Articles on this Page
- 12/30/18--15:16: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/30/18--15:29: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/30/18--15:33: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/30/18--15:57: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/30/18--16:16: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/30/18--16:20: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/30/18--16:36: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/30/18--17:20: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/30/18--17:26: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/30/18--17:26: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/30/18--17:54: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/30/18--22:56: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/31/18--00:48: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/31/18--01:01: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/31/18--01:04: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/31/18--02:04: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/31/18--02:13: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/31/18--03:34: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/31/18--04:42: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/31/18--05:04: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/30/18--15:16: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Andy West
- 12/30/18--15:29: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Don132
- 12/30/18--15:33: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
- 12/30/18--15:57: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Geoff Sherrington
- 12/30/18--16:16: Comment on Week in review – science edition by dpy6629
- 12/30/18--16:20: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Andy West
- 12/30/18--16:36: Comment on Week in review – science edition by curryja
- 12/30/18--17:20: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Dave Fair
- 12/30/18--17:26: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Javier
- 12/30/18--17:26: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Dave Fair
- 12/30/18--17:54: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
- 12/30/18--22:56: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Geoff Sherrington
- 12/31/18--00:48: Comment on Week in review – science edition by sheldonjwalker
- 12/31/18--01:01: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
- 12/31/18--01:04: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
- 12/31/18--02:04: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Geoff Sherrington
- 12/31/18--02:13: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Geoff Sherrington
- 12/31/18--03:34: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Andy West
- 12/31/18--04:42: Comment on Week in review – science edition by bigterguy
- 12/31/18--05:04: Comment on Week in review – science edition by bigterguy
"Adding personal feelings is a major tool in rhetoric and the hope is that those concerns are conveyed better that way."
Indeed we are not Vulcan and some rhetoric will generally accompany political messaging. But an entirely false message delivered in the most emotive and scary terms is far beyond rhetoric, it is just myth. And it is indeed false to say that mainstream science supports a high certainty of imminent global catastrophe (and you agree this is false), which message is per the many examples delivered in the most emotive terms.
"You are asking politicians to make climate change impersonal and detached."
No, I'm not. But I do challenge the mainstream scientific community to push back far more strongly on this falsity which the listed authority sources genuinely believe. How will they ever learn their huge error if mainstream science does not push back?
"As I’ve said before, if it doesn’t sound urgent, they are not saying it right."
To give a free pass on a complete falsity propagated as an existential issue in the most emotive fashion, just because it currently aligns to a level of urgency you're comfortable with regarding your preferred policies, is noble cause corruption. If those policies and the science supporting them are indeed the winning options, they will stand on their own without the huge emotive fire of a false narrative. Nor if it pushed back on falsity, will mainstream science ever have anything to fear when recriminations about the false narrative start.
Good, sensible people can have different views– it really is as simple as that. But the project of Oreskes and company (and Jim D?) is to pretend there's no legitimate side other than the one they're on and to demonize those who disagree.
Shades of 1984 and Brave New World, not to mention Lysenkoism?
Andy West, clearly you have interpreted something that has been said in a way that appears false to you (not giving an example). Others including scientists may not see it as false. Scientists are not monolithically central mainstream and occupy a spectrum and it is probable that some scientists would support what was said. At that point it becomes an internal science debate. You say scientists should push back. Which scientists? Is there some truly centrist person you would trust more than someone else on either side of the spectrum? Any such pushback may well be met with other scientists who support the statement and think the IPCC were too conservative, and there are many of those who feel the IPCC compromised too much, especially on error bars.
This is not my blog, it is yours and you have been very successful with it.
You will notice, as others have, that a couple of contributors take over the dialog now and then, R I Ellison and Jim D being the culprits of the moment.
Some say that they create interesting reading and should be allowed free rein. Others, like me, would like to see some moderation, limiting volume to aim for the regaining of a wider spectrum of bloggers.
It is a management problem, not a science problem.
