Climate science from climate scientists...
1 Dec 2016 by group
This month’s open thread. Roll on 2017…
Mike Roberts says
8 Dec 2016 at 6:05 AM
Hey, mike, I am of the opinion that the rate of CO2 increase is speeding up but I was merely quoting Tamino who said that he thinks it is speeding up but doesn’t have a lot of confidence [statistically] in that conclusion. That’s all. Time will tell, as always.
Barton Paul Levenson says
8 Dec 2016 at 6:56 AM
T 71: BPL’s ‘Economics’ . . . On Paltering … A successful palterer will try to avoid being untruthful in each of his/her utterances, but will nonetheless put together a highly misleading picture based on selective reporting, half-truths, and errors of omission.
BPL: Note he doesn’t cite any specifics. The charge is enough. He just wants to give the impression that I’m dishonest without proving it. You could call him a “palterer.”
8 Dec 2016 at 7:00 AM
ES 80: Cap and trade destroys the producers’ ability to maximize profits and reduces the value of undeveloped resources claimed by a company, which subverts the fundamental goal of all corporations. Other methods, such as emissions control(s) and limits on the number of leases for oil, coal or gas, represent direct market intervention, not free trade.
BPL: No kidding. I didn’t say such methods were unintrusive, I said they were less intrusive than direct intervention. Read for context.
ES: Free markets may work locally or within a national context, but only within a legal framework which prevents coercion, corruption and fraud. Regulation is a basic necessity for your “free trade” to work and differences between governments provide numerous opportunities for the unscrupulous to evade regulations and the laws within any nation by cross border operations.
BPL: And how does that contradict anything I said? Did I endorse anarcho-capitalism? I don’t remember doing so. I’m for free enterprise, but I’m not a damn fool about it.
8 Dec 2016 at 7:15 AM
nigelj, Alastair B McDonald, and others…
One. More. Time.
BPL went to considerable effort to explain what a free market is. But you just ignore it. You want to “define” it for yourselves, just like the Denialists want to define away anthropogenic climate change.
Perhaps you guys don’t understand the difference between cause and effect, which is the only explanation I can come up with?
A free market exists when the condition that Barton described exist— multiple buyers and sellers, with approximately equal market power, making exchanges “freely” based on their perceived self-interest.
That’s the effect; by definition, if a monopoly exists, whatever the structural cause, there is no free market.
Nigelj, what your are calling a “true free market” is a policy which is called “laissez-faire capitalism”. It leads, inevitably, to a “not-free-market”.
Are you getting this, cause v effect, policies v outcomes? Try reading BPL again carefully. He points out that the participants will try to “cheat” or gain additional market power, and the government, if it is acting in the interests of all citizens equally, will try to counteract those efforts.
Kevin McKinney says
8 Dec 2016 at 7:46 AM
#93–Thomas, thanks for an intriguing, if highly disturbing, link.
I think it’s quite clear that there is a crisis of applied epistemology (or more precisely, the lack thereof.)
8 Dec 2016 at 11:41 AM
This is from Roy Spencer’s website:
“Contrary to some reports, the satellite measurements are not calibrated in any way with the global surface-based thermometer records of temperature. They instead use their own on-board precision redundant platinum resistance thermometers (PRTs) calibrated to a laboratory reference standard before launch.”
This can’t be true can it? How can a satellite measure temperature directly?
[Response: They measure the emissions from O2 in the microwave band with a spectrometer and we know that these are emitted from broad depths of the atmosphere proportionately to the temperature there. – gavin]
8 Dec 2016 at 11:47 AM
LC at 83: yes, I agree, this looks like a perfect storm and we are on deck to watch the show.
One thing: I don’t bother with the distinction between direct anthro CO2 emissions created by the burning of fossil fuels and the indirect anthro or “natural” CO2 emissions developing as soil warms. If you are to be hanged and you notice that in the drop through the floor you have a good chance of hitting an electrical wire and being electrocuted, does it matter? We triggered the “natural” CO2 emissions imho. And in the long run, the source of CO2 in atmosphere and ocean does not matter, when it hits a toxic level, we notice trouble.
I started watching CO2 because so many news sources were only reporting somewhat rosy stories about dropping human CO2 emission as if we were making progress toward resolving the problem when any reasonable analysis of actual CO2 sats show that CO2 continues to rise and the rate of rise is increasing.
as I think about the hanging and electrocution analogy, I think it would be accurate to discuss jumping off a tall building and risking the danger of hitting a hot wire. We have known about this CO2 problem for a long time and we have chosen to allow it to build. That’s more like stepping off a tall building than falling through trap door.
On the upside, after you step off a building, you can enjoy the wind, the view, you can practice flying or speed-reading, the fall might be fun if you were unaware of the impact consequences if/when the falling ends. Grab your towel and see if you can thumb a ride per Douglas Adams.
Goodbye and thanks for all the fish!
8 Dec 2016 at 4:58 PM
The Marketing of Politics and the Economy 1920s to 2000
The Century of the Self – 4 x 1 hr
Hooray for Freedom and Democracy: the Human Right to be Manipulated, Used and Lied to for Decades.
Many pro-agw/cc proponents including climate scientists themselves have tried to use the fact that the Rio Summit, the UNFCCC, and IPCC were called for and created by the likes of right-wingish free-marketeers and neoliberal economic theorists such as Thatcher, Reagan and George HW Bush.
Meanwhile they neglect the fact that the intended effect of these bodies was to interfere with and slow down by corralling the scientific work via the “expert IPCC panels” and thus to delay by many years the import of that science being fully reported to the public through using the IPCC institutionalized political processes that determined that ALL Summaries must be approved by ALL the Govts of the day before being released.
And so it was that any and every truly expert Climate Scientist or professional body was by default partly silenced in reporting their work and having it reported especially when it in some way seemed to CONFLICT with the last IPCC Report Findings – those Reports became the Gospel and created 25 years of unnecessary arguments among scientists and via the Media.
It is the creation of the UNFCCC and IPCC supposedly to facilitate reasonable consensus that has significantly fueled the disbelief in the minds of the public of a scientific consensus.
