My apologies – my last link above was a few pages short. For those who have not seen it , here is a report in 1856 from female scientist Eunice Foote re CO2 in the air: Right before USA , UK and Europe proceeded to burn massive amounts of coal and oil.
“Thirdly. The highest effect of the sun’s rays I have found to be in carbonic acid gas [CO2]
The receiver containing the gas became itself much heated— very sensibly more so than the other—and on being removed, it was many times as long in cooling. ;
An atmosphere of that gas would give to our earth a high temperature; and if as some suppose, at one period of its history the air had mixed with it a larger proportion than at present, an increased temperature from its own action as well as from Increased weight must have necessarily resulted. : On comparing the sun’s heat in different gases, I found it to be in hydrogen gas, 104°; in common air, 106°; in oxygen 108° ; and in carbonic acid gas, 125°.”
Don, thanks for that link. I’d wanted to know more about Eunice Foot’s experiment for some time now.
Specifically, I’d been curious about the fact that the radiative source in her experiments was sunlight, whereas John Tyndall used a Leslie cube, which clamps the cube’s temperature at the boiling point of water. Given that the whole point of the GHE is the differential absorption of different frequencies of radiation–broadly speaking, longwave versus shortwave–the two experiments would seem to be quite different.
And so they were–but now I recall that about 50% of solar radiation actually falls within the IR part of the spectrum–though the relevant bands are just a small portion of the full span we refer to as ‘IR.’ It seems to me that both Eunice, and her husband Elisha–whose companion paper precedes hers in the collection whose digitized version you present–would have profited had they, like Tyndall, read William Charles Wells’ “On Dew.” (Elisha in particular seems to have gone somewhat astray in his analysis.)
Piotrsays
Still warm ( 21 Aug 2024):
“The West Antarctic Ice Sheet may not be vulnerable to marine ice cliff instability during the 21st century ‘ Morlighem et al. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.ado7794
Can’t wait for Killian’s I have been telling you this for 15 years, but you never listen No? How comes?
Davidsays
The acceptance speech given by VP Kamala Harris at the DNC contained one reference to anthropogenic impacts to the climate. Yep, one reference in one sentence: “live free from the pollution that fuels the climate crisis.” Wow. The following article at Vox discusses this as a part of an observation of priorities at the party and individual voter levels:
. https://www.vox.com/politics/368706/kamala-harris-dnc-climate-change-policy-poll
.
Meanwhile, on August 19, there was a guest post at SkS (re-post from the Climate Brink by Andrew Dessler) which dealt with a post made by Donald Trump at his Truth Social site on August 5th:
. https://skepticalscience.com/are-models-overestimating-warming.html
.
RC regulars will of course note that the original source for the graph Trump used was effectively dealt with by Gavin Schmidt’s article Spencer’s Shenanigans in late January of this year:
. https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/spencers-shenanigans/
.
Yet more than six months later, the man running for president under the Republican banner, is spewing out the same misleading crap to his millions of followers. Pushback from Harris? Uh, lacking. Meanwhile, Harris couldn’t bother to say more than a single sentence about climate change in her acceptance speech outlining her major objectives if elected. Nor land degradation, the ecological crisis, the extinction crisis, etc.
I guess we will see if the upcoming ABC debate on September 10 can illuminate these subjects any better than the CNN debate in June did. That debate had a single question (directed to Trump) which he answered with his typical gibberish nonsense.
I realize the quandaries that Harris faces as she puts together policy positions in such a short timeframe. She has to create said positions in the face of many considerations, including how to explain the seemingly contradictory accomplishments that the Biden/Harris administration have achieved where climate action and energy production increases are concerned for example.
But failing to voice reasoned detailed arguments/plans on such critical issues, let alone allowing Trump to spew his climate and environmental foolishness basically unchallenged, is a failing that serves the U.S. voter and the world poorly.
Harris has a better rejoinder to Trump’s denialism than a brief mention in her acceptance speech, which is the passage of the IRA and the BIL, which have been driving, and continue to drive, many billions of dollars of investment into climate change mitigation and adaptation.
As for “allowing Trump to spew his climate and environmental foolishness basically unchallenged,” clearly Harris’ proper priority is to get elected and prevent him from implementing his “Drill, baby, drill” agenda.
To paraphrase an old saw, “You don’t go into the climate wars with the electorate you wish you had; you go into them with the electorate that exists.”
As for rebutting the Trumpian FF nonsense, I’d submit that that is our job, not Kamala Harris. And I try to do it as best as I can. For instance:
(Previously posted, so ignore if you’ve already seen it and feel that once was enough.)
Davidsays
Kevin, you wrote: “Harris has a better rejoinder to Trump’s denialism than a brief mention in her acceptance speech, which is the passage of the IRA and the BIL…”
A rejoinder which survey and poll stacked one after the other show large portions of voters (particularly in red states) know almost zip about. After what, two years on now? And the view of these voters in conservative-run states are being influenced by what their conservative federal lawmakers and state governments tell them (or don’t) regarding the climate and infrastructure legislation.
If so inclined, here’s a decent read from Politico that illustrates this:
. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/08/16/georgia-ev-jobs-swing-voters-00173175
.
Continuing: “ As for “allowing Trump to spew his climate and environmental foolishness basically unchallenged,” clearly Harris’ proper priority is to get elected and prevent him from implementing his “Drill, baby, drill” agenda.”
I don’t get what this is supposed to mean. So what, if it’s abortion, inflation or other issues, she can state a position on and take Trump to task, but not two of the biggest challenges facing Americans and the world?
And regarding: “As for rebutting the Trumpian FF nonsense, I’d submit that that is our job, not Kamala Harris. And I try to do it as best as I can.”
I’m sorry, I think you’re partially wrong. It’s not just your job, mine and like-minded folks doing what we can, BUT it definitely 100% is also the job of those who aspire to be the next leader of the United States. Hell, if I was her, I’d task my staff to seek out voices to counter his $*+% and to craft rapid response messaging especially in the online and social media spaces where climate and the environment are concerned. There are several commentators here I think would do the work nicely, if so inclined. Truly.
I hope that the next two months of the campaign, the debate(s?), if or when she will submit to real press conferences to face questions, etc will help to render my concern and frustration both premature and needless.
BTW, yes I had seen the video previously. It left me chuckling :-)
Nigeljsays
David. I think anthropogenic climate change is a serious problem., however Kamala Harris only has a limited time each day to get in the media and get her message across. She will not get elected talking about the climate issue and spending a lot of time debunking Trumps lies. Climate just not a big priority with most people and convincing them otherwise is really hard.
The main concerns (of Americans (rightly or wrongly) are the economy, jobs, illegal immigration and crime and issues around abortion etc. Therefore Harris has to devote most attention to that and focus on sensible policies that would attract the swing voters. Hopefully she is elected, and its clear she will push good climate policies. I think thats what KM is getting at.
Mal Adaptedsays
David: Kevin, you wrote: “Harris has a better rejoinder to Trump’s denialism than a brief mention in her acceptance speech, which is the passage of the IRA and the BIL…”
rejoinder which survey and poll stacked one after the other show large portions of voters (particularly in red states) know almost zip about. After what, two years on now? And the view of these voters in conservative-run states are being influenced by what their conservative federal lawmakers and state governments tell them (or don’t) regarding the climate and infrastructure legislation.
I’m with Kevin here. To the extent the onrushing election is about climate change, it’s a contest for the Six Americas. I think Harris is counting on the 53% (up from 39% in 2013) of us who are “alarmed” or ‘concerned”, to be both acquainted with the decarbonizing provisions of the IRA, and already in her camp. She can write off the 27% (down from 33%) who are “disengaged”, “doubtful”, or “dismissive”, although it appears possible for some previously disengaged to engage when a flash flood washes away their house, that’s already in flames from a wildfire (time to call your insurance agent)*. By not mentioning climate change in her recent statements, she’s hoping to capture the 15% (down from 26%) who are still “cautious” on climate change but inclined to vote for her anyway. I, for one, suspect at least some of the 11% of Americans who were formerly cautious have joined the concerned or even alarmed.