Part of the problem is that neither of this pair represents any identifiable or valuable wider view. RIE has a dedication to the increase of carbon in soil, but he has not shown here that he has thought the matter through to the stage of a realistic benefit:cost type of analysis, a procedure that is often full of surprises such as showing that the idea does not work, after all. Jim D is, in my non-medical view, a little deranged in a mostly harmless sort of way. His comments are becoming unhinged, like one above re regulators, "So they just make regulations for fun? They do it to protect people from profit-driven industry. This is part of being civilized."
You, Judith, have made the transition from academia to industry (welcome, again) so to me it seems you have the management problem of hosting an alleged nut-case blogger who sees your move as evil and uncivilized. You must have more patience that I would have, to remain silent.
I do not want this comment to divert this post from its review of science. (Jim D has already commenced that diversion, as is often the case). But I do feel strongly that some harder moderation might easily lead to a quality improvement. I say 'might' because the sands of time are forever shifting and the days of former blog glory might be gone, as competing means of communication become stronger. Thank you. Geoff.
Well Geoff, I suspect one of the issues here is the time involved in moderating every comment.
Ellison often provides references that are quite interesting. I'd actually like to see him do a guest post on some of these issues he brings up with regard for example to forcings in CMIP5 vs. CMIP3 models.
"...interpreted something that has been said in a way that appears false to you (not giving an example)."
No. I referred you to the many examples of catastrophe narrative from many authority sources (and some scientists) in the prior posts you claimed to have read. Their messaging could hardly be clearer, or indeed more emotive. If you think not please provide detailed commentary on why regarding all these quotes.
"...Others including scientists may not see it as false."
So for anyone, scientist or not, you are now arguing that it is not false if they say that mainstream science supports a high certainty of imminent (decades) catastrophe?? Have you jumped ship from Ipcc support to the non-mainstream camp who support CAGW theory?
"is probable that some scientists would support what was said."
It is not only probable, for sure I provided 50 examples of scientists who propagate catastrophe narrative (about half climate scientists who therefore will have preferred theories to match). But these are a small minority in opposition to the IPCC / mainstream.
"At that point it becomes an internal science debate."
It should be, but isn't, because the minority camp's message won due to emotive clout, not content. How do you think all those authority messages would go if they added that this is NOT mainstream stuff, but some minority camp.
"You say scientists should push back. Which scientists?"
Obviously the mainstream community should push back on the narrative of high certainty of imminent global catastrophe that is being propagated in their name, but which they do not support.
"...and think the IPCC were too conservative, and there are many of those who feel the IPCC compromised too much..."
Absolutely, which you will recall of course I pointed out in my posts. So it's not a case of trusting 1 group more than another, it is simply about telling the truth on who supports what. Folks, leaders or not, can spout catastrophe narrative to their heart's content *if* they acknowledge it's minority status and from whom. But for all those authorities to tell the world that a high certainty of imminent global catastrophe is the judgement of IPCC / mainstream science, and in the most existential and emotive manner, is simply false. So have you now switched to the CAGW camp? Do you oppose the mainstream too?
Geoff, you are correct, JD and RIE together account for HALF of the last 1000 comments. I will put both in moderation to slow them down a bit, but I am more tolerant of individuals dominating older threads that are no longer particularly active.
Past trends do not a future make, Jim D. Whatever happened to the 1945/75 trend that led to the global cooling scare?
Of course sea ice shows a declining long term trend. The Earth is warming in case you didn't noticed. The ice is expected to melt and the sea is expected to rise. But you are getting all the rest wrong because you ignore the natural mechanisms by which the Earth cools and warms. Arctic winter warming is <b>a cooling mechanism</b>, you bonehead, not Arctic amplification. Polar ice albedo feedback is negligible or the ice would not have come back from September 2012 levels. Surface albedo is a very small part of Earth's albedo, and polar albedo is a very small part because of sun rays incidence angle, because the ice is more extensive when there is no sun, so it is in the wrong season to have an important effect, and because the Arctic is cloudy most of the time during summers. The only significant albedo effect is from the clouds.
In other words, lie to the people: It's OK; it's just a politician exaggerating to get his way.