I say this was INTENTIONAL and that the only reason the UNFCCC was promoted by right wing political neocons in the late 1980s and 1990s was to take control of the scientific processes and rhetoric and reporting to the public by isolating people like James Hansen and stopping him from making statements at Congressional Committees that may gain traction.
The circumstantial proof for the above is in the absence of ongoing support for the truth of climate science by Thatcher, and Reagan, and GHW Bush and many many others who established and agreed to the UNFCCC.
Further proof is in the fact that GHW Bush not once supported the public outreach of Al Gore in the early 2000s or his Lectures/Movie. That GHW Bush has not gone on record ever since supporting the work and the truth of climate scientists.
The Govts read “politicians” in the early 1990s also determined that the IPCC would NEVER be funded properly.
This ensured contributing scientists who wanted to contribute to the process had to VOLUNTEER their time and energy, to do the work in their own private time and also pay their own travel and living expenses when engaged in that work.
And the non-scientific participants, from Saudi reps to denialists economists and PAID CORPORATE SHILLS like Toll became “authors” and influenced the wording of IPCC reports … they made it impossible for reasonable rational scientists to cope with the system.
The INTENDED result was that over time less and less climate scientists and other experts would put themselves through such an offensive and difficult process again – and that is precisely what happened.
The best Scientists and Experts QUIT the IPCC process – go ask them why they did that if AGW/CC is so important to them.
Summarizing that in a few words is that the Bought and Paid POLITICIANS intentionally Hijacked the Science and the Scientists and the Environmentalists and the Poorer less powerful nations of the world by establishing the UNFCCC and the IPCC.
WWII was not won by the USSR and the Western Allies by being NICE~!
8 Dec 2016 at 8:00 PM
Gullibility is a failure of ‘social intelligence’ in which a person is easily tricked or manipulated into an ill-advised course of action.
It is closely related to credulity, which is the tendency to believe unlikely propositions that are unsupported by evidence.
Classes of people especially vulnerable to exploitation due to gullibility include children, the elderly, the developmentally disabled, and those passionate about and emotionally attached to urgent AGW/CC solutions – as well as those who deny the facts of climate science.
The words gullible and credulous are commonly used as synonyms. Goepp & Kay (1984) state that while both words mean “unduly trusting or confiding”, gullibility stresses being duped or made a fool of, suggesting a lack of intelligence, whereas credulity stresses uncritically forming beliefs, suggesting a lack of skepticism.
Jewell (2006) states the difference is a matter of degree: the gullible are “the easiest to deceive”, while the credulous are “a little too quick to believe something, but they usually aren’t stupid enough to act on it.”
Yamagishi, Kikuchi & Kosugi (1999) characterize a gullible person as one who is both credulous and naïve.
Greenspan (2009) stresses the distinction that gullibility involves an action in addition to a belief, and there is a cause-effect relationship between the two states: “gullible outcomes typically come about through the exploitation of a victim’s credulity.”
Some writers on gullibility have focused on the relationship between the negative trait of gullibility and positive trait of trust. The two are related, as gullibility involves an act of trust.
Greenspan (2009) writes that exploiters of the gullible “are people who understand the reluctance of others to appear untrusting and are willing to take advantage of that reluctance.”
In 1980, Julian Rotter wrote that the two are not equivalent: rather, gullibility is a foolish application of trust despite warning signs that another is untrustworthy.
What does the research say?
Intelligence involves risk-awareness and intellectual disability involves risk-unawareness: Implications of a theory of common sense
Survival in the everyday world (in both social and practical functioning) depends on one’s ability to recognise and avoid going down the worst possible path, especially when doing so places one at risk of death, injury, or social disaster.
The positive changes that have reduced GHG emissions by a shift to renewable energy supply, tougher regulations, and the closing the most polluting power stations in the EU and China and elsewhere have all been achieved despite having a price on carbon and not having a price on carbon.
Those gains were all been achieved due to the success of a higher level of ’social intelligence’ in the public domain and NOT as a result of a Price on Carbon – no ETS, no Carbon Tax and no Fee & Dividend system was required to achieve these kinds of the results.
The #1 reason why improvements and changes were made was due to Governments acting proactively implementing specific Energy related Regulations and Laws in their nations.
Such Regulatory controls by Government is a direct effect and a reflection of the ’social intelligence’ of their people.
America! How did the elections go? I see everyone in Congress standing for re-election was voted back in as your chosen Representatives and Senators.
The ‘Gullible’ believe that without a Price on Carbon acting upon the energy markets nothing will be happen to drive real change in energy behavior, practices, or consumer choices significant enough to solve AGW/CC.
Of course they are wrong. The facts already prove them wrong but still they do not wish to look at the actual facts or evidence.
The long term marketing and rhetoric of ‘economic theorists’ and political shills and political parties seeking Votes has convinced the gullible that a “Carbon Price solution” is critical and will make THE biggest difference – despite zero evidence to support such a belief.
They promote a market driven response because the whole world has bought into all the ‘economic myths’ sold to a gullible ignorant public by neoliberals, neocons, corporate shills, the globalist ideologues for decades.
But more than anything else the acceptance of seriously flawed economic theories as ‘Priory Truths’ without proper skepticism and critical thinking being applied is what creates gullible people.
Putting a “price on income & profitability” aka Taxation has never stopped companies from doing business nor people working for a living (no matter what the tax rate is).
And yet people foolishly believe that putting a “price on carbon” must by default eventually stop companies from digging it up, using it and continuing to sell the energy that comes from it and stop the general public from buying it.
Rational Regulation and Laws instead directly target the real world actions of all the actors operating in the energy domain by first reducing harmful activity over time and eventually banning it outright.
The effect is immediate and permanent when targeting the actions and choices made by Industry sectors where and when it happens – the physical acts that are actually exacerbating & causing this ongoing harm to human beings.
Whether that’s banning slavery or banning oil and gas fracking … it’s all the same philosophically and morally PLUS it’s proven to work across historical time frames.
If you truly believe that AGW/CC is an urgent critical matter to address, then common sense should tell you that remaining gullible is not a viable option.
Here’s what a hundred years of examples in human gullibility looks like.