* I linked the video as “a joke, I say that’s a joke son“. AFAIK, this event, though self-evidently catastrophic for the homeowner (whose pardon I humbly beg), was never explicitly connected to climate change. Nor was there a wildfire nearby, given the rain seen in the video. Presumably the fire ignited when the house was ripped from its foundation. No counterfactual claims here!
Davidsays
Kevin, Nigelj & Mal Adapted, thank you all for the replies. I understand VP Harris and her campaign need to prioritize as she attempts to win. My two primary points/complaints is something I will just have to deal with. I didn’t really expect to find agreement, and that’s okay. I was encouraged by her climate comments made in the CNN interview. Hopefully, the September 10 debate on ABC will provide her an opportunity to expand on the issue, as well as the positive impacts of the IRA and BIL, and confront Trump’s nonsense.
Mal, your “Six Americas” observation about the 15% “cautious” segment is something I’d not considered. I’m aware of this particular long-running survey, but had not considered that possibility. And yes, I took the video as humor. I may be a forsaken Republican, but I still have a bit of my sense of humor :-)
Walt says: “Very articulate monologue from a young Chinese guy who grew up in The UK. About false negative portrayals of China at school college”
The monologue is probably true to an extent. Some criticisms of China are clearly unjustified, or exaggerated and could be termed propoganda. But it doesn’t mean China is beyond all criticism. For example its a fact that Chinas government abuses human rights, opresses minority groups as pointed out by BPL, they are clearly considering invading Taiwan. Chinas government is an autocracy that steals intellectual property and probably hacks other countries computer systems, Chinas incomes and material living standards are lower than America, and they have serious environmental pollution. Fraud and corruption is common, in business and government and elsewhere..
This is NOT western propoganda that we all swallow, that you alleged in other comments on this page. It is based on solid verifiable evidence that is beyond reasonable doubt. On some of those issues the evidence even comes from the Chinese government. It is not seriously contested even by them.
Not that America is perfect either. Obviously it isnt. And nobody commenting here has claimed otherwise. All people have done is point out a few facts about China, and rather than provide specific evidence they are wrong, you resort to silly accusations that its all American propoganda. .
I doubt that you are Chinese. I suspect you are some western guy frustrated with America and its failings and hypocrisy. However I suspect this has made you embrace China . Remember the quotation “The enemy of the enemy is my friend.” And now the friend is China and they can do no wrong, and all criticisms of the friend are false and American propoganda. You have clearly lost objectivity, and you are on a slippery slope intellectually.
Barton Paul Levensonsays
WH: Very articulate monologue from a young Chinese guy who grew up in The UK
BPL: And this relates to climate science how?
Walt Huisays
Nothing exists in a vacuum. Everything is related interrelated. This should be obvious to everyone.
Maybe not.
The climate science, COP treaties, sanctions and tariffs, nuclear threats, geopolitics, propaganda, disinformation and political action to address global warming are directly related to everything else.
Mal Adaptedsays
[I hope this gets posted before the end of the month! MA]
Walt: Nothing exists in a vacuum. Everything is related interrelated. This should be obvious to everyone.
Well, yes. On a hierarchical systems framework, everything in the universe is, directly or otherwise, related to everything else, all having unfolded out of the primordial singularity. Science is about filling in that methodological cosmic black box with white spaces representing sub-systems of natural phenomena, at the appropriate level in the conceptual hierarchy. There are sub-systems, human behavior among them, that are more resistant to elucidation by science because they are more subjective: i.e. intersubjective verification fails. That’s part of what we’re dealing with here.
Back to the subject at hand: Come on, Walt. I, for one, don’t have any trouble tagging you as a sincere man with a Chinese surname, who either grew up in the US or had a relatively privileged upbringing in China, and now resides here. If you are a Chinese citizen or recent descendent of some, you have nationalistic pride in the country, as any patriotic Chinese national would. Nationalistic pride can be stipulated for any RC regular, no matter their original or current nationality. I trust very few of us are truly without a country!
FWIW, I was impressed by your original comment. It appears you took some care with it. Nonetheless, you were incautious to post it here, and probably weren’t expecting a shitstorm of negative responses. OTOH, some of us reacted out of nationalistic pride, beyond what’s in the public record of Chinese domestic and foreign relations, backed up by the well-founded integrity of the sources. But, cognitively motivated conspiracist ideation aside where it belongs, it’s always in the realm of possibility that everything we know is wrong! While you may be convinced we’re all dupes of the global Illuminati, I’m adequately convinced you’re a dupe, but probably not a conscious agent, of Chinese government-issued propaganda. That’s not to say there is no US government-issued propaganda that’s skillful enough to fool my instinctual and trained skepticism! I, for one, am not narcissistic enough to believe I have the complete, unique and final truth. That’s out of anyone’s reach! I do think we can agree that no nation has ever been, is now, nor ever will be, perfect. How can it be? “Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made” (I. Kant). No doubt there’s a Chinese idiom expressing the same wisdom!
Beyond that, I for one am impressed with China’s renewable energy program, but alarmed by its increasing emissions also. I regret some of what I read about the country’s other issues, but since I can do little or nothing about them, I’m pretty focussed on decarbonization, my country’s and the world’s. Trust me, I regret much of what I read about the US, too. I can at least vote on that, however. I’m impatient with official US decarbonization policy too, but optimistic that Americans can accept progress wherever it occurs. I’m certainly not in favor of any unprovoked attack on China in these pages! Truce?
Killiansays
“Hot” models and “hot” paleo records continuing to pile up have proven we need a risk-based approach to climate policy. A new paper finds an ECS of 7.2C and ESS of 13.9C.
Anything other than a near-instantaneous, in terms of systemic change, reduction in unsustainable levels of, and types of, consumption is essentially begging to be overwhelmed by rates and magnitudes of climate/ecosystem changes.
From 15.0-0.3 Myr ago, our reconstructed pCO2 values steadily decline from 650 ± 150 to 280 ± 75 ppmv, mirroring global temperature decline. Using our new range of pCO2 values, we calculate average Earth system sensitivity and equilibrium climate sensitivity, resulting in 13.9 °C and 7.2 °C per doubling of pCO2, respectively. These values are significantly higher than IPCC global warming estimations, consistent or higher than some recent state-of-the-art climate models, and consistent with other proxy-based estimates.
Killian,
You link to Witkowski et al (2024) ‘Continuous sterane and phytane δ13C record reveals a substantial pCO2 decline since the mid-Miocene’ which did get a mention in the June UV thread. My take on it was that its proposed decline in CO2 since 16Mya was non-controversial but while finding a global temperature of 16Mya of +16°C warmer than recent interglacials would thus suggest a sky-high climate sensitivity, such a 16Mya global temperature is not the normal outcome of paleoclimate studies.
Haven’t so much as looked at the paper, but for some reason the phrase “uncontrolled variables” is leaping to mind.
Nigeljsays
Regarding climate sensativity. The model data comparisons on this website have warming tracking at the middle of what a range of models predict. As a lay person I understand that the models that generate high climate sensitivity are at the upper part of this envelope of climate model predictions? If climate sensitivity was high, shouldn’t warming have been tracking towards the upper part of this envelope of model predictions?
Regardless of the correct value for CS, whether its medium or high, climate change is already causing significant problems and I believe it should be robustly mitigated with urgency.
CJsays
I don’t and cannot really know. But what I would be mindful about is this :- Not if the envelope of model predictions is flawed. Not if the models are flawed. Not if the ‘system’ of modelling is flawed. Not if the ‘system’ is not fit for purpose. Not if the purpose is misguided.. Not if the assumptions are wrong. Not if the data is wrong or missing. Not if the peer review system is dysfunctional and broken. Not if the conclusions are illogical.
Now if people are absolutely certain about all that then you’re safe and sound. Assuming Gavin’s latest article ECS was competently peer reviewed by professionals with expertise in the scientific field before publication. Otherwise you are stuck needing to rely on your faith in other people and the system they operate. This is precisely where everyone is. Choosing who to believe.
Mal Adaptedsays
CJ: Now if people are absolutely certain about all that then you’re safe and sound. Assuming Gavin’s latest article ECS was competently peer reviewed by professionals with expertise in the scientific field before publication. Otherwise you are stuck needing to rely on your faith in other people and the system they operate. This is precisely where everyone is. Choosing who to believe.