Andy West, let's get at who should push back. You say the mainstream should. Who decides who "the mainstream" is? Is it someone who agrees with every word and the full range in the latest IPCC report? You won't find anyone that fits that profile. How do you place this scientist on a pedestal to attack Obama or The Pope for what they said? What are the practicalities of your proposal? Should this same person attack people who low-ball climate change estimates? Should they denounce Hansen for saying several meters of sea-level rise is possible by 2100? Do they need to be a glacier expert (he had many glacier and sea-level co-authors)? Maybe you would like "the mainstream" to get together in an op-ed to correct the politicians? They won't unless the politician has said something counter to the science, which actually has to be rather extreme so as to be physically impossible. It would need to be along the lines of CO2 has no effect to reach that bar. Stephen Hawking saying it would become like Venus is an example of the other extreme. These are clearly wrong statements scientifically. Your other example had Macron saying it would be the end of the Earth, so you would have some scientist come on TV and say it won't be the end of the Earth per se. Do you think that would help or spur panic by giving that statement more publicity?
Your paper on sea levels was excellent and I thought I should do more than simply say that. All the best for 2019 Geoff.
Just in time for the New Year, an article which will stop you feeling gloomy about the future.
How far would you need to move towards the nearest Pole, to reverse one degree Celsius of global warming?
You may have already been thinking about moving towards one of the Poles (the North Pole, or the South Pole), in order to avoid global warming. But how far should you go?
Don't worry any longer, this article tells you exactly how far you should move, to get the perfect climate.
Not only that, this article also shows you how to find your pre-industrial paradise.
And there is more. Experience global warming, before it actually happens (that way, you can see whether you like it, or not).
Don't wait any longer, click the following link.
I do quite well without Sherrington's largely formulaic rhetoric largely about about errors in data - whatever it happens to be - invalidating climate science.
I did try to read the 'paper' he belatedly managed to link. The title was something like not including UHI was crass and absurd science. My thought was immediately was that UHI is irrelevant to mean surface temperature and that flogging a horse that has been dead for a decade at least is about how far behind the curve he is.
I would of thought my tipping cascade interest would be more prominent, or Pacific state influences on planetary energy dynamics, or ecology, or energy technology, or hydrology, or economics, or social and environmental policy.
But no - Geoff has a particular bugbear about carbon in soils. In the very first instance he insisted on his authority as a soil scientist that carbon levels in soils couldn't be increased. Above I linked another video by the global expert on soil carbon Rattan Lal - this time focusing on soil carbon and food security. Juxtaposed with a video from Bjorn Lomberg on the economics and greenhouse gas advantages of energy innovation rather than taxes and subsidies.
But we know precisely what carbon sequestration in soils and ecosystems costs - some A$12/tonne on average over the past few years in diverse ways. Much of it caring for country as it is known locally. Worth every cent - especially when leveraged against voluntary private investment.
Much of the world is going that way with reclaiming desert, restoring woodland, savanna, forest and wetland. Along with returning some of the 500 GtC lost from agricultural soils in the Holocene - without which global food security is a receding goal.
With #jiminy - it amuses me to insinuate that he is a spambot - but really it was a question of just how far he could go with aberrant tenacity in the defense of a fanatical if unscientific AGW true believer meme. The point itself is undeniable. The planet emits - neglecting other feedbacks - some 3.2 W/m2 more IR radiation for every degree it warms in accordance with Planck's radiation law. In this scenario some 1.2 K warming at equilibrium. Highly technical and with a range of references on my part at least - and refraining from much of the empty chatter that is the most some people seem capable of. But I am of course a confused and ignorant skeptic who can't accept that Judith's no-feedback response isn't in fact quite without it's feedbacks.
My assessment of most of the AGW fanatics here is that they have little math or science - and substitute a narrative that is wild and woolly and that is far from the uncertainties and complexities of real Earth system science. And as in the Koutsoyiannis quote above on the recent amazement of our scientific community that things change - some science is little better.
Be that as it may - adding nothing to any serious discussion than pettifogging and vainglorious posturing seems much more of a waste of everyone's time.
You want numbers in a 4 minute video? You will need to dig a little bit deeper than that.