Within climate science AGW/CC beliefs is a distinct lack of ‘social intelligence’ and ‘gullibility’ that makes graphs look like this one in 2016:
Or remain gullible [# 82 Mal Adapted ] and promote sites like this on a pro-AGW/CC science platform:
Americans who believe that taxing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases — is imperative to reduce global warming.
With Board members such as Robert J. Shapiro, Ph.D. co-founder and chairman of Sonecon, LLC, a Fossil Fuel / Corporate Lobbyist and political economics globalist PAID SHILL for 25 years!
Sonecon’s Robert Shapiro also participated in the conference call and explained that the study […]
Shapiro said one reason oil and natural gas stocks performed so well is because industry is a high investor in new technologies – which goes along with surging in domestic energy production.
Shapiro: “The lesson, frankly, from this analysis is that the pension plans would be in better shape if they increased their share of assets they invested in oil and natural gas.”
I repeat: Gullibility is a failure of ’social intelligence’ in which a person is easily tricked or manipulated into an ill-advised course of action.
8 Dec 2016 at 9:01 PM
The greatest beneficiaries of a Carbon Price and F&D are always the Banks and Financial institutions, Share Traders and the Money Merchants. Every time money changes hands they take their cut – increase the money flow by introducing a fully refundable Carbon Tax F&D system they all make even more Money for themselves – – with no guarantee that even one less pound of carbon will be burnt as a result.
Why would you be so gullible to BUY into an Economic Marketing Theory that’s it’s OK to wait another decade before applying a $100/ton on CO2 emissions in the USA when it is already contributing ~25% of Global GHG emissions with a population that is only 4% of the whole world and believe it will make an economy wide difference or could be the Game Changer to the fossil fuel industry and the corporations and employees that directly rely upon it’s existence? Because it tells them something they want to hear – it allays their fears and they have something to hang their hopes and drams upon.
And where is the scientific evidence that $100/ton of CO2 is the right figure that would represent ALL the “externalizations” and “socialized costs” of burning Fossil Fuels today? There is no evidence.
It’s a figure plucked out of a lucky dip hat. Originally it was said by CCL that $43/ton of CO2 was the right figure. And what happens if the $ figure is closer to $1,000 or $5,000 of HARM per Ton of CO2 emitted? It’s a total failure and a disaster waiting to happen.
How could $10 or a $100 / ton ever help to bring balance into the system? It would not.
A HOPE that some mythical newly enlightened Consumer will suddenly arise and act in a way that’s socially and environmentally RESPONSIBLE because now there’s a price on Carbon? It’s hopeless to reply on Hope – how did that work out with Obama? Very badly. Now you got Trump.
What good is a HOPE that 10 years from now the reality might begin to change fast enough to make a significant difference to global temperatures and global GHG emissions by tinkering around the edges of the real world economy, marketing and business practices? No good at all.
This is where the lying manipulators – like SHAPIRO of the Carbon Tax Center – who play both sides of the fence against each other –; the misguided and incompetent like CCL https://citizensclimatelobby.org ; and the gullible who believe in them and the Myth that current Economic Theory with a Carbon Price is the #1 Key Driver for effecting SIGNIFICANT change in fossil fuel consumption. When it is not.
Oh well, please excuse my indulgence and verbose ways. If there was less falsehoods and myths being promoted here in the comments section then I would have much less to say about anything. ;-)
Kudos to all the RC Scientists. At least you tried. The outcome is not on your heads.
Good Bye and Good Luck.
Charles Hughes says
8 Dec 2016 at 11:36 PM
I’m no expert but in my expert opinion we’re screwed. I said a few years ago that I thought the Antarctic ice could go quickly and without much warning. I was told this couldn’t possibly happen by one of the authorities on ice. This piece is the size of……….. wait for it……….. INDIA! Not Indiana… India! Of course since this piece of ice is apparently gone that will clear the way for more and probably bigger chunks of ice to go sliding off into the ocean. Amirite? I don’t think we’re going to be around in 2050 to worry about whether or not GAT reaches the 2C threshold. If this is happening now what difference will another degree more or less make? Somebody talk me down.
9 Dec 2016 at 1:21 PM
Shawn at Robert Scribbler posts this in the comments on rate of CO2 rise:
Using the monthly data from NOAA for CO2 levels I was curious to see how quickly we increased ppm by ten parts. What I found is more than a little alarming if you push the grade into the future. First month that showed 320 ppm May 1960, First year all months at or above 320 ppm 1968. Eight year span.
First month at 330 ppm May 1972, all 1977, 5 years.
First month at 340 ppm March 1980, all 1983, 3 years
First month at 350 ppm May 1986, all 1989, 3 years
First month at 360 ppm May 1993, all 1997, 4 years
First month at 370 ppm April 1999, all 2002, 3 years
First month at 380 ppm April 2004, all 2007, 3 years
First month at 390 ppm March 2010, all 2012, 2 years
First month at 400 ppm April 2014, all 2016? one month to go!
Another way to look at it is the jump between the initial round number to the next in years:
I don’t have the tech savvy to graph this, but the jump times are on a staggeringly steep plunge no? or rise depending on which side you decide to graph. A rough average seems like the time it is taking to get from one month at said round number to all at or above is slightly less than half the time it takes to get to the next one on the 10’s. If these numbers keep going in opposite directions we will be doing 10 parts every two years by the end of the 2020’s.
mike says: Is the rate of increase rising? Yes. I don’t know how people can look at the raw data and not recognize this trend. Ideology is my guess? It may be a lukewarmer ideology that believes that if emission reports are looking good, then we must be moving in the right direction. You have to be able to set that belief aside when you look at the raw date of CO2 sats in atmosphere or you may not be able to read the numbers on the wall.
December 8, 2016: 404.02 ppm
December 8, 2015: 400.87 ppm
9 Dec 2016 at 1:33 PM
Yesterday, the merry elves of the Texas Public Policy Foundation celebrated the season at The Heritage Foundation.
Roast climate science sauced with sweet crude was served on a bed of Christmas stockings stuffed with coal.
