Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change

[chubbs]

1 hour ago, LibertyBell said:

What do you think of this new commercial being put out by the industry about greenhouse gas emissions being half of what they were a generation ago?

I oppose natural gas (it's really methane) because of fracking and pipelines, thankfully we have placed a moratorium on them here in NY and are going with wind, solar and hydro.

I'd rather have nuclear, but we also had a lot of problems with the Shoreham plant on Long Island, and the power company was eventually charged with racketeering.  The rates got extremely high when LILCO was trying to build that plant.  The Indian Point power plant was also shut down recently because of issues.  These plants shouldn't be near big cities or near fault lines, as Fukushima demonstrated.

 

 

Haven't seen the commercial. Natural gas is better than coal, but need to get to zero emissions eventually to halt warming.  Most of the improvement in long-term outlook is due to the big cost drops this decade for solar, wind and batteries. For me highest priority is introducing some kind of carbon pricing, which would improve economics of nuclear and all other improvement options.

[jgf]

2 hours ago, chubbs said:

thankfully we have placed a moratorium on them here in NY

did NY also place a moratorium on heating houses?

i would bet >95% are heated with oil or gas - and i doubt that will change significantly any time in the next decade

[Vice-Regent]

It's just a shame that it has come to this. We couldn't let go of capitalism and even after it's killing people's social mobility and the sustainability of the Earth systems. There is almost zero incentive to keep capitalism around other than it feeds 7 billion people. I think that's why people hold onto capitalism.

[LibertyBell]

18 hours ago, chubbs said:

Haven't seen the commercial. Natural gas is better than coal, but need to get to zero emissions eventually to halt warming.  Most of the improvement in long-term outlook is due to the big cost drops this decade for solar, wind and batteries. For me highest priority is introducing some kind of carbon pricing, which would improve economics of nuclear and all other improvement options.

Yes nuclear is better than gas or any other fossil fuel.  Hopefully a lot safer than it was back in the 80s.... looking back on what was going on back then makes me realize why it has such a stain on it.  

 

[LibertyBell]

14 hours ago, Vice-Regent said:

It's just a shame that it has come to this. We couldn't let go of capitalism and even after it's killing people's social mobility and the sustainability of the Earth systems. There is almost zero incentive to keep capitalism around other than it feeds 7 billion people. I think that's why people hold onto capitalism.

It doesn't actually feed 8 billion people, it just feeds those in power and it's highly addictive.

Most of the planet is in abject poverty.

 

[LibertyBell]

16 hours ago, jgf said:

did NY also place a moratorium on heating houses?

i would bet >95% are heated with oil or gas - and i doubt that will change significantly any time in the next decade

No, the way it works is all new housing will be heated by renewables.  Good riddance to both oil and gas and their ridiculous prices anyway and their health issues.  Going all EV will dramatically improve air quality.  Fossil fuels are called dirty for a reason.  Dont need to worry about gas leaks or pipeline explosions or fracking quakes anymore either, which seem to be rampant in other parts of the nation.  I like that we're building a few hundred miles of wind farms off the coast of Long Island, not only are they good for energy but they should also lessen the impact of hurricanes hitting the coast.

 

 

 

[jgf]

4 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

No, the way it works is all new housing will be heated by renewables.

are any new houses in upstate new york being built with electric heat today?

have you looked into the amount of electricity that would be needed to heat all the houses in new england, and compared that with wind and other  renewable electricity coming on line?

I live near the water - the wind on the water right now.., dec 22, is about 2kts - it's 23degF outside. it's actually fairly common for low wind speeds to be associated with low temperatures.., as a high builds in. it went down to about 20degF overnight

is there really any proposal for enough non wind-dependent, non sunlight-dependent, electricity to heat all the houses in new england?

10 years from now, houses in new england will mostly  be heated by oil and gas, just as they are today.

about the only renewable with a chance of making a dent in home heating over the next 10 years is wood pellets 

[donsutherland1]

There's a fallacy that complexity of making weather forecasts at extended ranges means that climate forecasts years out are essentially not possible to make.

A closer look is in order for purposes of a quick sketch.

Take for example, New York City (Central Park). Let's say one is seeking to forecast the high temperature on January 1, 2020.

The highest maximum temperature on record is 62°, which occurred in 1966. The lowest maximum temperature on record is 10° from 1918. The 0z GFS forecast a high of 36°. The historic range is 1.4 times the forecast high.

Finally, let's say one is seeking to forecast the 2020 annual mean temperature. The warmest such reading was 57.4° in 2012. The coldest such reading was 49.5° in 1875 and 1888. Since 2000, the mean has averaged 55.7°. If one uses that estimate, the range of error is just under 0.15 times the estimate.

