Sites of Seepage Infection

Stephan Lewandowsky, Naomi Oreskes, James S. Risbey, Ben R. Newell, and Michael Smithson have published  “Seepage: Climate change denial and its effect on the scientific community” in Global Environmental Change (open access, but link is not live yet.  Email Stephan for copies), the thesis of which is that

Climate scientists have done an admirable job pursuing their science under great political pressure, and they have tirelessly rebutted pseudoscientific arguments against their work. Nonetheless, being human, scientists’ operate with the same cognitive apparatus and limitations as every other person. In consequence, it is important to be aware of the factors that may cause scientists to take positions that they would be less likely to take in the absence of outspoken public opposition. We refer to this phenomenon as seepage.

This thesis, that denialist mems have been forced into the literature by their ubiquity in the public sphere, a ubiquity induced by a well funded political and public relations effort from a small number of sources, is well explored in the paper (RTFR).  The short form can be found at Shaping Tomorrow's World.

There has been unhappiness with this paper.  The bunnies admire Stephan's touch.  Eli thinks it was John Mashey who pointed out that if we are conducting an experiment in atmospheric physics that everyone is part of, everything that everybunny does is test tube fodder for a social psychologist.

Sou started to dissect the response, when Richard Betts walked into the room at ATTP, so Sou took him apart and Richard Tol let on that he was color blind, which explains a few gremlins and there are various comments worth reading or not all over the place.  However, and there is always a however at Rabett Run, Eli has a thought about the agents of seepage.

While a bunny can always find a journal to hand over her or his publication charge money to, and arXiv exists, entry to CNS journals (the holey trinity of biomed, Cell Nature Science) is controlled by the nomenklatura and novelty is the password, that and being a member of the tribe.  CNS, etc., Eli will grant Cell an honorary membership here, journals are controlled by a small number of editors and function on both public and a professional levels.

These editors are both always look for "what's happening now" papers, and the papers that get published there get looked at by a broad variety of folk, especially if the editors pick one out for a brief, less technical, explication by a BSD (go ask Drug Monkey what that means, this is a family blog).  Taken together that makes CNS articles subject to retractions more than the rest.

Yes, there are ignorable rate journals like JPANDs or E&E or Modern Physics B where anything and everything is published, and specialty journals which will take anything that makes their specialty look important, like Solar Physics, which will take anything that makes solar cycles or cosmic rays look more important than they are, but you have to push the meme into the top journals before it seeps over into general scientific discourse.  Scientists as a group are politically oblivious.  Eli remembers sitting with a British top rate scientist at lunch and pointing out to him that Britain does not have a written constitution.  This surprised him.  Ms. Rabett would say Eli is generally oblivious.

OTOH, it also makes CNS the prime sites for seepage injection and once CNS start to leak, than other journals will join in.  The same argument can be made for funding agencies, program managers look for novelty to justify their programs.  One of the hardest things on a panel (and Eli has done this many times) is to argue for "number gathering".  That everybunny needs the numbers cuts little ice, that the mission of the funding agency is to number gather, cuts even less (well the Rabett team succeeds on occasion, but never enough).  Witness last year's problems keeping the Scripps Mauna Loa measurement program running.

Climate Cognition notes

I attended the San Francisco Commonwealth Club's Climate One meeting yesterday, on "Climate Cognition" with George Lakoff, Kari Norgaard, and Per Espen Stoknes.

Lakoff did his usual thing on framing, YMMV. I think the idea of framing is correct although I'm less sure that the frames he says categorize the political spectrum are accurate. Both he and Espen Stoknes had some useful things to say on ways to communicate (emphasize climate health, risk management as opposed to uncertainty, etc.). Espen Stoknes has a book on climate communication, and I think it looks worthwhile - he may be further down the road of Dan Kahan/cultural cognition stuff then I like, but it's not completely off-base. Lakoff was very negative towards climate scientists for failing to teach "systemic causation", that the inability to attribute a particular weather event with 95% certainty to climate change doesn't eliminate a systemic level of causation of bad things.

I got a much less clear sense of Norgaard's message, not sure whether that's her fault, the moderator's fault, or my fault. Fairly usual ratio for such things, three white men and one (white) woman on the stage.