9 Dec 2016 at 3:42 PM
Invite Ivanka Trump to Antarctica so she can see what’s happening right now! or something. Maybe some wouldn’t like the idea of peddling to the royal family but be pragmatic. She said climate change is her signature issue and she is passionate about it. So educate her, tweet her, show her visually, a picture is worth a thousand words. If we can’t get in from the front door we’d have go in by the side doors. The best we can hope for is we may well be standing still but we can’t go back. We’ve already lost 16 years since GWB.
10 Dec 2016 at 2:22 PM
Thomas has got it absolutely fixed in his head that to acknowledge there is a science of economics, inevitably leads to favoring ineffective laissez-faire economic policies that will crash civilization. Only direct, socialist-style regulation can save the day, in his view. Note that he believes the elasticity of demand for fossil fuel energy is exactly zero–raising the price even an infinite amount will lead to “not one less pound” of carbon being burned. This is an empirically testable proposition, but like a climate denier, he will come up with an infinite number of reasons why any relevant empirical results can be ignored or discounted.
To the man with an ideological axe to grind, everything looks like a grindstone.
10 Dec 2016 at 2:30 PM
Still wondering about that ice melt the size of India? Was it land based? Anyone know the story on that? Maybe one of the experts here at realclimate can post about it. Or if any of you have links to further information about it I would appreciate it.
8 Dec 2016 at 8:00 PM…
How come Thomas never gets to say anything?
Omega Centauri says
10 Dec 2016 at 2:34 PM
Charles @111. Its sea ice not an ice shelf. Sea ice fluctuates by several million KMsquared due to seasonal influences. More likely than not it will recover. This doesn’t directly affect the glacial ice, although if it contributes to ocean warming, then eventually some of that additional heat may migrate under the ice shelves.
10 Dec 2016 at 4:13 PM
Zebra @104, thanks and I understand the angle you are coming from.
As you say “words matter”. I would suggest to most people free market means what it implies, a market where people are free to do almost anything they like with only very minimal government rules. Just listen to people and it should be clear to you they perceive it this way. Free means what it says, free. We have to use words honestly with their most obvious meaning.
You cannot regulate a market in the ways you say and claim its a free market. That is an oxymoron or contradiction and wont fool anyone.
And a free market will by its nature produce monopolies.
And a free market is pretty much “laissez faire capitalism”. This is what the average person perceives and it is futile to try to change that perception.
I would be the first to say laissez faire capitalism or extreme free market theory (or neoliberalism, the Chicago school) doesn’t work or at least has some flaws in it.
What we should be promoting both ideologically and in terms of accurate use of words is markets that operate as freely as possible but with sensible regulation and governments that have the courage to break up large monopolies. You appear to be promoting this anyway? So we are in basic agreement.
I think a good and honest description would be a “fluid market with sensible regulation”.
Please do me a favour and read what I said again, so you don’t misinterpret it (again)
Ignorant Guy says
10 Dec 2016 at 6:44 PM
To Mike and Mike Roberts and all others who discuss the possibility that the rate of CO2 increase is speeding up. There is a graph at NOAA ESRL that shows the trend rather clearly, I think. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gr.html .
Alastair B. McDonald says
10 Dec 2016 at 7:21 PM
You wrote “A free market exists when the condition that Barton described exist— multiple buyers and sellers, with approximately equal market power, making exchanges “freely” based on their perceived self-interest.”
What I am saying is that these conditions do not exist. There aren’t multiple sellers of computer operating systems, or social media platforms, or search engines. There are only a few, dominated by quasi-monopolies or cartels. The same applies in the pharmacy industry, in mining, and in agricultural fertilizers. In a free market monopolies form, and the rich get ricer. It is all based on a natural positive feedback. It was first described in the parable of the talents.
Adam Smith, who first discovered the ‘invisible hand’ also wrote “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”
10 Dec 2016 at 7:48 PM
I understand it’s sea ice. But it removes the denier’s argument that “Antarctic sea ice is growing!” in one stroke. Of course, it was already irrelevant, since Arctic sea ice was declining five times faster.
10 Dec 2016 at 7:53 PM
You can see what is happening with the Arctic and Antarctic sea ice here: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
It seems that the low amounts of Arctic sea ice during May and June meant that the sea water exposed then was heated during the long Arctic summer days. That led to the ice being slow to recover in the Fall, despite the minimum extent being less than the record in 2012. The question no one dares to ask is if the ice does not recover completely this spring will there be even more melting in 2017. How long before it is gone completely now we have passed the tipping point where the winter sea ice no longer recovers?
You can see the situation in the Antarctic by clicking on the Antarctic tab. The ice there suddenly melted during the first week in September and has remained low for the time of year since then. With lower sea ice at both poles then the global sea ice is at record lows for the time of year.
This loss of sea ice at both poles alters the planetary albedo, which has to be balanced at the top of the atmosphere. That can only happen if more clouds form. I don’t think anyone has worked out yet how much global temperatures will have to rise for that to happen.
MA Rodger says
11 Dec 2016 at 6:09 AM
Chrles Hughes @116,
Concerning that “ice melt the size of India”, the language being used to explain the situation is not helpful. You can even encounter headlines proclaiming “A chunk of sea ice the size of India has melted”.
To start with, nothing has “melted” (not since the summer) and there is certainly no “chunk” and to make things add up to the size of India (3.3 million sq km) you have to include the Antarctic in you analysis and compare today with 20 years-ago.
What has happened in the Arctic is that the Arctic Ocean is not freezing over as rapidly as usual this autumn/winter. Even compared with recent years which, like this year were re-freezing after large summer melts, this year is truly exceptional.
It was a similar story through the Spring, during the Arctic melt season this year. As this CarbonBrief post says, the 2016 Arctic Sea Ice Extent has been record-breaking for more-than half the year-so-far. And by this Tuesday, it would have been record breaking for 183 days – that is half a full year (using JAXA data).
The reason is the crazy temperatures up in the Arctic this year. As this re-analysis of high Arctic temperatures shows, this autumn the Arctic temperatures have been mad. See also the GISTEMP anomaly map. Even up into the atmosphere, temperatures have been breaking the records as UAH TLTv5.6 shows (usually 2 clicks to download your attachment).
