This month’s open thread. Topics this month? What should a conservative contrarian be writing op-eds about that avoids strawman arguments, and getting facts wrong? What do you really think about geoengineering? Tracking the imminent conclusion of the Nenana Ice Classic (background)?
Usual rules apply.
84 Killian; there’s a huge difference between the concept of Economical and Economics. The later ‘meaning’ has been hijacked to mean the former when it doesn’t. Modern ‘Economics’ means waste built into the system. Not efficiency nor minimising waste or lowering “costs”.
However the original Greek term on which the present ‘economics’ word/linguistics was based is the only correct meaning and valid use of the word.
Combine that with ‘permaculture’ practices and with solar/wind/renewable tech and it all starts to look like a very different ‘world view’ and ‘ideology’ more grounded in truth, reason, morality and ethics.
CCL is just another Neo-Liberal Thought Collective Front, set up and funded to manipulate the masses, the media, and the politics of sane rational AGW/CC action. CCL too will end, eventually.
Of course none of the above matters one bit now, or will change any time soon. The survivors will find a way. Permaculture’s philosophy will guide them well.
Martin Smith @86
Didn’t you know? GWPF stands for “Gentlemen who prefer fantasy”!
Booker has neither scientific qualifications nor scruples. To put no finer point on it, he is an utter scoundrel. In a piece published on 22 October 2016 in The Telegraph he talks of a “fall in global temperatures of 0.7 degrees” in recent years. Technically this is correct, but look at the wider picture: With the temperature following an ever-rising trend while wobbling up and down as is its wont, he has exercised exquisite care in selecting an initial point on the temperature graph at the peak of an upward wobble, followed by a final point at the very bottom of a downward wobble. This gives him his fall of 0.7 degrees, which is absolute fantasy in the context of the complete graph.
My point is that Booker had to know full well that he was practising a deceit. He had to be looking at the complete temperature graph while cherry-picking those initial and final points with such precision. He knew he was lying. He was betting he could fool his readers, relying on them being too lazy to search out actual temperature graphs that would immediately reveal the ludicrous nature of his assertion.
I suggest, Martin, that you avoid GWPF in future and don’t let bastards like Booker catch you for a sucker.
#35 Words have real meaning. Yet they may describe a fantasy or reality.
http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/effective
http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/convincing
http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/ineffective
http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/impotent
http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/inadequate
http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/fruitless
http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/insufficient
http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/weak
http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/powerless
Word Origin & History
Convince 1530, “to overcome in argument,” from L. convincere “to overcome decisively,” from com- intensive prefix + vincere “to conquer” (see victor).
Meaning “to firmly persuade” is from c.1600.
Related: Convinced (pp. adj., 1680s); convincing (1610s); convincingly (1640s).
The clear and present danger of Climate Change was not a primary issue in recent elections in the USA, Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, or France’s presidential election. It is not a primary issue in the upcoming UK elections or in France nor later in Germany.
I remain unconvinced those in the know know what they are doing or have any better ideas of how to be more effective. A personal observation only.
MA Rodger @88 and D Jones @89, I tried to be clever with some fake HTML tags, but it didn’t work. I just meant to show that the denial side has already resumed claiming there has been no warming since 1998.
92/93 Mal Adapted then be clearer when you communicate and don’t include my name when being generic.
Meanwhile RE “One wonders how Thomas knows whether he’s fooling himself or not, and if he’s ever suspected he might be.”
Which goes with Thomas inter alia like icing on a cake. This is ludicrous (as in do you expect to get away with this kind of illogic?) and disingenuous after “claiming” it’s go nothing to do with me because there you go again and try to make me the “issue” with smarmy ADhom anyway.
Why would you or anyone waste their time “wondering” about that? Why not simply accuse me of being a LIAR rather than say and if he’s ever suspected he might be AFTER I have already made clear above namely:
So, instead of the content of your post (fooling oneself, me fooling myself) would you tell me something or speak about something I do not already know or don’t already know how to practice and do it already…?
