Unforced Variations: Feb 2017 1 Feb 2017 by group “O brave new world, that has such people in ‘t!” This month’s open thread. Usual rules apply.
257 Responses to "Unforced Variations: Feb 2017"
Boy are you missing the point. “Flying” and the “$100,000 car” are just examples. I suppose that most of the folks snared by the denialist camp can’t afford those “$30,000” cars either – they’re in the range of the $100-$1000, with trade-in, from Bob’s Used Cars. And they have no problem with not flying anywhere, cause they haven’t anywhere to fly to.
All the “this is why they” comments miss the point also. People are individuals, and have their individual responses to the “information” available to them. I own a $1200 car, don’t fly anywhere, and yet can think for myself. And while I don’t agree that Barbara’s proposal will solve everything, I certainly agree that anyone exhorting me to “sacrifice” for the sake of our children (of which I have none), would get more of my attention if they, too, were making more of a sacrifice than buying a $30,000 car instead of the $100,000 one.
Carl Cascone says
Would someone be able to explain to me the magnitude of the situation with John Bates whistleblowing at NOAA? The Daily Mail has published a whistle blowing article that is getting the whole anti AGW crowd in a frenzy of I told you so.
My impression is this is not a big deal but I am not going to be able to convince anyone of that.
I apologize if this is an inappropriate place for it.
MA Rodger says
Helmholtz Watson @81.
There has been quite a bit of comment already about David Rose’s Rail on Sunday. This piece from Peter Thorne (ofICARUS at Maynooth University) gives links to comment by Victor Venema and Zeke Hausfather (aka the CArbonBrief item linked @76above) and Thorne also adds some further comment.
For myself, I note that John Bates has harboured denialist tendencies for some years. Fellow-denialsit Judy-the-blog-mom says this of him”When I started Climate Etc.(2010?), John was one of the few climate scientists that contacted me, sharing concerns about various ethical issues in our field.” This comment accompanies an account of this latest Karl et al controversy by John Bates himself that Judy published simutaneously with the perversion of truth by Rose of the Daily Mail. In his own account, Bates comes across as a bit of pedant. He fails to show any error in the conclusions of Karl et al (2015) but rather takes exception to data quality issues and the approval process of data quality guidlines. Bates’ conclusions, that ”So, in every aspect of the preparation and release of the datasets leading into (Karl et al 2015), we find Tom Karl’s thumb on the scale pushing for, and often insisting on, decisions that maximize warming and minimize documentation” appear conspiracy theory rather than fact.
(Bear in mind when reading Bates’ account that Karl et al (2015) was submitted December 2014 and accepted for publication May 2015.)
@ BPL 50
BPL: Weather and climate are not the same thing.
G: But that’s not the question. The question is what do “people” think.
BPL: Al Gore did not invent the theory…
G: But that’s not the question. The question is who pushed it.
BPL: Medicare was (sic) a huge success.
G: And that excuses all the other BS…right?
BPL: …decide…issues on the basis of which tribe…
G: Welcome to the real world.
“would get more of my attention…”
Oh please. First, you are incorrect in your characterization of those opposing mitigation. Look up the statistics on the last election and you will see that lots of the support for Trump came from people with above-average incomes, not toothless hillbillies in trailer parks.
The “AlGoreisfatandfliesalot” ploy is a tribal slogan all these people repeat; it has zero relevance to their political choices, and assuming you are not one of them yourself, you have been “snared” as well. If you really “think for yourself”, you shouldn’t be making choices based on the messenger.
Plug in vehicles are simply better. They are cheaper to operate, and will have a much longer useful life– in fact, for poor people who buy used cars, they will be a bargain when they get to that single-digit range. No loss of compression, no blown transmission, and so on for all the usual reason those people get ripped off by the dealers.
Mike Roddy says
KPL, #52: Of course the Democrats do not exactly inspire hope. RFK once said in a speech I attended years ago “Republicans are 90% corrupt. With the Democrats, it’s only 75%”. But this is the world we live in, Barton. Bad Democrats should be primaried, but the cost of building a new and competitive Party makes that option unrealistic.
I suggest to RC that you moderate and delete posts from soft deniers here, since they are trying to irritate and start dialogues with people who have better things to do.
And our task with the media is illustrated here, in a well known fact: No climate questions were asked during the Presidential debates, including primaries. This is an atrocity, and should be leveraged to shame and boycott corporate network advertisers. Secondary benefits will include a platform to increase public awareness. Without advertiser boycotts, nothing will change, and the fossil fuel/meat production grip on our public dialogue will continue.
Barton Paul Levenson says
KIA 73: all the people yelling and screaming and protesting Trump who say AGW is threat number 1 know absolutely nothing about science
BPL: They know more than you do about it.
