Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Change?"

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

Disagree, but continuing will just be circular.
In other news,

As Beijing Joins Climate Fight, Chinese Companies Build Coal Plants


...new data on the world’s biggest developers of coal-fired power plants paints a very different picture: China’s energy companies will make up nearly half of the new coal generation expected to go online in the next decade. These Chinese corporations are building or planning to build more than 700 new coal plants at home and around the world, some in countries that today burn little or no coal, according to tallies compiled by Urgewald, an environmental group based in Berlin

Over all, 1,600 coal plants are planned or under construction in 62 countries, according to Urgewald’s tally, which uses data from the Global Coal Plant Tracker portal. The new plants would expand the world’s coal-fired power capacity by 43 percent.

Shanghai Electric Group, one of the country’s largest electrical equipment makers, has announced plans to build coal power plants in Egypt, Pakistan and Iran with a total capacity of 6,285 megawatts — almost 10 times the 660 megawatts of coal power it has planned in China.

The China Energy Engineering Corporation, which has no public plans to develop coal power in China, is building 2,200 megawatts’ worth of coal-fired power capacity in Vietnam and Malawi.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/01/clim ... d=tw-share" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yeah thanks for the return to sanity. Lots of discussions here about what I would consider to be "energy trivia." Love you all for trying so hard, not disrespecting the effort, but....worrying about idling cars (sorry Killyfan) or whether we harvest the heat from compressors (probably) is focusing on fleas not elephants.

If you are personally trying to maximize the efficiency use in your life...Cheers!! Glad to have you on board. But if you think any of this is relevant to global energy budgets or climate issues...wew!

Let what Moose posted really sink in. There are many humans who live in pre-industrial, even pre-electrical conditions. Those people will exploit the cheapest path towards modern life...they will burn hydrocarbon fuels. That is how we produced this amazing modern world. A 43% expansion in coal use!!!!!!!!!! And it will change their lives just like it did for us.

If I thought that science supported the idea that the extra atmospheric CO2 which might accumulate was dangerous....I might be terrified. I might even attempt futile remedies like not warming up my car on a cold morning.

But, as silly as that would actually be (righteous but totally inconsequential) it's even sillier when you finally realize that elevated CO2 (below 1000ppm at least) would be GREAT for our planet and mild warming (below 4 degrees F) would also be mostly beneficial. (for those paying attention to the numbers I chose VERY high numbers which are VERY unlikely).

In any case we are not stopping Africa and Asia from using hydrocarbons to modernize...and the Paris agreement actually admits this reality (in spite of what the MSM claims) so either you relax (like me), urgently seek tools to "mitigate" climate damages OR... try to find ways to spur investment into RESEARCH into alternative energy technology.

Current alternative energy "solutions" are not going to be used in Asia or Africa because they are not efficient (excluding nuclear (thorium) and hydro) and no amount of arm-twisting will change that. I am well-willing to help pay for the RESEARCH that moves these technologies forward but in their current incarnations I think expansions into solar and wind are not wise. In the meantime I think it is fine to maintain our strong "dependence" on hydrocarbon fuels because they are our best current option (and will not cause dangerous disruptions in the earth's energy budget!)

[rogman]

...But, as silly as that would actually be (righteous but totally inconsequential) it's even sillier when you finally realize that elevated CO2 (below 1000ppm at least) would be GREAT for our planet and mild warming (below 4 degrees F) would also be mostly beneficial. (for those paying attention to the numbers I chose VERY high numbers which are VERY unlikely).

The threshold that the scientific community uses is 2 degrees Celcius, or in Fahrenheit, 3.6 degrees. Your threshold is but a scant 0.4 degrees F higher. You're using 2.2 degrees C. And you know what? I'm fine with that. Seems to me you're more or less accepting the science, and acknowledging the danger. Where we part company is your contention that 4 degrees F is "VERY unlikely". Most experts expect us to blow right through 2.0 degrees C, unless there is a drastic decrease in the greenhouse gas emissions. It is generally acknowledged that the Paris accord is insufficient to keep us below that threshold (but it helps). Regardless, I'll take this as a victory: you've acknowledged the danger.