Thanks for nothing and wasting my time.
Silent is an anagram for Listen.
repeat url fwiw: http://theoatmeal.com/comics/believe
98 John Pollack, the very same kind of things were in place for the summer flooding down the east coast of Oz as an after effect Cyclone Debbie in March. Which continued weeks later when the results of that finally hit NZ and south pacific islands.
The same kind of dynamic was in play last June 2016 with the furious winter storm that hit SE Qld all the way down NSW as well.
Re “Nobody really knows why this particular block formed when and where it did.”
Yes they do. The ‘professionals’ simply refuse to say it out loud repeatedly often enough publicly with the sirens wailing. It’s called AGW driven Climate Change that has now permanently affected all normal “weather systems” on the planet.
From one day to the next, from one location to another, the degree of impact outside historical norms varies. The cause/reason is simple and obvious.
The unpredictability of success in forecasting “weather” remains the same only now it’s much harder than in the latter part of the 20th century. That is not going to get easier either.
The systemic solutions required are also clear and obvious. It’s sometimes called logic. :-)
98 John Pollack et al may not believe what I say about climate and weather. That’s fine by me.
May 2017 Tropical Cyclone Donna appears to have weakened slightly after briefly becoming the strongest out-of-season storm ever recorded in the Southern Hemisphere.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-08/tropical-cyclone-donna-barrels-towards-new-caledonia/8507836
SH Winter begins in 22 days.
#95 BPL said blah blah blah infinite.
Boring. Typical. The issue isn’t finite vs infinite. Back to the Peanut Gallery.
MKIA,
Your eaves are the wrong length and/or height for your facade. You shoukd get sun in winter, shade in summer if propeely made.
Adjust tem. If yiu can,t, maybe a simple sun shade tacked on for summer…
Kevin, good, a response worth an answer.
First, a question. Did you read the links?
During an El Niño period, when global surface temperature rises faster than the long term warming trend, are the oceans actually losing heat (OHC falling) or just gaining heat at a reduced rate (OHC still rising but slightly slower)?
Thanks…
What the heck! I will insert a little raw science that seems like it has a good news aspect!
http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2017/05/02/1618926114.abstract.html?collection
Significance
Methane released from the seafloor and transported to the atmosphere has the potential to amplify global warming. At an arctic site characterized by high methane flux from the seafloor, we measured methane and carbon dioxide (CO2) exchange across the sea−air interface. We found that CO2 uptake in an area of elevated methane efflux was enhanced relative to surrounding waters, such that the negative radiative forcing effect (cooling) resulting from CO2 uptake overwhelmed the positive radiative forcing effect (warming) supported by methane output. Our work suggests physical mechanisms (e.g., upwelling) that transport methane to the surface may also transport nutrient-enriched water that supports enhanced primary production and CO2 drawdown. These areas of methane seepage may be net greenhouse gas sinks.
Daily CO2
May 8, 2017: 409.45 ppm
May 8, 2016: 407.39 ppm
April month average 409.01 – first monthly average over 409 I believe!
MAR: yup, I see the year on year comparison dropping under 2 ppm. That is a comparison against a remarkable runup year of 2016. I think baseline decadal number remains at 2 ppm plus.
DM at 99: nice back of envelope number crunching. Gonna be really expensive to crack this nut. who’s going to pay for this?
Warm regards
Mike
http://www.nbcnews.com/mach/environment/scientists-want-put-10-million-windmills-arctic-here-s-why-n756481
a little more raw science to think about:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/05/02/1618567114
Commane et al:
Significance
Rising arctic temperatures could mobilize reservoirs of soil organic carbon trapped in permafrost. We present the first quantitative evidence for large, regional-scale early winter respiration flux, which more than offsets carbon uptake in summer in the Arctic. Data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Barrow station indicate that October through December emissions of CO2 from surrounding tundra increased by 73% since 1975, supporting the view that rising temperatures have made Arctic ecosystems a net source of CO2. It has been known for over 50 y that tundra soils remain unfrozen and biologically active in early winter, yet many Earth System Models do not correctly represent this phenomenon or the associated CO2 emissions, and hence they underestimate current, and likely future, CO2 emissions under climate change.