I'll say this for Lakoff - after the taping, a long line formed to talk to him, and he stayed to answer every person's question. I stopped Espen Stoknes to ask him about my hobbyhorse, the fact that many children alive today will live to see the world's climate in 2100 and whether that might make the distant problems of climate seem more real. He said it's not enough to refer people to real children they may know, that you have to tell a story and give a sense of what kind of life that child will face in 2100.

The podcast should be up soon, and you can also watch the video at some point.

UPDATE:  one thing in particular that Lakoff said that I found interesting - the only style of argument found to appeal to conservatives regarding climate change is to associate unchanged climate with "purity". I don't think the term has a lot of scientific meaning, and on one level maybe that doesn't matter. OTOH, if climate "health" and climate "integrity" are useful buzzwords for conservatives, they at least have a nodding acquaintance with the real world.

Turn Out the Lights

While the proposed $300 million budget cuts to NASA Earth Science emerging from the House Science Committee have been receiving a lot of press, the knives of science denial are out for other agencies that study climate issues.

DOE's Biological and Environmental Research program gets a cut of 42 million from its current $592 million, and the proposed $612 million.  The BER program support climate research at such places as Lawrence Livermore and other DOE labs.  The draft bill, approved by the Republicans on the Committee (with no Democrats voting for, indeed they only saw the Bill as it was introduced), contains a poison pill or two, for DOE.  First, a direction that climate research is not to be a priority

(a) PROGRAM.—The Director shall carry out a program of research, development, and demonstration in the areas of biological systems science and climate and environmental science to support the energy and environ- 6 mental missions of the Department. 

(b) PRIORITY RESEARCH.—In carrying out this section, the Director shall prioritize fundamental research on biological systems and genomics science with the greatest  potential to enable scientific discovery. 

and then the real poison pill

The Director shall not approve new climate science-related initiatives to be carried out through the Office of Science without making a determination that such work is unique and not duplicative of work by other Federal agencies. Not later than 3 months after receiving the assessment required under subsection (c), 23 the Director shall cease those climate science-related initiatives identified in the assessment as overlapping or duplicative, unless the Director justifies that such work is critical to achieving American energy security.

Not much better at NSF, with a cut to 1,200 M$ from 2015's 1304 M$ and a request of 1,365 M$.

Of course DOE ARPA-E takes a proposed 56% cut and social sciences at NSF gets a 45% cut.

Denial, Luckwarmers and Evasion

Well, it's pretty clear what you call those in complete denial about the muderous human induced climate change coming the world's way, denialists.  And on the other hand the denialists have a word for those who believe the IPCC, warmists, which, though kind of mealy mouthed and weak, is what they like.  No arguing with taste.

As Eli has pointed out the Idiot Tracker nailed the self styled "lukewarmers", the it ain't gonna be bad crowd, the group that Eli calls the luckwarmers, for their dreams to come true would require a great deal of getting lucky.

Here's the problem. Lukewarmism doesn't get its adherents where they want to go – because even if we accept at face value their claims, the world would still require intense efforts to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases in order to stave off disaster. . .

However, when you begin to argue that not only does science have climate sensitivity wrong but also emissions and maybe impacts to boot – well, you're going to have a hard time explaining why thousands of scientists have made not one but a series of mistakes, all supposedly exaggerating the dangers of global warming. Go down that road, and pretty soon you're right back in the tinfoil-hat camp lukewarmist rhetoric was supposed to deliver you from. If you allege not one but a whole series of gigantic mistakes by huge numbers of investigators, all tending to undermine a scientific conclusion (only rapid reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases can prevent a substantial risk of planetary disaster) to which you are avowedly hostile, the simplest conclusion is not that you are a genius and the rest of the scientific community are fools; it is that you are a partisan and you are attacking science with implications contrary to your political goals.

But there is another group which claims to accept the IPCC consensus on climate change but always finds reasons to do nothing, or next to nothing about it, often because they say there is something else that is more important, which, of course, they also do nothing about other than try and use it as a club against those who think we should be doing something about climate change. The hallmark of these types, like Bjorn Lomborg, just to name one, is to loudly proclaim that those who see the dangers of climate change and want to do something about it, care nothing for the Poors, especially the African Poors these days.  Of course, in the end the Breakthrough Institute types and other Lomborg's of the world take the money for themselves and do nothing for the Poors.