Do you really think you’re the only one who knows that? I’m not absolutely certain about anything, not even death or taxes. I make my trust choices on the best information I can find in the public record. Hearsay, gossip, innuendo, ignorant incredulity, and undead denialist memes are to be dismissed without closer examination. My own background in science helped me develop some scientific meta-literacy, i.e. informal rules for evaluating the credibility of published evidence, short of being fully literate in the topic of interest. That’s why I choose to believe Gavin regarding climate-related science: because he knows as much as his professional peers do, and way more than me. Anyone who isn’t scientifically metaliterate is at a disadvantage when discussing climate science, because science is the only trustworthy source. And even science can’t be trusted without question, but must be iteratively verified by other trained, disciplined specialists. I’m not a member of any such peer group, so all I know is what the consensus of Gavin’s peers knows. Believe it or not, that’s all you know too: see my list of non-qualifying information above. I’ve got no realistic choice but to accept the consensus Gavin represents here, albeit tentatively and provisionally, as scientists themselves do. You can make up your own mind, but beware of the Dunning-Kruger effect!
Mal Adaptedsays
CJ:Otherwise you are stuck needing to rely on your faith in other people and the system they operate. This is precisely where everyone is. Choosing who to believe..
Not necessarily. Faith is fixed belief without verifiable evidence. I, for one, am stuck with the scientific meta-literacy I’ve gained by training and experience. I’m merely as confident as I need to be that the PNW heat dome of 2021, when the thermometer outside my window hit 111 °F, would not have been that hot if not for the redundantly documented anthropogenic transfer of fossil carbon to the atmosphere for >300 years. Currently the rate of transfer is documented at 10s of gigatonnes annually, at a profit of $trillions to fossil fuel producers and investors, whose investment of mere $millions in disinformation and political influence has forestalled public intervention in their revenues until now, is also redundantly documented in the public record. One doesn’t need documentation, to acknowledge they’d be fools not to!
And then there’s physics, as taught to me in High School. Science knew before 1900 that more CO2 in the atmosphere would retain more heat globally. C. David Keeling’s apparatus on Mauna Loa demonstrated that atmospheric CO2 is steadily rising. The redundantly quality-assured global thermometer record of the last century and three quarters demonstrates that global heat content is rising too. Knowing about the rising CO2, we’d be astonished if it wasn’t! So would Svante Arrhenius have been in 1896.
What you’re really asking is whether any trained, disciplined scientist who contributed to the multiple lines of intersubjectively verifiable empirical evidence accumulated by generations of their peers over two centuries, can be trusted not to be lying. Am I wrong? Because it sounds like that’s all you’ve got. You know we don’t have to trust them, we can try to verify their claims ourselves if we put the time in? Because if any climate scientist was or is lying to us, they’d all have to be!
Barton Paul Levensonsays
CJ: Not if the envelope of model predictions is flawed. Not if the models are flawed. Not if the ‘system’ of modelling is flawed. Not if the ‘system’ is not fit for purpose. Not if the purpose is misguided.. Not if the assumptions are wrong. Not if the data is wrong or missing. Not if the peer review system is dysfunctional and broken. Not if the conclusions are illogical.
BPL: Well, after decades of analysis of just these problems, we can dismiss the whole anti-intellectual tirade. Thank you for playing.
“2023 was the warmest year on record, influenced by multiple warm ocean basins. This has prompted speculation of an acceleration in surface warming, or a stronger than expected influence from loss of aerosol induced cooling. Here we use a recent Green’s function-based method to quantify the influence of sea surface temperature patterns on the 2023 global temperature anomaly, and compare them to previous record warm years. We show that the strong deviation from recent warming trends is consistent with previously observed sea surface temperature influences, and regional forcing. This indicates that internal variability was a strong contributor to the exceptional 2023 temperature evolution, in combination with steady anthropogenic global warming.”
This caught my eye. I was aware of the unusual occurrence of the multi-year La Nina that proceeded the onset of this latest El Niño as a contributing factor (and had considered asking about that here), but didn’t feel I could present a question based on my modest meteorological understanding gained thru the years that would be worthy of reflection:
“We note, however, that our method does not identify the underlying reasons behind the 2023 SST pattern, or for those in earlier years. A shift in global warming induced e.g. by an upwelling of previously stored deeper water temperatures, or factors such as the global energy imbalance, aerosol cleanup or changes in cloudiness anomalously affecting some ocean basins, would also produce SST-induced corrections in our analysis, and could therefore still have contributed to 2023 temperatures. The transition to El Niño conditions after a multi-year La Nina event is also rare in the observed climate history, making 2023 special also for this reason.”
“The transition to El Niño conditions after a multi-year La Nina event is also rare in the observed climate history, making 2023 special also for this reason.”
The argument here is based on the stored charge/discharge model of El Nino/La Nina cycles. Consider sloshing of the ocean as the physical manifestation of extremes. The more that the ocean sloshes to one side of the Pacific ocean (charging), the greater the force when it sloshes back (discharge). If the sloshing state is maintained for a few years, the greater the store that’s built up. Thats why this period is special in that the potential for a stored discharge is greater.
This is fairly straight-forward to formulate as a differential equation and is often expressed as what’s called a delayed differential equation, with the feedback term applied from the prior year. It could range anywhere from a slight perturbation to something that sustains over time as in a limit-cycle oscillation.
Piotrsays
Re Tomas Kalisz Aug.29.
Dishonest analogy – in your example, the change in the position of a comma changed everything, In my post – my replacing the highlighted words with “for”:
– “This seems to indeed suggest that the situation might be more favourable now [ at least as regards the discussed threat of ] [for] the rapid multi-metre SLR.”
changes NOTHING, other than making your (false) claim it less meandering. Hence your insinuation of my misrepresenting your words is, as usually with your insinuations, baseless.
And your littering your sentences with words that contribute nothing to your argument – is not a problem of your English, but of clarity of your thinking/writing. I’d bet your Czech is as intellectually undisciplined, pretentious, and lacking self-awareness as is your English.
You can tell a lot about people by the language they use.
CJsays
Paul P suggests:- This is a foundational aspect of science — if A is needed to understand B, then making claims about B is usually met with indifference unless the mechanisms of A are known accurately and with certainty. Essentially, one’s credibility is cast in doubt unless you can show that you understand the fundamentals. This is a weird situation for climate science to be in, one that is not common to other sciences.
I posit that A are the individual climate models that are not known accurately nor with certainty then these unreal hypothetical incomplete math models of variable apples oranges grapes and sawdust outputs are put into a spread, onto which a calculated GMST (a represented version of reality) is plotted on a graph. A declaration is made the average spread of these not real models represent reality and are therefore reliable and accurate enough for scientific purposes to arrive at ‘science based’ decisions about what to do by when.
If this is how Physics was done on Earth where close enough is good enough and with zero certainty or logic to it, there would be no planes and no satellites or a reliable astronomy science based on facts evidence data and math.
It is my (possibly faulty) understanding that long term data analysis indicates the warming rate (and slr) of the present is the fastest ever in millions of years (during the recent run of interglacials) and is being driven by man made ghg emissions that is totally different physics than what occurred in the past before. Meanwhile they keep on pointing fingers at each other publicly claiming the others are wrong but not them doing the pointing.
Paul is right – this is weird and is not the case with other phsyical sciences afaik. Please ignore my comment. It matters not I know. In fact it looks like no one knows much at all.
Barton Paul Levensonsays
CJ: I posit that A are the individual climate models that are not known accurately nor with certainty then these unreal hypothetical incomplete math models of variable apples oranges grapes and sawdust outputs are put into a spread, onto which a calculated GMST (a represented version of reality) is plotted on a graph. A declaration is made the average spread of these not real models represent reality and are therefore reliable and accurate enough for scientific purposes to arrive at ‘science based’ decisions about what to do by when.
If this is how Physics was done on Earth where close enough is good enough and with zero certainty or logic to it, there would be no planes and no satellites or a reliable astronomy science based on facts evidence data and math.