That latter situation is the type of situation one is dealing with when it comes to making climate projections. Thus, the fallacy of synoptic complexity's precluding climate forecasts does not apply.

When it comes to climate (and climate change) there are widely-established drivers of climate: solar and greenhouse gases are among the most important. Therefore, if one gets the forcings right, one should get a reasonable projection of the climate.

Well, that's exactly what the research shows. Climate models have proved skillful.

Retrospectively comparing future model projections to observations provides a robust and independent test of model skill. Here we analyse the performance of climate models published between 1970 and 2007 in projecting future global mean surface temperature (GMST) changes. Models are compared to observations based on both the change in GMST over time and the change in GMST over the change in external forcing. The latter approach accounts for mismatches in model forcings, a potential source of error in model projections independent of the accuracy of model physics. We find that climate models published over the past five decades were skillful in predicting subsequent GMST changes, with most models examined showing warming consistent with observations, particularly when mismatches between model-projected and observationally-estimated forcings were taken into account.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019GL085378

Key takeaway: Climate should not be viewed through a synoptic lens.

Finally, the physical properties of carbon dioxide are well-established. There's no serious scientific debate on that matter. Therefore, it should make little difference whether carbon dioxide is released through natural mechanisms or if human activities release carbon dioxide. The molecules should behave in the same fashion, not follow different rules depending on whether they were emitted into the atmosphere via volcanic eruptions or the burning of fossil fuels.

[psv88]

5 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

There's a fallacy that complexity of making weather forecasts at extended ranges means that climate forecasts years out are essentially not possible to make.

A closer look is in order for purposes of a quick sketch.

Take for example, New York City (Central Park). Let's say one is seeking to forecast the high temperature on January 1, 2020.

The highest maximum temperature on record is 62°, which occurred in 1966. The lowest maximum temperature on record is 10° from 1918. The 0z GFS forecast a high of 36°. The historic range is 1.4 times the forecast high.

Finally, let's say one is seeking to forecast the 2020 annual mean temperature. The warmest such reading was 57.4° in 2012. The coldest such reading was 49.5° in 1875 and 1888. Since 2000, the mean has averaged 55.7°. If one uses that estimate, the range of error is just under 0.15 times the estimate.

That latter situation is the type of situation one is dealing with when it comes to making climate projections. Thus, the fallacy of synoptic complexity's precluding climate forecasts does not apply.

When it comes to climate (and climate change) there are widely-established drivers of climate: solar and greenhouse gases are among the most important. Therefore, if one gets the forcings right, one should get a reasonable projection of the climate.

Well, that's exactly what the research shows. Climate models have proved skillful.

Retrospectively comparing future model projections to observations provides a robust and independent test of model skill. Here we analyse the performance of climate models published between 1970 and 2007 in projecting future global mean surface temperature (GMST) changes. Models are compared to observations based on both the change in GMST over time and the change in GMST over the change in external forcing. The latter approach accounts for mismatches in model forcings, a potential source of error in model projections independent of the accuracy of model physics. We find that climate models published over the past five decades were skillful in predicting subsequent GMST changes, with most models examined showing warming consistent with observations, particularly when mismatches between model-projected and observationally-estimated forcings were taken into account.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019GL085378

Key takeaway: Climate should not be viewed through a synoptic lens.

Finally, the physical properties of carbon dioxide are well-established. There's no serious scientific debate on that matter. Therefore, it should make little difference whether carbon dioxide is released through natural mechanisms or if human activities release carbon dioxide. The molecules should behave in the same fashion, not follow different rules depending on whether they were emitted into the atmosphere via volcanic eruptions or the burning of fossil fuels.

Great post as always. Your contribution to this board is greatly appreciated and a tremendous asset. Happy Holidays to you and yours.

[BillT]

i see a margin of error .15 for that one small place, yet those same folks claim precision to within hundredths of a degree with NO margin of error = the claims that one month or year was .01 warmer than the other are pure BS.

[psv88]

1 hour ago, BillT said:

i see a margin of error .15 for that one small place, yet those same folks claim precision to within hundredths of a degree with NO margin of error = the claims that one month or year was .01 warmer than the other are pure BS.

Link to anyone claiming precision with no margin of error? We all know you made this up. Nobody said that. 

[BillT]

3 minutes ago, psv88 said:

Link to anyone claiming precision with no margin of error? We all know you made this up. Nobody said that. 

to make the claim REQUIRES there be no margin of error......because to say one year was .01 degree warmer than another REQUIRES the margin of error to be much less than .O1....the claim itself excludes there being any margin of error.......and i must ask who is the "we all" you posted of?  "all" includes many people.