Tipping cascades in ecology are very real - and that is the point.
Having skimmed through this paper, I can say with confidence that the Australian part of the example is erroneous and misleading. Regional temperature changes are not as large as are illustrated. Rainfall, like temperature, is subject to cherry picking of start and end dates.
As an example, here is some data for Melbourne. It is indirect to the main theme of the paper, but entirely relevant.
While colorful graphics, as in the above paper by Zengchao Hao et al., are helpful, they cannot substitute for the lessons in the primary data sources.
Apologies, my URL are getting interfered with.
Maybe this graph summarises -
These comments in relation to the abovementioned paper -
Changes in the severity of compound drought and hot extremes over global land areas [link]
"Who decides who “the mainstream” is?"
No-one has to, they know themselves.
"Is it someone who agrees with every word and the full range in the latest IPCC report? You won’t find anyone that fits that profile."
Ridiculous straw man. This is not about detail. This is about a fundamental falsity that mainstream science supports a high certainty of imminent (decades) global catastrophe, the narrative of which is propagated by all the listed authority sources in the most existential and emotive terms, and in the name of mainstream science. And no-one needs nomination to speak the truth regarding their misrepresentation.
Who said anything about attack? To respectfully say that mainstream science does not support the catastrophe narrative is not to attack. The listed authorities are not propagating this narrative for nefarious reasons, but because they believe it. If the mainstream science community doesn't correct their gross error, how will they ever discover the truth?
"What are the practicalities of your proposal?"
Keep it simple. Look at all the exampled catastrophe narrative. It says in different forms that mainstream science supports a high certainty of imminent global catastrophe. Point out that this is wrong when further propagation occurs. With the main error removed, details about what mainstream science really says will emerge. No science detail actually needed from the mainstream science community for this correction of fundamental falsity; detailed engagement will follow once the obscuring fire of false narrative is removed.
"Maybe you would like “the mainstream” to get together in an op-ed to correct the politicians?"
"They won’t unless the politician has said something counter to the science..."
Presidents, prime ministers, high ministers, UN elite, religious leaders, NGOs, influencers, businesses and many other authority orgs and individuals are every day (across many years) saying something that is in fundamental disagreement with mainstream science, I.e. that it supports a high certainty of imminent global catastrophe, which it doesn't.
"...Macron saying it would be the end of the Earth..."
Exactly, and many more like it, in the most emotive deliveries. And he, like all the other authority sources, underwrites this scenario as being the judgement of mainstream science. How are their publics supposed to know they are wrong unless the mainstream science community itself corrects the misrepresention?
"...so you would have some scientist come on TV and say it won’t be the end of the Earth..."
Great idea, each time countering this emotive false narrative. Then, eventually, the truth of what mainstream science actually says, will emerge.
I'm sure you recall all the consensus messaging. There is much opinion on its good or ills, but most is irrelevant in the sense that such messaging in the public domain s not generally linked to mainstream science output anyhow, but to catastrophe narrative. So all those authorities are deploying 'the agreement of all our world's best scientists' or whatever other consensus description, 97% or whatever, not for what mainstream science actually says anyhow, but to underwrite a high certainty of imminent global catastrophe. This is simply false, only a small minority of scientists support that concept. You agree that this is not what mainstream science says, but you insist on giving a free pass to all the authority sources saying it. I presume you are not part of the mainstream science community, but even your free pass, along with the same from thousands of others, contributes to perpetuating the most fundamental and well represented falsity in the domain.
Jim D: yes,yes,yes,etc.
Responsible scientists should put the political rhetoric in context at every opportunity. More importantly, responsible scientists should be condemning the ‘settled science’ narrative as loudly and as frequently as they can. ‘Settled ‘ science is, by definition, not science. ‘Consensus’ science is nonsense.
Yet so-called legitimate news sources are banning skeptical scientists from participating in their discussions with the support of many self-proclaimed scientists. The BBC is perhaps the worst propagandist for AGW in the world.
Astro, please add more description of the data and how they were generated, or a link. This figure, on its own, doesn’t tell me much.