VOX Climate scientists are not priests or prophets
Assessing climate policy requires much more than science.
That is a very good piece...
Assessing climate policy requires much more than science.
That is a very good piece...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
30 comments:
Interesting, even if it is VOX. This is most laughable: "Over and over again, advocates will face trade-offs between their ambitions and the limits of the political systems currently in place,..." How about the limits of physics, chemistry, economics and our own knowledge?
Let's take their belief that the models are "mostly correct" over the last 50 years. They show a chart of the TCR-- Transient Climate Response to CO2 doubling-- and "DegC/decade) comparing the various researchers. Notice how Hansen, the guy who started all this, is way off the mark. Notice that the average TCR is somewhere around 1.75, NOT the 3-4.5 used in most of the models. Notice the degrees C/decade is between 1.5 and 2.0, meaning whichever models these folks are looking at "prove" we are already meeting the Paris targets! The thrust of the article is correct, that science should not be used to support radical political crusades for their own sake, especially when the science does NOT support such things!
Jerry,
Yes... We are perfectly aware that you believe yourself smarter than the experts...
Volume II: Impacts, Risk and Adaptation 2018?
Volume I: Climate Assessment 2017
Please note that both were published while our "Denier in Chief" was in office.
I am not smarter than the real experts, just the fake ones. And I am relying entirely on your own citation! Surely you can translate degrees per decade to degrees per century?!? As for the TCR, take a read of the recent Dr. Curry blog.
And what you miss is that "GMST" is a doctored number. The satellite record-- the truly global temperature-- shows no such agreement with the models.
Here is Judith latest related post and she still acknowledges the warming.
The only question is what will be the consequences and to who?
"1.2 C of additional manmade warming over the remainder of the 21st century isn’t ‘dangerous.’ Yes, there is substantial uncertainty in how the climate of the 21st century will actually play out, and we will undoubtedly be surprised.
But reframing the ‘warming’ with an early 21st century baseline, rejecting RCP8.5 and using more credible values of TCRE goes a long way towards putting manmade global warming into perspective over the course of the 21st century."
Ocean rise?
"If you take out the highly implausible RCP8.5, then we are left with 1-2 feet by 2100, compared to ~7 inch rise in the 20th century. And these values are biased high from climate model simulations that don’t sample the full ‘likely’ range of ECS from the IPCC AR5 – no climate model values between 1.5 and 2.3 C."
It's the Republicans who get their environmental policies from prophets and priests.
--Hiram
I think you are starting to get it. Unless you are claiming that 1.2C is dangerous? The world IS getting warmer (and has been ever since the Little Ice Age, it is rumored that George Washington drove a Lincoln Navigator) but the models are wrong. See Dr. Curry's latest here:
models do not agree
Oh, and who says the warming is manmade? Was the warming that took place before 1900 manmade?
This from another recent post from Curry.
"Conclusion
I calculated the climate sensitivity in a temporary standstill period (or slightly decreasing) as it was detected in the observations of the EEI during 1999 to 2018. The ECS value of 1.72K as the best estimate is in excellent agreement with the value found in LC18, 1.66K using the then current C&W GMST dataset (see Tab.3 of this paper).
The published ECS-values of the CMIP6 models have a mean above 4 K (see this recent paper) that is higher by a factor of 2.4 than observed here. This growing discrepancy between observed values of ECS reduces the credibility of the high model estimates."
In other words, GIGO
When you look at her site, you need to watch who the author is...
Your first link is "by Ross McKitrick"
Judith clearly states that man is causing warming...
"1.2 C of additional manmade warming over the remainder of the 21st century isn’t ‘dangerous.’ Yes, there is substantial uncertainty in how the climate of the 21st century will actually play out, and we will undoubtedly be surprised."
As I noted 1.2 C and 2 feet of ocean rise isn't a problem for us in MN... But it may be very dangerous for others.
Finally the rate of increase is becoming faster, so what about the folks after the year 2100?
Then there is the question of what happens when most of the ice has melted?
Currently it is absorbing /using a massive amount of heat energy as it melts...
As the chunk gets smaller will our climate start to heat up like a cooler left in the sun... And then will we all look like withered lettuce in said cooler.
OK, so we have a century, at least, to worry about what happens when the ice melts? If the whole world, except for Trump's USA, has agreed we "MUST" /prevent/ temperatures from rising by 2 degrees, and our best guesses are 1.2 degrees, why are we spending trillions on ineffective "prevention" schemes?
Because the USA has only 4% of the humans and is 15% of the problem...
