or not Mr Rodger has or had actually read the Texts, and if he really knows what he’s talking about.
Do you wish for me to copy paste every notation to this effect from Hansen et al and his articles Mr Rodger? I hope not, because I am not going to do that.
Note: The Efficacy of Scientific Papers are NEVER found in the Title nor the Abstract.
I thought most people knew this. Such basic errors and mistakes, that focus on such simplistic irrelevancies as the abstract content to judge Hansen et al, is what leads me to defend his honour and scientific credibility when it’s being criticised.
Whether or not Hansen’s hypothesis and prediction turns out correct or not is totally besides the point, but no one can claim they know one way or the other as yet. One only needs to understand the Paper to understand this fact.
For any other readers interested in the detailed commentary in Hansen et al look at these sections in particular :
Background information and structure of paper
https://academic.oup.com/oocc/article/3/1/kgad008/7335889?login=false#423296417
Aerosols
https://academic.oup.com/oocc/article/3/1/kgad008/7335889?login=false#423296537
In particular this very complex and nuanced section:
Summary
– incl Equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS); Climate response time; Earth system sensitivity (ESS); Aerosols; Earth’s energy imbalance; Equilibrium warming versus committed warming;
https://academic.oup.com/oocc/article/3/1/kgad008/7335889?login=false#423296573
The devil as they say is in the details. (smile)
Such as: “The data indicate that EEI has doubled since the first decade of this century (Fig. 25). This increase is one basis for our prediction of post-2010 acceleration of the global warming rate. “
There are many basis’s for their complex hypothesis.
Kind regards …..
Ned Kelly,
The problem I find most challenging with this to-&-fro with you is that I am not entirely confident that I can properly account for either your evident mental and behavioural problems or your obvious intellectual limitations. Thus I’m not entirely sure how to reply to your excuse for branding me yet again as somebody who doesn’t know what he is talking about.
This latest excuse of yours boils down to suggesting that it is my use of the word “has” that is incorrect and the word “should” is the correct word.
Now I cannot be entirely sure this is not some trap you have cunningly laid for me or if it is simply the best excuse you can come up with for your previous incompetence. (In the past such incompetence has not always been defended and has instead been quietly forgotten, presumably when such lame excuses do not occur to you.)
But with your excuse (or cunningness), you do fail to account for what is being described by the word “has” and what is being described by the word “should”. Perhaps because these are ‘auxiliary verbs’ the lack of equivalence is less clear but the matter is plain in the verb use. The verbs have a different tense. They describe different things. Thus one refers to past warming and one refers to future warming. And that is why (and you may have missed this in you eagerness to push home your schoolboy pedantics) I say “has” and not as per Hansen et al’s Hopium commentary, use the word “is” which does not explicitly refer to past events but on-going ones.
Oh and you seem to want direct quotes for all this devoted bibliolatry you indulge in:-
Of course, with such pedantry we do rely on these god-like commentaries being chiseled correctly. I note the most recent pronouncement begins with a rather garbled rendition employing a misused preposition.
But what is again plain to me in all this, Ned Kelly, is that you are incapable of engaging in any meaningful discussion.
Acceleration of global warming is now hard to deny. The GISS 12-month temperature is now
0.36°C above the 0.18°C/decade trend line, which is 3.6 times the standard deviation (0.1°C).
Confidence in global warming acceleration thus exceeds 99%, but we need to see how far
temperature falls with the next La Nina before evaluating the post-2010 global warming rate.
A recent comment in the social media that a decline of global temperature will signify that we
are “back to normal” is right only if one considers accelerating global warming to be normal.
However, we see no reason to believe that the jump in 2023-24 global temperature indicates
we are missing some fundamental climate physics – other than good aerosol physic
Global temperature (12-month mean) is still rising at 1.56°C relative to 1880-1920 in the
GISS analysis through April (Fig. 1). see top of page here https://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2024/MayEmail.2024.05.16.pdf
And Robert Rohde reports after 11 consecutive months of record monthly-average temperatures, the 12-month moving-average of Berkeley Earth’s global mean temperature now stands at 1.65 ± 0.07 °C (2.97 ± 0.13 °F) above the 1850-1900 average.
https://nitter.poast.org/RARohde/status/1790714480407593007#m
and see
https://nitter.poast.org/pic/orig/media%2FGNnkUQuXYAAsH3C.png
and see
https://berkeleyearth.org/april-2024-temperature-update/
and see
With four months completed, 2024 is expected to be either the warmest or 2nd warmest year on record. We currently estimate a 62% chance that 2024 is ultimately warmer than 2023, i.e. slightly better than a coin flip. These odds are little changed from previous estimates.
https://nitter.poast.org/pic/orig/media%2FGNniN3mWMAAUy6B.png
Temperature is temporarily well above the 50-100 percent increase that Hansen projected (yellow region in Fig. 1 above) for the post-2010 warming rate. That projected increase is based on evidence that human-made aerosols and their cooling effect are in decline globally. In other words, we are beginning to realize the consequences of the Faustian bargain, in which humanity partly offset greenhouse gas warming with aerosol (particulate air pollution) cooling.
On May 20, the ocean heat content in the Main Development Region (MDR) of the Atlantic is now where it normally would be on August 10.
see https://nitter.poast.org/pic/orig/media%2FGOBc975a8AA_MM0.jpg
or alt https://nitter.poast.org/pic/orig/media%2FGOBJYE-XkAEMRv8.jpg
and see
https://nitter.poast.org/pic/orig/media%2FGOBdZKlbgAEtaDl.jpg
It’s fairly well known that 90% of global warming goes into the oceans. The North Atlantic Sea Surface Temperatures are now higher above mean average than when an earlier version of this graph went viral around the world in May 2023 – Many thought this was some crazy natural variability on top of gradual global warming. The El Nino had not yet began at this time. Later it was used an the main culprit by some climate scientists. It is not natural variability and it’s not the El Nino.
May 2024 graph of North Atlantic SST anomaly
https://nitter.poast.org/pic/orig/media%2FGN89oTlWAAERo8a.jpg
Post-weak El Nino temperatures are far higher in record territory than they were a year ago. New studies suggest the impact from the Hunga Tunga (HTHH) volcanic eruption over the past two years the net effect of the eruption has been to very slightly cool the globe. So it’s not that.
The 2023-24 temperature jump is a result of strong warming trend over several years at
middle latitudes combining with a switch at low latitudes in 2023 from a strong La Nina to a
moderately strong El Nino, as shown by zonal-mean sea-surface temperatures (SSTs, Fig. 2).
The maximum of the solar cycle in 2023-25 may add a bit to the appearance of a leap in
2023-24 temperature. When land measurements of surface air temperature are included to
obtain zonal-mean global surface temperature change, the warming in the Northern
Hemisphere becomes even more dramatic (Fig. 3).
see data displayed here- Fig. 2. Zonal-mean SST (12-month running-mean) relative to 1951-1980 base period.
from here https://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2024/MayEmail.2024.05.16.pdf
The preliminary analysis suggests a ship aerosol forcing an order of magnitude (factor of ~10) greater than what follows from IPCC estimates. The 2021 IPCC report (AR6) pegs total aerosol forcing as 1.06 W/m2 in 2019, with 0.22 direct aerosol forcing and 0.84 the indirect effect on clouds.
A 2021 update reduces the aerosol forcing to 0.98 W/m2 (0.21 direct, 0.77 indirect). Based on this small aerosol forcing, Hausfather and Forster obtain a forcing of 0.079 W/m2 for 100%
implementation of 2020 IMO ship emission limits from an 80% reduction – while globally other reductions continue in China and Europe, and temporarily from Covid downturns eg in India reported in Much Ado about Acceleration pages here.
The Hansen estimate of a minimum of 0.5 W/m2 for the aerosol forcing from shipping refers to the present (~80%) reduction of sulfates from ships. is ~ 6 times greater.
The difference with the Hausfather and Forster value is so large that it must be possible to resolve this issue within the next few years with new updated Data and ESM model analyses.
Now I would never have been able to predict what the coming year would look like, so I’ll continue to settle for just being an observer and messenger.
RE Above
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-may-2024/#comment-822146
and
Ned Kelly says
15 May 2024 at 12:20 AM
RE “And if that is a fair account, I should add that I do find it “far from convincing.”” etc etc
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-may-2024/#comment-822153
It’s normal and fine that people find some papers and ideas unconvincing. And to explain why almost seem to require a ‘paper’ level response to say what things are questionable. In acomplex paper like Hansen et (2023) it might be helpful to know which parts one finds the information in error or the conclusions weak, and why. A copy paste of what Hansen et al say vs what a critic believes is correct could clarify matters.
Mann did this back in mid 2023 listing a few things, but I found the reasoning (and the supporting data he used) also “far from convincing.” Zeke H. also does nto really address the details in the paper. And from I understand Gavin S. only relies upon his comment of “preliminary” analyiss/data suggest otherwise re the aerosol issue, and nothing more. So I have no idea what it is about Hansen et al (2023) that so many people take issue with.
Plus I have yet to see anyone accurately present for argument what it is the paper says they take issue with. Rejecting a summary paragraph based on nothing specific is not being reasonable – however if that all one wants to say about it – that is their call.
I’ll conclude with saying again that Hansen has said it will take some time before the data and analysis becomes available to conclude how accurate/correct their hypothesis is or isn’t about an acceleration of warming from 2010 onward partly driven by cumulative eductions in man-made aerosol globally (and not only those in the shipping lanes).
Maybe I also “should” copy paste Hansen myself, but the given I have already posted multiple quotes and refs about it, and explained my own “wait and see” position on the matter (and why); I think I have done enough already – plus the level of interest here appears non-existent now; and the issue has been successfully sidelined as a “nothing-burger” – I only wished to tie up this loose end here for my own peace of mind, and leave it at that.
The answer of course will be found in the Data when and if that ever becomes available and is presented accurately and objectively to both the science community and the public.
Julian: – “What’s the current rate of warming?”
Professor Stefan Rahmstorf tweeted on 22 Jan 2024:
https://twitter.com/rahmstorf/status/1749129415550706101
Professor Stefan Rahmstorf also tweeted on 22 Jan 2024:
https://twitter.com/rahmstorf/status/1749131494679846973
Julian, I’d suggest you read the latest communication (29 Mar 2024) by James Hansen, Makiko Sato, Pushker Kharecha titled Global Warming Acceleration: Hope vs Hopium. It included:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2024/Hopium.MarchEmail.2024.03.29.pdf
Where is the Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST) now? Key datasets indicate the following:
* Berkeley Earth: +1.39 °C (relative to 1850-1900 baseline)
* Copernicus: _ _ +1.33 °C
* HadCRUT: _ _ _ +1.31 °C
* Average: _ _ _ _ +1.30 °C
* GISS: _ _ _ _ _ _ +1.23 °C
* NOAA: _ _ _ _ _ +1.23 °C
https://parisagreementtemperatureindex.com/climate-reporting-why-so-many-different-values/
What’s the current trajectory the Earth System’s GMST is heading towards (based on Copernicus ERA5 data)?
+1.50 °C threshold crossing estimate circa 2028-33?
+ 1.75 °C threshold crossing estimate circa 2035-40?
+ 2.00 °C threshold crossing estimate circa 2045-50?
https://parisagreementtemperatureindex.com/1000-day-climate-graphic-design/
Answering for a friend: no, BPL’s religious affiliation is not with Opus Dei. You can find it on his website; he’s quite open about what he believes.