BPL: That IS how physics is done. Aircraft are the safest mode of travel partly because of numerical simulations using some of the same equations global climate models use (especially the Navier-Stokes equations to model fluid flow). The charge of “zero certainty or logic to it” is simply false. You are, in fact, criticizing something you don’t seem to have any knowledge about. I’m assuming you got all this from denier internet blogs. Let me suggest that those aren’t a good source of information about anything scientific. If you must work through the internet, try university web sites, or NASA.
Navier-Stokes is not the best example of something that is completely understood. Aircraft are safe because they are tested under controlled conditions, and there are wind tunnel facilities that supplement simulations. OTOH, there are no controlled experiments possible that can evaluate geophysical fluid dynamics models of ENSO. Nothing available similar to Elon Musk building rockets and launching them until they stop exploding or crashing.
We are left with purely intellectual exercises that we can compare to observations. The pseudo-controlled variables are factors such as the earth’s current orientation related to the sun, and the moon’s orbit related to the earth. Prevailing wind is an even worse variable because that in itself is not predictable. Another pseudo-controlled variable is the Hunga-Tonga volcano, which was also not predictable but the impulse nature of the event makes it conducive to analysis, a la impulse response. So the way physics is done here is (1) simulate w/ input controls then (2) cross-validate against historical data … repeat go to (1),
You don’t have to accuse me of “criticizing something … don’t seem to have any knowledge about.” because that in fact is what I am working on. Everyone is in the same boat on this topic. There is no consensus.
Radge Haverssays
CJ,
“…is being driven by man made ghg emissions that is totally different physics than what occurred in the past before. Meanwhile they keep on pointing fingers at each other publicly claiming the others are wrong but not them doing the pointing.
Who says the physics are different from what has occurred in the past? Physics are physics whether the carbon is introduced into the atmosphere by volcanic action, by humans digging it up and spewing into the air, or by any other means.
“Paul is right – this is weird and is not the case with other phsyical sciences afaik.”
As if scientists in other areas don’t vehemently disagree on all sorts of things?
OTOH, other sciences generally don’t suffer the same level of unreasoned attacks as climate science due to the political and financial stakes. It almost sounds as if you’ve been confused by the agitprop of greed heads, power trippers, blowhards, dogmatic culture warriors, and the hoards of poop-flinging flying monkeys that inevitably follow their lead.
The rest of your comment is peculiar. Suffice it to say, there’s no absolute certainty in science.
It’s just a blind spot wrt climate science as a research discipline. The effect known as GHG is fairly well understood and matches observations. Yet, the erratic cycling of the oceanic indices are not well understood and leads to the situation where the heat spike of the last year is largely unexplained. And now the hurricane activity is being revised downward because the ITCZ is creeping northward into the Sahara.
That’s the blind spot, not GHG. Not understanding the fundamentals of natural variation is like not being able to see around the next bend on a mountain switchback. Have no idea what’s coming.
And that’s nothing new. Whether AWG existed or not, still have problems with understanding and predicting natural variation. Might still be referring to the Farmer’s Almanac to get an outlook for the upcoming season’s climate. But now we have the internet and chatGPT to prompt.
Escobarsays
to Radge Havers asks Who says the physics are different from what has occurred in the past?
Climate scientists, astrophysicists and paleo-climate scientists and the IPCC, that’s who. Throw in Gavin Schmidt. And Michael Mann as well. And the scientist here doing work on the AMOC chnages
The Physics that is driving global heating and SLR and climate changes today is uniquely different than the physics that caused prior global warming and SLR and other climate changes. Have you noticed any flood basalts or massive meteor hits or major orbital changes of the planet lately?
Where have you been if you do not know this? What are you trying to prove here, because it is not working and has nothing to do with real climate science.
[Response: Seriously, what are you even talking about? What new physics do you think we have invented? Radiative transfer? Conservation of energy and mass? Heat capacity? Navier-Stokes? Stefan-Boltzmann? Henry’s Law? Thermal expansion? Seems like pretty standard stuff to me… – gavin]
Radge Haverssays
CJ,
“…the fastest ever in millions of years (during the recent run of interglacials) and is being driven by man made ghg emissions that is totally different physics…”
Wait, hang on. You’re not suggesting that the rate of change would somehow represent a change in physics are you? Please say no, because that would be like suggesting that the laws of physics change every time you press the accelerator when you’re driving your car.
Escobarsays
Please read what I wrote – obviously, clearly, self-evidently – I never suggested that the rate of change would somehow represent a change in (The Laws of) physics! If you cannot read what is actually written and is still there, there is nothing to discuss.
the above as well as ” It almost sounds as if you’ve been confused by”
The only confused person in this conversation is yourself. What you imagine things might “sound like” to you is 100% your own doing. I cannot fix that nor preempt it. If there was a block function for irritable trolls here, I would use it.
Radge Haverssays
ESCOBAR
What I wrote – obviously, clearly, self-evidently – was addressed to CJ.
So are you a sock puppet of CJ? Either way, consistent with your other comments here, you are very confused. If you can’t get it together, you’re waisting time — yours and everyone else’s.
CJsays
Obsessing Over Climate Disinformation Is a Wrong Turn
By
Holly Buck
Much of the climate movement is now pouring its energies into combating disinformation. But this focus fails to address real concerns about a green transition and obscures what is needed to win the public over to effective climate action.
If there is a role for “climate intellectuals” — for the online climate commentariat, the journalists and national NGO leaders who tell us the story of climate action — it would be to focus on the new opportunities for action on the ground, and knit together those people in Peoria or Altoona who are trying to talk to people about resilience, connecting them in a broader story that fuels their motivation. Instead, the intellectual wing of the climate movement has decided to wage an information war focused on uncovering what Big Oil knew and policing speech.
Given that funding and public attention is limited, this climate-disinformation obsession is a missed opportunity and a strategic dead-end — part of a larger liberal tendency to make disinformation a bogeyman we can blame for our major political problems.
Why Focusing on “Climate Disinformation” Is Counterproductive
On August 8, 2024, the Guardian published a story titled “‘Massive disinformation campaign’ is slowing global transition to green energy” with the subhead “UN says a global ‘backlash’ against climate action is being stoked by fossil fuel companies.” The article quotes a United Nations official at length, without stating whom the author spoke to, or when, or where.
The price of this kind of story isn’t just the energy it costs for the cloud services to bring it to your eyeballs, nor the cost to write it, which is cheap. That is the point: it’s cheap and easy to write content like this and more expensive to report a story about climate action on the ground, or to do research and advocacy that involves organizing and engagement with the public. There is an attention cost to this kind of antidisinformation discourse, though, and that is important. The person scrolling has their attention put on the outrage-inducing fossil fuel companies, rather than what they can do about it.
But the cost of the focus on climate disinformation goes beyond missed opportunities: it could actually diminish the prospects for climate action.
That’s because the focus on “climate disinformation” sets up a negative feedback loop. No one doubts that misinformation is often an issue in today’s politics, especially around climate. But instead of focusing on misinformation alone, we should think of the challenge of engaging the public with climate as a triangle with three points: misinformation, conflicts over values, and distrust of elites. Right now, the climate commentariat is collapsing all of these challenges into a problem of misinformation and failing to deal forthrightly with the value conflicts and trust issues. This in turn creates polarization, inflames those value conflicts, and further erodes trust in science, policymakers, and media institutions.
“The cost of the focus on climate disinformation goes beyond missed opportunities: it could actually diminish the prospects for climate action.”
I’m a social scientist and have convened focus groups with the public around the country; we talk together about how to reach net zero. Many members of the public question whether net-zero greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050 is a realistic goal. People are worried about whether renewables can produce enough energy, and what happens to wind turbines and solar panels at the end of their lifespans. They worry about the unintended environmental consequences of building out the renewable grid. They don’t think they can afford electric cars. And often they bring up the idea that addressing climate change is a way of funneling more money to elites while hitting their own pocketbooks.
We need to listen to those concerns and then do something about them — not discount them merely as the product of disinformation. When a focus group participant in West Virginia tells me that solar panels emit radiation that you can measure with a Geiger counter — I do regard that as misinformation. But when someone questions whether wind and solar will be able to power everything? That’s not misinformation but a real concern.