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

...But, as silly as that would actually be (righteous but totally inconsequential) it's even sillier when you finally realize that elevated CO2 (below 1000ppm at least) would be GREAT for our planet and mild warming (below 4 degrees F) would also be mostly beneficial. (for those paying attention to the numbers I chose VERY high numbers which are VERY unlikely).

The threshold that the scientific community uses is 2 degrees Celcius, or in Fahrenheit, 3.6 degrees. Your threshold is but a scant 0.4 degrees F higher. You're using 2.2 degrees C. And you know what? I'm fine with that. Seems to me you're more or less accepting the science, and acknowledging the danger. Where we part company is your contention that 4 degrees F is "VERY unlikely". Most experts expect us to blow right through 2.0 degrees C, unless there is a drastic decrease in the greenhouse gas emissions. It is generally acknowledged that the Paris accord is insufficient to keep us below that threshold (but it helps). Regardless, I'll take this as a victory: you've acknowledged the danger.

Again you simply accept the IPCC attribution linking CO2 and warming (we are after all talking specifically about warming). I can link you to dozens of articles, from "consensus" activists which acknowledge the "warming" which they say is occurring is SIGNIFICANTLY lower than the IPCC models predicted. I think I recently linked the recent Santer/Nature article which acknowledged that IPCC models are NOT performing well. I acknowledged NO DANGER...although I will admit I do have some fears about the slice of our society that still believes the IPCC climate nonsense,...they seem somewhat dangerous to me.

[rogman]

...But, as silly as that would actually be (righteous but totally inconsequential) it's even sillier when you finally realize that elevated CO2 (below 1000ppm at least) would be GREAT for our planet and mild warming (below 4 degrees F) would also be mostly beneficial. (for those paying attention to the numbers I chose VERY high numbers which are VERY unlikely).

The threshold that the scientific community uses is 2 degrees Celcius, or in Fahrenheit, 3.6 degrees. Your threshold is but a scant 0.4 degrees F higher. You're using 2.2 degrees C. And you know what? I'm fine with that. Seems to me you're more or less accepting the science, and acknowledging the danger. Where we part company is your contention that 4 degrees F is "VERY unlikely". Most experts expect us to blow right through 2.0 degrees C, unless there is a drastic decrease in the greenhouse gas emissions. It is generally acknowledged that the Paris accord is insufficient to keep us below that threshold (but it helps). Regardless, I'll take this as a victory: you've acknowledged the danger.

Again you simply accept the IPCC attribution linking CO2 and warming (we are after all talking specifically about warming). I can link you to dozens of articles, from "consensus" activists which acknowledge the "warming" which they say is occurring is SIGNIFICANTLY lower than the IPCC models predicted. I think I recently linked the recent Santer/Nature article which acknowledged that IPCC models are NOT performing well. I acknowledged NO DANGER...although I will admit I do have some fears about the slice of our society that still believes the IPCC climate nonsense,...they seem somewhat dangerous to me.

Even a casual glance at the article reveals you drew the wrong conclusion from it. Are there differences between the models and reality? Of course: "all models are wrong, but some are useful" --John Box. They specifically state in the paper:

"It has been posited that the differences between modelled and observed tropospheric warming rates are solely attributable to a fundamental error in model sensitivity to anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases. Several aspects of our results cast doubt on the ‘sensitivity error’ explanation. First, it is difficult to understand why significant differences between modelled and observed warming rates should be preferentially concentrated in the early twenty-first century..."

It is a bit disturbing that you, allegedly a teacher, keep denying physics that has been well understood for 150 years.

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

Even a casual glance at the article reveals you drew the wrong conclusion from it. Are there differences between the models and reality? Of course: "all models are wrong, but some are useful" --John Box. They specifically state in the paper:

"It has been posited that the differences between modelled and observed tropospheric warming rates are solely attributable to a fundamental error in model sensitivity to anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases. Several aspects of our results cast doubt on the ‘sensitivity error’ explanation. First, it is difficult to understand why significant differences between modelled and observed warming rates should be preferentially concentrated in the early twenty-first century..."