KIA: But they’re positive AGW is real and will destroy the world unless we all live like cavemen
BPL: Straw man fallacy. No one is suggesting that’s the solution.
William Nordhaus has corrected course and sounds bullish on carbon tax:
according to Joe Romm, Nordhaus has been a “go slow” economics guy on addressing the buildup of carbon dioxide in the environment. Now Nordhaus calculation are that the IPCC agreement is insufficient and will lead to 2.5 degrees of warming or more.
Slow to recognize the scientific facts, but let’s give him credit for finally acknowledging the obvious.
how are we doing?
Jan. 29 – Feb. 4, 2017 406.20 ppm
Jan. 29 – Feb. 4, 2016 403.84 ppm
2.36 ppm increase over miserable number posted in 2016.
Dr. Mann said in 2014: we need to stay under 405. He has gone pretty quiet about that statement since that time and has sometimes tried to walk the statement back out of the record, but I believe he was correct with the 405 number.
Moderators are hitting it this first week in February, putting up the comments pretty fast and look at the rate of comments 102 posted through Feb 6th at 9:17 am.
The scientists are quiet as church mice though. did I hear a pin drop?
If the moderators update the comment threads at least once a day, the volume and vigor of comment discussion returns. Pretty simple. Kinda like the CO2 issue, more CO2, more heat. Faster thread updating, more comments and discussion. It ain’t rocket science.
Mr. Know It All 2 says
~10:48 AM pacific
102 – As a skeptic, (not a denialist, but not a “believer” yet either) the NOAA thing is just one more piece of evidence to weigh. I know that there are people on both sides who are biased and I have to decide for myself who/what to believe is truth.
101 – Exactly right Gordon! How many AGW alarmists are driving FF powered cars, heating with FFs, flying here and there, blah, blah…
96 – I’m guessing if all regulations put in place by O over the last 8 years were repealed we’d still survive just fine.
88 – Recommend you do some research on the problems caused by unlimited immigration in Europe. I suggest taking 1 minute per day just reading the headlines on pamelageller.com for an introduction. Do that for 1 month and report your findings.
87 – What is your time zone?
85 – Lower renewable prices are a good thing for sure. One example:
79 – How can such an overtly political comment as this not be deleted? Oh yeah, it’s Trump bashing so it’s OK.
Hank Roberts says
For Carl Cascone (I put “John Bates” into Google, the results are revealing, yes, it’s a dogwhistle story).
This is from the 2nd page of results:
It occurred to me that Angela Merkel is now the leader of the free world. Now
I see it’s a meme almost. And she’s a physicist.
Barton Paul Levenson says
KIA: How many AGW alarmists are driving FF powered cars, heating with FFs, flying here and there, blah, blah…
BPL: Yeah, and Dr. Goldblatt tells me if I don’t quite smoking I’ll be dead in six months. But he smokes himself, I notice. So I figure that’s one bit of advice I’m pretty safe in ignoring.
88 nigelj, thanks for your response and for having a peek at the artcile. Good to hear that, and I do hear you too.
RE: You seem to have your knife into Obama for allegedly ignoring the problem. Pretty much yes. Nothing personal though. No point living in the past. My core issue re ‘obama’ today isn’t him but the ongoing excuses being made about his admins serious failings (and disinformation/spin) on a number of issues.
imo his failures are equally the nations as a whole. Yet there is the Obama Mythology that defies reality. It’s fed by the very same incompetent ‘media’ that projected the myths of Cheney’s WMD in Iraq. As someone not living inside the ‘American bubble’ there’s no difference between the Brietbarts and Fox versus the CNNs MSNBCs. A Bill O’Reilly is the very same ‘beast’ as a Bill Mayer – two sides of the same coin iow.
Focusing only on AGW/CC here: The mythical belief I am most keen on bursting wide open is that “poor ol’ Obama had the evil bad repub controlled congress” therefore it’s all their fault! It isn’t. Obama had from Jan 2009 three congressional elections to use his Office to get the attention of the American people that AGW/CC was a national crisis worthy of serious and prolonged action – he failed repeatedly to garner the support of the electorate to Vote FOR this and shift the balance of power in Congress.
This is the man, so the myth goes, that was the great rhetorician, the inspirational head of the nation, the great leader and the greatest Negotiator of all time. It’s a myth. The reality is far different than the commonly held delusions people have of him and the Democrats as a whole.
At the fourth election in 2016 Obama again totally failed to convince another single soul in the USA that they needed to take AGW/CC seriously and urgently.
It’s not Gavin’s responsibilioty as a NASA/GISS SCientist to convince the Amercian people that Climate Science is valid and real but also the #1 moral issue of a generation. That was OBama’s #1 responsibility, he said he would do something about that and he did not. The minor things he did do are in the process of being undone. The same shit happened here in Australia when the Religious Right Wing neoliberal Nutjobs got back into office in 2013.