As this NSIDC graph shoes, this has resulted in 2016 Arctic SIE through the Autumn running up to (& ocasionally more-than) 1 million sq km below previous records, and approaching 2 million below the 1981-2010 average. To reach/exceed the 3.3 million sq km of India, you need to add the Antrctic anomaly that is also running at about 2 million. Thus the Daily Mail tells us “The total extent of polar sea ice on December 4 was about 3.84 million square kilometers (1.48 million square miles) below the 1981-2010 average. That is roughly the size of India, or two Alaskas.”
11 Dec 2016 at 8:38 AM
“fluid market with sensible regulation”.
I’ll start getting the bumper stickers printed up right away. (sarcasm)
I think that either you don’t understand what you are talking about or that you don’t actually agree with me on policy. So I will continue to correct language that has been co-opted for propaganda purposes, or “doublespeak” as they say.
If we were to follow your advice, we would allow people to continue thinking that “two degrees increase in average temperature” means every place on the planet would be a bit pleasantly warmer. Another win for the FF crowd.
11 Dec 2016 at 1:08 PM
for MR at 101:
Here is a sample of what tamino has said.
from Oct 11 2015
“There are variations, but overall the rise in the growth rate has been consistent, and there’s no real evidence that the growth rate has stopped increasing, let along started to decline.
It seems that we know this much: CO2 in the atmosphere is still increasing, and the rate of increase has itself been increasing. But it’s not yet clear whether that rate has changed since 2000…
But it seems not yet to have realized that what we really need to do is stop CO2 increase. The frightening truth is that not only have we failed to stop CO2 growth, we haven’t even slowed it down.
The more frightening truth is that as warming increases, we run the risk of triggering feedbacks in the carbon cycle. If the warming we’ve already brought about, or that soon to come, releases yet more CO2 from sources other than fossil fuels, well then … the phrase that comes to mind is, “We’re fucked.”
from Jan 9, 2016:
“There’s still no sign that we’ve stopped the acceleration of atmospheric CO2, let alone actually decreased the growth rate.
The world is finally waking up to the fact that to avoid climate disaster, we need to reduce CO2 emissions. But it seems not yet to have realized that what we really need to do is stop CO2 increase. The frightening truth is that not only have we failed to stop CO2 growth, we haven’t even slowed it down.”
from Apr 17 2016:
“There’s a distinct visual impression that recently (since about 2012) it’s been rising faster than before 2012, and it’s been considerably higher for the last 5 months.
Part of that is almost surely due to the recent el Niño…
There’s still the possibility of faster rise since about 2010, but I don’t have a lot of confidence in that conclusion. I do, however, have a lot of confidence in the conclusion that the rate of CO2 growth has not decreased. There’s been no deceleration. Whatever emissions reductions have happened, haven’t yet slowed down the rise of CO2.”
from Jun 21 2016:
“In case you’re wondering why all these changes are taking place, there are many reasons. But the most important, by far, is the fact that we’re adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. The one we’re having the biggest impact on is carbon dioxide (CO2)…
There are fluctuations, which are dominated by a seasonal cycle. But again, there’s also a trend. This particular trend isn’t following a straight line; the rate at which CO2 is increasing has been getting faster and faster.
The world is finally recognizing the need to reduce our emissions of CO2 (and other greenhouse gases). But so far, its atmospheric concentration continues to rise at an ever-increasing pace. If we don’t stop burning fossil fuels at the rate we’re going, we’ll be destined to pass that 2°C threshold which is believed to be the “critical limit” for dangerous climate change. If we don’t stop soon, how much danger we’ll face from going far beyond the 2°C limit is something we really don’t want to find out.
I think Tamino has been pretty clear and is looking at the same date I review and coming to the same conclusion. The rate of increase is increasing and there is possibility of breakdown in natural carbon cycle that lead to the conclusion that he used: “we’re fucked”
Mike and Hank Roberts: are you guys related? this MR discussion is exactly the one that I had with HR this past year. I think it’s important that we are careful with our language, our analysis and conclusions. Sowing doubt about our situation wrt CO2 increase is a very bad idea in my opinion. If and when it becomes apparent that the rate of increase has actually stopped rising we can celebrate a bit and then move on to the issue that a static rate of increase is still a disaster, but a static rate of increase would suggest that our feeble efforts to reduce emissions are starting to show results. We are not there yet.
Please note that the moment when Tamino expressed lack of confidence about rate of increase was in the context of a higher rate since 2010. Go to the source if you want. Ask Tamino directly in the comments over there about the rate of increase. I think HR has done that in the past, but I don’t know if Tamino answered directly. EN is a fluctuation in rate of increase. The falloff as EN recedes is likely to be misreported and misunderstood as a real change in the accumulation of CO2 in atmosphere and ocean. Complicated stuff and you have to read carefully and think hard about this stuff and even then, it is challenging.
As “natural” carbon sources come on line and human emissions drop, there will be a grain or shadow of truth to the assertion that our species is not causing global warming. The deniers will have a hay day with this development and will misrepresent it through stupidity or devious intention. The fact that human emissions triggered the “natural” carbon cycle changes will be overwhelmed by trumpeting about how AGW is “actually” a natural process.
God help our kids and grandkids.
11 Dec 2016 at 1:33 PM
Boy, here we go folks. Get ready to duck and cover. Putin is after you.
WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald J. Trump’s transition team has circulated an unusual 74-point questionnaire at the Department of Energy that requests the names of all employees and contractors who have attended climate change policy conferences, as well as emails and documents associated with the conferences.
11 Dec 2016 at 1:38 PM
We’re in serious trouble with Trump. There is no bottom to this guy.
President-elect Donald Trump is expected to name as his secretary of state Exxon Mobile CEO Rex Tillerson, who has ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin, NBC News and the New York Times reported. Both reports said they were based on two anonymous sources close to the transition process.
11 Dec 2016 at 2:07 PM
You worry that the intervals to increase atmospheric CO2 by 10ppm are ”on a staggeringly steep plunge.” and feel unable to produce a graph of the data.
May I demostrate a form of graph that is available to all.