We either should shut off some lights or create the power with less emissions in order to be responsible citizens of planet Earth and a good example to the other 7 Billion passengers on this big blue marble....
Otherwise they may try to use as much power as we do and as effectively...
Please provide a source for "spending trillions"...
WHAT PROBLEM???
How much will we spend to convert to windmills, and what is the opportunity cost of having millions of us out of work and freezing in our homes? Estimated cost of Green New Deal is $94 Trillion.
That does not look like a source...
Fact Checking $93 Trillion Number
Do you ever question these silly sound bites you spout?
Another Fact Check
OH, I see... Since the GND is an entirely fanciful, pie-in-the-sky socialist wish list with no possibility of becoming reality, let alone law, and no specifics, it is not possible to put a price tag on it. That way, we can say it will accomplish all that we WISH it would do, and that it magically costs nothing. Typical liberal thinking. My question is, suppose we reach "net zero emissions." WHAT will be the benefit? Well, according to the IPCC and EPA models, there would be a future reduction of 0.37 degrees C below the "no action" scenario. There is nothing more costly than doing that which does not need doing at all.
And the actual data for the US, from NOAA, says Temperatures have gone DOWN 0.5 degrees C over the last 15 years. We are already BELOW where "no action" would take us, 100 years from now!
Jerry,
I sometimes wonder which Earth you live on, this is one of those times.
NOAA Report
And I often wonder why you cling to your delusions when YOUR sources so clearly contradict them.
actual NOAA data
Just as I said, last 15 years temps are DOWN! And notice the trend? Last 125 years is about 0.82 degrees C per Century. WAY under the Paris targets.
Now let's run that table which is only for the Contiguous US States for all the years.
And then listen to the assessment from the experts regarding GLOBAL changes and trends.
"The year 2019 was the second warmest year in the 140-year record, with a global land and ocean surface temperature departure from average of +0.95°C (+1.71°F).
This value is only 0.04°C (0.07°F) less than the record high value of +0.99°C (+1.78°F) set in 2016 and 0.02°C (0.04°F) higher than the now third highest value set in 2015 (+0.93°C / +1.67°F).
The five warmest years in the 1880–2019 record have all occurred since 2015, while nine of the 10 warmest years have occurred since 2005.
The year 1998 currently ranks as the 10 warmest year on record. The year 2019 marks the 43rd consecutive year (since 1977) with global land and ocean temperatures, at least nominally, above the 20th century average.
The year began in a weak-to-moderate El Niño, transitioning to ENSO-neutral conditions by July.
During the year, each monthly temperature ranked among the five warmest for their respective months on record, with the months of June and July record warm.
The global annual temperature has increased at an average rate of 0.07°C (0.13°F) per decade since 1880 and over twice that rate (+0.18°C / +0.32°F) since 1981."
Now I know you like to cherry pick data. (ie regions, time, method, etc)
However even that data shows a long term warming trend.
If you are unwilling to take the words of Judith Curry, an expert and a skeptic.
I really find it hard to understand your need to deny that burning trillions of tons of fossil fuels will warm our world.
Maybe you have never warmed your hands in front of a fire...
OK, notice that these "experts" you cite, whomever they may be, only TELL YOU what they think about the data, rather than show you the actual data ("how to lie with statistics"). I showed you the actual data, and it says exactly what I said it did. Now if you want to "cherry-pick data" then look at what you have quoted here (assuming the data is even real), Notice they talk about 1 year, compared to another year, or one year compared to the 140-year record. We KNOW and accept that the world is warming (about 0.8 degrees/century), because we are coming out of the Little Ice Age. That information proves nothing about the CAUSE of the warming. Those gigatons of manmade CO2 amount to just less than 4% of Mother Nature's contribution. And about 80% LESS than the annual /natural/ variation.
If you must worry about global warming, then quit trying to prevent it, which you can't, and start figuring out how we might adapt to it, beneficially.
I don't know what data you are relying on, but NOAA data clearly contradicts the "5 warmest years" figure,
The record high was '06 not '16.
And you should have noticed that "since 1981" temperatures have increased 1.8 degrees per century (cherry picking the start point). About what Curry says, and what I have said, and what the data says, and less than Paris imagines can be done. Now when are you going to give up your doomsaying and crisis-mongering?
Sorry, forgot the cite:
NOAA over the century
Unfortunately I can not access the site for now from my work PC. This endless discussion will need to wait.
I can wait. Eventually the truth must prevail.
The truth is in the data, not what self-dealing people say about it.
Post a Comment