[psv88]

18 minutes ago, BillT said:

to make the claim REQUIRES there be no margin of error......because to say one year was .01 degree warmer than another REQUIRES the margin of error to be much less than .O1....the claim itself excludes there being any margin of error.......and i must ask who is the "we all" you posted of?  "all" includes many people.

Ok so you made it up. Cool.

[bdgwx]

6 hours ago, BillT said:

to make the claim REQUIRES there be no margin of error......because to say one year was .01 degree warmer than another REQUIRES the margin of error to be much less than .O1....the claim itself excludes there being any margin of error.......and i must ask who is the "we all" you posted of?  "all" includes many people.

 

Annual global mean temperatures from most datasets are accompanied with a margin of error. This makes annual rankings probabilistic. Berkeley Earth has a good visualization of this in their 2018 report. You can see how the temperature distribution curve for each year peaks at the reported value and how the tails can overlap with other years.

http://berkeleyearth.org/2018-temperatures/

They have an excellent paper describing how the averaging process works and how uncertainties are dealt with and reported.

http://berkeleyearth.org/static/papers/Methods-GIGS-1-103.pdf 

Most other datasets post their uncertainties and make annual rankings in a similar manner.

 

 

[donsutherland1]

7 hours ago, psv88 said:

Great post as always. Your contribution to this board is greatly appreciated and a tremendous asset. Happy Holidays to you and yours.

Thanks for the kind words and Holiday wishes. I hope your family and you have a great Holiday season.

[psv88]

Climate predictions from 2000 turned out to be accurate 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/12/25/climate-change-northeast-warming-faster-united-states/2743119001/?

[LibertyBell]

On 12/22/2019 at 8:07 AM, jgf said:

are any new houses in upstate new york being built with electric heat today?

have you looked into the amount of electricity that would be needed to heat all the houses in new england, and compared that with wind and other  renewable electricity coming on line?

I live near the water - the wind on the water right now.., dec 22, is about 2kts - it's 23degF outside. it's actually fairly common for low wind speeds to be associated with low temperatures.., as a high builds in. it went down to about 20degF overnight

is there really any proposal for enough non wind-dependent, non sunlight-dependent, electricity to heat all the houses in new england?

10 years from now, houses in new england will mostly  be heated by oil and gas, just as they are today.

about the only renewable with a chance of making a dent in home heating over the next 10 years is wood pellets 

well right now one third of all fuel being used is renewable, the projections are by 2030 it'll be two thirds and net zero will be attained by 2050.  Wind and solar are the fastest areas of growth in the job market and they are also the cheapest sources of fuel.  The wind farms being built are hundreds of miles offshore where the winds are much stronger than they are on land.

[Vice-Regent]

On 12/22/2019 at 3:51 AM, LibertyBell said:

It doesn't actually feed 8 billion people, it just feeds those in power and it's highly addictive.

Most of the planet is in abject poverty.

 

It's functional enough to feed you but dysfunctional enough to make you miserable. They want to lower the upkeep costs for the slaves and prevent rebellion.

[donsutherland1]

A report by Goldman Sachs on climate change:

https://www.goldmansachs.com/insights/pages/gs-research/taking-the-heat/report.pdf

[Gray-Wolf]

Were it not for the demands of 'Unfettered Capitalism' would we find ourselves facing the monumental challenges we face today?

Were there not gains to be made from 'Climate Change Denial' would we still be facing such an uphill struggle to convince 'The Many' of the real & present dangers the change now ushers in?

It appears , to me, that the climate change denial industrial has utilised aspects of man's polluting to shrink the probable impacts of unfettered capitalism on our climate to such a scale that 'Business as Usual' (B.A.U.) has continued un-molested by the starkest sets of warnings yet from our Climate Scientists?

Sadly it appears (to me) that this use of mans impacts to support denial is at an end?

The flip positive , in 2014, of the interdecadal Pacific oscillation save Antarctic sea ice extent/area plummet back to levels last seen in the late 70's/early 80's

The 'mending' of the 'Ozone Hole' coinciding with this flip in the IPO seems to have been instrumental in this sudden 'flip' in sea ice behaviour but also in allowing behaviours in the polar night jet over Antarctica that we had become accustomed to seeing in the N. Hemisphere? This years SSW over Antarctica is now being held as part responsible for the temps, & so the wildfires over Australia & possibly feeding into the ocean 'hot spot' to the East of New Zealand?

With China now taking its air pollution issues seriously the drop of in global dimming ,esp the regions directly downwind of China, must also be seeing impact?