320-330 .. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
330-340 .. XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
340-350 .. XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
350-360 .. XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
360-370 .. XXXXXXXXXXXX
370-380 .. XXXXXXXXXX
380-390 .. XXXXXXXXXX
390-400 .. XXXXXXXX
I produced it using annual CO2 data rather than monthly data so the numbers differ a little from yours. The data is set out in the table below, hopefully not too adventurous with the width.
… .. … … … … … … .. … … … .. ….. … .CO2-emissions-in-interval …… Gt(C)
threashold.. year of ppm ….. interval …FF emissions .. All emissions .. CO2/ppm
… 330.1 … … … 1974 … … … 9 … … … .. 34.408 … …… 47.768 ….. … … 4.75
… 340.1 … … … 1981 … … … 7 … … … .. 34.878 … …… 43.928 ….. … … 4.39
… 351.6 … … … 1988 … … … 7 … … … .. 37.427 … …… 47.367 ….. … … 4.12
… 360.8 … … … 1995 … … … 7 … … … .. 42.886 … …… 53.736 ….. … … 5.84
… 371.1 … … … 2001 … … … 6 … … … .. 39.492 … …… 48.692 ….. … … 4.73
… 381.9 … … … 2006 … … … 5 … … … .. 37.186 … …… 42.166 ….. … … 3.90
… 391.6 … … … 2011 … … … 5 … … … .. 43.475 … …… 47.845 ….. … … 4.93
… 400.8 … … … 2015 … … … 4 … … … .. 38.554 … …… 42.444 ….. … … 4.61
This rather suggests that the reason for the ”on a staggeringly steep plunge.” is man-made emissions. There is nothing else driving the ‘plunge’.
nigel jones says
11 Dec 2016 at 3:41 PM
Zebra @124, I’m sorry but you are the person using incorrect language. You are clearly promoting government intervention in markets and restrictions on individual behaviour and still trying to label that as “free markets”. Its not going to convince people.
I’m talking purely about the word labels you are using, not so much the content of policies you are promoting.Adam smith was pretty clear that free markets meant free from government controls like tariffs, for example.
I notice I’m not the only one who disagrees with your comments.
Personally I do believe governments should sometimes intervene in markets. Markets function better with some government rules and sometimes government ownership of certain things. Like I said, governments should break up certain monopolies. But its absurd to label these as “free markets”.
The entire term “free markets” is most unfortunate term with confusing connotations. We should avoid it, and concentrate instead on defining good policies.
I struggle to see how you conclude my comments on markets mean I think the world can do well with higher temperatures. We are clearly causing climate change and its a problem.
The way to reduce climate change is to convince the politicians and public that we need some sort of carbon tax, and to promote clean energy and have some government legislation that promotes clean energy. To do this we have to convince people that governments have a role in correcting certain types of behaviour and this is not an unjustifiable imposition on market activities and freedoms. We have to show people markets usually work well left free to operate as they think best, but sometimes don’t work to solve certain types of problems (like the climate issue) and need a push from governments. We have to prove this is justified and not an excessive restriction on personal freedom.
The science of climate change has become very solid and last years temperatures are an eye opener. In many ways the challenges of moving forwards are more political and ideological in the sense of convincing people that certain measures are philosophically sensible and not undue impositions on personal freedoms.
I know exactly what I’m talking about and I’m 100% correct.
11 Dec 2016 at 5:11 PM
115 Barton Paul Levenson says:
“To the man with an ideological axe to grind, everything looks like a grindstone.”
Yes. and that applies directly to you BPL in spades. For example this ludicrous non-evidence based stupidity out of your mouth, again!
“Only direct, socialist-style regulation can save the day, in his view.”
What’s “socialist-style” got to do with it? Nothing Zero Zip Nada.
Most American’s pride themselves on being as nation of non-socialists.
Does “regulation” exist in the USA. Yes.
Who introduced those Regulation Laws?
Well ‘non-socialist’ democrats and republicans did that.
How long have Regulations imposed by Governments existed in the USA?
Oh gosh, since the 18th Century.
Following BPLs typical ideologically driven beliefs coupled with a lack of logic and never-ending falsehoods about others and reality, this means that America is a Socialist nation with a conga line of Socialist Governments; and because BPL always votes Democrat it means that BPL is the worse kind of Socialist there is in America.
BPL uses a regulated telephone system, flies in regulated aeroplanes, catches regulated buses and trains, drives and owns a regulated motor vehicle, works in a regulated industry, gets paid wages and benefits according to a complex set regulations, doctors are regulated, hospitals are regulated, traffic lights are regulated, vehicle insurance and registration is regulated, gas stations are regulated, schools are regulated, the police are regulated, shipping is regulated, TV and radio is regulated, Taxis are regulated, and of course electrical apliances and motor vehicle manufacturiong are regulated.
Shsssh, don’t tell BPL he may have a mental breakdown after realises what a disgusting socialist nation he lives in.
11 Dec 2016 at 9:18 PM
Is anyone else going to the AGU meeting, also going to the protest on Tuesday?
12 Dec 2016 at 7:02 AM
T 130: Shsssh, don’t tell BPL he may have a mental breakdown after realises what a disgusting socialist nation he lives in.
BPL: Thomas apparently thinks I’m unaware that there’s extensive regulation in the US, and government programs, and that we don’t have very free markets here. He also thinks that because I generally favor free markets, I must have some kind of phobic reaction to any kind of socialism. Nope to both. I’m a former syndicalist myself, if you know what that is (it’s a good bet T does not), and my wife is a Christian Socialist. Once again, T thinks that if you believe economics is a science, you must therefore embrace Ayn Rand-style anarcho-capitalism. He can’t separate ideology from science–just like a climate denier.
Vendicar Decarian says
12 Dec 2016 at 9:39 AM
122 – Arctic ice melt.
Let me prefix this with what one American Republican Trump supporter asked me yesterday.
“Who cares if the polar ice caps melt?”
Later he proclaimed that numerical averages were “marxist bunk” since they don’t represent anything physical.
In any case, don’t forget that exposed water also freezes faster than water capped with ice. So the freeze curve should get somewhat steeper once the sun goes below the horizon.