Not great news, but hardly a surprise.
Cheers
Mike
Also from the same journal:
Electric car with solar and wind energy may change the environment and economy: A tool for utilizing the renewable energy resource
Authors
First published: 16 January 2014
DOI: 10.1002/2013EF000206
some numbers of interest:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013EF000206/full
Geophysical Research Letters, topical:
Re 100 Thomas and Mike on ASI. Thomas asked On what possible basis known to scientific man could the summer sea ice extent survive (ie Sept/Oct 15%+) until the late 2030s (that another 20+ years from now) given what we know already and could see with our own eyes were one to look?
Ah, those reticent scientists! I recall a study saying ASI modelling showed resilience because ASI can recover quickly if there is a period of favorable temps/weather.
I’m guessing that is the basis of the optimism.
Re: 60, 61, 101 Thomas said There be constructs! We loves us our constructs! so… nobody is listening, and they attack you.
Great comic.
Yes, I know, thus the creation of the Peanut Gallery. It’s the Killianized version of the Bore Hole, though purely in my head. Keeps me from getting into multi-month wasted effort with some of our peanuttles.
Interesting corollary: The more you are correct PLUS the more you say you have been correct, the LESS anybody will listen. E.g…
One would think my **correct** prediction in August 2015 of ASI levels in 2016 (and perhaps 2017) would engender some discussion given the consensus El Nino does not have a causal relationship with ASI levels, but the silence is deafening. The implications are pretty large, no?
In support of this (possible) insight is that I predicted/scenarioed low ASI in 2010, higher in 2011, lower in 2012, higher in 2013, little change in 2014, lower in 2015. Then 2016 comes along and 2017 is likely to have the lowest volume ever.
Ah, well. Where’s my fiddle?
John Pollack #98 – Thank you very much! You are right that the article is quite technical, but I think I got the basic idea.
103: ‘I remain unconvinced those in the know know what they are doing or have any better ideas of how to be more effective.”
Only Thomas could take five column inches and nine links to arrive at expressing the longest word in the English language
CH4, CO2, Permafrost. Oops. (Can I say I told ya so?
Icarus #111 Oceanic Heat Content (OHC) can actually decline briefly during an El Nino (as well as for other reasons). See
https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/ for example.
The long-term upward AGW trend remains intact, of course.
> Can I say I told ya so?
Try saying “people have been warning about this since before I was born ….”
Where were you on the first Earth Day, 1970?
Killian, #117–
That, and (per various discussions on Neven’s Sea Ice Blog) a negative feedback: the more the sea ice melts back, the more heat the surface layers of the ocean lose to the atmosphere, once the Arctic seasonal night has set in. That leads to rapid growth of new ice over very wide areas, which must of course be melted in the spring. (It also leads to denialists crowing about how fast the ice growth is, but that’s another matter.)
Of course, it leads to a warmer Arctic atmosphere as well, and consequently, it appears from the observations of the last few years, disruptions to the polar circulation. Eventually, as warming continues, there’s no more multiyear ice at all–I think I just saw a piece claiming it’s now at about 5% of the total–the Arctic Ocean is untenably warm for ice retention, and we get that first seasonal ice-free state. (Conventionally set at sub-1 million square km, IIRC, since there are apt to be odd scraps here and there, just as you see in far more southerly contexts–but they won’t be very meaningful.)
The freakiest bit is that there is (or ‘was?’ I don’t know the current state of the research on this question) some evidence that the next state switch–from seasonally ice-free to perennially ice-free–could be quite astoundingly rapid. That really stunned me when I first heard it–but you couldn’t really have crocodiles on Ellesmere Island, as the world once did, with much of an Arctic sea ice pack, could you?