Areas of the Pacific that has been 'dimmed out' are now surely feeling the impacts of the sulphates/particulates being 'washed out' of the atmosphere above?

To me this says that the last 'drag factors' in the speed of climate shift have been lost? The 'Naturals' are now mainly augmenting AGW & the manmade negatives (Global dimming/Ozone hole) are falling away.

We were already sailing pretty close to a number of tipping points, be it carbon sink failure/reversal to 'Methane Burps' to mechanical collapse of ice sheet margins, so will this sudden acceleration in AGW prove too much so leading to tipping points being breached, or worse, climate cascades as one events promotes further events downstream?

You just have to hope that 2020 will bring '2020 vision on climate' to the masses & that they rise and demand meaningful action to not only be spoken about but to be initiated!!!

[donsutherland1]

Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann's op-ed from Australia where he will be conducting research:

The brown skies I observed in the Blue Mountains this week are a product of human-caused climate change. Take record heat, combine it with unprecedented drought in already dry regions and you get unprecedented bushfires like the ones engulfing the Blue Mountains and spreading across the continent. It’s not complicated.

The warming of our planet – and the changes in climate associated with it – are due to the fossil fuels we’re burning: oil, whether at midnight or any other hour of the day, natural gas, and the biggest culprit of all, coal. That’s not complicated either...

Australians need only wake up in the morning, turn on the television, read the newspaper or look out the window to see what is increasingly obvious to many – for Australia, dangerous climate change is already here. It’s simply a matter of how much worse we’re willing to allow it to get.

Australia is experiencing a climate emergency. It is literally burning. It needs leadership that is able to recognise that and act. And it needs voters to hold politicians accountable at the ballot box.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/02/australia-your-country-is-burning-dangerous-climate-change-is-here-with-you-now

And a link to commentary by Nerilie Abram, investigator at the ARC Center of Excellence for Climate Extremes and an associate professor at the Research School of Earth Sciences at the Australian National University.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/australias-angry-summer-this-is-what-climate-change-looks-like/

2019 was Australia's warmest and driest year on record.

[LibertyBell]

23 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann's op-ed from Australia where he will be conducting research:

The brown skies I observed in the Blue Mountains this week are a product of human-caused climate change. Take record heat, combine it with unprecedented drought in already dry regions and you get unprecedented bushfires like the ones engulfing the Blue Mountains and spreading across the continent. It’s not complicated.

The warming of our planet – and the changes in climate associated with it – are due to the fossil fuels we’re burning: oil, whether at midnight or any other hour of the day, natural gas, and the biggest culprit of all, coal. That’s not complicated either...

Australians need only wake up in the morning, turn on the television, read the newspaper or look out the window to see what is increasingly obvious to many – for Australia, dangerous climate change is already here. It’s simply a matter of how much worse we’re willing to allow it to get.

Australia is experiencing a climate emergency. It is literally burning. It needs leadership that is able to recognise that and act. And it needs voters to hold politicians accountable at the ballot box.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/02/australia-your-country-is-burning-dangerous-climate-change-is-here-with-you-now

And a link to commentary by Nerilie Abram, investigator at the ARC Center of Excellence for Climate Extremes and an associate professor at the Research School of Earth Sciences at the Australian National University.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/australias-angry-summer-this-is-what-climate-change-looks-like/

2019 was Australia's warmest and driest year on record.

18 people dead, half a billion animals dead, worst forest fires and poorest air quality in their recorded history, 15 million acres burnt- no where to go but the beaches.....

[donsutherland1]

2 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

18 people dead, half a billion animals dead, worst forest fires and poorest air quality in their recorded history, 15 million acres burnt- no where to go but the beaches.....

It is horrific. Another terrible weekend lies ahead.

[LibertyBell]

6 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

It is horrific. Another terrible weekend lies ahead.

the same weather pattern looks like it will continue... also the number of people missing is now at 28.

the 8,000 koalas reported to be dead is one third of the koala population, that's worse than decimation!

 

[Vice-Regent]

15 hours ago, Vice-Regent said:

Let's start with separating anthropogenic global warming and civilization. In other words saving civilization as it exists now is not a requirement for any plan that addresses anthropogenic global warming.

Extinction rebellion is not an environmental movement or a movement to address global warming. it's a battle over the future standard of living of it's constituents.