Recently, Nature published a jerimand by one of these, an Oliver Geden, saying that we must be honest, 2 C is blown, no way no how to hold the line. Richard Tol weighed in with

Geden’s point is simple. In private, there is a consensus (>97%) among climate policy analysts that the 2K target is impossible. In public, the same people pretend that it can be met. Perhaps it is time to reclaim our academic freedom and present our research findings, however unpalatable.

and, indeed this is not so far from Eli's observation that policy makers in the US Government see 3 C as the new 2C.

How to deal with this in the public discussion is no simple matter.  Eli's approach has been to point out the rhetorical nature of the full Lomborg, to challenge anybunny who takes up that cudgel to actually do something to help the poor, rather than just talk about it.  Since most of the luckwarmers and denialists are from the far right and oppose government money to help anyone but themselves, this has a certain success.

Paul Price in the comments at ATTP deals with the issue in another way

Oliver Geden is firmly in the Pielke/Hulme/Breakthrough Institute ‘climate mitigation-action delayer’ camp as his previous publications and citations amply demonstrate – just as this latest one does. Several times on Twitter, as with the BTI, I have tried to get Geden to answer the question: if not 2ºC then what temperature and related carbon budget limit target would he prefer? He always dodges while claiming to be objective and pragmatic, which is entirely evasionary. If he is suggesting a different path then he should tell us what he is suggesting and why that is better.

Yes, let’s admit that limiting to 2ºC is already very difficult but that does not mean that the pragmatic policy is to give up on 2ºC. It should mean that the alarm is ringing very loudly to say that the ‘honest brokering’ of policy advisors like Geden has entirely failed to move policy in the direction of actually achieving the emission cuts necessary. This latest article is just another attempt to evade the culpability of ‘advisors’ like himself for this ongoing policy failure. Shooting the messenger, he wants to blame climate scientists for pointing out inconvenient truths: so much for his integrity as a policy advisor. It’s hard to see Geden’s article as anything more than another prolonged effort to keep reality from intruding on his own political preferences for climate inaction.

Rather than giving up on 2ºC as a target limit we should be redoubling (trebling, ten-folding) efforts to achieve the related, future, capped global carbon budget. It may well be that this requires negative emissions (as well as massive social change) and it may well be that we don’t achieve them, but with very strong policies aiming at 2ºC we might still miss and hit 2.5ºC. Whatever your politics that’s bad but it’s a hell of a lot better than Geden’s argument, which still pretends it is pragmatic to go on until we actually hit walls at 3ºC, or 4ºC, or now if you live in Kiribati with the sea already coming in. This version of ‘pragmatism’ (aka Pielke Jr’s rusty ‘law’) is just excuse-making for continuing to do little or nothing even in the teeth of the evidence.

Concentrating on the difficulties in policy is not smart or pragmatic if it just avoids stating the realities of the extraordinary global climate risk that our actions right now directly affect. We may desire to avoid driving into a brick wall but that does actually require a policy that involves *not* steering directly toward it and accelerating. Geden clearly finds the emission projections presented by climate science as “sometimes unwelcome — perspectives to the global climate-policy discourse”. It is mitigation action evaders masquerading as honest brokers who need to wake up to physical reality if they are to finally show some integrity as climate policy advisors. It would be great if they could wake up and help hit the brakes before we all run out of road.

Price has solved the problem of how to characterize the Lomborg/Pielke/Hulme/Breakthrough Institute types, they are Evasionists and the question to ask them is what level of climate change would bestir them to action.

Heard of these - DIY glaciers

A retired civil engineer in Ladakh is detaining flowing water in high-elevation shaded areas in winter to create "glaciers" (really ice fields - these things aren't moving). He has nine glaciers going so far, storing water that melts much later in the summer than the snow, providing water when it's most desperately needed.

I've heard of examples like this (more are discussed in the article) and it may be something we'll want to copy here in California. "Guzzlers" are common at lower elevations to provide water to wildlife - I have doubts about their wisdom in most circumstances, but it's an example of dispersed manipulation of water systems. I could imagine installing cheap stream diversions on mountainsides that move some flowing water to from southern to northern exposures and spread it out to freeze. This might support a more natural hydrograph than one without adaptation to climate change.

Not certain it's a good idea, but maybe worth considering.