(Thoughts or updates on the current state of the research welcome!)
#110, Killian–
Yes, though (full disclosure) I had not yet read the first one when my response was written.
Interesting, though I’m not sure all my concerns are answered thereby. (Of course, why would they be? Those pieces weren’t written just for me, after all!) Pertinent is the question of power. You write that power won’t be given, it must be taken back, and that it is, in the end, the power of numbers that may make that possible. From that perspective, you seem to be pretty close to the point I was making in the beginning of this discussion that ‘intersectionality is vital’ (as I chose to phrase it).
You may not like the ‘jargon’–and no-one says you have to–but what I intended was pretty darn congruent with what you say in that first link–at least as I understand it right now. Since the shortcomings of the status quo affect different people differently, people have varying concerns and practical demands. But both for the pragmatic reason that one needs numbers to create political and (more importantly) social change, and for the systematic reason that, as stated in the interview, suboptimal functioning (wellness) for anyone is a drag on the system (society) as a whole, it is essential to consider all of those varying needs and perspectives.
More fundamentally, perhaps, the tragedy of human history is that small groups seem to work better for justice, happiness and sustainability, but larger societies have always had the military advantage.
It’s way beyond Scott Pruitt and the EPA. Look at the NH jet stream loops and mid-latitude ozone formation. The main driving force in climate change is cold paramagnetic oxygen and wandering magnetic poles. Study this paper:
https://www.harrytodd.org
#121 Killian, that site appears to have genuine Journalists who can parse the ‘studies’ and write very well. And provide source refs too!
A Pulitzer Prize-winning, non-profit, non-partisan news organization dedicated to covering climate change, energy and the environment.
Some interesting quotes ….
Soaring temperatures in the Arctic have triggered a huge seasonal surge in carbon dioxide emissions from thawing permafrost
( What happens in Alaska is replicated across the Arctic circle. And what was showing up in the data coming from MLO CO2 ppm during Oct-Dec 2017 for several months after into 2017? Yes, record high numbers. )
CO2 emissions from October through December have increased by 73% since 1975.
(Oh is that all. Nothing to see here.)
(the scientific based) global climate models are underestimating how much greenhouse gas pollution will be unleashed as the Arctic continues to warm at twice the global average rate
When I looked at the (scientific climate) models used by the IPCC, none of them looked at the fall respiration.
CO2 emissions are surging from October through November because the ground isn’t freezing up as fast as it was before the 1970s.
(and neither is the Arctic sea ice, with air temps souring more than +20C above avg also during the same periods. Could that be just an unrelated coincidence that is unrelated to record CO2ppm readings and weird weather events below the Arctic circle? We’ll need to do several years of science studies first to be sure. )
near-surface permafrost has warmed by more than 0.5 degrees Celsius in the last 10 years
The Arctic permafrost seals in a massive store of carbon, roughly double the amount of CO2 currently in Earth’s atmosphere.
(Is it too rash to then conclude the Arctic Permafrost stores the equivalent of ~410ppm of CO2? That if only half of it was to escape over time that would increase atmospheric CO2 by somewhere between 150-200ppm or maybe more? Or is this too logical to contemplate? I also wonder if this study included the Arctic under-sea stores of GHGs that are bubbling up already.)
“The important thing in this paper is, it shows where the (scientific climate) models fail,” said Donatella Zona of San Diego State University in California
(Well, she also said that they need to do more Studies – that may be true but I’m Not Sure https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVyRkl5qNb8 that will help when all the prior studies haven’t driven rational change.)
120 Russell, this is confirmation I read your note.
re #116 Hank Roberts, what difference does that study make?
IPO is simply natural variation in the climate system already on ‘steroids’. The study adds nothing that wasn’t already known years before the Paris agreement.
New studies are not required to know that the 1.5C Paris target was bullshit.
New studies are not required to know that the 2C Paris target was a slightly higher mythical delusion that will not be met.