You’d think Obama and Co would have been awake enough to have seen the writing on the wall and actually got serious about not allowing that to occur under his watch.
That’s the truth, the whole truth imho. I agree 100% with Jim Hansen’s views on Obama and the whole US political system and it’s failed media. Both are corrupt and incompetent to the core.
No climate scientist can fix that. The EPA cannot fix that. It’s not their job! It’s everyone’s responsibility to get off their asses!
Every time some pro-climate science activist or commentator says it’s not Obama’s fault it’s all the Republicans they are in fact THE PROBLEM. They are not part of the solution. Remaining self-deluded and presenting cop-outs for inaction and silence vs truth telling is not a strategy for success.
It’s simply Denial:101
Obama isn’t the problem now either – it’s the people who continue to believe the Myths about him; what really happened and did not happen over 8 years who are the real problem now. In my opinion, and yes, I do believe I am correct. For good reason.
It’s also a part of the reason that Donald Trump and the Republicans won yet again. After another 8 years of pussy footing around the subject and hoping it will all get sorted as if my magic.
PS shorter version and closer to home:
It’s not my job, nor Gavin’s job, nor anyone’s job on RC to convince Americans and the Victors and KIAs of this world that the science of AGW/CC is legitimate, accurate and true.
That was in fact Obama’s #1 Job since Jan 2009.
He failed. Learn from that, don’t excuse it.
90 John Wellman, good point to raise. It matters.
The reason? Well funded protagonists use their money to hire talent to implement practical effective marketing strategies that get results.
I know SEO and how the system generally works, despite major changes with modern day social media aps and tracking systems now being used. It was not some fluke or wild coincidence that the website for Tony Heller was reborn as ‘real climate science’. Then there is all the other back office stuff that also was implemented to capitalize on that change of name.
I do not believe in vapid conspiracy theories, but that is never a good reason to live in denial and refuse to comprehend the sheer extent of some genuine long term conspiracies of tens of thousands of people (with unlimited cash assets and people assets lined up) who are operating in the real world and smart enough to take advantage of that real world’s tools.
Pro-climate science proponents on the other hand, are pretty much a rag tag disparate collection of rank amateurs in this regard – misguided zealots who do not know what they are doing nor how to become successful and actually achieve their goals of changing minds.
A wiser webmaster would have already been prepared before RC lost ~30% (?) of it’s usual traffic the moment RCS went online. :-)
A really truly smart climate scientist would already have owned realclimatescience domain names across all tilds years ago.
But alas, not every qualified scientist with a high IQ is necessarily ‘smart’ when dealing with the real world outside their field of expertise.
Wise people seek out others expert advice on such matters and listen to that advice and act then on it.
Which is where the truism : “You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make them drink” comes from.
Some people simply cannot be told anything! :-)
Mal Adapted says
Mr. Know it all 2:
Being skeptical is a good thing. Being pseudo-skeptical is not. Those who don’t “believe” in AGW aren’t skeptics but pseudo-skeptics. It isn’t genuinely skeptical to reject the two centuries of rigorous research by thousands of working climate scientists around the world that led to the consensus for AGW, but eagerly accept the misdirections and lies of the AGW-denial industry.
Understand this: A genuine skeptic would pay no attention to those people, and listen to climate scientists instead. A genuine skeptic recognizes the limits of his own ability to assimilate the multiple lines of empirical evidence for AGW, and acknowledges the superior expertise aggregated in the peer community of climate scientists. If he thinks he knows CO2 from gravel but rejects the consensus, he’s not a skeptic but merely a victim of the Dunning-Kruger effect!
Poll Update: Progress is as I expected.
An overwhelming consensus so far by all participants.
So have your voice heard – make your opinion count!
Voting closes March 3rd – don’t miss out.
Re: 40 Thinks Mechanical is Magical….lol..
Zebra @100, yes we agree on the substance. I have actually come around to agree pretty much to your point of view on the communication, to be honest. I even agree with your definition of free markets. It’s just going to be challenging to get other people to agree with that definition, as they have such entrenched beliefs on what it means.
Some of your posts are a bit hard to follow which slowed things down. No doubt mine are the same. It’s time pressure. I see so many misunderstandings all over the internet due to lack of clarity, and also lack of thinking patiently about what people say. I’m guilty of both sometimes.
I have always supported a carbon tax plus some distinct regulation, for example making electricity companies move to renewables, etc. I have said this before on other articles. It’s just the most practical way of reducing emissions as neither alone actually works ideally. You are right it also requires both, as a method of political strategy. But it’s so sad it has to come to that.