It is the essence of irony for NK to mention “profuse … posting”. He devalues otherwise useful information by ‘profuse’ twisting into attacks on good people.
Following from the N.Y. Times on May 3rd and updated May 6th:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/03/climate/nasa-satellites-data.html
Sometime in the next few years — no one knows exactly when — three NASA satellites, each one as heavy as an elephant, will go dark.
Already they are drifting, losing height bit by bit. They have been gazing down at the planet for over two decades, far longer than anyone expected, helping us forecast the weather, manage wildfires, monitor oil spills and more. But age is catching up to them, and soon they will send their last transmissions and begin their slow, final fall to Earth.
It’s a moment scientists are dreading.
When the three orbiters — Terra, Aqua and Aura — are powered down, much of the data they’ve been collecting will end with them, and newer satellites won’t pick up all of the slack. Researchers will either have to rely on alternate sources that might not meet their exact needs or seek workarounds to allow their records to continue…
Yes. This was covered in a recent link I posted, Hansen et al 2023 (Loeb from Nasa in particular)
discussion with Jeffery Sachs back Nov last year.
see direct link
https://youtu.be/NXDWpBlPCY8?si=6LpXGU5wi6pSyA7s&t=2757
and what they hope to do about it longer term, funding available.
Cheers
Category 6 hurricanes have arrived! Professor Michael Mann has a study published in February that explains what’s happening to storms…
“For a number of years, I have argued that we are now, thanks to the effects of human-caused warming, experiencing a new class of monster storms—”category 6” hurricanes. That is to say, we are witnessing hurricanes that—by any logical extension of the existing Saffir-Simpson scale—deserve to be placed in a whole separate, more destructive category from the traditionally defined (category 5) “strongest” storms. Up until now, that was really just a matter of opinion (1). There was no peer-reviewed research to justify the assertion. Now there is, with a new article by Wehner and Kossin in PNAS (2) that lays out a rigorous, objective case for expanding the scale to accommodate climate change-fueled tropical cyclones that are qualitatively stronger and more destructive than conventionally defined category 5 storms.”
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2322597121
Thanks for the info ref.
Noting it is a ‘Commentary’ by Mann, similar to an article (with refs) posted here on RC or some other Blog or science journalist media.
It’s not a “study” by Mann. He speaks about other studies, the main one being
February 5, 2024
The growing inadequacy of an open-ended Saffir–Simpson hurricane wind scale in a warming world
Michael F. Wehner, James P. Kossin
https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.2308901121
Mann likely had advanced notice and a Pre-Print.
I think his article and the study would both have been more useful and informative for the public had they included a list of past “cyclones and hurricanes” from across the world that would now fit into such a Cat 6 regime recommendation.
Of note is that this is not an official re-categorization, merely one study recommending such a move. It is also another case of Mann publicly criticizing his peers for not being ‘politically activist’ enough, producing inferior research papers, and for having ‘outdated thinking’ beneath his standards. Par for the course.
Kind regards as always ….
“But this goes up to eleven.”–Nigel Tufnel, Spinal Tap
Thanks, Chuck!
The proposal to create a category 6 for hurricanes illustrates a distinction between synoptic and forecast meteorologists, and climate scientists. This doesn’t sound like a good idea to me, because I consider the most important purpose of categorizing tropical cyclones to be public warnings. There is little one can do when preparing for a proposed category 6 storm that one wouldn’t already do for a category 5.
Instead, I would take the effort required to publicize and explain the adoption of a new category 6, and put it instead into producing a three-part hurricane rating. One would be current category for maximum windspeed (which affects a tiny area), one for peak storm surge, typically over a somewhat larger area, and third for maximum rainfall. In the majority of hurricanes hitting the U.S., heavy rainfall and subsequent floodiing is the primary cause of death and destruction. There are many important instances of storms that were of minimal hurricane or tropical storm intensity at landfall that would have been better warned with a high rating for flooding and coastal inundation. (e.g. Harvey, Sandy, Agnes, etc.) These storms are in fact a lot more numerous than category 6 storms, and need to receive more attention and respect for the dangers they pose.
Don’t know if you read the linked story, John, but in fact it discusses alternate classification schemes that would account for rainfall and extent, pointing out that those metrics are often more associated with the total destructive impact than sustained wind speed.
Also, and to your first point, Mann highlights that there may in fact be planning value in the distinction: for example, Florida has been building new construction (or some of it, anyway) to withstand Cat 5 storms. But maybe Cat 6 not so much?
And I think there is value besides just the planning aspect–Saffir Simpson is familiar to everybody, and the new category would be a powerful message that ‘normal’ has indeed changed–and one that would be difficult for exposed folks to ignore.
Kevin, you did get me to read Mann’s commentary in full. I also stand corrected in my previous assertion that inland flooding was worse than storm surge. Rappaport’s analysis shows that the rare storm surges that totally overwhelm coastal barriers are both extremely deadly and destructive – although serious inland flooding events are more commonly experienced with landfalling hurricanes.
After further thought, I would support a modernization of Saffir-Simpson that includes a category 6, but only if it also included additional threat levels for storm surge and inland flooding whenever a landfall is anticipated. Category 6 without the other metrics is a headline-grabber that would distract from the main dangers associated with most tropical cyclones. It would not help construction standards much if at all, for several reasons. We can’t keep up with housing needs now,. Tightening standards for such a rare event as category 6 winds making contact with land from a hurricane would do more to restrict housing than save lives. If a few rich people get better protected, but more homeless people drown, that’s not a net gain. In the U.S., houses are not usually built to successfully withstand very rare events such as a proposed category 6 hurricane wind, equivalent to relatively more common (but still rare) EF-4 tornado wind. In fact, distressingly many are located in 100-year floodplains, even without taking climate change into effect. That should be fixed, first.
I don’t think a new category 6 would be ignored, but it would be dismissed as more climate hype by those in the denier group, while not helping anyone else much as a standalone change to Saffir-Simpson.
Kevin, you did get me to read Mann’s commentary in full.
————
An anecdotal admission showing why I had earlier raised the question of how many people ‘commenting’ on Hansen et al and the criticisms of it, such as the article in mid-2023 by M Mann, had actually read items in full – side by side – and understood what was being said – pro or con.
I asked that a couple of times (Mr Rodger’s comments was one case) because the comments here were often so far removed from the actual content they did not make sense / relate to what had been written about or by Hansen and the IMO SOx aerosol issues and everything else involved.
It makes exchanges and good faith discussions impossible when this happens. Mistakes get piled on top of other mistakes until it all becomes a dog’s breakfast no one can follow. I think the details matter. I think the facts matter. From that good grounded opinions can be formed and now healthy ideas arise.
Simplistic PR claims, and emotionally driven hand-waving twitter posts or blocking other users, only because they have a different opinion about a graph or a science paper findings (confused, in error or not), do not help much to gain a better broader understanding of the actual data and science behind it all. imho.
in re to: “In fact, distressingly many are located in 100-year floodplains, even without taking climate change into effect. That should be fixed, first.”
There has been a past suggestion on these pages advocating that community hydrological and hydraulic extremes should primarily be addressed through a program centered on reducing trace gas emission. The emphasis is on prioritizing the trace gas issue over direct tangible hazard reduction measures.
This reflects also the sentiments in media and land-use committee. With respect to the latter, it is obvious how this limits accountability. The idea of prioritizing what needs obvious fixing seems to be considered an extreme perspective that is often met with resistance. It is known already that 90% of wet land has been disappeared from the landscape, and yet this is somehow dismissed with hand-waving and distortion. There’s a preference for an abstraction to globally averaged trace gas effects.
“If a few rich people get better protected, but more homeless people drown, that’s not a net gain.”
Regarding housing, the issue of homeless individuals drowning is not the primary concern highlighted in a recent opinion of urban liberal hypocrisy by The New York Times https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNDgcjVGHIw
In the sense of a regulatory flood plain, these traditionally have been known as wet lands. Most communities make a distinction between 100-year inundation areas (based on a 1% statistical IDF function) and regional storm events in official Plans.
For instance in the Northeast, hurricane Hazel forms the regional regulatory event, which is distinct from a 1% IDF curve (intensity-duration-frequency hydrological expression). The 1% event is linked to a spring saturation freshwater-style event, while the regional regulatory flood is based on observational extremes, free from statistical inference.
Indeed, whether in a statistical or practical sense, it’s the maximum hydrological response that delineates the regulatory zone. Considering the spatial and temporal disparities between a 1% and regional event, such that a 1% Northeast spring runoff is distinct from Hazel observed in October 1954, the maximum of the two is taken into account. Practically, what should always have been regulated is the wet land, irrespective of any notion of probability. This is because these areas have always been, and will continue to be, wet land.
The disappearance of wetlands by 90% over the past century has led to increased hydrological and temperature extremes. Modern flood mapping employing minimum standards enabled by LiDAR demonstrates this quite precisely. The disappearing wetland diminishes watershed function and increases hydrological and temperature extremes.
Thanks for that comment, John. One response–you are correct that:
But that’s not where the utility of Cat 6 lies. It consists rather in making it easy to communicate that people living in Cat 5-resistant housing, and who are not in danger of flooding (riverine or storm-surge-related) need to get the hell out–stat!–when a Cat 6 storm is headed their way.
And I agree with you that the ‘other metrics’ are sorely needed.
JCM,
In response to:
“In fact, distressingly many are located in 100-year floodplains, even without taking climate change into effect. That should be fixed, first.”
You provided some interesting info about floodplains gratuitously framed by this:
“The emphasis is on prioritizing the trace gas issue over direct tangible hazard reduction measures.”
Personally I object to the non-substantive rhetoric gratuitously used in a way meant to demean climate science (i.e., “…trace gas…” etc.). You could just as easily have said that floodplain maps need to be redrawn and land restored– beyond wetlands, I might add, since flooding can be exacerbated by run-off from fire damaged mountainsides, for instance– and let it go at that.
I do give you points for not using jargon like “sky money,” though.
OK, I’ve vented. Carry on.
To Radge Havers,
in response to “the non-substantive rhetoric ”
You raised in your previous report that:
“””what’s important is the mechanism driving the model; that is the physical chemistry of GHGs and their effects on the atmosphere….”””
Personally, I use the term “trace gas” specifically to distinguish non-condensing greenhouse gas programming from other aspects of the system..
These other parts may include the myriad of factors inherent and/or external in Earth System climate related process models today, such as moisture limitation, energy limitation, humidification, condensation, cloud radiative effects, and atmospheric feedbacks to surface temperature change.
My intent is not to minimize or distort the climate science.
It’s crucial to recognize that ESM process models are separate entities from the inputs that drive them, and I think they should not be so trivialized, belittled, and undervalued as mere GHG converters.
Elsewhere I have reported that promotionalists for the so-called Climate Smart Agriculture™ should avoid distorting the issue and misrepresenting Earth system process.
It is unequivocal that the sole objective of the current climate branding is to implement practices aimed at reducing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
However, I admit other types of considerations, including incidental ones, are acknowledged in good-faith persuasion efforts. These are described as co-benefits, unrelated to the goal of climate mitigation.