The IPO variation is irrelevant to these facts. Why bother even talking about it, let alone wasting time and resources writing up another detailed scientific analysis of it that’ll be forgotten before it’s even published?
(rhetorical only)
somewhat related to #112 Mike.
With the warming already committed in the climate system plus the additional warming expected from rising concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the Arctic will experience significant changes during this century even if greenhouse gas emissions are stabilized globally at a level lower than today’s.
(… and there is zero indication today emissions will be stabilized at lower levels, let alone stabilized at higher levels by choice. )
Ref:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/04/snow-water-ice-and-water-and-adaptive-actions-for-a-changing-arctic/#comment-678262
On the subject of evangelical Christian climate realism, Victor Venema posted this to ATTP:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/05/these-people-want-you-to-know-climate-change-isnt-just-for-liberals/
An in-depth piece by Scott Johnson, one of the better science writers on the Internet IMO. It gets into the links between evangelicals and the GOP, too.
In my judgment, secular environmentalists and conservationists (you know who you are) who consider “Christian environmentalist” an oxymoron are making a mistake, and would do well to look into the modern movement. It’s worth getting past the religious part to explore what you have in common.
#120 And how tediously (and rather less supportably than you think) righteous you all are.
HT 126: The main driving force in climate change is cold paramagnetic oxygen and wandering magnetic poles.
BPL: No it isn’t.
#123 Hank Roberts said I’m a peanuttle, yes I am.
Try saying “people have been warning about this since before I was born ….”
Where were you on the first Earth Day, 1970?
Yeah, cuz 1970 is the context, rather than discussions on *this* site *I* have been part of with *scientists*, not you peanuttles. A wiser man might start asking why a non-scientist keeps nailing the projections better than at least some scientists.
Now, again you have shown yourself uselessly argumentative.
Quiet, Peanut.
#77 Mr. K-it-All – I’d linked the articles in #50 because they were interesting as possible low-cost ways to assist with cooling that may be useful, particularly in lower-income warm places. I’m not in the building trade so can just endorse Killian’s advice at #109. I have a south-facing condo in a high-rise in Chicago but just use white-faced shades in the bedrooms – the living room’s big windows are shaded in summer by the balcony above mine – but in winter it can get hot.
#71 Russell – I wasn’t presenting paint and plastic film as a large-scale geoengineering fix, sorry if there was an impression of that. I see these materials as potentially very useful for inexpensively treating surfaces in the built environment that would benefit from passive cooling. Of course in areas with cold winters, have an insulated air-space between the cooling roof and the livable areas, and just open cooling vents in warmer weather so convection would circulate the warmed air up for cooling and drop the chilled air back down.
The micro bubble approach might be useful for large reservoirs, but I hope we never get to the point where it appears economical to be constantly entraining 5 TG of air into the ocean surface. The economic impacts of ENSO different cycles on opposite sides of the Pacific could make it a sensitive issue to implement like any large-scale geoengineering.
But the mention of using this technology to cool surface over coral reefs makes me wonder about the chemistry and biological implications – I’m betting it would be a fascinating experiment for chemists, biologists and plankton experts to monitor.
– impact as sunny day diffuse light replaces direct light – haze enhances photosynthesis on land by hitting more leaves
– tremendous increase in air/water surface area in the biological soup of the surface and impact on chemistry and biology
– possible enrichment of O2 in the bubble/water interface as entrained air diffuses oxygen into depleted warm waters
– impact on surface-hugging plankton, nighttime migrants in the water column and possible impacts on coral and other spawns that broadcast into the surface waters.
Has there been research on the possible changes in chemistry in a greatly expanded air-water interface that’s loaded with biological materials and creatures as well as our runoff, microplastics and siltation? The microbubble approach got me thinking that perhaps it would be useful to test to see the impact of this on degradation of surface-suspended plastic residues.