It is a bit disturbing that you, allegedly a teacher, keep denying physics that has been well understood for 150 years.

Nice try.

First off you need to understand who Ben Santer is.

He is one of the most activist of the IPCC “consensus” scientists who has made his entire career out of creating and defending IPCC models. So… his judgement that there is still some residual value in HIS models is not surprising. What is remarkable is that the models have performed so badly that even he felt the need to address the deficiencies of the models.

The issues we are repeatedly addressing in this thread include:
Is the science of earth’s climate system well understood? (is the “science settled?”) My position is No. The very existence of this paper supports my position that the science IS NOT settled.

What can you attribute the CAUSE of the mild warming from the 1970’s to the 2000’s to?

Disentangling the “NATURAL” causes that surely exist in the earth’s climate system (like those that melted the MASSIVE Laurentian ice sheet over the last 20K years) from “anthropogenic” causes is impossible with our current state of knowledge. The strategy of the IPCC activists is MERELY to build very complex computer models (this impresses the Grubers) which require the ad hoc assignment of a variety of parameters (ex. aerosol contributions) and literally play with the models until they are able to get a reasonable fit to PAST data (almost exclusively temp data (which turns out to be MORE plastic than the models themselves))…..then they get to claim that “Our amazing models ONLY work when we input a high value for the “climate sensitivity” to CO2.”

If you are a scientist you are shaking your head and laughing now.

Then it turns out that if you let the actual climate evolve for a decade or two… and you get more data…the NEW real world data DOES NOT fit the predictions of the models.

The models do not work.

YOUR quote from the paper includes
“the differences between modelled and observed tropospheric warming rates”

CAN YOU READ?

That phrase admits, because it is obvious even in the wild world of massive fuzzy data sets, that the models DO NOT work.

In the sentence you include Santer pretends that case against the models demands that the differences between the models and reality “are solely attributable to a fundamental error in model sensitivity”.

That cute little trick turns the entire enterprise of science on its head.

In fact THAT is what the insanity of the IPCC argument is…that you can play with the models and use the responses of the models to establish ATTRIBUTION. You can establish that this single factor, CO2 sensitivity, can be proved through playing with models (complex but hopelessly primitive) with dozens of ADJUSTABLE factors.

Silly actually.

So the issue of the attribution of the CAUSE of any recent warming is really all we are talking about (well almost all). The IPCC strategy of claiming they can establish attribution by complex analysis of the responses from their failed models is frankly comical.

Santer is a frothing activist who talked about his desire to "beat the carp out of" skeptical climatologist Pat Michaels...reading this paper which validates many of Michaels' criticisms...is just fun for a guy like me. Sorry you didn't understand.

[rogman]

Why is it whenever I read one of your posts, all I can think of is officer Obie, and his "twenty seven eight-by-ten color glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back". Continually over the top. Can't you ever just make your point then STFU?

Regardless, you are still missing the point: the discrepancy is in the post 2000 period, not with modeling in general. Regardless, RSS has also recently (paper was published within the last month) made a major revision in the satellite temperature data that brings it much closer into alignment with surface temperature data. I'm citing from memory, but I believe the changes are due to a better understanding of the orbital decay, as well as the adjustments for time of day when the data is captured. And please, don't try and tell me you think that is just RSS cooking the books (pun intended) on behalf of the vast Climate Change conspiracy.

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

Why is it whenever I read one of your posts, all I can think of is officer Obie, and his "twenty seven eight-by-ten color glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back". Continually over the top. Can't you ever just make your point then STFU?

Regardless, you are still missing the point: the discrepancy is in the post 2000 period, not with modeling in general. Regardless, RSS has also recently (paper was published within the last month) made a major revision in the satellite temperature data that brings it much closer into alignment with surface temperature data. I'm citing from memory, but I believe the changes are due to a better understanding of the orbital decay, as well as the adjustments for time of day when the data is captured. And please, don't try and tell me you think that is just RSS cooking the books (pun intended) on behalf of the vast Climate Change conspiracy.