For example, from the RFP pre-purchase brochure for Frontier brokerage firm: https://frontierclimate.com/assets/prepurchase-rfp.pdf
on “Projects that provide local environmental and economic co-benefits that build community and policy support (e.g., improving riverine health, remediating acidic or contaminated land/water, etc.): While we are laser-focused on the carbon impact of a CDR project, tangible, real environmental or economic co-benefits can generate local project support across constituents (e.g., farmers, labor unions, new industries, policymakers) and broader support for more ambitious climate action.”
There we see Frontier offers a typical vantage point. They have trace gas as the focus and framing, while acknowledging that the “real” and “tangible” co-benefits are leveraged to win community support for their mission of ambitious climate action.
Personally I find such statements to suggest the problem definition underlying the social mission of the firm to be misconceived. While i do not doubt that these programs are done in good faith, and that monetization of responsible action is desirable, from my perspective they distill environment and economy into something it ought not to be.
It is not obvious why Frontier must default to a laser focus on trace gas, while dismissing the direct real tangible environmental or economic benefits to local communities as incidental leverage for their mission of climate action. In my experience, to trade primarily in imaginary exchange, whether in environmental or financial futures, is an extreme liability. In doing so, genuine environmental initiatives risk becoming dependent on speculative virtual credits, which are admittedly somewhat un-“real” . This historically is unsustainable in any market.
This is evidenced by market bubbles dependent on convoluted financial instruments.
The real tangible values must always be foremost and paramount when developing problem definitions and mission statements, and for the responsible evaluation of the pros and cons associated with convoluted environmental commodification as an instrument of environmental conservation. I admit that I do not discern that ESMs somehow prescribe the mission of such Firms in any obvious way, and that the integration of sky-money schemes into environmentalism really must be a fabrication unrelated to the climate science.
JCM – like Radge, I object to your “trace gas” terminology (unless you are referring to industrial gases such as HFCs and SF6, but not CO2). It is unfortunate that you have invited us to discount your good points about the restoration of wetlands and the removal of human habitation in these areas, where possible.
I favor both the restoration of wetlands and the ending of GHG production as part of a program of planetary and human health. I see no need to fight about priorities when both are important, and don’t even overlap much in terms of practical actions required.
I also think the regulatory distinction between 100 year floodplains and areas that flood is misplaced. The worst-case flooding scenarios for areas subject to tropical cyclones is generally a landfalling cyclone which then moves slowly over an area. I’m not familiar with the details of Hurricane Hazel, but Bob and Agnes in the northeast U.S., Camille in the Southeast, and more recently Harvey in southeast Texas come to mind. The fact that there have been at least 4 of these widespread intense flooding events in the last 70 years suggests that they are not especially rare, contrasted to Category 6 hurricane winds making landfall.
JCM says
14 May 2024 at 11:06 PM
You are right to highlight Frontier Climate, for example one of Zeke Hausfather’s “money making business interests” (not that dissimilar to what Fauci was up to for decades in nest feathering wealth creation) the rhetoric and the narrative sounds innocent enough.
Frontier Climate like many others represents the Financialization of the Climate Action Industry — and it IS an industry. As well as one highly dependent on favorable co-conspirators in Congress and Govts everywhere, in the neoliberal globalist west.
Banners like “We support climate action” means “Meet the new boss, the same as the old boss”.
But my main point was to say you;re a glutton for punishment. The responders here cannot “hear” what you are saying JCM. It;s as if you are an Alien speaking Klingon. It does not “compute”.
Try as you may. Best wishes.
JCM says
14 May 2024 at 11:06 PM
PS meaning of course, as soon as you say “trace gases” it doesn’t matter what you actually said and what that actually means (I get it) they will never GET IT …… NEVER!
It’s a psychological embedded beliefs/framing issue as explained in the George Lakoff et al info recently provided. And of course cognitive dissonance dunning-kruger and biases and knowledge ignorance and so on.
You may as well be discussion the benefits and advantages of a genuine democratic form of socialist government and the Genni coefficient with Henry the 8th. :-)
NK: You are right to highlight Frontier Climate, for example one of Zeke Hausfather’s “money making business interests” (not that dissimilar to what Fauci was up to for decades in nest feathering wealth creation)
BPL: Have you guys noticed that MAGA propaganda keeps appearing in NK’s posts?
To NK, thank you for sharing your diverse insights. Each of us brings a unique perspective and I learn from all of them. I don’t see any virtue in associating only with like-minded people.
You are correct to challenge the artificial valuation of ecosystem services. Given that wilderness is far too complex for human comprehension, the reality always lies beyond a computational horizon. Our sense of values and valuation of natural processes must remain somewhat distinct from physical or economic models, as fixating on these can provide only a minimal, often misleading, and potentially damaging baseline perspective.
JCM,
Re: Your comment, “My intent is not to minimize or distort the climate science.” Yet this:
Well. Moving on…
OK. I’m not seeing this in the same way that you are. It may or may not be viable, but your assumption is (correct me if I’m misstating it) that GHGs are not the cause of AGW, or at least not a significant cause, so you’re probably not going to agree with any attempt to reckon with them. IOW, it’s a zero sum game, and all that energy and money should be directed to your cause. No?
Simply stated (and again, correct me if I’m wrong) you’ve been saying that global warming can be solved by restorative practices. So I’m going to guess that you can at least point to a better correlation of rising temperatures to soil degradation than to GHGs? Otherwise it sounds like your idea (and it is attractive) is backed with a dose of pareidolia. I say that even though I agree one hundred percent that more attention should be paid to restorative conservation.
Anyway, so far, I’m not getting a reason not to hard-charge on reducing GHGs, particularly since so much of the resistance is about culture wars and not science. Like recently, DeSantis struck the term ‘climate change’ from Florida statutes. Earlier he passed on accepting $350 million in federal funding for energy efficiency. And concurrently his state has endorsed classroom materials (from Prager U) that reject the reality of global warming and compare climate activists to Nazis… Now, I’d like to think that you’ll agree with me at least on this point: Dem’s fightin’ words, and are not constructive.
in Re to Radge Havers, 19 MAY 2024 AT 8:00 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-may-2024/#comment-822241
Dear Radge,
I think that JCM several times acknowledged rising atmospheric concentration of non-condensing greenhouse gases as a serious cause of global warming.
It is, however, my understanding that he doubts that it is a single cause, because there are hints that human activities that caused changes in terrestrial vegetation and soils and thus impaired many ecosystems that are important for water cycle sustainability might have contributed to the AGW as well.
And, if so, the widespread assumption that “all we need is decarbonization”, or, in other words, the assumption that it is enough to “fix” the atmospheric GHG concentration, and the mean surface temperature earlier or later automatically returns back to pre-industrial level and the impaired ecosystems automatically recover, might be utterly wrong.
Greetings
Tomáš
From Xitter…
More on category 6 hurricanes
https://thinc.blog/2024/02/06/cat-6-when-cat-5-just-doesnt-cut-it-anymore/
This has come up in discussion before (not here). The opinion seemed to be that adding a category 6 to the Saffir-Simpson hurricane wind scale would provide no benefit to the public, because once you reach cat 5, you are looking at total devestation and an area possibly uninhabitable for months. Cat 6 isn’t going to do any more than that so what is the point?
Another thing that should be noted is that typically, wind is not the most destructive element in a severe tropical cyclone, water is (primarily storm surge), which is not picked up by the SSHWS. That is why a modest strength tropical cyclone with a large breadth hitting a populated coastline with a shallow sloping sea bed topography (e.g. the Gulf coast) can cause comparable damage to a much smaller-in-diameter category 3/4 hurricane. If anything we should steer away from the overused SSHWS and emphasise all the hazards i.e. wind, rainfall, storm surge, tornadoes, to try and minimise the attitude of “it’s only a category 2 I’m not evacuating” just before a hurricane Ike-like event comes ashore.
As I said to John, Mann’s commentary does note (supportively) the efforts to develop alternate scales that account for things such as extent and rainfall. And I’d agree–the example of Sandy, which if memory serves had actually fallen below hurricane strength when it hit the Eastern seaboard, yet was a highly destructive storm for various other reasons (including SLR and precipitation), is in my mind. Many of the denialati at the time were crowing about “hysteria” and “another failed prediction”–at least until the damage really started to make headlines.
But of course, you can apply more than one metric.
Adam Lea says
10 May 2024 at 7:43 AM
John Pollack says
9 May 2024 at 11:07 PM
IOW I put it to you the article ref’d (not the study) was merely more emotionally driven hand-waving political hyperbole of little import beyond attention seeking for the author and extra PR keeping one’s name in the news and social media streams. imho.
NK “imho”
JP Your opinion comes across, but I must have missed the humility.
It means, I am always open to be wrong. Publicly presenting a ‘hypothesis’ or possibility X could be true is always problematic and risks condemnation.
Adam, our thinking is quite similar. I chose to emphasize flooding rainfall over storm surge because it has caused more overall damage and casualties in recent decades for the U.S. – which is where the SSHWS was developed and is most used. I realize that historically, and perhaps still in south Asia, there have been more mass casualty events from storm surge.
Adam (and others), my apologies for a significant error in my previous comment to you. I should have been aware of Edward Rappaport’s 2014 study
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/95/3/bams-d-12-00074.1.xml
which carefully analyzed the causes of U.S. deaths from tropical cyclones between 1963 and 2012. The study makes it quite clear that during that period, the most deadly component of tropical storm landfall was storm surge inundation.
That said, the high death count was mostly due to a few outstanding storms – particularly Katrina. Deadly flooding was a more common outcome of a landfall, but accounted for roughly half as many deaths as storm surge during the study period. Deaths directly due to wind were a distant third place.
The Copernicus ERA5 re-analysis has posted for April with global SAT at +0.67ºC, down on March’s +0.73ºC and the lowest monthly anomaly since June 2023.
It is still the warmest April on record, the 11th such ‘scorchyisimo!!’ record-month in a row. The ‘headroom’ above previous ‘warmest-month’ is a little higher than the earlier months in 2024 (which run Jan +0.12ºC, Feb +0.12ºC, Mar +0.10ºC, Apr +0.14ºC) but such ‘headroom’ was running more than twice this in the ‘bananas’ back-end of 2023. A year-on-year plot of ERA5 SAT can be seen here Fig 2b.
Unlike in GISTEMP (which has not seen 11-in-a-row ‘scorchyisimo!!’ months before, only managing eight back in 2015/16), Copernicus do mention ERA5 managed fifteen ‘scorchyisimo!!’ months in a row June 2015-Sept 2016. While these 2015/16 months had lower ‘headroom’ than seen at the height of last year’s ‘bananas’, the Jan-Apr 2016 ‘headrooms’ were substantially higher than those so-far in 2024 (in 2016 running +0.19ºC, +0.46ºC, +0.36ºC, +0.28ºC), these months being the peak of the 2015/16 El Niño.
The BBC talk of “a BBC analysis” showing the global ocean temperatures have been record-breaking for every day since 4th May 2023. Such ‘analysis’ simply used the Copernicus Climate Pulse web engine so refers to “scorchyisimo” in the oceans 60N-60S. The ‘BBC analysis’ also identified the ‘headroom’ above these previous daily records as themselves being record-breaking.
Obviously 2024 is the warmest start of the year Jan-Apr averaging +0.73ºC, above 2016’s +0.60ºC, 2020’s +0.55ºC, 2017’s +0.43ºC 2019’s +0.38ºC.