[LibertyBell]

On a related topic, look up the series Blue Planet 2 on BBC America.  It's EXCELLENT.  It shows the vast variety of life in the depths of the oceans and what warming is doing to them.  The answer to deep sea drilling should be a perpetual NO!  90% of all life lives down there and life may have started down there and the life there is so magnificently alien-like that I cant help but think that actual alien life would be like that.  They showed fish with transparent heads where you can see their brains through their skulls (so they can look up without having to move their heads, they can actually look through their skulls!), fish that communicate by flashing different patterns of lights (we still dont know what they are saying to each other) and fish discovered 6km down that have actual feet and walk on the ocean floor and one particularly weird fish with two different sized eyes, one that always looks down and the other (much larger) that always looks up!  They showed a part about coral reefs and what bleaching is doing to them and all the species dependent on them including clown fish that actually build homes inside the reefs and keep them clean.

[LibertyBell]

This is very poignant (and for more than just climate change reasons.)

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/joel-sartore-on-saving-endangered-species-and-ourselves/

The video has images of species nearing extinction.

 

[donsutherland1]

It appears that the shrinking climate change denial movement--what's left of it--is becoming downright nasty and condescending, especially toward women who have vast expertise in the field (including those on the forefront of research).

One Twitter exchange that highlights the problem:

https://twitter.com/JacquelynGill/status/1214367143837544448

Let's take a look at the two women who were told they should "spend some time in meteorology and climatology classrooms" via Twitter.

Dr. Jacquelyn Gill is an ice age expert with extensive published peer-reviewed research: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=KAZsZhIAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao

Dr. Kate Marvel is a NASA climate scientist with a PhD in theoretical particle physics. She has an extensive range of published peer-review research: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=cC8JXpQAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao

But what about the critic? The one who all but implied that the two women have little or no relevant knowledge? What about his body of research?

The absence of a link to his peer-reviewed research is no accident. The critic has no peer reviewed research that can be found.

Of course, that didn't stop him from telling Drs. Gill and Marvel to "spend some time" to learn about meteorology and climate. Put another way, expertise and evidence are irrelevant in the world of climate change denial. That world is endangered by expertise and evidence.

This Social Media exchange is just another pathetic death rattle of a movement that has no relevant knowledge of climate/climate change and, therefore, no meaningful contribution to make to the scientific discourse. Despite its fatal flaws, it is desperate to overturn the now overwhelming body of evidence behind scientific understanding of anthropogenic climate change and its impacts. Thus, detours aimed at discrediting and delegitimizing climate scientists are pursued.

Those efforts cannot succeed. The problem the climate change denial movement faces is that the public now has access to who has published peer-reviewed research. Thus, the public, or those who seek to be informed and who possess information literacy skills to pursue the facts, can readily sort out the genuine experts from the climate change denial bomb throwers who offer little but attacks. Spoiler alert: The experts are the very scientists being assailed.  

[Vice-Regent]

All failed movements always end in hate speech and fear-mongering. As well that's how you can weed out the liars from the people operating on good faith.

[LibertyBell]

On 1/8/2020 at 10:50 PM, donsutherland1 said:

It appears that the shrinking climate change denial movement--what's left of it--is becoming downright nasty and condescending, especially toward women who have vast expertise in the field (including those on the forefront of research).

One Twitter exchange that highlights the problem:

https://twitter.com/JacquelynGill/status/1214367143837544448

Let's take a look at the two women who were told they should "spend some time in meteorology and climatology classrooms" via Twitter.

Dr. Jacquelyn Gill is an ice age expert with extensive published peer-reviewed research: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=KAZsZhIAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao

Dr. Kate Marvel is a NASA climate scientist with a PhD in theoretical particle physics. She has an extensive range of published peer-review research: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=cC8JXpQAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao

But what about the critic? The one who all but implied that the two women have little or no relevant knowledge? What about his body of research?

The absence of a link to his peer-reviewed research is no accident. The critic has no peer reviewed research that can be found.

Of course, that didn't stop him from telling Drs. Gill and Marvel to "spend some time" to learn about meteorology and climate. Put another way, expertise and evidence are irrelevant in the world of climate change denial. That world is endangered by expertise and evidence.

This Social Media exchange is just another pathetic death rattle of a movement that has no relevant knowledge of climate/climate change and, therefore, no meaningful contribution to make to the scientific discourse. Despite its fatal flaws, it is desperate to overturn the now overwhelming body of evidence behind scientific understanding of anthropogenic climate change and its impacts. Thus, detours aimed at discrediting and delegitimizing climate scientists are pursued.

Those efforts cannot succeed. The problem the climate change denial movement faces is that the public now has access to who has published peer-reviewed research. Thus, the public, or those who seek to be informed and who possess information literacy skills to pursue the facts, can readily sort out the genuine experts from the climate change denial bomb throwers who offer little but attacks. Spoiler alert: The experts are the very scientists being assailed.  

twitter should autoban these people

 

did you see how bots are spreading a false narrative of australian wildfires being mainly "caused" by arsonists?