In other news, a very nice salute from Jonathan Zasloff, "Requiem for a Bottom Feeder" about the retirement of Don Shoup, the land use planning academic who wrote The High Cost of Free Parking. Shoup decided to focus on the lowest prestige/least-researched issue in his field, zoning regulations, and ended up doing great things because of it. Quite a contrast to the tiny handful of mediocre academics who decided to reach out for prestige that's eluded them by refuting the entire field of climate science.

Still wary, but a reasonable defense of Trans Pacific Partnership is here

UPDATE:  a slightly (just barely) contrary opinion on TPP from my go-to guy Paul Krugman. More like he doesn't think it's worth the bother.

From Brad DeLong's blog, with him quoting Gary Hufbauer. I'm a big fan of Elizabeth Warren, but she is still a national-level politician.

As one of the people who did the NAFTA economic impact estimates for the Clinton Administration. I definitely have some explaining to do.

Our models showed NAFTA as:

a small plus for the American manufacturing sector, including manufacturing workers; a larger but still small plus for American consumers; a substantial plus for Mexico; and a minus for other developing countries that were potential competitors with Mexico for the American market. In reality, it turned out to be:

a substantial short-run minus for Mexico (the 1994–95 financial crisis; a long-run plus for Mexico that I still hope Will be larger than the short-run minus (guaranteed tariff- and quota-free access to the US market is worth a good deal); a bigger plus then I expected for Wall Street; a plus for American consumers; a small minus for American manufacturing; and a minus for other developing countries that were potential competitors with Mexico for the American market. It turned out that the most important aspect of NAFTA was not the increase in balanced trade from lower trade barriers, and was not the increase in factory construction in Mexico because of increased confidence in Mexico’s government and in US willingness to except Mexican exports and in US manufactured equipment exports to enable that construction.

It turned out that the most important aspect of NAFTA was the Mexican financial liberalization that allowed Mexico’s rich to cheaply purchased political risk insurance from Wall Street by getting their money into New York.

That experience--my personal analytical nadir as an economist, I might add--convinced me that analyzing modern trade agreements as if they were primarily Ricardian deals is likely to lead one substantially astray. One has to think, and think deeply, creatively, and subtly, about all the potential general equilibrium effects. One has to work hard to bound their magnitude.
....
Gary Hufbauer: Senator Warren Distorts the Record on Investor-State Dispute Settlements: "ISDS provisions enable a foreign investor to seek compensation in an amount determined by an impartial panel of arbitrators... ...if a host government expropriates its property, or regulates its business in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner. Such protections have been deemed necessary in agreements going back at least to a Germany-Pakistan accord in 1959.... Starting with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994, the United States has also included ISDS in the investment chapters in nearly all its free trade agreements (FTAs), now numbering 20. Given this rich history, Senator Warren should be able to cite actual examples of the multiple abuses that she claims have occurred. She has not done so, because she cannot. Senator Warren makes a big deal about the hypothetical outcome of the old Methanex case against California’s regulations on gasoline additives, but the case was decided against the Canadian corporation....

Over the decades, only 13 ISDS cases have been brought to judgment against the United States. The United States has not lost a single case. Why? Because the United States does not expropriate private property without compensation, and the United States does not enact arbitrary or discriminatory laws against foreign firms. Contrary to what the Senator implies, American taxpayers have not had to cough up millions and even billions of dollars in damages. They have not had to cough up anything. To be blunt, Senator Warren has no facts.... Her op-ed... resorted to hypothetical scenarios that had no basis in 50 years of ISDS history....

Senator Warren...warns that plaintiffs may succeed in suing such countries as Egypt, Germany, and the Czech Republic to overturn their laws. But these are hypothetical scenarios. The cases have not been decided and the countries in question may well prevail. Her descriptions of these lawsuits overlook something that Senator Warren should know as a former law professor: Lawyers often bring cases seeking huge damages precisely when the facts are against their claims. Just look at the 13 ISDS cases brought against the United States and dismissed, or the 175 cases dismissed worldwide. Sounding like a Tea Party politician railing against the United Nations, Senator Warren contends that international courts might replace the US legal system. Again she has the story backwards. The United States has been the chief architect of ISDS and other forms of international dispute settlement precisely because the United States has been able to export its legal principles to other countries....