So you have a competition between initially warmer water and faster cooling due to the lack of ice. The warming obviously wins because it is producing the lack of ice, but the point is that eventually the cold will win and the ice area will be larger than you might expect from the late freezing. I.E. you aren’t getting as much heat left over from season to season as you might expect.
Nevertheless, the reality is of course that the caps are melting. No more alarm is called for today than it was called for last year, or the year before. The situation is alarming enough.
12 Dec 2016 at 10:05 AM
Nigel J and Alastair M,
You obviously are too attached to the doublespeak version of the term “free market” to make progress in understanding.
There is a perfectly good and clear expression– “laissez-faire capitalism” to describe the policy of minimal government intervention in transactions (beyond establishing the capitalist framework). Why do we need another, except for propaganda purposes?
A “free market” describes the desirable outcome of government policy (when government policy is promoting the general welfare). A free market is simply a tool promoted and enabled by government to optimally allocate resources.
So, again, I am not willing to allow the misuse of the term without pushback. It creates the false impression that laissez-faire is a desirable outcome.
Now, I agree with Nigel that it is common to conflate the two terms, but there is no rational argument that they are synonyms. I guess that Nigel is OK with “average temperature rise of two degrees ” being equated with “typical temperature rise of two degrees” because that incorrect conflation is also common?
You can’t educate the public without educating the public.
Alastair, nothing is perfect or “ideal”. In some areas, competition will still exist even if the government hasn’t intervened and there are only a few players. For example, I don’t know that having more than say six operating systems makes any sense. On the other hand, the Europeans intervene to prevent too much vertical integration with hardware. Using market power that way is indeed anti-competitive, and the government properly steps in. So, if I can choose freely which of six OS to put on my machine, are you saying that isn’t a free market?
12 Dec 2016 at 4:02 PM
MAR at 128. Thanks, but I pasted comments from Shawn on Robert Scribbler in my post at 112.. Shawn is the person that says he probably does not have the tech savvy to graph the change. The “staggering steep” stuff is also Shawn. My comments start with mike says: …
I like your simple graph. I reposted Shawn’s comments with the idea that a slightly different presentation on CO2 increase might help folks who are having trouble seeing that the rate of CO2 increase is increasing.
IG at 119, yes, thanks for the link. raw numbers “speak” to me so the list of years with ppm increase at the lower left of the screen tell me that CO2 is increasing and the rate of increase is increasing.
I think it’s important to recognize and speak with others to let them know that the level of CO2 in increasing and the rate of increase is also increasing. I realize that this is not good news for those of us who have bought a Prius, turned our thermostats down and switched to all LED lighting, but facts are stubborn things. Or at least they used to be stubborn things.
I think Dec is going to be the flat month when the EN bump finally recedes and we will begin seeing monthly ppm increases of under 3 ppm with yr on yr comparisons. But I think we have woken the climate beast now by driving the numbers up to the 405 plus range. Crowther’s soil study looks like good science and bad news.
12 Dec 2016 at 8:50 PM
Forward this to your future President
Noam Chomsky on Climate Change (December 2016) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWKrOr29dn0
12 Dec 2016 at 10:21 PM
Zebra @134, people do conflate the terms laissez faire capitalism and free markets. That’s the problem. I don’t think you can change that, sadly. The way people conflate the terms really annoys me.
I get what you are saying from your earlier posts, which appears to be broadly that governments create an environment that enables markets to work well, and you call this a free market. You appear to want markets to work fairly, and that limits be put on monopoly behaviour, and government has sufficient regulations to protect the environment. What you appear to be promoting is a sensible market as free as possible from people who abuse others, or manipulate things in insidious ways.
I would be in 100% agreement. This is capitalism made sensible.
I just personally think leave it at that and not try to put a label on it although Europe calls it the mixed economy, but this is another label that is so general its meaningless.
I agree about monopolies, they mostly cause problems due to their tendency to over charge people and dominate markets, and governments have a perfect philosophical justification to break them up, because competition is often better and creates a more vibrant market.
However there are exceptions. Some things are natural monopolies like electricity networks. These can only work properly with government oversight or ownership. The world also doesn’t want dozens of confusing computer operating systems, but because of this governments have to keep a close eye on the big players like Microsoft and Apple.
Economics is not black and white except to fanatical libertarians. This is why I dislike simplistic labels like free markets.
The important thing relating to climate change is markets in fossil fuels have clearly not self regulated to reduce emissions. Instead they largely deny the science and see it all as someone elses problem. But the profit motive is strong and it would be unrealistic to expect them to voluntarily reduce emissions.
This is what economics calls a market failure or negative externality. In such situations its justified for governments to intervene. Whatever ones thoughts about role of government and extent of their powers if we let the environment become totally ruined the debate about government power will be somewhat academic.
Jim Hunt says
13 Dec 2016 at 3:42 AM
Vendicar @133 – The sun is already just about as far “below the horizon” as it gets in the Arctic. Don’t forget that ice that forms later under warmer air ends up thinner than “normal” by the time the sun rises above the horizon again. You might like to ponder the effect of moisture and precipitation too. I’ll leave it to your own discretion to decide how alarming the current Arctic sea ice volume graphs are.
Al @123 – “Nothing has “melted” (not since the summer)”?
Whilst the area in question is certainly smaller than India I have recently argued that the autumnal “Fram Strait Cyclone” did actually melt some sea ice, and not merely compact it:
13 Dec 2016 at 4:33 AM
Regarding #106 and Gavin’s answer about the satellite temperature calibration: but aren’t they calibrated with balloon data?
13 Dec 2016 at 8:43 AM
I looked into this some time ago so “if I recall correctly” applies.
There is “real-time” calibration on-board using standards (as well as looking at “space”, I believe,) to verify the functioning of the detector and the instrument.
That is not the same as establishing the correlation between the radiation detected and the temperature distribution in the atmosphere that produces the radiation being detected, which involves some complicated algorithms.
The latter may be what you are thinking involves balloon data, but probably isn’t as direct as you imagine.
Hope that helps.