For the Optimists:
https://uploads.guim.co.uk/2022/06/02/SSO_148878_031_07.pdf (1977)
https://www.nixonlibrary.gov/sites/default/files/virtuallibrary/documents/jul10/56.pdf (1969)
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jan/01/on-its-hundredth-birthday-in-1959-edward-teller-warned-the-oil-industry-about-global-warming (1959)
https://archive.org/details/mobot31753002152491/page/377/mode/2up?view=theater (1856 –carbonic acid = carbon dioxide)
My apologies – my last link above was a few pages short. For those who have not seen it , here is a report in 1856 from female scientist Eunice Foote re CO2 in the air: Right before USA , UK and Europe proceeded to burn massive amounts of coal and oil.
https://archive.org/details/mobot31753002152491/page/383/mode/2up?view=theater
“Thirdly. The highest effect of the sun’s rays I have found to be in carbonic acid gas [CO2]
The receiver containing the gas became itself much heated— very sensibly more so than the other—and on being removed, it was many times as long in cooling. ;
An atmosphere of that gas would give to our earth a high temperature; and if as some suppose, at one period of its history the air had mixed with it a larger proportion than at present, an increased temperature from its own action as well as from Increased weight must have necessarily resulted. : On comparing the sun’s heat in different gases, I found it to be in hydrogen gas, 104°; in common air, 106°; in oxygen 108° ; and in carbonic acid gas, 125°.”
Don, thanks for that link. I’d wanted to know more about Eunice Foot’s experiment for some time now.
Specifically, I’d been curious about the fact that the radiative source in her experiments was sunlight, whereas John Tyndall used a Leslie cube, which clamps the cube’s temperature at the boiling point of water. Given that the whole point of the GHE is the differential absorption of different frequencies of radiation–broadly speaking, longwave versus shortwave–the two experiments would seem to be quite different.
And so they were–but now I recall that about 50% of solar radiation actually falls within the IR part of the spectrum–though the relevant bands are just a small portion of the full span we refer to as ‘IR.’ It seems to me that both Eunice, and her husband Elisha–whose companion paper precedes hers in the collection whose digitized version you present–would have profited had they, like Tyndall, read William Charles Wells’ “On Dew.” (Elisha in particular seems to have gone somewhat astray in his analysis.)
Still warm ( 21 Aug 2024):
“The West Antarctic Ice Sheet may not be vulnerable to marine ice cliff instability during the 21st century ‘ Morlighem et al.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.ado7794
Can’t wait for Killian’s I have been telling you this for 15 years, but you never listen No? How comes?
The acceptance speech given by VP Kamala Harris at the DNC contained one reference to anthropogenic impacts to the climate. Yep, one reference in one sentence: “live free from the pollution that fuels the climate crisis.” Wow. The following article at Vox discusses this as a part of an observation of priorities at the party and individual voter levels:
.
https://www.vox.com/politics/368706/kamala-harris-dnc-climate-change-policy-poll
.
Meanwhile, on August 19, there was a guest post at SkS (re-post from the Climate Brink by Andrew Dessler) which dealt with a post made by Donald Trump at his Truth Social site on August 5th:
.
https://skepticalscience.com/are-models-overestimating-warming.html
.
RC regulars will of course note that the original source for the graph Trump used was effectively dealt with by Gavin Schmidt’s article Spencer’s Shenanigans in late January of this year:
.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/spencers-shenanigans/
.
Yet more than six months later, the man running for president under the Republican banner, is spewing out the same misleading crap to his millions of followers. Pushback from Harris? Uh, lacking. Meanwhile, Harris couldn’t bother to say more than a single sentence about climate change in her acceptance speech outlining her major objectives if elected. Nor land degradation, the ecological crisis, the extinction crisis, etc.
I guess we will see if the upcoming ABC debate on September 10 can illuminate these subjects any better than the CNN debate in June did. That debate had a single question (directed to Trump) which he answered with his typical gibberish nonsense.
I realize the quandaries that Harris faces as she puts together policy positions in such a short timeframe. She has to create said positions in the face of many considerations, including how to explain the seemingly contradictory accomplishments that the Biden/Harris administration have achieved where climate action and energy production increases are concerned for example.
But failing to voice reasoned detailed arguments/plans on such critical issues, let alone allowing Trump to spew his climate and environmental foolishness basically unchallenged, is a failing that serves the U.S. voter and the world poorly.
Harris has a better rejoinder to Trump’s denialism than a brief mention in her acceptance speech, which is the passage of the IRA and the BIL, which have been driving, and continue to drive, many billions of dollars of investment into climate change mitigation and adaptation.
As for “allowing Trump to spew his climate and environmental foolishness basically unchallenged,” clearly Harris’ proper priority is to get elected and prevent him from implementing his “Drill, baby, drill” agenda.
To paraphrase an old saw, “You don’t go into the climate wars with the electorate you wish you had; you go into them with the electorate that exists.”
As for rebutting the Trumpian FF nonsense, I’d submit that that is our job, not Kamala Harris. And I try to do it as best as I can. For instance:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-t_WoKmsK8
(Previously posted, so ignore if you’ve already seen it and feel that once was enough.)
Kevin, you wrote: “Harris has a better rejoinder to Trump’s denialism than a brief mention in her acceptance speech, which is the passage of the IRA and the BIL…”
A rejoinder which survey and poll stacked one after the other show large portions of voters (particularly in red states) know almost zip about. After what, two years on now? And the view of these voters in conservative-run states are being influenced by what their conservative federal lawmakers and state governments tell them (or don’t) regarding the climate and infrastructure legislation.
If so inclined, here’s a decent read from Politico that illustrates this:
.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/08/16/georgia-ev-jobs-swing-voters-00173175
.
Continuing: “ As for “allowing Trump to spew his climate and environmental foolishness basically unchallenged,” clearly Harris’ proper priority is to get elected and prevent him from implementing his “Drill, baby, drill” agenda.”
I don’t get what this is supposed to mean. So what, if it’s abortion, inflation or other issues, she can state a position on and take Trump to task, but not two of the biggest challenges facing Americans and the world?
And regarding: “As for rebutting the Trumpian FF nonsense, I’d submit that that is our job, not Kamala Harris. And I try to do it as best as I can.”
I’m sorry, I think you’re partially wrong. It’s not just your job, mine and like-minded folks doing what we can, BUT it definitely 100% is also the job of those who aspire to be the next leader of the United States. Hell, if I was her, I’d task my staff to seek out voices to counter his $*+% and to craft rapid response messaging especially in the online and social media spaces where climate and the environment are concerned. There are several commentators here I think would do the work nicely, if so inclined. Truly.
I hope that the next two months of the campaign, the debate(s?), if or when she will submit to real press conferences to face questions, etc will help to render my concern and frustration both premature and needless.
BTW, yes I had seen the video previously. It left me chuckling :-)
David. I think anthropogenic climate change is a serious problem., however Kamala Harris only has a limited time each day to get in the media and get her message across. She will not get elected talking about the climate issue and spending a lot of time debunking Trumps lies. Climate just not a big priority with most people and convincing them otherwise is really hard.
The main concerns (of Americans (rightly or wrongly) are the economy, jobs, illegal immigration and crime and issues around abortion etc. Therefore Harris has to devote most attention to that and focus on sensible policies that would attract the swing voters. Hopefully she is elected, and its clear she will push good climate policies. I think thats what KM is getting at.
David: Kevin, you wrote: “Harris has a better rejoinder to Trump’s denialism than a brief mention in her acceptance speech, which is the passage of the IRA and the BIL…”
rejoinder which survey and poll stacked one after the other show large portions of voters (particularly in red states) know almost zip about. After what, two years on now? And the view of these voters in conservative-run states are being influenced by what their conservative federal lawmakers and state governments tell them (or don’t) regarding the climate and infrastructure legislation.
I’m with Kevin here. To the extent the onrushing election is about climate change, it’s a contest for the Six Americas. I think Harris is counting on the 53% (up from 39% in 2013) of us who are “alarmed” or ‘concerned”, to be both acquainted with the decarbonizing provisions of the IRA, and already in her camp. She can write off the 27% (down from 33%) who are “disengaged”, “doubtful”, or “dismissive”, although it appears possible for some previously disengaged to engage when a flash flood washes away their house, that’s already in flames from a wildfire (time to call your insurance agent)*. By not mentioning climate change in her recent statements, she’s hoping to capture the 15% (down from 26%) who are still “cautious” on climate change but inclined to vote for her anyway. I, for one, suspect at least some of the 11% of Americans who were formerly cautious have joined the concerned or even alarmed.