The rest of 2024 will have to average below +0.54ºC to drop below 2023 for the full calendar year, and average below a rather chilly +0.30ºC to drop below the 2016 average (which did occur Jun-Dec 2018 but otherwise it’s back to pre-2015 years to find such an average).
…
And for a bit of a nerdy laugh, and looking at the ERA5 daily numbers, hows about a stab at where 2024 is going?
Maybe 2024 could end up just a tad cooler than 2023.
The Northern Hemisphere has been cooling pretty strongly since peak-‘bananas’ at the start of Nov 2023 while the Southern Hemisphere has been up-to-now running with a pretty constant toasty anomaly since July last year. Although are there signs of the SH now cooling?
At the start of 2024 the heavily-averaged-out ERA5 anomaly stood at +0.796ºC and. due to the NH cooling, that heavily-averaged value has dropped to +735ºC in 51 days. If such a cooling continued to the end of July (as happened in 2016) then remained roughly flat, the anomaly would sink to +0.54ºC for Aug-Dec 2024. For the full 2024 calendar year, that would yield a +0.62ºC anomaly.
This drop so far in 2024 is purely driven by the Northern Hemisphere.
The ‘bananas’ SH anomaly has been a pretty constant +0.7ºC since July 2023 but was averaging +0.3ºC through 2022. If it were to return to the 2022 level for tha last third of the year and thus perhaps average +0.5ºC for the full year, that would knock the global average down a further 0.1ºC to +0.52ºC, dropping the full 2024 calendar year out of the ‘scorchyisimo’ zone, just.
Climate crisis
World’s top climate scientists expect global heating to blast past 1.5C target
Exclusive: Planet is headed for at least 2.5C of heating with disastrous results for humanity, poll of hundreds of scientists finds
‘Hopeless and broken’: why the world’s top climate scientists are in despair
Hundreds of the world’s leading climate scientists expect global temperatures to rise to at least 2.5C (4.5F) this century, blasting past internationally agreed targets and causing catastrophic consequences for humanity and the planet, an exclusive Guardian survey has revealed.
Almost 80% of the respondents, all from the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), foresee at least 2.5C of global heating above preindustrial levels, while almost half anticipate at least 3C (5.4F). Only 6% thought the internationally agreed 1.5C (2.7F) limit will be met.
Many of the scientists envisage a “semi-dystopian” future, with famines, conflicts and mass migration, driven by heatwaves, wildfires, floods and storms of an intensity and frequency far beyond those that have already struck.
Numerous experts said they had been left feeling hopeless, infuriated and scared by the failure of governments to act despite the clear scientific evidence provided.
“I think we are headed for major societal disruption within the next five years,” said Gretta Pecl, at the University of Tasmania. “[Authorities] will be overwhelmed by extreme event after extreme event, food production will be disrupted. I could not feel greater despair over the future.”
more incl poll results graphs
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/08/world-scientists-climate-failure-survey-global-temperature
( coincidence, Gavin said +2.5C recently as well )
More details in separate page
Cerezo-Mota expects the world to heat by a catastrophic 3C this century, soaring past the internationally agreed 1.5C target and delivering enormous suffering to billions of people. This is her optimistic view, she says.
“The breaking point for me was a meeting in Singapore,” says Cerezo-Mota, an expert in climate modelling at the National Autonomous University of Mexico. There, she listened to other experts spell out the connection between rising global temperatures and heatwaves, fires, storms and floods hurting people – not at the end of the century, but today. “That was when everything clicked.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2024/may/08/hopeless-and-broken-why-the-worlds-top-climate-scientists-are-in-despair
From The Guardian:
“Hundreds of the world’s leading climate scientists expect global temperatures to rise to at least 2.5C (4.5F) above preindustrial levels this century, blasting past internationally agreed targets and causing catastrophic consequences for humanity and the planet, an exclusive Guardian survey has revealed.
“Almost 80% of the respondents, all from the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), foresee at least 2.5C of global heating, while almost half anticipate at least 3C (5.4F). Only 6% thought the internationally agreed 1.5C (2.7F) limit would be met.
“Many of the scientists envisage a ‘semi-dystopian’ future, with famines, conflicts and mass migration, driven by heatwaves, wildfires, floods and storms of an intensity and frequency far beyond those that have already struck.”
Links:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/08/world-scientists-climate-failure-survey-global-temperature
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2024/may/08/hopeless-and-broken-why-the-worlds-top-climate-scientists-are-in-despair
Thank you for sharing the scientists’ more assertive and desperate call for us, humans, to understand our responsibility for maintaining our planet’s biosphere for us and for all the other species, one of many responsibilities.
Despair, for a moment, or get angry for much longer or more determined, all the time, but always work on solutions. Those of us who are responsible and knowledgeable must work harder to solve the climate emergency. First, we must abandon our use of fossil fuels for anything. Goal: absolute zero Anthropogenic GHG emissions by 2030. Yes, it’s a stretch target, but it will focus our minds on acting rather than despairing.
The Guardian, the best newspaper climate coverage that I know of, also published this:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/08/the-guardian-view-on-the-climate-emergency-we-cannot-afford-to-despair
The Guardian also offers this from Kate Raworth who is doing her damnedest to raise people’s awareness and spur them to action:
What does progress look like on a planet at its limit? Putting endless growth above our wellbeing and the environment is no longer viable – https://www.theguardian.com/books/article/2024/may/13/what-does-progress-look-like-on-a-planet-at-its-limit
Tackling and reversing inequality needs to be at the heart of a new eco-social contract. Not only does this bring benefits in terms of improving life satisfaction; it helps us reduce the size of our national ecological footprints, via the well-documented links between greater fairness and more moderate consumption. It’s also important politically: one of the most damaging consequences of growth-driven inequality is the concentration of wealth and economic power in the hands of a few. This power can all too easily be converted into influence over elections and the policymaking process, ensuring the preservation of a system that advantages the already wealthy.
When we turn away from growth as the goal, we can focus directly on asking what it would take to deliver social and ecological wellbeing, through an economy that is regenerative and distributive by design. There are many possibilities – such as driving a low-carbon, zero-waste industrial transformation, with a green jobs guarantee, alongside free public transport, personal carbon allowances, and progressive wealth taxes. Policies like these were, only a decade ago, considered too radical to be realistic. Today they look nothing less than essential.
Final 2 paragraphs were part of the quote from Kate Raworth’s article.
Re above: Raworth, sadly, is an economist talking about non-economic things and failing at it, predictably.
1. Her own model doesn’t not constrain growth. It is based on the imaginary unsupported idea that entire societies that exist with competition via market Capitalism, ownership and profit-seeking will self-regulate. Their failure to do so is what got us here. Her soggy doughnut does not in any way account for leaving decisions in the hands of competitive markets. Bizarre. She doesn’t understand these markets as ecosystems that have principles by which they function, so fails to understand she is suggesting nothing more than Democratic Socialism where greater cooperation between gov’t, citizens and businesses leads to a fairer distribution, but does not in any way end growth. She merely assumes the nonsensical invisible hand will miraculously appear after all these years of proof it doesn’t even exist in any form of Capitalist system.
Ironically, it does exist where she will not go: Commons. She pays lip service to Commons, but treats them as a concept to be part of the all-of-the-above absurdity of her model, also including co-ops (Capitalist), etc. But Commons only work when absent of ownership… which I hope is obvious.
The other problem is her use of the 9 ecosystem boundaries concept of Steffen (RIP) and Richardson. It’s surprising a biologist would see the ecosystem as divisible. It is not. There is no logic to the concept of 9 different boundaries as they are all deeply intertwined; if one is over the limit, all are. Further, there isn’t a computer powerful enough to calculate one of those boundaries, let alone all of them – if they existed. The entire system is based on thresholds, not boundaries, and it must be considered as a whole, not as separate pie slices. The whole system reaches a threshold and already has. What happens if we freeze GHGs at today’s levels? SLR of tens of meters. Temp rises well over 2C. There is nothing to keep the system from blowing right past 2C and on to far higher temps. I understand most here will disagree, but we have never been here before, as I pointed out well over a decade ago. We can only offer educated guesses as to whether the collective damage will or will not trigger irreversible further tipping points. Statements, claims and/or analyses that speak of these things as if they are known are deeply flawed. We know systems react differently depending on the rate of change, and the system has not been changed like this since the dino’s were reduced to birds.
Unfortunately, this work was accepted uncritically and has become pervasive. It leaves wiggle room for Raworth’s logically untenable continuation of market Capitalism and this in turn allows for a very large percentage of supposed steady-state and/or degrowthers to happily anticipate having their cakes and eating them, too.
This is why you don’t ask economists for climate/ecosystem solutions.
Not surprised to see such ignorance lionized by you, Susan. Your support or advocacy is warped by whom you like, or do not. After all, Raworth is VERY late to the game on the issue of degrowth and gets is very much wrong. Yet, here you are promoting it and lionizing her as “…doing her damnedest to raise people’s awareness and spur them to action…” even though Doughnut was not published till 2017, decades after steady-state was already a common topic and even six full years after Regenerative Governance – system based in Econology, not ridiculous Economics.
Here’s to balanced views from fair people.
——
Ned, re Gavin on scientists speaking on policy: Finally, Gavin and I agree on something 100%! (Well, besides basic climate science…) I don’t know of a single climate scientist that gets mitigation and adaptation right, yet their statuses and alphabits after their names make people give massively over-weighted significance to what they say on these issues despite almost none of them having any germane background to speak of.
Re Miller: No need to explain. My point was simple, focused and didn’t in any way take away from your intent,
:-)
Susan, I don’t expect you to answer for Kate Raworth, but here’s a thought experiment.
If the government of China fails to succeed in returning women to the status of barefoot-and-pregnant-in-the-kitchen, which it and some other states seem to be looking to do (even by coercive policy), it is projected that its population might decline by half in this century.
What would a Chinese society with half the current population be like?
The obvious point, which I’ve made in the past, is that all the goals we hear from various purveyors of unrealistic Kumbaya plans…. where people are magically convinced to put aside self-interest…. would almost certainly be achieved.
But they would be achieved not because someone wrote a book or gave a talk about their Utopian concept, with some clever new label, but because of people (primarily women, but also men) acting in their own rational self-interest.
In China, Japan, Korea, Russia, Europe, USA, and so on, people are choosing to have fewer or no children so they can consume more personally, not less.
Now, the standard response is “but we need to do something right away, 1.5C, blah blah blah”. OK, what’s the plan… send a copy of Raworth and all the others’ books to Vladimir Putin? Is that going to move things along?
Given modern technology, declining populations will drive a movement away from that “growth” which promotes negative ecological consequences and societal inequity.
Because it is economically better, not because it is virtuous.
Zebra, interesting thoughts. However, I would somewhat question your contention that having children is primarily based (or could be based) on considerations of rational economic self-interest. Not that this plays no factor, I believe it can be important. My experience has been that voluntary limiting reproduction can be largely based on concerns for the future. Prospective parents worry about economic opportunity for their children and other disruptive societal factors including global warming or wars that they might face.
In modern society, optimal economic self-interest would seem to dictate refraining from having children completely. It’s difficult to see how offspring can be cost effective and in fact seem to be a considerable financial burden. Nevertheless, some women spend tens of thousands of dollars on in-vitro fertility treatments. I have also known women who are willing to face considerable personal medical risk in order to bear a child. I would have to conclude that the primary driver of reproduction is biological necessity and primal instinctual drives.