Had to google your "officer Obie" reference...which turns out to be pretty good. You are thinking about an absurd character in a song/ movie who, by a bunch of leftist freaks was turned into an object of derision. Classic libtard fake news version of reality. TH REAL OFFICER ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Obanhein" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) was a decent person who:

stated that some of the events in the song were not completely true; for one, he never "handcuffed" Guthrie during the arrest nor did he remove the toilet seat from Guthrie's cell to prevent suicide as Guthrie implied (it was instead removed to prevent theft).[1] Obanhein later would note that he would not have actually arrested Guthrie had the amount of garbage been smaller (he would have simply picked up the garbage himself)[2] and meant to use the arrest and subsequent media circus as an example to deter any further large-scale littering incidents.

SO... just like me and you...in actual truth I am a decent guy trying to encourage reasonable behavior and your crowd is a bunch of self-righteous activists spending their entire energies virtue-signalling to the rest of us. Alice's Restaurant is classic puerile pompous virtue signalling...those squares are so square!!

Anyway your reference to the new paper by Mears re the RSS data set is a fave. We could chat about that for a few pages if you want. The nonsense he just published was predicted back in January by Roy Spencer. See: (https://realclimatescience.com/2017/06/ ... y-spencer/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; )

Climate is impossible to forecast, but climate fraud is extremely predictable.

Dr. Roy Spencer forecasted that RSS TLT data will be altered :

ORIGINAL POST (from January)
“I expect there will soon be a revised TLT product from RSS which shows enhanced warming, too.

Here’s what I’m predicting:
1) neither John Christy nor I will be asked to review the paper
2) it will quickly sail through peer review (our UAH V6 paper is still not in print nearly 1 year after submission)
3) it will have many authors, including climate model people and the usual model pundits (e.g. Santer), which will supposedly lend legitimacy to the new data adjustments.
Let’s see how many of my 3 predictions come true.

-Roy”

It has happened exactly as Roy predicted.

The article gives a great explanation why this crap happens.
And a follow up giving a much better technical analysis about why the new Mears approach is simply BAD SCIENCE
https://realclimatescience.com/systemat ... re-record/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(the Mears part of the analysis starts about half-way through)


With the change in direction in Washington it will only be a matter of time before "climate science" starts being science again and graduate students will be able actually follow the science instead of the politics when designing their research proposals. Then we will be back on track.

[rogman]

So now the people that process the satellite date are in on your "conspiracy", too. And you're completely ignoring that it helps with the discrepancy with the post 2000 ground based record?

[Stormchaser]

So now the people that process the satellite date are in on your "conspiracy", too. And you're completely ignoring that it helps with the discrepancy with the post 2000 ground based record?

I have a hard time getting around the logic that the solution to deviations in prediction are resolved by altering measured data sets, rather than altering the predictive model. The data is fixed; the model should plastic until resolved.

[Bubba]

Now this would be interesting

http://www.mynbc5.com/article/epa-chief ... v/10295129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[killyfan]

Now this would be interesting

http://www.mynbc5.com/article/epa-chief ... v/10295129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If this happens we should put Sgt Eddy, Rogman, Mr Moose, Woodsrider, ANGUS and myself in an empty room (except for some fluffy eco-friendly bean bags) to all watch it together. With no beer. Just neutral pH water - and maybe a box of saltines, a dozen lemons and some honey in case we are screaming so much we are getting sweaty.

[rogman]

So now the people that process the satellite date are in on your "conspiracy", too. And you're completely ignoring that it helps with the discrepancy with the post 2000 ground based record?

I have a hard time getting around the logic that the solution to deviations in prediction are resolved by altering measured data sets, rather than altering the predictive model. The data is fixed; the model should plastic until resolved.

Satellites do not measure temperature directly: it's not like they can stick a thermometer out the window and get a reading. It's done by proxy using irradiance, and calibration is a huge issue. Over the years different satellites have been used as well as different sensors. Altitude and time of day are also huge factors. When new and old satellites are in orbit at the same time cross calibration is possible, but that isn't always the case. The ground based record is far more accurate, since it is a direct measure, however it lacks the spatial coverage of the satellite record. The post 2000 satellite data shows warming, just not as much as the ground record. Resolving why they disagreed is important; impugning the reputations of scientists because you don't like the answers is a classic denialist maneuver. The notion that the only ones seeking the truth are the denialists is complete hogwash.