* I linked the video as “a joke, I say that’s a joke son“. AFAIK, this event, though self-evidently catastrophic for the homeowner (whose pardon I humbly beg), was never explicitly connected to climate change. Nor was there a wildfire nearby, given the rain seen in the video. Presumably the fire ignited when the house was ripped from its foundation. No counterfactual claims here!
Kevin, Nigelj & Mal Adapted, thank you all for the replies. I understand VP Harris and her campaign need to prioritize as she attempts to win. My two primary points/complaints is something I will just have to deal with. I didn’t really expect to find agreement, and that’s okay. I was encouraged by her climate comments made in the CNN interview. Hopefully, the September 10 debate on ABC will provide her an opportunity to expand on the issue, as well as the positive impacts of the IRA and BIL, and confront Trump’s nonsense.
Mal, your “Six Americas” observation about the 15% “cautious” segment is something I’d not considered. I’m aware of this particular long-running survey, but had not considered that possibility. And yes, I took the video as humor. I may be a forsaken Republican, but I still have a bit of my sense of humor :-)
Very articulate monologue from a young Chinese guy who grew up in The UK. About false negative portrayals of China at school college and Fitch Ratings in a X Tweet 4 min video
https://nitter.poast.org/jambuki888/status/1817404727690473872#m
Walt says: “Very articulate monologue from a young Chinese guy who grew up in The UK. About false negative portrayals of China at school college”
The monologue is probably true to an extent. Some criticisms of China are clearly unjustified, or exaggerated and could be termed propoganda. But it doesn’t mean China is beyond all criticism. For example its a fact that Chinas government abuses human rights, opresses minority groups as pointed out by BPL, they are clearly considering invading Taiwan. Chinas government is an autocracy that steals intellectual property and probably hacks other countries computer systems, Chinas incomes and material living standards are lower than America, and they have serious environmental pollution. Fraud and corruption is common, in business and government and elsewhere..
This is NOT western propoganda that we all swallow, that you alleged in other comments on this page. It is based on solid verifiable evidence that is beyond reasonable doubt. On some of those issues the evidence even comes from the Chinese government. It is not seriously contested even by them.
Not that America is perfect either. Obviously it isnt. And nobody commenting here has claimed otherwise. All people have done is point out a few facts about China, and rather than provide specific evidence they are wrong, you resort to silly accusations that its all American propoganda. .
I doubt that you are Chinese. I suspect you are some western guy frustrated with America and its failings and hypocrisy. However I suspect this has made you embrace China . Remember the quotation “The enemy of the enemy is my friend.” And now the friend is China and they can do no wrong, and all criticisms of the friend are false and American propoganda. You have clearly lost objectivity, and you are on a slippery slope intellectually.
WH: Very articulate monologue from a young Chinese guy who grew up in The UK
BPL: And this relates to climate science how?
Nothing exists in a vacuum. Everything is related interrelated. This should be obvious to everyone.
Maybe not.
The climate science, COP treaties, sanctions and tariffs, nuclear threats, geopolitics, propaganda, disinformation and political action to address global warming are directly related to everything else.
[I hope this gets posted before the end of the month! MA]
Walt: Nothing exists in a vacuum. Everything is related interrelated. This should be obvious to everyone.
Well, yes. On a hierarchical systems framework, everything in the universe is, directly or otherwise, related to everything else, all having unfolded out of the primordial singularity. Science is about filling in that methodological cosmic black box with white spaces representing sub-systems of natural phenomena, at the appropriate level in the conceptual hierarchy. There are sub-systems, human behavior among them, that are more resistant to elucidation by science because they are more subjective: i.e. intersubjective verification fails. That’s part of what we’re dealing with here.
Back to the subject at hand: Come on, Walt. I, for one, don’t have any trouble tagging you as a sincere man with a Chinese surname, who either grew up in the US or had a relatively privileged upbringing in China, and now resides here. If you are a Chinese citizen or recent descendent of some, you have nationalistic pride in the country, as any patriotic Chinese national would. Nationalistic pride can be stipulated for any RC regular, no matter their original or current nationality. I trust very few of us are truly without a country!
FWIW, I was impressed by your original comment. It appears you took some care with it. Nonetheless, you were incautious to post it here, and probably weren’t expecting a shitstorm of negative responses. OTOH, some of us reacted out of nationalistic pride, beyond what’s in the public record of Chinese domestic and foreign relations, backed up by the well-founded integrity of the sources. But, cognitively motivated conspiracist ideation aside where it belongs, it’s always in the realm of possibility that everything we know is wrong! While you may be convinced we’re all dupes of the global Illuminati, I’m adequately convinced you’re a dupe, but probably not a conscious agent, of Chinese government-issued propaganda. That’s not to say there is no US government-issued propaganda that’s skillful enough to fool my instinctual and trained skepticism! I, for one, am not narcissistic enough to believe I have the complete, unique and final truth. That’s out of anyone’s reach! I do think we can agree that no nation has ever been, is now, nor ever will be, perfect. How can it be? “Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made” (I. Kant). No doubt there’s a Chinese idiom expressing the same wisdom!
Beyond that, I for one am impressed with China’s renewable energy program, but alarmed by its increasing emissions also. I regret some of what I read about the country’s other issues, but since I can do little or nothing about them, I’m pretty focussed on decarbonization, my country’s and the world’s. Trust me, I regret much of what I read about the US, too. I can at least vote on that, however. I’m impatient with official US decarbonization policy too, but optimistic that Americans can accept progress wherever it occurs. I’m certainly not in favor of any unprovoked attack on China in these pages! Truce?
“Hot” models and “hot” paleo records continuing to pile up have proven we need a risk-based approach to climate policy. A new paper finds an ECS of 7.2C and ESS of 13.9C.
Anything other than a near-instantaneous, in terms of systemic change, reduction in unsustainable levels of, and types of, consumption is essentially begging to be overwhelmed by rates and magnitudes of climate/ecosystem changes.
From 15.0-0.3 Myr ago, our reconstructed pCO2 values steadily decline from 650 ± 150 to 280 ± 75 ppmv, mirroring global temperature decline. Using our new range of pCO2 values, we calculate average Earth system sensitivity and equilibrium climate sensitivity, resulting in 13.9 °C and 7.2 °C per doubling of pCO2, respectively. These values are significantly higher than IPCC global warming estimations, consistent or higher than some recent state-of-the-art climate models, and consistent with other proxy-based estimates.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-47676-9
[Response: There is less than meets the eye here. Look out for a blog post soon. -gavin]
[Further Response: Here.]
Killian,
You link to Witkowski et al (2024) ‘Continuous sterane and phytane δ13C record reveals a substantial pCO2 decline since the mid-Miocene’ which did get a mention in the June UV thread. My take on it was that its proposed decline in CO2 since 16Mya was non-controversial but while finding a global temperature of 16Mya of +16°C warmer than recent interglacials would thus suggest a sky-high climate sensitivity, such a 16Mya global temperature is not the normal outcome of paleoclimate studies.
Haven’t so much as looked at the paper, but for some reason the phrase “uncontrolled variables” is leaping to mind.
Regarding climate sensativity. The model data comparisons on this website have warming tracking at the middle of what a range of models predict. As a lay person I understand that the models that generate high climate sensitivity are at the upper part of this envelope of climate model predictions? If climate sensitivity was high, shouldn’t warming have been tracking towards the upper part of this envelope of model predictions?
Regardless of the correct value for CS, whether its medium or high, climate change is already causing significant problems and I believe it should be robustly mitigated with urgency.
I don’t and cannot really know. But what I would be mindful about is this :- Not if the envelope of model predictions is flawed. Not if the models are flawed. Not if the ‘system’ of modelling is flawed. Not if the ‘system’ is not fit for purpose. Not if the purpose is misguided.. Not if the assumptions are wrong. Not if the data is wrong or missing. Not if the peer review system is dysfunctional and broken. Not if the conclusions are illogical.