But assuming your premise is correct. What are your thoughts on maintaining a sustainable level of population without exceeding resource limits required to support them. Again, if economic factors are the primary concern, why would children be born at all? Would birth rate automatically trend to replacement rate? It’s difficult to see how that would work with decisions being made at the levels of the individual family. What are your thoughts on this?
Given the looming labor crunch as the Chinese ‘demographic bonus’ ages out, it’s very possible that China won’t be able to begin to do without the women in her labor force, even should such a complete degradation in status be contemplated or attempted. Unless AI and automation really do abolish most needs for human labor, which I doubt.
Given modern technology, declining populations will drive a movement away from that “growth” which promotes negative ecological consequences and societal inequity.
Because it is economically better, not because it is virtuous. ~ Zebra
You’re assuming we’re going to stop burning fossil fuels in time to save ourselves?
I don’t see that happening, and a dramatic decrease in population is exactly what we need.
Jonathan David.
Jonathan, your questions at the end are what I am interested in exploring, since figuring it out by myself is not that easy. But let me clarify what I said.
Of course, having children can be a fulfilling experience for individuals, female and male. But let’s break it down quantitatively… 0, 1, 7.
I think it is well established that in poorer and primarily agrarian economies, with high infant/youth mortality, 7 is a rational choice. And where getting to a college education can run to hundreds of thousands of dollars, 1 makes a lot of sense.
When I used the expression “consume more personally” that referred to the family, assuming it maintains cohesion. At either end of the spectrum (1…..7) both the parents and the children are better off, given the nature of the economies in which they live, as a result of the choice.
When we read about women in South Korea being “on strike” when it comes to marriage and childbearing (0), that is, again, rational, because of the extreme societal expectations and competitive economic situation they would face. And of course, in any culture, there will be individuals for whom the appeal of having children is simply not that great.
So now we get to your question. Assume there is a population of humans with modern technology, which has access to an abundance of resources, not needing to compete with other humans for that abundance. And let’s assume that women have agency and equality… which is not completely the case even in advanced countries now.
I think the system will achieve equilibrium, as the result of rational self-interested choices.
OK, your turn.
In Re to Jonathan David, 23 MAY 2024 AT 10:05 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-may-2024/#comment-822337
Dear Jonathan,
I think zebra has a good point in that rising wealth suppresses average fertility rate. You are right that having children is not only a pleasure but also an economical burden. On the other hand, please take into account that before pension systems were founded, having a few economically successful children was the only more-less reliable old age insurance.
I have a suspicion that the “flow” pension system created by chancelor Bismarck in Germany, wherein actual income of the people in retirement is basically financed by actual contributions of economically active population, is a kind of Ponzi scheme that works till the number or contributing participants rises, and collapses quickly as soon as the growth stops. My country Czech Republic that, like Germany, still runs this system, currently struggles with the necessity of its reform. I suppose that (at least in Europe), we are not alone. I do not know how do pension systems in leading non-European world economies (USA, China, Korea, Japan, Canada, Australia…) look like, and will appreciate clarifying comments.
In view of public policies that in many countries accumulated astronomical public debts and thus helped creating a horrible inflation potential, I think that it is well possible that having economically active children may become the best old age insurance again.
I will appreciate if someone among the participants in this discussion or among interested readers explains economical challenges of declining population and available ways towards managing it in more detail. I believe that this management may be equally important as climate change management, and have a feeling that none of both problems should be solved separately from the other.
Greetings
Tomáš
Tomas, per your question, Social Security in the US operates more or less on the “flow” model you describe. Hence, the recurring prophecies of SS financial insolvency those of us in this country have heard over the years.
Tomas, You have raised an interesting point regarding care of the elderly. In the US, much of the institutional care that is available for the elderly, such as nursing homes, is provided by privatized, for-profit businesses. This results in the cost of this care being extremely expensive and unaffordable for both the elder care recipient as well as their families. Secondly, for care provided within the family, traditionally a lot of this care was provided by daughters of the elderly parent. In modern society, women often must function as providers as well as caring for their own children and families, this makes this an impractical solution for many.
I live in Korea. Married into the society. Have a bi-cultural child. Have lived here for parts of four different decades, so seen massive social and economic changes. Predicted in 1994 the economy would slow dramatically in the next decade or so – bank savings accounts paid 12% interest at the time – because mature economies simply cannot grow more than 3% or so and be healthy and stable. Korea’s economy had matured and needed to adjust to being an adult. IMF crisis happened in 1997 due to crazy speculation. People got rich for decades just saving money and flipping real estate. I mean, ANYONE could, not just the “flippers”. I wanted to buy an apartment in Ilsan in 94. Had we done so, I’d be a rich man today. (Even after IMF the economic growth was still relatively fast; construction is STILL too fast because people still haven’t fully gotten the flipping mentality out of their systems.)
Your take, at least on Korea, is almost completely incorrect and simplistic.
The primary reason childbirth rates are falling is social/cultural. Think the negative aspects of Confucianism for women. To the extent it is financial, it is not selfish consumerism, it is realizing the economics of their parents’ and grandparents’ generations no longer exist; They simply can’t have children and have any confidence they can raise them well.
Etc.
Cheers
Killian
So “having children and raising them well” is not selfish consumerism?
And in my subsequent response to Jonathan:
“When we read about women in South Korea being “on strike” when it comes to marriage and childbearing (0), that is, again, rational, because of the extreme societal expectations and competitive economic situation they would face.”
For women to be equal and independent, in whatever society, requires being able to support themselves and not be dependent on someone who expects them to be subservient. They may be able to do that to some degree now, but children would make it impossible.
Again, it is simply rational self-interest.
Despite your caveats, you are oversimplifying. I don’t think you really know much about Korean societal norms and are generalizing on Asian stereotypes or some such.
This is what comes of thinking of the world in economic terms.
“rational self-interest… people are choosing to have fewer or no children so they can consume more personally, not less.”
Wrong.
Marcus Tullius Cicero Quote: “The enemy is within the gates; it is with our own luxury, our own folly, our own criminality that we have to contend.”
Coming into harmony with the bigger picture …. of climate change and global warming
Zak Stein: “Values, Education, AI and the Metacrisis” | The Great Simplification 122
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFVoearUvP8
On this episode, Nate is joined by philosopher and educator Zak Stein to discuss the current state of education and development for children during a time of converging crises and societal transformation. As the pace of life continues to accelerate – including world-shaking technological developments – our schools struggle to keep pace with changes in cultural expectations.
What qualities are we encouraging in a system centered on competition and with no emphasis on creating agency or community participation? How is unfettered technology and artificial intelligence influencing youth – and what should parents, adults, and teachers be doing in response? What could the future of education look like if guided by true teacherly authority with the aim to create well-rounded, stable young humans with a sense of belonging and purpose in their communities?
Transcript and references
https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/episode/122-zak-stein
Complimentary perspectives and know-how….
The Neuroscience of Language and Thought,
Dr. George Lakoff Professor of Linguistics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJP-rkilz40
We think with our brains. How is this possible?
How can meaningful ideas arise from neurons, even billions of them?
How can language, with its intricate structure, be a product of a physical brain?
If all ideas are physical, what are abstract ideas, like freedom and morality? We are approaching an answer.
Lakoff’s current research covers many areas of Conceptual Analysis within Cognitive Linguistics: (i) The nature of human conceptual systems, especially metaphor systems for concepts such as time, events, causation, emotions, morality, the self, politics, etc.
May 26th, 2011
https://www.isepp.org/Pages/10-11%20Pages/Lakoff.html
Nothing new under the Sun?
Michael Every: “The Many -Isms of the Metacrisis”
On this episode, Nate is joined by financial analyst Michael Every to discuss global macro trends in economics, politics, and social movements. By taking a wide-view lens of current events, we can better see how seemingly isolated events interconnect and what mainstream economic theories tend to miss. What do rising political tensions and dissatisfaction around the globe amidst increasing GDP tell us about the accuracy of our economic measures? How much are geopolitical conflicts and supply chain disruptions contributing to current inflationary pressures? And what can we learn from current economic models as we steer towards a new system with lower energy throughput in a multipolar world?
video transcript refs more info
https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/episode/118-michael-every
Somewhat related tangentially to my other comment on:
The Economist: Deglobalisation of finance
Worlds apart: The global financial system is in danger of fragmenting
99.99% of every species to inhabit this planet has gone extinct so the odds are not good for us either.
In the big scheme of things the only thing remarkable about us is our ability to act socially and manipulate our environment … we’re just slightly better at it than beavers but less sustainably than the ants are.
Our fatal flaw is optimism.
We are on the cusp of a war that could wipe out human civilization in an afternoon and we are powerless to stop it because no one believes it will really happen. That is a special type of stupidity unique to our species.
The same stupidity and optimism is reflected in our approach to global warming and climate change while denying our economic systems and extreme consumption has anything to do with the consequences simultaneously insisting more science will make all the difference.
The trouble with News is there’s always something new coming out. Despite the news about RE growth in China with possibly less Coal use; but we now have this: China’s imports of natural gas jumped by nearly 21% in the first four months of this year compared to the same period in 2023
This comes as part of an overall increase in the country’s exports and imports in April after a contraction the previous month. China also imported 28.6% more refined oil products and 2% more crude over the reporting period compared to last year.
In 2023, the country’s purchases of oil from Russia were up 24% year-on-year, and those of LNG by 23%. Gas deliveries through the Power of Siberia pipeline increased 1.5 times last year to a record 22.7 billion cubic meters (bcm).
China also receives LNG from Australia and Qatar, and pipeline gas from Central Asia countries. Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq were China’s main sources of crude oil imports in 2023.
( I suspect they are going to burn it all.)
In other Breaking News
Largest (Monthly) Year–Over-Year Gain in Keeling Curve Set in March 2024
The monthly average concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere measured at NOAA’s Mauna Loa Observatory in March 2024 was 4.7 parts per million (ppm) higher than that recorded in March 2023, setting a new record and revealing the increasing pace of CO2 addition to the atmosphere by human activities.
The previous year-over-year gain of any monthly average was a jump of 4.1 ppm from June 2015 to June 2016. As in that year, strong El Niño conditions influenced global weather patterns causing a temporary boost in CO2 levels.
https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/2024/05/08/largest-year-over-year-gain-in-keeling-curve-set-in-march/
For viewers on Friday evening/night who wish to catch a glimpse of the northern lights and reside north of approximately 35th parallel, based on NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center’s (SWPC) current projections (as of 10:00z Friday, May 10, 2024), G4 level (severe) solar storm may cause the aurora to be visible further south than usual. Details at:
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/news/media-advisory-noaa-forecasts-severe-solar-storm-media-availability-scheduled-friday-may-10
Home page for the SWPC:
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/
In Re to MA Rodger, 6 May 2024 at 8:12 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/03/more-solar-shenanigans/#comment-821895
Dear MA,
Many thanks for your effort to deal with my question in which extent you see an obnservational evidence for the hypothesis that there is an imbalance of terrestrial water cycle (sum of precipitation minus sum evaporation and runoff) over a few last decades that nmight be called *land desertification” or “continental desiccation”!