Since NAFTA was ratified two decades ago, ISDS provisions have been amended to ward off frivolous claims involving environmental, health, and safety regulation of corporate practices. We do not yet know the precise terms of the ISDS provisions in TPP. A good guess is that they will follow the template found in the Korea-US FTA. That template might be further improved by requiring briefs to be published at a suitable time and establishing an appeals mechanism. But just because the existing ISDS template falls short of perfection is no reason to jettison the concept. It is even less of a reason to reject the entire TPP, though that seems to be Senator Warren’s objective.

My little California DISCLOSE Act video project

Been working on this for a bit, making fair use of snips from the Star Wars trailers to highlight legislation to reform the California political process:



I think it's working now - had some hiccups yesterday.

CAClean.org for more info.

Why Hart Found Narrow Ecospheres — A Minor Science Mystery Solved

In searching for habitable exoplanets, knowing where to look is an important issue.  At least for humans there is a continuously habitable zone (CHZ), a region where life as we know it could appear and persist. This is also important for our understanding the young Earth.  Escape from Snowball Earth is still an area of investigation, how the Earth managed the great escape.

As in any field, there is secret sauce, magic ingredients that appear in the literature and no one quite knows where that came from.  Barton Paul Levenson has tracked down the source of one of those, an early estimate of the outer limit of the CHZ.  This will appear in Astrobiology, but, alas there is a rather high paywall.  Barton has sent Eli a summary of the paper.

There are some interesting hints in this and connections to current issues, the attitude of Elsasser to global warming for example.  So with no further introduction

--------------------------------------------------------

In 1953, Hubertus Strughold coined the word "ecosphere" (from Greek οικος, house) for the distance range where a star can have habitable planets. Too close in, the planet will be too hot.  Too far out, too cold. Rampino and Caldeira (1994) called this "[t]he Goldilocks Problem."

Early estimates of the Sun's ecosphere were optimistic. It might reach from 0.7 to 1.5 AUs, 1 AU being the Earth-Sun distance. Venus and Mars might both be habitable, at least for some forms of life.

By the early '60s we knew Venus was too hot and Mars too cold and airless. Dole (1964) found temperatures of 273-303 K were limits for human habitability, then used a static climate model to estimate a 0.86-1.24 AU Solar ecosphere.

Then, Michael Hart at NASA (1978) noticed that since stars increase in luminosity across the main sequence, the "Habitable Zone" (HZ) moves outward with time. The region where things are clement for long periods is the narrower "Continuously Habitable Zone" (CHZ). A planet too close undergoes a runaway greenhouse and winds up like Venus. A planet too far ices over. Hart found the narrow range of 0.95-1.01 AU for the Solar CHZ, later (1979) revised to 0.958-1.004 AU.

His findings hit the ETI community like a bombshell.  Isaac Asimov (1980) said: "[I]f Hart's computer simulation of Earth's past history is accurate, then it is very likely that no planet at all will form within the ecosphere... all the planets near the star will be Venuslike or Marslike... The probability of a planet within the ecosphere would then be close to 0.0.

Actually, Asimov failed to do the math. Planet orbits are spaced roughly evenly on a log scale.  Given that, the spacing ratio difference between Dole's ecosphere (1.24 / 0.86) and Hart's (1.004 / 0.958), compared to a mean 1.73 in the Solar system, lowers the chance of a planet in the ecosphere from 67% to 8.6%, a factor of 7.8. Compared to Dole's estimate of 600 million habitable planets in the Milky Way galaxy, this would still leave 77 million such planets.

But the effect of Hart's articles was disproportionate. Climate scientists Schneider and Thompson (1980) felt compelled to respond that the scientific knowledge available was too uncertain for such estimates. Schneider wrote me in 1983 that Hart's conclusions were "completely unjustified."

In 1981, Walker et al. found a stabilizing feedback that prevented runaway glaciation at the outer boundary.  A more ice-covered Earth has less weathering of rock. Less carbon gets washed to the sea, and CO₂ from volcanoes builds up in the air, eventually melting the ice. James F. Kasting and his colleagues at Penn State used this information in 1992 to find a wider Solar CHZ, 0.95 to 1.15 AU.

Later discoveries about warming from high-altitude CO₂ ice clouds extended the outer HZ limit as far as 1.7-2.4 AU.  This puts glaciated Mars well inside the HZ! But because of its small size, Mars cooled off early, plate tectonics never started, and it has no active volcanoes to add CO₂ to the atmosphere. Walker's feedback doesn't exist for it. If Mars were Earth-sized, it might be habitable.