While the west keeps on arguing about elections, FBI russian investigations, Trump, Brexit, Syria, Afghanistan, Religion and AGW/CC science denial those Chinese go-getters keep powering ahead while LOL
HTR-PM high-temperature gas-cooled meltdown-proof nuclear reactor unit at Shidaowan is on schedule to start operating later this year 2017.
China Know How to begin converting coal plants to walk away safe pebble bed nuclear starting in the 2020s
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/12/chinas-plans-to-begin-converting-coal.html
April 2017
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Fuel-loading-starts-at-Chinese-demonstration-HTGR-0704175.html
“After 30 years of basic SCIENCE research, experimental reactor operation and demonstration projects, China has now systematically mastered all the key HTR technologies.”
Meaning humans are well on the way to the safe destruction of nuclear waste and nuclear weapons grade materials, cheap efficient economically viable energy for high volume Desal Water plants and Hydrogen production for non-polluting transportation use.
And the mass factory production of Kit-Form Modular GenIV Nuclear Reactors being sold off the shelf world wide like a box of Lego blocks. :-)
Not looking for an ideological argument, merely passing on some “science/climate/energy” news to the intelligentsia. :-)
BPL said: Please name something made with infinite materials.
How about the universe?
S.Fred Singer says there’s a surprise in Global Warming:
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/05/a_global_warming_surprise.html
12:18 AM Pacific 5/12/2017
And with Mr. KIA quoting Fred Singer from americanstinker and obliterating the last tatters of any credibility he ever had, I think we’re done here.
KIA 137: S.Fred Singer says…
BPL: Sorry, but I tend to stop reading right there. I don’t care what Singer says, and neither does anybody with 50% or more of a brain.
Know It All #137 – In your link, Singer wrote:
“…MSU data for the lower atmosphere over both ocean and land; they show little difference; so we can assume that both land data and ocean data contribute about equally to the fictitious surface trend reported for 1977 to 1997.
Well, the latest v6 UAH corrected MT, (called LT) exhibits global trends of 0.17 for land and 0.11 for ocean in K per decade. That’s a 50% greater trend over land vs. ocean. The US Lower 48 trend is 0.23. The old v5.6 TLT shows global trends of 0.19 land and 0.14 ocean. Not to mention that the MSU data begins with December 1978, so there’s no 1977 data.
Of course, one can also calculate the trends from December 1978 thru (not TO) 1997, which results in much lower values. This calculation gives a global UAH TLT v5.6 trend of 0.006 for land and 0.003 for oceans, while the NH trends are 0.012 land and 0.011 ocean and US lower 48 is 0.023. Sure, these trends appear small, but Singer has carefully selected dates which reflect a strong influence of the cooling after the Pinatubo eruption in June 1991, while ignoring the impact of the 1998 El Nino. This is a fine example of cherry picking by the Denialist camp, the complement to their use of 1997 as the starting year for claims that there’s been no warming since.
Killian’s namecalling ramps up.
He thought of it first, of course.
KIA:
Oh, brother. For a guy calling himself Know It All, there’s sure a lot he doesn’t know.
Daily CO2
May 10, 2017: 408.84 ppm
May 10, 2016: 408.08 ppm
Weekly CO2
Apr 30 – May 6, 2017 409.13 ppm
Apr 30 – May 6, 2016 407.68 ppm
Watching the 2016 EN bump move through the year on year comparisons.
MAR: my question about the “new normal” was more about the temperature than about the CO2 levels. There appears to be fluctuation in temp trends as oceans absorb or release heat from atmosphere. I don’t know too much about this, just what I read on credible climate science sites, so I am thinking we may be in the cycle where oceans releases heat back to atmosphere after “the pause” during which oceans were removing heat from atmosphere.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/teleconnections/pdo/
if that is happening, then we might see year after year of record high global temps. Does that sound familiar? Now maybe 2017 will be hotter than 2016 or maybe not, EL Nino bump in 2016 was pretty strong and talk about EN developing later in 2017 is just talk at this point I think, so maybe 2017 will be cooler than 2016. Wait and see, but in any case, 2017 is setting up to be another in the current streak of very hot years – the new normal?