Let me try to summarize my understanding to your reply and correct me, please, wherever I misinterpret you:
1) Although there are global satellite data enabling to estimate the sum of global precipitation during the last 2-3 decades, you are not aware of publications that extracted from that data any clear trend that could be interpreted as an evidence for the above mentioned “desiccation” hypothesis, in the sense that the share of global precipitation falling directly into ocean increases, on the expense of the share of global precipitation falling on the land.
Remark:
I understand that we still do not have comprarably reliable and accurate data for runoff from the land, and, especially, for evaporation therefrom and thus cannot directly measure this side of water cycle balance over a selected part of Earth surface.. I suppose, however, that if global annual evaporation and precipitation equal to each other, any clear trend in the distribution of global precipitation between land and ocean could serve as an evidence either for the hypothesis or against it.
2) From the satellite probes directly measuring changes in Earth gravitational field that reflect changes in continental mass, local changes due to ice sheet changes and changes in groundwater amount can be detected.
You are not aware of a publication quantifying the possible global trend towards groundwater loss, nor a publication evaluation in which extent such global or regional imbalances may be attributed to underground water pumping and in which extent they might be perhaps caused by the hypothesized global imbalance in land water cycle.
Best regards
Tomáš
P.S.
For the convenience of readers interested in the topics, I copy-pasted the links provided by MA:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00190-023-01763-9
https://gracefo.jpl.nasa.gov/science/water-storage/
https://grace.jpl.nasa.gov/data-analysis-tool/#b=ESRI_World_Imagery&l=TELLUS_GRAC-GRFO_MASCON_CRI_GRID_RL06.1_V3_LAND(1),OSMCoastlines(1)&vm=2D&ve=-34.47074091532717,16.24817311610164,119.79488408467283,90.07629811610164&pl=false&pb=false&tr=false&d=2024-02-15&tlr=months
I’m not sure why you bring this comment here from a different thread, but I will put a helpful note on that ‘different thread’ indicating this thread-shift.
I don’t consider your summary of my reply (to your question) to be at all accurate. But perhaps this was because the question contained complications beyond the central ‘desiccation’ of continents (or some of them) under AGW, ie mention of precipitation measurement.
The essence of your question was:- Does GRACE/GRACE-FO or other satellite data (a) show there is no such ‘desiccation’? or (b) could it show ‘desiccation’ if analysed? or (c) would such analysis require further data?
And a succinct answer is that, bar ice loss and aquifer extraction (the latter would presumably be quite localised), GRACE/GRACE-FO data does show lands with reduced/(increased) soil water and thus presumably more/(less) ‘desiccated’. I have since answering found a world map with a scale showing the regional rate of lost groundwater.
And while I probably shouldn’t be encouraging your grand theorising, your purpose for wanting this ‘desiccation’ data is, I would assume from past dealings with you, because of your interest in the impact of such land ‘desiccation’ on cloud cover and the resultant warming feedback. Perhaps then you would be interested in stuff like Liu et al (2023) ‘Opposing trends of cloud coverage over land and ocean under global warming’ (which uses re-analysis data).
MA Rodger says
11 May 2024 at 5:58 AM
Good info. Though I question why anyone would [say-shouldn’t be encouraging your grand theorising] so discourage others to continue to think deeply, to explore and/or theorize about the world and speak up. There are no ‘stupid’ questions.
Liu et al (2023) seems worth a read. Suggests many things, two items in particular worth commenting on are:
1) Tomas queries seem well grounded regarding reduced TCC over land
For example in Discussion: “The detailed analysis we presented of correlations between annual cloud coverage and thermodynamic variables taken from ERA5 (207 in total) further suggests that the decreasing trend in relative humidity is the main driver of the decreased trend in continental cloud cover. Because of the limited availability of water vapor sources over land, terrestrial clouds are more likely to be humidity limited. ”
2) The period under review is 1979 to 2000, noted an increase in TCC over oceans. During which time there was simultaneously an estimated x 3.2 fold increase in international shipping SOx aerosols from fuel – peaking in 2008 at 14.2 Tg (mln tons/year). See-
https://nitter.poast.org/pic/orig/media%2FGKVHczJWoAAMj4a.png
https://nitter.poast.org/pic/orig/media%2FGKZtjRaXwAAbJlr.jpg
In particular the mid-latitudes of the north Atlantic and north Pacific
Liu et al (2023) Figure 2 Climatological mean maps… – in 2.3 Area and TCC weighting section
To what degree, if any, ghis has impacted the data used by Lui is of course not known.
They don’t mention this of course, but perhaps there some role played here by SOx emissions, all things being equal, as a partial driver for increasing cloud cover shown over shipping lanes in the oceans from 1979-2020
RE “I have since answering found a world map with a scale showing the regional rate of lost groundwater.”
Another useful addition of knowledge/data. Reinforcing the truism that an absence of evidence is no proof for evidence of absence. iow, not knowing something is never a guarantee you know something else to be affirmative.
AS for this comment ” in the impact of such land ‘desiccation’ on cloud cover and the resultant warming feedback. “ I would think this tends to go both ways …. such as increased warming is driving less cloud cover and therefore less rain over land that may be contributing / causing an increase trend/tendency towards ‘desiccation’ over time. imho both could true, it depends on the regional drivers etc. Probably far too complex to work out at this point.
In Re to MA Rodger, 11 MAY 2024 AT 5:58 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-may-2024/#comment-822046
Dear MA,
Thank you very much for your reply and for the additional references!
I tried to ask my questions in this thread because I was not capable to do so in the original one. Honestly, I supposed that it has been just closed by the moderators.
Best regards
Tomáš Kalisz
MARodger to Tomas Kalisz:
“ while I probably shouldn’t be encouraging your grand theorising, your purpose for wanting this ‘desiccation’ data is ”
…. to thank you profusely, so it looks like you are supporting his most absurd proposals,
the same way he tried to use the cherrypicked fragments from BPL, Kevin, me, or Lague et al 2023, to support his idiotic mass-evaporation schemes*
I can see something like that:
===
Dear MA,
Thank you very much for your reply and for the additional references! Your teachings are appreciated. They confirm that continents are desiccating, therefore we should seriously consider my proposal of converting 5mln km2 of Sahara into a swamp. This would be a smarter way to respond to “the so called anthropogenic warming” than GHG mitigation, which to me are “ a brute-force” approach that can “ do more harm than good “.
====
^* The modest proposal of out Tomas Kalisz: desalinate TENS OF TRILLIONS of tons of sea water ANNUALLY, pump it over 1000s of km and spray over 5 mln km2 of Sahara, year after year, to approach, after 100s? 1000s? of years, the maximum effect of 0.3 K global cooling
as opposed to spending these trillions of dollars annually on mitigation of GHG which are “brute-force” approach,
———————-
See also Wikipedia definition of sea-lioning:
“ Sea-lioning is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity (“I’m just trying to have a debate”), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter. It may take the form of “incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate”, and has been likened to a denial-of-service attack targeted at human beings/i>”
Reminds you anybody?
In Re to Piotr, 14 MAY 2024 AT 6:41 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-may-2024/#comment-822141
Dear Piotr,
I asked MA Rodgers if he is aware of any publication exploiting the available data the way which could answer my question (Is there an observational evidence for continental desiccation during the several last decades?). My understanding to his answer is that the publications he knows deal rather with smaller regions or shorter time spans (of a few years maximally).
It appears that there is no such global evaluation yet, which could enable a conclusion that there is a global trend that could be interpreted as a cumulative “land wetting” or “land desiccation” during the, let say, last three decades. Or, oppositely, that there is no such trend.
Furthermore, it appears that there are also hardly any publications yet that could prove a such cumulative change / trend (or its absence) for a particular continent, e.g. Europe, or Africa. It remains unclear from the reply, why there is still that lack of such cumulative analyses.
Of course, MA Rodger may not know everything. If you are aware of such publications, please be so kind and share the respective references.
Greetings
Tomáš
Tomas Kalisz: “ Dear Piotr, I asked MA Rodgers if he is aware of any publication exploiting the available data the way which could answer my question”
See the definition of the sea-lioning in the post you “reply to”:
====
– “ Sea-lioning is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence [here: requesting “additional references” ]
– maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity [“Dear MA, Thank you very much for your reply and for the additional references!”)
– and feigning ignorance of the subject matter [TK “not understanding” repeated explanations – between forcings and feedbacks, that desalination of trillions of tons of seawater a year, which if maintained over 100s or 1000s of years may result at best in 0.3K cooling – is NOT a feasible alternative to reduction of GHGs]
– It may take the form of incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate
[see the repeated demands of Tomas Kalisz that the moderators of this group address his poorly formulated, based on ignorant claims which could have been answered by reading an introductory text about climate; when they refused to engage – demanding the same from others writing here, and when being answered – promptly …. ignoring their answers ]
and has been likened to a denial-of-service attack targeted at human beings”
[ see drowning the discussions by the sheer number and/or length of posts by TK and NK ]
I make excellent contributions on the topic of climate change/science and related issues.
I intentionally ignore false accusations and reject the character assassinations.
Gee willikers, I’m possibly the nicest and best contributor the forum has ever had since it started! If not that, I’m definitively the most rational, evidence based, mature and honest one. (smile)
TK: Is there an observational evidence for continental desiccation during the several last decades?
BPL: Start here:
http://www.ajournal.co.uk/pdfs/BSvolume13(1)/BSVol.13%20(1)%20Article%202.pdf
In Re to Barton Paul Levenson, 17 MAY 2024 AT 9:34 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-may-2024/#comment-822208
Dear Barton Paul,
Many thanks for this reference.
Still, I guess that a generic trend towards land desiccation should be visible also in a shift in global precipitation distribution between land and ocean.
If the global precipitation data have the quality that enables their processing analogously as global surface temperature reconstructions like ERA processed the records of surface temperature data, I wonder why we do not have such a precipitation reconstruction yet. Or do we have it already? If so, does the respective shift in land/sea precipitation distribution confirm the desiccation trend suggested by your article?
Greetings
Tomáš
TK,
I haven’t really researched precipitation data, and I don’t know if time series are available. Does anyone know? Dr. Schmidt?
Tomáš Kalisz:
Regarding your comment: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-may-2024/#comment-822255
.
And Barton Paul Levenson’s reply to you: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-may-2024/#comment-822279
May I suggest you visit the following NOAA site:
.
https://psl.noaa.gov/data/gridded/data.gpcc.html
.
.
May I further suggest you would better serve your pursuit involving questions concerning regional/global precipitation historical studies if you spent time starting with the following four sites (home pages):
.
https://www.ecmwf.int/
.
https://www.noaa.gov/
.
https://www.jma.go.jp/jma/indexe.html
.
http://www.bom.gov.au/
Use these four agency home pages as jumping-off points. If you get stuck at one of them, then contacting that agency directly and letting individuals at each guide you further might be a more fruitful pursuit and thus more efficient usage of your time given the inherent complexity of what you seem to be pursuing.
Forgive my intrusion into your ongoing discussions and good look with your research,
“I haven’t really researched precipitation data, and I don’t know if time series are available. Does anyone know? Dr. Schmidt?”
Precipitation data is available. For example:
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/national/time-series/110/pcp/1/4/1895-2024?base_prd=true&begbaseyear=1901&endbaseyear=2000&trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1895&endtrendyear=2024
That shows a trend toward increasing precip over the lower 48–the “contiguous US.” The problem is that it’s not clear that’s a meaningful level to analyze at; if you look at precip maps showing trends over time, you’ll find that trends are not very homogenous spatially. It’s not like the temperature trend, which is near-secular.