I was responding to specific issues that she raised. It’s called being polite and respectful. I prefer it when people address specific points I make, and I resent it when I’m ignored and simply lectured to.
Zebra has covered what I think anyway. We have a wide spectrum of people on different incomes, not just poor people who can only afford very cheap cars. For many a $30,000 electric hatchback is affordable.
I agree for poor people the whole climate issue is challenging, but so is life in general. I’m a believer in some government income support. Call me socialist if you like, but I don’t see a better answer that genuinely helps, and I don’t resent my taxes helping. It doesn’t actually need that much anyway to make a good difference.
I’m just not convinced Trumps trade protectionism is the way to go, but I hope things in America work out ok.
Jim Hunt says
Carl @102 + Al @103
Scroll up to my previous comments for more detail on the development of the #NOAAGate/#ClimateGate2 nonsense.
Tomorrow the MoS editorial team are back at work. I shall be on the blower to them first thing (UTC).
In more recent developments the John & Judy Show has come up with a “rebuttal” of Peter Thorne’s takedown. What’s more I learned about TrumpLand whilst trying to teach the House Science Committee about global warming using a stock market analogy via Twitter! Read all about it here:
The fact that it’s nonsense won’t necessarily prevent the forces of darkness achieving their aims. IMHO!
Yes I certainly partly agree. One things for sure, there’s no point the Democrats as a party dwelling too much on blaming the Republicans or media for their loss. They do need to critically look at themselves and they did get some things wrong.
Obama did have a majority in the house early on and could have done more. On the other hand he could then have been accused of excessive use of power. We now have Donald Trumps “blitzkreig” and massive use of executive orders, and it’s like a hostile takeover. Its a dangerous abuse of process. The ends seldom justify the means.
I’m not American. Therefore I see Obama from such a different perspective to Americans. My own politics are fairly centrist or moderate, just as some background.
Obama did come across as a decent guy.His economic policies have dragged America from the real possibility of total collapse. All economic indicators are looking at least OK. Most economists actually supported Obama, from polls I have seen.
Obama didn’t do enough on climate change. He didn’t seize the moment. That’s a disappointment for sure. But please remember he had a major economic crisis on his hands! Don’t crucify the guy!
On foreign policy I think Obama was a mix of good and bad. I won’t go further as it’s not really that material to climate issues.
We now have a volatile eccentric in the white house. I don’t like people like that near nuclear weapons.
One thing on Hilary Clinton, the proximate cause for her loss was the email bomb shell in the final week. Sure there were other reasons relating to her and the Democrats, but it would be unwise to engage in a knee jerk reaction and tear themselves apart or loose confidence in every belief or swing in some radical direction. I have seen that sort of thing happen in my country.
Mr. Know It All 2 says
MKIA here, much derided skeptic:
Have there been any experiments to show that 400 or 450 ppm CO2 should heat the earth atmosphere? I’ve seen the experiments with plastic bottles filled with air and with CO2, but those are useless because the atmosphere is not 100% CO2.
Would something like this work:
2 identical well insulated boxes with glass tops. Perhaps sized to model height relationships in the real atmosphere. I’ll use 8 foot cubes in this proposal – the scientists can adjust as needed for proper modeling. All sides and bottom highly insulated. If the CO2 heating occurs at certain elevations in the atmosphere, and not in other layers, then add layers of glass in the top as needed to represent the layers of most concern. Maybe layers aren’t a factor, I’m talking out loud.
Step 1 – both boxes located outdoors and oriented exactly the same. Fill both boxes with ambient air at current CO2 levels. Seal them off. On cloudless days, monitor the temps and CO2 levels inside the boxes. Should be almost identical. Record everything.
Step 2 – add enough CO2 to bring the concentration to say 50 ppm above ambient in both boxes. Cloudless day, monitor temps and CO2. Should be identical.
Step 3 – purge both with ambient air and seal them up. Inject CO2 in only one box to 50 ppm above ambient. Continuously monitor CO2 level in both boxes as well as temperature on a cloudless day. Note the difference. Record everything.
Step 4 – repeat with the other box at higher CO2 concentration. Note the difference. Record everything.
Step 5 – repeat with other concentrations as desired.
Write a paper on it. Of course you HAD to fly to Hawaii to do the experiment on top of the mountain, right? Your government grant should cover all expenses. You might be over in Hawaii for a while, eh? Then, you may want to move the experiment to a different elevation in the paradise of your choice – might want to do it in a humid climate; and again in a dry climate; in a cold climate and in a hot climate. Goodness, this could take a while – be sure to ask for enough $$$ in your proposal.
Will it work? Or is this the stupidest thing you’ve ever heard of?