13 Dec 2016 at 10:32 AM
Jim Hunt @138,
Yes, there will be some melting within the process that has given this record-low autumn Arctic SIE. I measure from JAXA that the cyclone from start to finish saw the SIE drop back 800,000 sq km further behind the previous record, but as you say, with compaction in the storm not all that would be melt. So no more melt than a couple of the tewenty-six Indian states in area: certainly never all twenty-six.
13 Dec 2016 at 11:28 AM
I agree with everything you wrote in #127 except “I know exactly what I’m talking about and I’m 100% correct.” I do not know exactly what I’m talking about. I am not a professional economist, and I am not sure they even they really understand economics either. Nor do I think I am 100% correct. Perhaps 90%, but I am 100% sure I still have more to learn.
I just wish Zebra and Barton would adopt the same attitude rather than bashing out what they learned from Regan, Thatcher and Clinton.
Zebra, I agree that there is a lot of double talk going on here. Does a free market mean that described by Barton where the are many stall holders competing and so all charging the lowest price, or does it mean a system where a few entrepreneurs are free to exploit the workers and consumers? That is the situation we have at present where the rich get richer and the workers get poorer.
Moreover, in a situation where every man is free to behave in his own best interests, leads to the “Tragedy of the Commons”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons That is what is driving climate change. With every nation increasing their fossil fuel consumption in order to remove poverty, then we are destroying the environment into which mankind evolved.
Without World government we are all doomed!
13 Dec 2016 at 2:25 PM
ABM 142: I just wish Zebra and Barton would adopt the same attitude rather than bashing out what they learned from Regan, Thatcher and Clinton.
BPL: You mean, what I learned as an economics minor at Pitt? When Reagan and Thatcher were in office, I was a member of the Constitutional Syndicalist Party.
13 Dec 2016 at 4:53 PM
Alistair @142, I didnt seriously mean Im 100% certain. I was just venting steam.I really meant I have high confidence in the specific issues we were debating.
I think its largely just definitions off free markets, which is of course not easy. I think the basic role of governments is to help markets work smoothly and fairly. Markets should self regulate where possible, but where markets clearly dont adequately self regulate government should intervene with regulations that are well thought out. I dont know what word label you put on that.
It appears from what I have read of Zebras posts, yours and others theres general agreement governments have some role with setting rules or regulations. Only the fanatical libertarians say governments should not do that. Its really a question of how far you go, where you strike the balance. Too few rules equals the law of the jungle, too many regulations or laws can become petty or lead to governments abusing their powers or limits individual freedom.
I think deciding on government rules or regulations is a balacing act where we need to ask whether a regulation is correcting a genuine problem that markets cant solve themselves. I think this situation happens more often than is realised. I think Joseph Stigliz is on the right track on this.
For example we have plenty of safety related laws and regulations, and largely they do a good job. We should not give in to industry lobbying to get rid of sensible laws. But we also have to be careful safety laws dont become petty or excessive. Its a constant debate, but problems happen when people let ideological convictions intrude over reason.
I agree economics has plenty of uncertainties. I purely take a general interest and am not an economist, but its plain to see. The problem is economics is driven by human behaviour which can be complex and irrational so it makes it hard to come up with nice, neat equations that always work or make good predictions.
For example neoliberalism has not worked out like economists predicted. The IMF has conceded this. Neolibralism (globalisation, privatisation, deregulation)goes wrong in a heavy handed form. Neoliberalaism probably works better in a “light handed” form, and with more government financial help for people hurt by globalisation forces. But getting society to agree on this is hard.
13 Dec 2016 at 7:37 PM
Al @141 – Lots of interesting stuff from AGU on the “new Arctic”:
Arctic Sea Ice News from AGU
One winter storm raised the air temperature from -40 F to +32 F in less than 48 hours, while the moisture in the air increased 10 times. All of these factors significantly warm the surface of the snow, even in mid-winter, and slow the growth of ice.
Plus the 2016 Arctic Report Card. Don Perovich awarded a D+.
13 Dec 2016 at 10:05 PM
137 nigelj says: “Economics is not black and white except to fanatical libertarians. This is why I dislike simplistic labels like free markets. The important thing relating to climate change is markets in fossil fuels have clearly not self regulated to reduce emissions. …. it would be unrealistic to expect [FF energy companies] to voluntarily reduce emissions. This is what economics calls a market failure or negative externality. In such situations its justified for governments to intervene. Whatever one’s thoughts about role of government and extent of their powers [should be]…”
Makes sense. Rational regulation by national governments of harmful FF activities plus setting stricter energy use standards/regs over the long term is essential. Any extra pricing/tax incentives and penalties would be icing on the cake to drive market change in the right direction, but ‘the cake’ (ongoing stricter Regulations on specific business activity/production) has to come first.
‘Certainty’ is what every business large and small needs to make strategic decisions that drives reform, technology uptake, and the ongoing capital investments, ROI dynamics, and financial planning needed.
A lack of certainty is the #1 issue that blocks business innovation and stops permanent solutions becoming a reality sooner. imo/ime
14 Dec 2016 at 7:29 AM
BPL: I answered this before, but the post went astray.
I learned nothing from Reagan or Thatcher, Alastair, but from minoring in economics at Pitt. When Reagan and Thatcher were in office, I was a member of the Constitutional Syndicalist Party.
Stop stereotyping. It makes you look stupid.
14 Dec 2016 at 10:07 AM
I don’t see much point in continuing to try to elevate the discourse with these guys, but I do have a question, as someone who didn’t know there was an actual USA Syndicalist Party.
I tend to associate Syndicalism with robot social/economic organization in sci-fi where there is a big robot theme, although I can’t remember specific instances. Any thoughts?
14 Dec 2016 at 10:05 PM
‘Stop stereotyping. It makes you look stupid.’
Pot kettle black?
Chuck Hughes says
15 Dec 2016 at 2:38 AM
“The questionnaire was not authorized or part of our standard protocol. The person who sent it has been properly counseled,” an unnamed Trump transition official told CNN.”
In Other Words: It backfired and we need to lie so as not to appear thuggish.
I’m sure that once Trump is President the questionnaire will be sent out again but next time with results.