As for comparing land and sea trends, which is what TK was interested in, I suspect the trouble is data–we do not have comparable spatial coverage for the oceans as for the land.
In Re to Barton Paul Levenson, 21 MAY 2024 AT 6:28 AM,
David, 22 MAY 2024 AT 2:36 AM,
and Kevin McKinney, 22 MAY 2024 AT 1:25 PM
Dear Sirs,
Many thanks for your feedback.
I hoped that someone here on Real Climate is familiar with the data from satellite missions like GPMM
https://gpm.nasa.gov/
and could advise if there already were some attempts to process the data globally over the entire era of the measurement (27 years since 1997, if I understood the information on the NASA website correctly).
If no such an attempt has been undertaken yet, I would like to know if it is because the quality of the data does is not sufficient for this purpose yet, or if (perhaps?) nobody was particularly interested in a such global evaluation.
I am still uncertain if my yet unanswered question (“Let us assume that the global “summary” evaluation of the satellite precipitation data does already exist, but it does not show any significant shift in the precipitation distribution between land and sea during the period of the record. Can we interpret this analysis the way that there is no global trend towards “land drying” or “land wetting”?) does make a sense.
If not, then it might be, of course, well understandable why NASA (or any other scientific body) has not made the “summary” analysis of the global precipitation data I am asking about.
Could you comment?
Greetings
Tomáš
TK: I am still uncertain if my yet unanswered question (“Let us assume that the global “summary” evaluation of the satellite precipitation data does already exist, but it does not show any significant shift in the precipitation distribution between land and sea during the period of the record. Can we interpret this analysis the way that there is no global trend towards “land drying” or “land wetting”?) does make a sense.
BPL: I believe NOAA’s subsidiary body, NDCC, keeps track of precipitation data for the USA, and undoubtedly someone is doing it for the world, but I don’t know offhand if someone has aggregated it properly for the use you mention.
TK: If not, then it might be, of course, well understandable why NASA (or any other scientific body) has not made the “summary” analysis of the global precipitation data I am asking about.
BPL: Unless I misunderstand you here, this sounds like conspiracy theory ideation.
Tomas, it would appear from the link you provided that the data from the mission is indeed available, if you register. Link: https://registration.pps.eosdis.nasa.gov/registration/
I had no idea, frankly.
In Re to Barton Paul Levenson, 25 MAY 2024 AT 8:57 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-may-2024/#comment-822381
Hallo Barton Paul,
Thank you for your comment.
No, I have no idea of any conspiracy.
I just strived to say that I speculated that there might be two sources of data that might show if various claims about general global precipitation trends (such as “land desiccation”, or exactly opposite) are supported or not:
(i) satellite gravity probes such as GRACE and GRACE FO, and
(ii) satellite precipitation probes like GPM.
I am still a little bit uncertain if my feeling that possible global trends in precipitation are equally important as global trends in temperature is correct. I am aware that I am a layman and that it is well possible that I can be simply wrong. This was the sense of the sentence you misunderstood as my suspicion that there may be a conspiracy.
It is well possible that my understanding that trends in precipitation are equally improtant as trends in temperature are equally important, is simply wrong. In this case, I would appreciate an explanation, even though it may be perhaps non-trivial and difficult to understand for a layman.
I can also imagine that the experts deal with the question how possible global trends in precipitation look like very intensively, but it is more complicated (than for temperature data) to get the global precipitation data aggregated so that they show the possible global trends clearly enough.
From the comments I obtained so far, it rather appears that neither the gravity data nor the precipitation data were aggregated yet the way enabling a reasonable evaluation of global precipitation trends over the entire era of satellite observation. I have, however, a feeling that even MA Rodger was somewhat uncertain in this respect.
That is why I am asking again if someone participating in discussions on this website knows and can answer my questions with certainty, and say, either
a) “Well, your assumption that global precipitation data and global gravity probes could prove possible shift of precipitation from the land to sea or vice versa, is inappropriate, for following reasons..”, or,
b) “There does exist an aggregate set of the data that, unfortunately, is not homogeneous enough (or has another deficiency) and therefore hardly enables a reliable evaluation of any trend” or,
c) “The analysis of the aggregated data published in … suggests that globally, there was global continental wetting during last 25 years. There are, however, significant regional fluctuations, wherein regions that actually suffered from a desiccation during this time span are…”
I could not find a such message on the respective NASA and ESA websites describing the respective satellite missions yet. Maybe I have not sought properly, or it is anyway available somewhere else?
Greetings
Tomáš
GISTEMP has reported for April with a global SAT anomaly of +1.32ºC, just a small drop on March’s +1.39ºC (the drop due to a cooler southern hemisphere) and still pretty-much at the “bananas” levels of the back end of 2023. (The last four months of 2023 averaged +1.40ºC, the first four months of 2024 averaged +1.34ºC.) The cooler 2024 seen in ERA5 re-analysis appears to be so-far absent. (Graphic showing the year-on-year anomalies of both ERA5 & GISTEMP are here – graphs 2b & 2c.)
As per ERA5, GISTEMP4’s April 2024 is the warmest April on record and thus also the 11th record-breaking ‘scorchyisimo!!’ month in a row, this eleven-in-a-row itself a record in GISTEMP.
Must be natural variation! Nothing to see here. :-/
You are SPAMMING the thread! Please STOP..
All things being equal and therefore sanity not returning anytime soon, this is where we are heading fast: –
To the not that long ago Past and the Human Energy Supply Model
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn0t8-5WPRI&t=405s
Behind the facade what is really going down and why the UNFCCC-COP system won’t survive too much longer as global cooperation unravels.
From the Billionaire’s cohort newsletter – The Economist
The new economic (dis)order
The liberal international order is slowly coming apart
Its collapse could be sudden and irreversible
For years the order that has governed the global economy since the second world war has been eroded. Today it is close to collapse.
As we report, the disintegration of the old order is visible everywhere.
Although the dollar remains dominant and emerging economies are more resilient, global capital flows are starting to fragment, as our special report explains.
The institutions that safeguarded the old system are either already defunct or fast losing credibility.
The IMF is gripped by an identity crisis, caught between a green agenda and ensuring financial stability.
The UN security council is paralysed.
And, as we report, supranational courts like the International Court of Justice are increasingly weaponised by warring parties.
So far fragmentation and decay have imposed a stealth tax on the global economy: perceptible, but only if you know where to look.
Unfortunately, history shows that deeper, more chaotic collapses are possible—and can strike suddenly once the decline sets in.
SEE archive no paywall https://archive.md/hpJU3
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2024/05/09/the-liberal-international-order-is-slowly-coming-apart
REFS to The Economist: Deglobalisation of finance
Worlds apart: The global financial system is in danger of fragmenting
Special reports – May 11th 2024
The American-led financial order is giving way to a more divided one
archive https://archive.md/SGLJX
https://www.economist.com/special-report/2024-05-11
SEE
COP 28: What Was Achieved and What Happens Next?
COP 28 was particularly momentous as it marked the conclusion of the first ‘global stocktake’ of the world’s efforts to address climate change under the Paris Agreement. Having shown that progress was too slow across all areas of climate action – from reducing greenhouse gas emissions, to strengthening resilience to a changing climate, to getting the financial and technological support to vulnerable nations – countries responded with a decision on how to accelerate action across all areas by 2030. This includes a call on governments to speed up the transition away from fossil fuels to renewables such as wind and solar power in their next round of climate commitments.
https://unfccc.int/cop28/5-key-takeaways
Sorry for all the bad news but it’s not my fault. I’m merely a humble messenger.
Kind Regards …
worth bookmarking and sharing
NOT a Prediction but a Conceptual Framework of Thinking and Values.
Systems Dynamics and Ecology ……. huh what?
Dennis Meadows: “Limits to Growth turns 50 – Checking In”
On this episode, we meet with Professor Emeritus of Systems Management and author, Dennis Meadows. (Recorded Feb 17, 2022 ( a week before Russia/Ukraine, mentioned in the podcast)
Meadows revisits Limits to Growth 50 years after it was published. Looking back, how does Meadows view the book? How much of the response to his description of overshoot was based in fear?
Meadows offers advice to current leaders based on the models he developed in Limits to Growth. Why is it important to develop success indicators, and how can they be clearly communicated to the public?
Further, Meadows explores the available leverage points to avoid the worst types of collapse at our current stage of crises.
Dennis Meadows is the Emeritus Professor of Systems Management at MIT and the co-author of Limits to Growth and Beyond the Limits.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCfnKTzx9FA
https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/episode/12-dennis-meadows
—-
AND
People say they really like him but they still really hate and refuse to accept or implement what he says we all need to do to avert civilisation terminating catastrophe.
Kevin Anderson: “The Uncomfortable Link between Climate and Equity”
July 17th, 2023
On this episode, Nate is joined by climate scientist Kevin Anderson to discuss the possible paths of averting severe climate outcomes and how this is interconnected with equity. As nations plan their climate goals and coordinate with each other, it’s clear that extreme actions would be needed from everyone to meet the goal of keeping the global average temperature increase below 2ºC – if this is even possible. At the same time, there are wide disparities in the greenhouse gas emissions between the materially wealthiest and poorest within and across countries. How are past inequities already affecting people in presently climate impacted zones? How can concerned individuals begin incorporating changes and communicating with others in their own lives – and is it even worth it to do so? How can we attempt to balance the equity in standards of living and create rapid reductions in emissions, all while grappling with growing geopolitical tensions, declining energy availability, and the multitude of other converging risks in this impending poly-crisis.
https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/episode/82-kevin-anderson
From phys.org: Computer models show heat waves in north Pacific may be due to China reducing aerosols.
https://phys.org/news/2024-05-north-pacific-due-china-aerosols.html
A team of oceanographers and planetary scientists at the Ocean University of China, working with a pair of colleagues from the U.S. and one in Germany, has found via computer modeling, that recent heat waves in the north Pacific may be due to a large reduction in aerosols emitted by factories in China.
In their paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the group describes how they used several climate models and various factors that allowed them to find patterns that might be linked to the reduction of aerosols emitted into the atmosphere by China.
Over the past decade, the north Pacific has experienced multiple heat waves, leading to fish die-offs, toxic algae blooms and missing whales. Such heat waves have been generally attributed to global warming, but to date, no research has been able to pinpoint how global warming could cause such sudden and variable increases in a specific part of the planet.
In this new effort, the research team noted that the onset of the heat waves appeared to follow successful efforts by the Chinese government to reduce aerosol emissions from their country’s factories. Beginning around 2010, factories and power generating plants in China began dramatically reducing emissions of aerosols such as sulfate, resulting in much cleaner air.
Noting that aerosols can act like mirrors floating in the air, reflecting heat from the sun back into space, and also pointing out that earlier research efforts had suggested that massive reductions of aerosols in one place could lead to warming in other places—they wondered if reductions of aerosols in China might be playing a role in the heat waves that began happening in the north Pacific.
To find out if that might be the case, the team began collecting data and then input it into 12 different computer climate models. They ran them under two conditions—one where emissions from East Asia remained as they were over the past several decades and one where they dropped in the way they had in reality. They found that the models with no declines did not cause much change elsewhere, whereas those with aerosol drops showed heat waves occurring in the northeast parts of the Pacific Ocean.