Mr. Know It All 2 says
122 – T
[OT – this is not the place for general political comments]
One reason for my comment number 4–on dezinformatsiya, and on Nazi-era-style mass communication, at the present time–is here:
This is audio and transcript of an interview with Guardian correspondent Luke Harding, who was a correspondent in Moscow from 2007 to 2011, when he was deported.
What does it have to do with climate science? It adds context and conviction to what’s known about the hacking of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in 2009. Return for a moment to 6 Dec 2009:
“The leaked mails…were originally posted on a server in the Siberian city of Tomsk, at a firm called Tomcity, an internet security business.
“The FSB security services, descendants of the KGB, are believed to invest significant resources in hackers, and the Tomsk office has a record of issuing statements congratulating local students on hacks aimed at anti-Russian voices…”
” ‘It’s very common for hackers in Russia to be paid for their services,’ Professor Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, the vice chairman of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change, said in Copenhagen at the weekend. ‘It’s a carefully made selection of emails and documents that’s not random. This is 13 years of data, and it’s not a job of amateurs.’ ”
“Anonymous ‘others’ in the IPCC have gone further, pinning the blame squarely on the shoulders of the Russian secret services, aka the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation (FSB), reports Walker.”
Part and parcel of the professional footprint of the attack was its timing–with the result of falsely discrediting the IPCC by association and distracting from important IPCC related news.
Dana Nuccitelli (22 Dec 2016) for the Guardian and Skeptical Science:
The Luke Harding interview is instructive and helpful on dezinformatsiya now. For instance:
“The goal is essentially to persuade some people that the Kremlin’s view of events is true, but also to kind of confuse and bamboozle everybody else by floating conspiracy theories, so there are 10 different explanations for an event, by doing fake news, by hiring armies of trolls. … And so it’s clever, it’s clever because it allows, actually, the Russian regime to get away with all sorts of things, and increasingly, I guess, exploiting the openness of Western societies and America in particular.”
For anyone who still remains clueless on Mr. Putin and on how to watch what he does–let me say that Anna Politkovskaya, Alexander Litvinenko, and Boris Nemtsov were the free and the brave. Because they were brave and free, they were, respectively, shot, poisoned, and shot.
Mr. Know It All 2 says
124 – OK, go ahead then and remove 122, 121, 120, …………
Barton Paul Levenson says
KIA: Have there been any experiments to show that 400 or 450 ppm CO2 should heat the earth atmosphere?
BPL: Yes, people have been doing such experiments since 1858.
Ray Ladbury says
Mr. KIA2: “Will it work? Or is this the stupidest thing you’ve ever heard of?”
No. Your experiment is not the stupidest thing I’ve every heard of. Rather, your characterization of government grants being a scientific boondoggle is tied with every other tea party whackjob’s assertion of the same thing. Have you ever even known a scientist, KIA? Let me tell you about my last trip to Hawaii. It was for a conference back in 2007. I presented a paper and an invited short course. Except for meals in restaurants near the hotel, I made it out of the hotel precisely twice–once to pick up supplies at a nearby market and a hike up Diamond Head. Other than that, I was working 14 hours a day, discussing issues with colleagues.
My graduate work? I was living in Boulder, Colorado–not bad, eh? For the last 2 years I lived there working on my thesis, I lived within walking distance of the Flat Irons. I managed to make it out hiking all of twice while living there. Something about the 80 hour work weeks that eats into your recreation.
You claim to be a “skeptic”. Yet, you don’t even know what research has been performed. You have no idea whether the experiments you propose would even answer your own questions, and you have no desire to even rectify your ignorance. You find it more fun to disparage the efforts of scientists doing science than to learn about them. That is not skepticism. That is pig ignorance.
123 KIA Or is this the stupidest thing you’ve ever heard of? No, not by a long way.
I recall many many years ago, one sincere chap on a comments board showed up and asked, very seriously (words to the effect of):
“But what about the Sun? Have these climate scientists bothered to look at changes in the heat output of the Sun over this century? Maybe that’s what is causing the temperatures to increase.”
A fair question perhaps. But the guy must have believed that scientists are all stupid too.
125 patrick, all the links got to news sites. the articles are prepared by journos. I had never heard about claims of russians being connected with the UEA, but I never bothered too much about that issue anyway. So I looked deeper to see what kaspersky, schneier and crowd strike had to say about it all. and I tried to remember what snowdon had said and what unfolded after that. I remembered when and what happened to Eliot Spitzer too in 2008. I noted that Litvinenko was a kgb agent like putin. I note that AIT was released in 2006 and helped the Labor govt win office in 2007 on a wave of agw/cc issues. That exon/mobil and us coal companies had as much to gain from the UEA hack as a thousand other companies and the 18 FF export nations, including the saudis and all made hay after copenhagen, and an 2007 election winning aussie PM was dumped by his own party as a result. They say the russians or chinese hacked into the BOM, possibly lookig for a backdoor into the linked mil IT systems, at the same time marohasy was claiming Gavin’s making up fake temp data and that the BOM was engaged in a major conspiracy to adjust raw temp data so it fits the agw theory of warming, and she and her IPA mates was making FOIA requests of the BOM and every other CC related govt dept. I could write series of compelling news “stories” about marohasy and her connections and activities over the last 10 years. But …
This I know for certain about russia and dnc emails etc – I do not know. I am happy and accepting of that reality. At the end of the day we all end up having to believe if XYZ / someone else is telling the truth or lying or incompetent at what they do. 99.9% of the world are in that position about agw/cc science too. It is what it is.