Now if people are absolutely certain about all that then you’re safe and sound. Assuming Gavin’s latest article ECS was competently peer reviewed by professionals with expertise in the scientific field before publication. Otherwise you are stuck needing to rely on your faith in other people and the system they operate. This is precisely where everyone is. Choosing who to believe.
CJ: Now if people are absolutely certain about all that then you’re safe and sound. Assuming Gavin’s latest article ECS was competently peer reviewed by professionals with expertise in the scientific field before publication. Otherwise you are stuck needing to rely on your faith in other people and the system they operate. This is precisely where everyone is. Choosing who to believe.
Do you really think you’re the only one who knows that? I’m not absolutely certain about anything, not even death or taxes. I make my trust choices on the best information I can find in the public record. Hearsay, gossip, innuendo, ignorant incredulity, and undead denialist memes are to be dismissed without closer examination. My own background in science helped me develop some scientific meta-literacy, i.e. informal rules for evaluating the credibility of published evidence, short of being fully literate in the topic of interest. That’s why I choose to believe Gavin regarding climate-related science: because he knows as much as his professional peers do, and way more than me. Anyone who isn’t scientifically metaliterate is at a disadvantage when discussing climate science, because science is the only trustworthy source. And even science can’t be trusted without question, but must be iteratively verified by other trained, disciplined specialists. I’m not a member of any such peer group, so all I know is what the consensus of Gavin’s peers knows. Believe it or not, that’s all you know too: see my list of non-qualifying information above. I’ve got no realistic choice but to accept the consensus Gavin represents here, albeit tentatively and provisionally, as scientists themselves do. You can make up your own mind, but beware of the Dunning-Kruger effect!
CJ:Otherwise you are stuck needing to rely on your faith in other people and the system they operate. This is precisely where everyone is. Choosing who to believe..
Not necessarily. Faith is fixed belief without verifiable evidence. I, for one, am stuck with the scientific meta-literacy I’ve gained by training and experience. I’m merely as confident as I need to be that the PNW heat dome of 2021, when the thermometer outside my window hit 111 °F, would not have been that hot if not for the redundantly documented anthropogenic transfer of fossil carbon to the atmosphere for >300 years. Currently the rate of transfer is documented at 10s of gigatonnes annually, at a profit of $trillions to fossil fuel producers and investors, whose investment of mere $millions in disinformation and political influence has forestalled public intervention in their revenues until now, is also redundantly documented in the public record. One doesn’t need documentation, to acknowledge they’d be fools not to!
And then there’s physics, as taught to me in High School. Science knew before 1900 that more CO2 in the atmosphere would retain more heat globally. C. David Keeling’s apparatus on Mauna Loa demonstrated that atmospheric CO2 is steadily rising. The redundantly quality-assured global thermometer record of the last century and three quarters demonstrates that global heat content is rising too. Knowing about the rising CO2, we’d be astonished if it wasn’t! So would Svante Arrhenius have been in 1896.
What you’re really asking is whether any trained, disciplined scientist who contributed to the multiple lines of intersubjectively verifiable empirical evidence accumulated by generations of their peers over two centuries, can be trusted not to be lying. Am I wrong? Because it sounds like that’s all you’ve got. You know we don’t have to trust them, we can try to verify their claims ourselves if we put the time in? Because if any climate scientist was or is lying to us, they’d all have to be!
CJ: Not if the envelope of model predictions is flawed. Not if the models are flawed. Not if the ‘system’ of modelling is flawed. Not if the ‘system’ is not fit for purpose. Not if the purpose is misguided.. Not if the assumptions are wrong. Not if the data is wrong or missing. Not if the peer review system is dysfunctional and broken. Not if the conclusions are illogical.
BPL: Well, after decades of analysis of just these problems, we can dismiss the whole anti-intellectual tirade. Thank you for playing.
New paper on 2023 temperature anomaly:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01637-8
“2023 was the warmest year on record, influenced by multiple warm ocean basins. This has prompted speculation of an acceleration in surface warming, or a stronger than expected influence from loss of aerosol induced cooling. Here we use a recent Green’s function-based method to quantify the influence of sea surface temperature patterns on the 2023 global temperature anomaly, and compare them to previous record warm years. We show that the strong deviation from recent warming trends is consistent with previously observed sea surface temperature influences, and regional forcing. This indicates that internal variability was a strong contributor to the exceptional 2023 temperature evolution, in combination with steady anthropogenic global warming.”
This caught my eye. I was aware of the unusual occurrence of the multi-year La Nina that proceeded the onset of this latest El Niño as a contributing factor (and had considered asking about that here), but didn’t feel I could present a question based on my modest meteorological understanding gained thru the years that would be worthy of reflection:
“We note, however, that our method does not identify the underlying reasons behind the 2023 SST pattern, or for those in earlier years. A shift in global warming induced e.g. by an upwelling of previously stored deeper water temperatures, or factors such as the global energy imbalance, aerosol cleanup or changes in cloudiness anomalously affecting some ocean basins, would also produce SST-induced corrections in our analysis, and could therefore still have contributed to 2023 temperatures. The transition to El Niño conditions after a multi-year La Nina event is also rare in the observed climate history, making 2023 special also for this reason.”
“The transition to El Niño conditions after a multi-year La Nina event is also rare in the observed climate history, making 2023 special also for this reason.”
The argument here is based on the stored charge/discharge model of El Nino/La Nina cycles. Consider sloshing of the ocean as the physical manifestation of extremes. The more that the ocean sloshes to one side of the Pacific ocean (charging), the greater the force when it sloshes back (discharge). If the sloshing state is maintained for a few years, the greater the store that’s built up. Thats why this period is special in that the potential for a stored discharge is greater.
This is fairly straight-forward to formulate as a differential equation and is often expressed as what’s called a delayed differential equation, with the feedback term applied from the prior year. It could range anywhere from a slight perturbation to something that sustains over time as in a limit-cycle oscillation.
Re Tomas Kalisz Aug.29.
Dishonest analogy – in your example, the change in the position of a comma changed everything, In my post – my replacing the highlighted words with “for”:
– “This seems to indeed suggest that the situation might be more favourable now [ at least as regards the discussed threat of ] [for] the rapid multi-metre SLR.”
changes NOTHING, other than making your (false) claim it less meandering. Hence your insinuation of my misrepresenting your words is, as usually with your insinuations, baseless.
And your littering your sentences with words that contribute nothing to your argument – is not a problem of your English, but of clarity of your thinking/writing. I’d bet your Czech is as intellectually undisciplined, pretentious, and lacking self-awareness as is your English.
You can tell a lot about people by the language they use.
Paul P suggests:-
This is a foundational aspect of science — if A is needed to understand B, then making claims about B is usually met with indifference unless the mechanisms of A are known accurately and with certainty. Essentially, one’s credibility is cast in doubt unless you can show that you understand the fundamentals. This is a weird situation for climate science to be in, one that is not common to other sciences.
I posit that A are the individual climate models that are not known accurately nor with certainty then these unreal hypothetical incomplete math models of variable apples oranges grapes and sawdust outputs are put into a spread, onto which a calculated GMST (a represented version of reality) is plotted on a graph. A declaration is made the average spread of these not real models represent reality and are therefore reliable and accurate enough for scientific purposes to arrive at ‘science based’ decisions about what to do by when.
If this is how Physics was done on Earth where close enough is good enough and with zero certainty or logic to it, there would be no planes and no satellites or a reliable astronomy science based on facts evidence data and math.
It is my (possibly faulty) understanding that long term data analysis indicates the warming rate (and slr) of the present is the fastest ever in millions of years (during the recent run of interglacials) and is being driven by man made ghg emissions that is totally different physics than what occurred in the past before. Meanwhile they keep on pointing fingers at each other publicly claiming the others are wrong but not them doing the pointing.
Paul is right – this is weird and is not the case with other phsyical sciences afaik. Please ignore my comment. It matters not I know. In fact it looks like no one knows much at all.
CJ: I posit that A are the individual climate models that are not known accurately nor with certainty then these unreal hypothetical incomplete math models of variable apples oranges grapes and sawdust outputs are put into a spread, onto which a calculated GMST (a represented version of reality) is plotted on a graph. A declaration is made the average spread of these not real models represent reality and are therefore reliable and accurate enough for scientific purposes to arrive at ‘science based’ decisions about what to do by when.