Aside from all of the various wobbles in the CO2-to-heat system, the baseline is that we don’t know exactly what would be normal temp for a 408 ppm world because we will blow through that in the next year or two. The lag on temp to CO2 is about 10 years, and then we would have to tease out an estimate of baseline temp for any given time frame by sorting the wobbles, but the bottom line appears to be that there is no “new normal” for global temp until we stop moving the target with ever-higher levels of CO2 and CO2e.
But, hey, warm summer days. Don’t we all love them?
Cheers
Mike
Sorry, KIA, but you’ve been taken
set up for rebunking, and used as a copypaster.
You can look this stuff up.
https://www.google.com/search?q=tamino+%22fred+singer%22+trend
#137, KIA–That article, as so often with AT on climate, is what is technically called a “Farrago of nonsense.”
This one paper is enough to thoroughly gut most of its BS:
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/1/e1601207
@137 What makes you think the Universe is infinite? Do you honestly think there is another you doing exactly what you are doing right now Out There somewhere? The infinity hypothesis would seem to imply that.
Singer “debunking” Mann (among other “debunks”) again is no surprise. But let’s throw Mann out (sorry MM!). What about the score of other studies that independently come to the same result? Somehow Singer misses “debunking” them.
And I love how he “debunks” the sea surface temp record by noting collection methods–a small handful with fairly well known biases–have changed and are hard to link up but somehow misses the fact that the satellite record–which he uncritically accepts in his screed–consists of subrecords provided by over a dozen differing satellites and sensors, in different orbits overhead particular points at varying times, and are VERY hard to link up! No “surprise” here either.
@131 Mal Adapted: So like, Catherine Hayhoe.
We can agree on solutions even if we’re not on board with the science. And often by agreeing on solutions it actually goes back and can somehow, you know, backwards change our minds. When we feel like we’re part of a solution to something, we’re more willing to say it’s real than when we feel like the solutions are completely unpalatable. –Katherine Hayhoe
http://www.npr.org/2017/05/09/527541032/there-must-be-more-productive-ways-to-talk-about-climate-change
I think what she says there is important. It’s a mistake to narrowly separate alternative energy and/or the health effects of burning fuel, the leakage, and the pollution, from the facts and concerns of climate science. These things are linked in many people’s minds. The anti-climate science lobby–the dismisssives (her term)–spend a lot of time convincing themselves and others that alternatives aren’t real or ready. And if there aren’t alternatives, then the effects of business as usual on breathing disorders, cancer, etc.–and on health care costs–will remain just something that people have taught themselves to accept, and to learn to live with, and not to question.
Equally as exploitative as the dismissives are the would-be, wannabee gee-oh-geeoengineers.
Hayhoe is on the board of Citizen’s Climate Lobby, along with Hansen, Inglis, and other good company:
https://citizensclimatelobby.org/about-ccl/advisory-board/
Thanks, Scott Johnson. Thanks, Victor. Thanks, Mal.
#137 KIA – parsing Singer’s key point – “the initial warming is genuine, but the later warming is not – (the warming 1977 to 2000) just does not exist.”
That’s a big call. :-)
KIA, do you believe Singer is correct – ie no warming 1977-2000?
Do you believe there is no warming from 2000-2016 as well?
If you wish to say ‘why’ feel free. :-)
Mr. Know It All refers us to a piece by Fred Singer. Unexpectedly, even a casual observer would be able to shoot holes in his claims. Maybe Mr. Know It All should try and read it as if he were a true skeptic, and verify what Singer writes. Perhaps start with the contention that “the proxy data” does not show any recent warming and that Mike Mann removed “the proxy data” post-1979. Since Mr. Know It All will find that both claims are untrue, maybe that will make him a little bit more skeptical about the rest of Singer’s little piece.
http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2017/zonal-mean-temperature-change/