MA Rodger says
Jim Hunt @121,
Thanks for the nod of the continuing Johnny & Judy show. (I always enjoy a good laugh.)
So when it comes to setting out our “critiques of Rose/Bates” it seems we should not waste our time on “the verbiage used by David Rose.” Taking the lead from Judy, ‘Ats-d-way-t-do-it!’
Instead we are left with the content of Huang et al (submitted for publication – Nov 2016) as seen by Judy (or maybe Johnny – it’s difficult to be sure with this sock-puppet show) who tells us firstly that this paper-in-purdah in comparing ERSSTv4 with SRSSTv5 says that “Zeke states that v4 trend is ~10% lower than v5 for the period 2000-2015. The exact number from information in the paper is 12.7% lower” although that is the opposite of the quoted Zeke Hausfather tweet which is quoted saying “v5 is ~10% lower than v4,” before adding “Both are way above v3, which is rather the point.” So Judy gets it back-to-front as well as ignoring the important bit.
Secondly, Judy says the paper “Well, in the new Huang et al. paper on ERSSTv5, it turns out that adjusting the ships to buoys results in a trend that is lower by 0.07oC. NOT exactly the same – in the climate trend game, a few hundredths of a degree actually matters.” This comment is presented to counter a Thomas Peterson tweet “Buoys read 0.12C cooler than ships. Add 0.12C to buoys or subtract 0.12C from ships and you’ll get exactly the same trend.”
We will presumably have to await “the paper” to emerge to get a handle on what was or was not written and why. But in the meantime we now know ‘Ats-d-way-t-do-it!’
PS the openness of Western societies (a little whataboutery) made me think of watergate and how that #1 news story drowned out the little known and even less remembered exposure of Cointelpro at the same time. Which reminded me of how the whole US media destroyed the career of Gary Webb for telling the truth about the CIA and drug running. Many years later he turned up dead by suicide with some reports saying he had two gunshot wounds to the head. ‘if’ that’s true then he was a mighty talented chap. So I don’t know about all these things that pop-up.
What I do know for certain is that people lie. And sometimes it is so unbelievable that no one believes it for like decades or more. By then it’s far more than shocking it’s tragic. Because you know that along the way many people knew all along. Who is more to ‘blame’ than the next person?
eg Secrecy prevailed as did cover-ups.
Chris O'Neill says
If you deny global warming e.g. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1880 then you are a denialst.
Hank Roberts says
MRKIA2 should read some history before asking people to repeat history.
First link under the Science Links heading, right side of every page here.
Please upgrade the comments software so that we get a hush function.
February 6, 2017: 406.12 ppm
February 6, 2016: 405.98 ppm
I think we are seeing the amazing surge in CO2 ppm from Feb 2016, so that gives us a 0.14 ppm number on noisy daily number comparison. For beginners, this does not mean the rate of increase has dropped. There are a lot of drivers behind these numbers and deciphering them is tricky. The bottom line: Dr. Mann said in 2014, hey, let’s keep it under 405, we did not listen. 406 is not a happy number. I guess we are a couple of years away from 420, that will give some folks a happy face moment. Maybe we should try to stabilize at 420 and then start walking this number down somehow?
Frequent regular approval and posting of submitted comments drives the comment numbers up. If the comment volume is down, you can look back and try to figure out why and when the moderators decided to throttle the conversation back. Be that as it may, a hush function would also be greatly appreciated.
submitting this one 12:11 pm Feb 7th
I’m really interested in how one would approach an experiment described @123 to demonstrate the effect of an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Are there published experiments doing this already (as pointed out all that seem findable are the plastic bottle type experiments)? It would seem to me that the experiment would need to represent a column of atmosphere, more like the climate models, than an insulated cube.