[madhatter]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

So now the people that process the satellite date are in on your "conspiracy", too. And you're completely ignoring that it helps with the discrepancy with the post 2000 ground based record?

OK. That response helps clarify your confusion.

Your phrase “the people that process the satellite data” really helps. I had thought you understood the basics of the various climate metrics but you obviously don’t. So… let me help you. (like Officer Obie might!)

The short version (for beginners)

There are TWO groups which process “the satellite data” and on the current topic of discussion they disagree. Mears works to produce the RSS satellite metric. The UAH product comes from the very people I had cited with their prescient criticism of the RSS “adjustments.”

So I do not think that “the people that process the satellite data” are in on a conspiracy. To the contrary I was pointing out that they DISAGREE. Then I linked to articles which outline the details of their disagreement so that YOU would have the opportunity to “do some science”….which means you could consider the arguments on the “data adjustment” issue based on their merits. (a lot of work I know but...)

So the science is NOT SETTLED here and that has been continuously my main point.

The second part of your post again underlines the strange idea you have about how science ought to be done and Streamtracker’s response is an excellent one.

The normal course in science is that you formulate claims (hypotheses) which allow you to make predictions. Then these predictions are tested against NEW data which was NOT available when your model was formulated.

NORMALLY when the new data contradicts your predictions the solution is to AMEND YOUR MODELS.

In climate science the entire enterprise has been corrupted. For decades now “climate scientists” (activists really) when faced with new data which contradict their models have chosen instead to

CHANGE THE ACTUAL RECORDED DATA TO FIT THEIR MODELS!!!!!

This is the central appalling FACT which exists in climate science which stuns folks like me. Couldn’t believe it when I first saw it. I always trusted fellow scientists would never pull such cr@p. I was wrong. The entire enterprise is littered with variations of this central theme:

If the data doesn’t agree with the model (or there is no data)…generate NEW data which better fits the models.

If you want to validate this claim investigate what “data homogenization” means in “climate science.” Stunning stuff. Or if you prefer videos the best source I know of is the recent videos put out by Tony Heller (a lifelong environmentalist and award-winning data analyst) who does a great job (IMO) framing analysis of climate science. Here is a fun video to link you to his channel. If you are sincere you will (when you have the time) watch this video. Its great!

Greens Destroying The Environment - To Save The Planet From Global Warming

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdEFrwjFC9c" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Anyway your comment that the new Mears RSS satellite adjustments “helps with the discrepancy” shows quite clearly that you accept this basic insanity (when faced with new data which contradict their models have chosen instead to CHANGE THE ACTUAL RECORDED DATA TO FIT THEIR MODELS)

The raw uncorrupted satellite data did not agree with the highly “homogenized” surface data set. So what did the “climate scientists” decide to do? They decided to alter the actual satellite data so that it would agree with their models!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Again.

A great video review of this nonsense is in the 5 minute video. (Analysis of the Mears RSS nonsense)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3MFFT7CKXY" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As for the possibility of some upcoming “climate debates”……..yeah!

The highest quality (IMO) debate on climate ever was done by Intelligence Squared. The event included six “qualified” debaters (3 for each side) and was formal and televised. The motion was Global warming is not a crisis. One of the presenters, Gavin Schmidt (now head of NASA GISS), now REFUSES to debate the issue (because they lost.)

Based on the data generated that evening…the “skeptics” won the debate. Many more people changed their mind towards a skeptical position after hearing the debate. You can watch it here (very long):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-28qNd6ass&t=206s" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So that is the best data re climate debates of which I am aware. If anyone has additional data pleas post it. I will consider it.

If we managed to have a debate…I vote for more beer…and handshakes at the end. The idea that any of you care enough to persist at this enterprise with such tenacity makes me really respect you. All of you. I just disagree with some of you about the technical details of what is ACTUALLY happening.

[Dickc]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-1 ... onsistent-