The models also showed why—as less heat was reflected back into space over China, warming of coastal regions in Asia began, resulting in the development of high-pressure systems. That in turn made low-pressure systems in the middle Pacific more intense. And that resulted in the Aleutian Low growing bigger and moving south which weakened the westerly winds that typically cool the sea surface. The result was hotter conditions.
( Seems to me like real progress is being made on the aerosols issues. Just takes time. Good demonstration of how modelling can explain things.)
RE ( Seems to me like real progress is being made on the aerosols issues. Just takes time. Good demonstration of how modelling can explain things.)
Yes, very much true.
Some info posted on the other thread fyi, incl direct link to the study but pay walled.
Ned Kelly says
7 May 2024 at 8:19 AM
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/much-ado-about-acceleration/comment-page-2/#comment-821935
Lead author fwiw
Hai Wang
Associate Professor
College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences
Ocean University of China
http://coas.ouc.edu.cn/2018/0510/c8874a190234/page.psp
There are mountains of research been done out of china on climate change and energy etc.
Paper’s OPEN ACCESS PDF
https://pure.mpg.de/rest/items/item_3582555_2/component/file_3588408/content
nigelj reports:
The enduring problem with modeling at this scope is the lack of statistical power. in correlating a transient temperature rise with any other factor. With AGW, only a trend (a single DOF) can be discerned and that could be anything else with at least a single DOF to play with. Hard to believe individual “heat waves” would be resolved by correlated “aerosol waves”.
That’s why it’s so important to get the pattern of natural heat waves understood. In fact, any observed heat wave has the potential to be confounded with that from a natural origin. Try to get all the peaks and valleys in every oceanic climate index including ENSO, AMO, PDO, and IOD from prior to 1900 to now, and only then will a computer model of aerosol loading stand a chance of having the statistical power necessary to resolve anthropogenic heat wave transients. And even then it will be iffy.
Paul Pukite (@whut) says
14 May 2024 at 3:03 PM
I really do hear what you keep saying about these matters. Being cautious is the best option, and not assuming it must be right, no matter how convincing the rhetoric is about the math and parameters supposedly measured in “models”. imho we cannot have too much salt handy.
The complexities and unknowns makes me think of blind trapeze artists with two hands tied behind their backs saying they are going to nail the act, no problem.
Nevertheless it may still be indicating a logical correlation between the two events. Maybe it’s a start. The more aerosols are cleaned up the more opportunities to test their “assumptions” and their math.
Typically if there is anything to it other correlations might be found. If it is dubious and a coincidence of data convergence then probably not. It;s all they have at present.
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, right. :-)
Only in hindsight (and that too is only a maybe) will we know how much of these things were only spinning wheels produced by people in need of something “important” to do to meet their perceived employment requirements.
The Models do not really represent Reality message needs to be spread far and wide. They are theories, and rough ones at that.
PS and there are models and then there are models.
The kinds of Statistics and Models used to calculate the avg mean temperatures of the planet etc are extremely useful and accurate, reliable and credible. They capture apples with apples in the real world data observations and measurements taken. Past errors can be corrected by the application of better models.
Then there are Models based on assumptions, on estimated unknowns, estimated predictions, on modeled observations vs recorded data, modeled guesstimates, and assumed interactions, and models inside models inside models ….. all excluding known realities, unknowns and even known unknowns and of course unknown unknowns and the non-measurable and non-estimable and non-calculable.
The best statisticians and modelers typically go where the big money is. Equities, hedge funds, finance, or create economic monoliths like Amazon and Google. :-)
There are certain aspects to time-series characterization that are immune to the vagaries of modeling. One of the these is that if a strong spectral peak is found in a Fourier series decomposition, then a periodicity corresponding to that frequency exists in the time series. There are other such signal processing fingerprints. For example, it’s not widely known among climate scientists, but a Fourier series spectrum of an ENSO time-series such as NINO34 will show an extreme symmetry in the spectrum about the central frequency 0.5/year. As I showed in Mathematical Geoenergy (Wiley/AGU, 2019) this symmetry indicates that any model of ENSO must be the result of a process that modulates harmonics of an annual/seasonal pulse. This means that models that don’t include this factor will not show a symmetrical fingerprint. It makes it easy to toss out models that are chaotic, completely random, or don’t feature an annual factor. Many machine learning NN models are non-starters for just this reason.
So what does an annual pulse imply? For one, the pulse must occur at essentially the same time each year. It also must somehow be associated with the tilted subsurface stratification that the equatorial Pacific ocean shows. The time of year rule is likely caused by a metastability in the stratification brought on by seasonal changes — something that will reduce the stratification of the thermocline in particular . But what dictates the modulation of the pulse that will generate the symmetric frequency spectrum? Wind shifts are a popular candidate for triggering in the ENSO research literature, but the randomness of wind does not lead to the extreme spectral symmetry observed. Sunspot variations and volcanic events are non-starters for obvious reasons. That leaves tidal forces as the remaining trigger. Tidal cycles are a much better candidate as they are not random but also not commensurate with the annual cycle, thus having the potential to create the rich but strongly symmetric spectra observed. Can’t convince anyone of the potential of this approach in a brain-dead blog-commenting forum, which is the reason for publishing the Mathematical Geoenergy model in an equation-conducive typeset format with accompanying charts and figures. It’s been over 5 years since publication and at some point you would think that others would check out how well a tidal forcing model cross-validates with ENSO data. The same applied tidal forcing also cross-validates well for AMO, PDO, & IOD which provides the icing on the cake. The ML people, including the big $$$ Google & NVIDIA climate modeling teams, will eventually get to the same point if they do the signal processing first — to reiterate, it’s not just about models as the data will always provide the path forward.
NK: Then there are Models based on assumptions, on estimated unknowns, estimated predictions, on modeled observations vs recorded data, modeled guesstimates, and assumed interactions, and models inside models inside models ….. all excluding known realities, unknowns and even known unknowns and of course unknown unknowns and the non-measurable and non-estimable and non-calculable.
BPL: This is not a comment that would be made by anyone familiar with the science. It’s pure denier drivel. The deniers would like us to think 1) that global warming depends solely on computer models, and 2) the models are garbage that don’t work.
Dr. Schmidt, would you please confine this Russian internet troll to the borehole?
Re https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-apr-2024/comment-page-2/#comment-821678 … (re my https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-apr-2024/comment-page-2/#comment-821667 …)
“It’s April 2024 and they don;t even have hard number for Solar PV installations thru 2023 ” So what?
“”
I agree it seems strange that manufacturing capacity would be so much larger than the installation rate (a bit larger makes sense, particularly during growth) – although if you look at the bar graphs on p. 42 @ https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy24osti/88780.pdf , it may make more sense(?).
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy24osti/88780.pdf p. 38:
“ BNEF reports that at the end of 2023, global PV
manufacturing capacity was between 650 and 750
GW―a growth of 2–3x in the past 5 years, 90% of which
occurred in China. In 2023, global PV production was
between 400 and 500 GW.”
I think that was poor wording in the IEA document – I took it to be the manufacturing capacity – ie. my guess is factory equipment and space n’ stuff. They’re not making that many panels.
“ So 1.4 billion 17% of the world installed 75% of all Solar PV in 2023 ….. how is that GOOD NEWS? ”
No, https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/quarterly-solar-industry-update :
So try 260/440 ≈ 59.1 % . And it’s good for China, … and the World if it reduces China’s coal consumption, OTB= etc.
I agree that it’s problematic for the manufacturing to be so concentrated in China, as I’ve remarked earlier, for reasons beyond the ‘all eggs in one basket’ issue. So U.S. and Europe and the rest should try to keep up. So after my bolded: …“~ 1/3 (?) to perhaps ½(?) of the way there (to being able to manufacture at a rate that w/could sustain 15 TW average solar PV power)*** ] ” (based on the 1100 GW manufacturing capacity projection), I should have added “unfortunately, …” ; I hope actual manufacturing catches up to this value soon.
Does the document say it is good news?
“ “In 2023, spot prices for solar PV modules declined by almost 50% year-on-year,”
If ANY manufacturer had a cut in prices of 50% they would go out of business and into bankrupcy. ”
That was from https://www.iea.org/reports/renewables-2023/executive-summary , under
“ Solar PV prices plummet amid growing supply glut ”;
I pointed to that for the 1.1 TW manufacturing capacity projection. The long-term decrease in cost due to innovation and learning (and I’m guessing mass-market advantages) that occur(s/ed) with increased installation rates was good news. These short-term bumps caused by supply-demand mismatches may be good for some and bad for others, and I didn’t see any reason to point to it as good (nor was I trying to hide it; it just wasn’t the info I was after) (in fact it is bad that the demand is not higher), and the source just states it.
patrick o twentyseven
Thanks for your response. I understand, much appreciated.
The stats and presentations are always problematic from such quarters. I found it difficult parse long long ago. And very frustrating and a waste of time eventually I stopped looking at sites like that. Best ..
Rumours being reported that Joe Biden Admin is going to impose a 100% Tariff on all Chinese made Electric Vehicles imported into the USA next week.
What a champion. A really smart move. That will teach them.
Common sense tells us that free-market economies maximise freedom and that planned economies, typically found under socialist governments, curtail it. But what if this is completely the wrong way around?
How Capitalism Makes You LESS Free | with the beautiful gracious Grace Blakeley author of Vulture Capitalism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZjFul2Uphs
Here in the UK we have the right wing media doing what it can to demonise electric cars:
https://uk.yahoo.com/finance/news/raid-inheritance-tax-electric-cars-171444094.html
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/electric-cars-kill-pedestrians-twice-223000336.html
I’m currently in the NW highlands of Scotland and got here via sleeper train and hiring an electric car to get around locally. I chose an electric car because I thought it would have a lower carbon footprint and I wanted to experience what it is like to drive one and I think I prefer the driving experience over a conventional FF car. I have experienced one issue with charging which is finding a charger that works. There are only about four chargers within 20 miles of where I am based and I never knew an RFID was needed to use some of the chargers. It was only when I found a Tesla charger at a hotel that I managed to get the car charged from 30% to 80%. This can be an issue in urban areas where chargers can be faulty or vandalised. The UK has a habit of being VERY slow to incorporate new technology and if electric vehicles are to ever replace fossil fueled vehicles, we really need to get the infrastructure sorted out, since not everyone can charge at home.
Yes, we have our campaigners against EVs here, too–cherry-picking this that ant the other whenever they can, and making stuff up if they’ve got nothing else. You’d really think that gasoline-powered cars never caught fire, reading their stuff…
Kevin McKinney: – “You’d really think that gasoline-powered cars never caught fire, reading their stuff…”
The less common the event is the more newsworthy it is. I’d suggest this provides a perverse opportunity of creating a false perspective, particularly with some people that may have a certain ideological narrative to propagate, that EV fires are more common than in reality.
https://www.topgear.com/car-news/mythbusting-evs/mythbusting-world-evs-are-electric-cars-susceptible-catching-fire
See the EV FireSafe Submission (#8) to the NSW Parliament Inquiry into Electric Vehicle Fires.
https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/ladocs/submissions/83044/Submission%208%20-%20EV%20FireSafe.pdf
See YouTube video titled How many EVs have caught fire in Australia?, published on 17 Sep 2023, duration 0:02:56
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQJBlMujlp8
Just so.