Patrick Fish says
Let us clear up some misconception: In human economy there is no such thing as “Free Enterprise”. It is a Myth. Humans are governed by cultural rules and those rules determine the outcome of human economics. Human economics require Human government ( Money etc.) To understand economics first we have to understand its most basic principle. Economics is a usage of energy to acquire. Now in Nature we see there are no rules to acquiring. If you have the energy you can acquire food, water, territory , a mate, etc. In human cultures we have rules that prevent this “Natural Behavior”. We are not allowed to use energy to obtain anything we desire. There are laws that over-rule this simple natural economics. I cannot go steal if I have the energy to do so. I cannot possess. I cannot mate. I cannot use my energy to do as i wish. so there is NO free enterprise because there are rules imposed by society that prevents it.
There is no supply and demand “law” except the energy to posses. If you have enough of it you can posses. if you don’t you cannot. All things economic revolve around this simple principle. One thing that is missed is that this energy usage must is the pattern of the Individual species. Humans are not. We are a societal species and we can acquire by being subsidized by society. For example. I want to produce electricity. I need energy to build plant. and I need energy to convert to electricity. Now I need coal. that coal is past energy and as such carries a past burden ( carbon). By the Culture allowing me to use it , it subsidizes my activity. If I pollute and do not pay the cost some one else will be forced to. If I change the climate some one else will pay the cost. I will not use my energy to do so. That means I am being subsidized. No free Markets here. It is subsidize or no coal fired electricity.
Re 102 Hi Carl Cascone, Thanks for your question which is why I came here too
Ray Ladbury says
The experiments people are asking about to show that CO2 is a greenhouse gas are now essentially high-school level lab exercises. Here is a brief description on how to do some relevant work:
Note that you will not find such experiments written up in journals any more than you will find elementary experiments on Newtonian mechanics written up. They are that well established.
Hank Roberts says
Hank Roberts says
Regrettably, people remember and quote the lies Lamar Smith makes up that suit his beliefs, rather than looking for facts.
The problem in designing “demonstration experiments” or “scale models” like what you are thinking about is that some things can’t be scaled directly or even scaled at all. So at best, you end up relying on calculations that are part of the theory already.
Something like this, a real world experiment…
…and other measurements (e.g. from satellites) represent much more compelling evidence.
MA Rodger says
The idea of an experiment to demonstrate CO2 as a GHG is easily done with a bottle of gas mix in a lab. Do note that despite the howls of protest from denilaists that the atmosphere is not a solid barrier like a greenhouse, the ability of the atmosphere to convect heat is a lot smaller than the radiant energy fluxes. As the standard graphic of global energy balance shows, there is 400W/sq m radiated from the surface while only 20W/sq m is convected (along with 80W/sq m of piggybacking latent heat). The reason convection is so small is because under normal circumstances it takes about a week for a parcel of air to climb up to the tropopause and another week for it to return. Indeed, I would assume that a lot of that 20W/sq m is actually from tropical storms.
So I don’t think you could set up a physical experiment that would add any more understanding to the impact of CO2 than you would get from the laboratory bottles. But there is experimental data that measures radiation in situ – for instance as described here.
Kevin McKinney says
I’m probably not the first to note this, but clearly the denialosphere is trying to manufacture another Climategate moment out of the comments of John Bates on Karl et al, 2015, as reported by David Rose. Numerous misrepresentations about various things, from AR5 to Karl itself to the Paris Accord. I think it’s pretty clear that this is the opening salvo in campaigns to 1) withdraw the US from the Accord, and 2) neuter, defund or reorganize NOAA and particularly NCEI. The latter will likely be part of a wider attack on the institutional capacity of the US research establishment WRT climate change.
Scott Strough says
Yes global warming is serious enough to act on. In fact it is required that we act on it.
The reason why is because climate is a result of ecosystem function. We all breathe air, drink water, eat food. The basis of all life on the planet depends on and is a result of ecosystem function.
In other words it’s not really the temperature per se that is the real issue. It is the loss of ecosystem function that both the reason fossil fuel emissions is causing AGW and why AGW will cause further loss of ecosystem function. It’s a negative feedback loop we caused. Fossil fuels simply adding fuel to the flame.
The next issue is one your friend brought up. Essentially what he is stating is that dealing with this problem will hamper economic growth. Well in some ways he is partly right. Almost all the proposed solutions are being proposed by the collectivist/socialist left. So it has the outward appearance that capitalism doesn’t really have a good workable solution. In some ways he is right about Capitalism not being up to the job so to speak, but there is a way to do it.
The dynamic needs changing because the conservative solutions are being resisted in neo-luddite like fashion. Those solutions being a restructuring of capitalism.
Social capital= Jobs, education, knowledge, security, public health, the arts, sports and entertainment etc…
Natural capital= Biodiversity, fertility of the land, the water cycle, stable climate, ecosystem function etc…
Financial capital= investments and returns on investments.