If this is how Physics was done on Earth where close enough is good enough and with zero certainty or logic to it, there would be no planes and no satellites or a reliable astronomy science based on facts evidence data and math.
BPL: That IS how physics is done. Aircraft are the safest mode of travel partly because of numerical simulations using some of the same equations global climate models use (especially the Navier-Stokes equations to model fluid flow). The charge of “zero certainty or logic to it” is simply false. You are, in fact, criticizing something you don’t seem to have any knowledge about. I’m assuming you got all this from denier internet blogs. Let me suggest that those aren’t a good source of information about anything scientific. If you must work through the internet, try university web sites, or NASA.
Navier-Stokes is not the best example of something that is completely understood. Aircraft are safe because they are tested under controlled conditions, and there are wind tunnel facilities that supplement simulations. OTOH, there are no controlled experiments possible that can evaluate geophysical fluid dynamics models of ENSO. Nothing available similar to Elon Musk building rockets and launching them until they stop exploding or crashing.
We are left with purely intellectual exercises that we can compare to observations. The pseudo-controlled variables are factors such as the earth’s current orientation related to the sun, and the moon’s orbit related to the earth. Prevailing wind is an even worse variable because that in itself is not predictable. Another pseudo-controlled variable is the Hunga-Tonga volcano, which was also not predictable but the impulse nature of the event makes it conducive to analysis, a la impulse response. So the way physics is done here is (1) simulate w/ input controls then (2) cross-validate against historical data … repeat go to (1),
You don’t have to accuse me of “criticizing something … don’t seem to have any knowledge about.” because that in fact is what I am working on. Everyone is in the same boat on this topic. There is no consensus.
CJ,
Who says the physics are different from what has occurred in the past? Physics are physics whether the carbon is introduced into the atmosphere by volcanic action, by humans digging it up and spewing into the air, or by any other means.
As if scientists in other areas don’t vehemently disagree on all sorts of things?
OTOH, other sciences generally don’t suffer the same level of unreasoned attacks as climate science due to the political and financial stakes. It almost sounds as if you’ve been confused by the agitprop of greed heads, power trippers, blowhards, dogmatic culture warriors, and the hoards of poop-flinging flying monkeys that inevitably follow their lead.
The rest of your comment is peculiar. Suffice it to say, there’s no absolute certainty in science.
It’s just a blind spot wrt climate science as a research discipline. The effect known as GHG is fairly well understood and matches observations. Yet, the erratic cycling of the oceanic indices are not well understood and leads to the situation where the heat spike of the last year is largely unexplained. And now the hurricane activity is being revised downward because the ITCZ is creeping northward into the Sahara.
That’s the blind spot, not GHG. Not understanding the fundamentals of natural variation is like not being able to see around the next bend on a mountain switchback. Have no idea what’s coming.
And that’s nothing new. Whether AWG existed or not, still have problems with understanding and predicting natural variation. Might still be referring to the Farmer’s Almanac to get an outlook for the upcoming season’s climate. But now we have the internet and chatGPT to prompt.
to Radge Havers asks
Who says the physics are different from what has occurred in the past?
Climate scientists, astrophysicists and paleo-climate scientists and the IPCC, that’s who. Throw in Gavin Schmidt. And Michael Mann as well. And the scientist here doing work on the AMOC chnages
The Physics that is driving global heating and SLR and climate changes today is uniquely different than the physics that caused prior global warming and SLR and other climate changes. Have you noticed any flood basalts or massive meteor hits or major orbital changes of the planet lately?
Where have you been if you do not know this? What are you trying to prove here, because it is not working and has nothing to do with real climate science.
[Response: Seriously, what are you even talking about? What new physics do you think we have invented? Radiative transfer? Conservation of energy and mass? Heat capacity? Navier-Stokes? Stefan-Boltzmann? Henry’s Law? Thermal expansion? Seems like pretty standard stuff to me… – gavin]
CJ,
“…the fastest ever in millions of years (during the recent run of interglacials) and is being driven by man made ghg emissions that is totally different physics…”
Wait, hang on. You’re not suggesting that the rate of change would somehow represent a change in physics are you? Please say no, because that would be like suggesting that the laws of physics change every time you press the accelerator when you’re driving your car.
Please read what I wrote – obviously, clearly, self-evidently – I never suggested that the rate of change would somehow represent a change in (The Laws of) physics! If you cannot read what is actually written and is still there, there is nothing to discuss.
the above as well as ” It almost sounds as if you’ve been confused by”
The only confused person in this conversation is yourself. What you imagine things might “sound like” to you is 100% your own doing. I cannot fix that nor preempt it. If there was a block function for irritable trolls here, I would use it.
ESCOBAR
What I wrote – obviously, clearly, self-evidently – was addressed to CJ.
So are you a sock puppet of CJ? Either way, consistent with your other comments here, you are very confused. If you can’t get it together, you’re waisting time — yours and everyone else’s.
Obsessing Over Climate Disinformation Is a Wrong Turn
By
Holly Buck
Much of the climate movement is now pouring its energies into combating disinformation. But this focus fails to address real concerns about a green transition and obscures what is needed to win the public over to effective climate action.
from
https://jacobin.com/2024/08/climate-disinformation-green-transition-workers
If there is a role for “climate intellectuals” — for the online climate commentariat, the journalists and national NGO leaders who tell us the story of climate action — it would be to focus on the new opportunities for action on the ground, and knit together those people in Peoria or Altoona who are trying to talk to people about resilience, connecting them in a broader story that fuels their motivation. Instead, the intellectual wing of the climate movement has decided to wage an information war focused on uncovering what Big Oil knew and policing speech.
Given that funding and public attention is limited, this climate-disinformation obsession is a missed opportunity and a strategic dead-end — part of a larger liberal tendency to make disinformation a bogeyman we can blame for our major political problems.
Why Focusing on “Climate Disinformation” Is Counterproductive
On August 8, 2024, the Guardian published a story titled “‘Massive disinformation campaign’ is slowing global transition to green energy” with the subhead “UN says a global ‘backlash’ against climate action is being stoked by fossil fuel companies.” The article quotes a United Nations official at length, without stating whom the author spoke to, or when, or where.
The price of this kind of story isn’t just the energy it costs for the cloud services to bring it to your eyeballs, nor the cost to write it, which is cheap. That is the point: it’s cheap and easy to write content like this and more expensive to report a story about climate action on the ground, or to do research and advocacy that involves organizing and engagement with the public. There is an attention cost to this kind of antidisinformation discourse, though, and that is important. The person scrolling has their attention put on the outrage-inducing fossil fuel companies, rather than what they can do about it.
But the cost of the focus on climate disinformation goes beyond missed opportunities: it could actually diminish the prospects for climate action.
That’s because the focus on “climate disinformation” sets up a negative feedback loop. No one doubts that misinformation is often an issue in today’s politics, especially around climate. But instead of focusing on misinformation alone, we should think of the challenge of engaging the public with climate as a triangle with three points: misinformation, conflicts over values, and distrust of elites. Right now, the climate commentariat is collapsing all of these challenges into a problem of misinformation and failing to deal forthrightly with the value conflicts and trust issues. This in turn creates polarization, inflames those value conflicts, and further erodes trust in science, policymakers, and media institutions.
“The cost of the focus on climate disinformation goes beyond missed opportunities: it could actually diminish the prospects for climate action.”
I’m a social scientist and have convened focus groups with the public around the country; we talk together about how to reach net zero. Many members of the public question whether net-zero greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050 is a realistic goal. People are worried about whether renewables can produce enough energy, and what happens to wind turbines and solar panels at the end of their lifespans. They worry about the unintended environmental consequences of building out the renewable grid. They don’t think they can afford electric cars. And often they bring up the idea that addressing climate change is a way of funneling more money to elites while hitting their own pocketbooks.
We need to listen to those concerns and then do something about them — not discount them merely as the product of disinformation. When a focus group participant in West Virginia tells me that solar panels emit radiation that you can measure with a Geiger counter — I do regard that as misinformation. But when someone questions whether wind and solar will be able to power everything? That’s not misinformation but a real concern.