While capitalism has done a pretty good job of dealing with abstract social and financial capital, and the various types of infrastructure in place does a reasonable job of accounting them as assets; our current capitalist structure has a fundamental flaw in dealing with abstract natural capital. For the most part natural capital is given a value of zero. No real value is obtained until natural capital is used and turned into goods and services. This fundamental flaw means that the destruction of natural capital is rewarded by financial gain. There is an economic thought experiment called the “Tragedy of the commons” explaining this flaw in better detail. That’s why the destruction of natural capital is called “hidden costs”. They are hidden because capitalism does not account natural capital as a real asset. It takes a holistic decision making process that considers the four basic ecosystem processes: the water cycle, the mineral cycle including the carbon cycle, energy flow, and community dynamics (the relationship between organisms in an ecosystem) as equal in importance to social welfare and economic growth.
I would argue that not only is natural capital a real asset, it is by far the most valuable of all three, being the source of all life on the planet including us!
“Ecosystem function is vastly more valuable than the production and consumption of goods and services.” -John D. Liu
No matter how “inspired” a capitalist society might be, there is no other outcome other than the destruction of the ecosystems required to support civilization; until a real value is placed on natural capital.
Once you give natural capital a real value, then restoring the land yields a return in social capital, natural capital, and financial capital. You would literally be building a capital gains and GNP when you restored any polluted or degraded landscape or waterway. Since the energy to do this ultimately is provided by the sun, it is a way to vastly improve any capitalist economy without increasing dependence on fossil fuels.
Now this is where complexity really enters in, because natural biological systems are orders of magnitude more complex that human made economic systems! In fact that’s probably why natural capital isn’t dealt with well in current economic theory. It opens up a whole new can of worms. But it is not unsolvable, wicked a problem though it may be.
I have already written and posted here in previous months a solution that actually improves economies and social welfare for the poor and developing countries, as well as the already developed world, that could potentially be acceptable to both sides of the political aisle.
It will require a three pronged approach worldwide.
1 Reduce fossil fuel use by replacing energy needs with as many feasible renewables as current technology allows.
2 Change Agricultural methods to high yielding regenerative models of production made possible by recent biological & agricultural science advancements.
3 Large scale ecosystem recovery projects similar to the Loess Plateau project, National Parks like Yellowstone etc. where applicable.
Remember, there is more carbon missing from our soils worldwide than extra CO2 in the atmosphere.
Obviously I had to develop that answer to make economic sense under current economic infrastructure. So rather than a pure capitalist solution, it involves government manipulation in the form of subsidy and buffer stock scheme changes. However, it doesn’t necessarily need to cost one penny more than we already spend in taxes. So it still wouldn’t hamper economic growth for developing countries. Helping them helps us and gains us new valuable trading partners. Adding a value for natural capital to the strategy only makes it work even better.
Hank Roberts says
I’d like to thank our hosts for keeping the Borehole collection current.
It’s like watching clowns spill out of a clown car, just amazing to see so many rebunking the same stuff.
Barton Paul Levenson says
PF 136: There is no supply and demand “law”
BPL: No, they are merely empirical generalizations from hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of observations of how human beings have actually behaved for the past several centuries.
Hank Roberts says
For Carl Cascone and Steve, you can look this stuff up.
Here ya go: http://climatefeedback.org/sensational-claims-of-manipulated-data-in-the-mail-on-sunday-are-overblown/
With direct quotes and links to sources. Make sure whatever site you’re reading cites real sources. “Trust, but verify” as Reagan said.
Dave @135 and also Mr Know it all.
First have a quick look at this video of a “mythbusters” experiment on containers with CO2 added, put under light, and measuring resultant temperature changes.
Its only a rough experiment, and doesn’t have the precision you talk about, but it’s useful and good value to watch. The CO2 concentrations are too high to mimic the real world for example.
Coming to your questions. Could this experiment be elevated to something truly useful? I think it would not be possible. We cannot really construct something close enough to the real world, and monitor things over long enough periods. Any data would not mean much more than small things cause a change. It would not get much beyond that.
The energy properties of CO2 have been measured reliably. From this I would assume it is not hard to develop equations that can be applied to small quantities and changes in the real world. We also have paleo climate history on levels of CO2 versus temperatures, so another line of evidence. That’s my understanding, but I stand to be corrected by the experts on this website.
More news from Hansen on F&D. Speaks about alligators and crocodiles in the swamp not realizing he is being stalked by a circle of great white sharks (the big money fish free marketeering high priests and missionaries from the Holy Neoliberal Church of God the Market)
But make up your own mind of course.
Desperate is as desperate does imo. (oh well, I don’t blame the guy for trying)
Meanwhile Downunder has turned into an almost permanent Hades (40-45 C plus in places – genuinely unprecedented records keep being set ) while the Arctic is still off the scale extreme with sea ice and temps and humidity.
Hows that CO2 ppm going Mike …. (rhetorical, no need to answer mate)