Most (not all) estimates for the inner CHZ boundary are still close to Hart's.  But his outer estimate puzzled everyone.  It was an advance to account for thermal runaways in a planet's history to find CHZ boundaries, as Hart did. It was another advance to include Walker et al.'s stabilizing feedback.  But a certain mystery still surrounded Hart's findings. Kasting wrote in 2010: "Exactly why [Hart's] model failed to recover from runaway glaciation is not clear. It was a highly simplified model, though, and its treatment of both radiation and convection left much to be desired..."

How Hart got it wrong puzzled me for years. I wrote an indignant, completely incompetent reply to his 1978 paper the same year, when I was a high school student, and of course it got rejected. Hart, oddly enough, phoned me from the Manned Space Center in Houston, Texas (I was living in Charlotte, NC at the time) to discuss it. He and I were ideologically opposed on many points, and not just in science, but I have never forgotten how kind he was to a geeky kid. Nonetheless, I recently decided to revisit his model, and this time I got an accepted paper out of it.

Computer power was far less in 1978 than today. Hart's simulation was probably written in the procedural language Fortran IV, and either punched into cards to be read in batch mode by a mainframe computer like an IBM 360, or entered via teletype or CRT-screen to a minicomputer like the DEC PDP-11. Although radiative-convective models (RCMs) of Earth's atmosphere had existed since 1964, a geohistorical model like Hart's would have needed far too much computer time to repeatedly run one.  His simulation used a time step of 2.5 million years and an Earth age of 4.5 billion years, requiring 1,800 iterations of the main processing loop. A detailed temperature model would simply have cost too much.

So Hart substituted an iterative semigray model. He estimated the infrared optical thickness of Earth's atmosphere at τ = 2.49, which for Earth's effective temperature T_eff = 255 K, gives a surface temperature T_s = 332 K.  This would be true for a purely radiative situation, but conduction, convection and evapotranspiration cool Earth's surface at the expense of the atmosphere.  Thus he introduced a "convection factor" F_conv = 0.43:

T_s = T_eff + [(1 + 0.75 τ)^1/4 - 1]T_eff F_conv

Hart took water vapor and carbon dioxide as the only greenhouse gases for present-day Earth.  He added ammonia and methane for a primitive Earth assumed, in line with theory at the time, to have a reducing atmosphere.  For present Earth he found τ_H2O = 2.34 and τ_CO2 = 0.15, for relative contributions of 94% and 6% to Earth's greenhouse effect. By way of contrast, RCM studies show the clear-sky greenhouse effect to be 9-26% from carbon dioxide.

Consider Mars, where almost all the greenhouse is from CO₂ and very little from H₂O.  A temperature model that undervalues CO₂ will be more vulnerable to glaciation as sunlight lessens. I eventually concluded that Hart never realized he was treating CO₂ as too weak a greenhouse gas, and missed it because his results were in line with climatological thinking at the time.

It turns out narrow CHZ boundaries were actually found much earlier--but no one considered both limits together until Hart did. In 1969, Ingersoll used a gray model to explain how the runaway greenhouse effect might have taken place on Venus. A year later, Rasool and de Bergh (1970) estimated the inner boundary of the sun's CHZ at 0.93-0.96 AUs.

Also in 1969, Budyko found an outer CHZ boundary of 1.008 AUs, based on a one-dimensional (in latitude) energy-balance climate model. The same year, Sellers, without knowing of Budyko's work, estimated the outer boundary at 1.01-1.025 AUs, also based on an energy-balance model. These models were considered state-of-the-art back then.

So years before Hart, the literature already implied a CHZ stretching from 0.93-0.96 AU at the inner boundary to 1.008-1.025 at the outer, for a spacing ratio of 1.05-1.10. Hart's 1978 paper cites both Budyko's paper and Sellers's. His simulation only reinforced a conclusion already "out there."  In short, he had no reason to question his results. This "ice catastrophe" had been in the air in professional circles for many years; he got the answer he almost certainly expected.

The only remaining question is why he took CO₂ as too weak a greenhouse gas. Hart cites the seminal work of Elsasser and Culbertson (1960) in his references. I collected estimates for CO₂ absorption coefficients in the band most important for terrestrial planet temperatures, the 15-micron (μ) band. In SI units, the geometric mean of Elsasser and Culbertson's figures from 14 to 16 μ is 0.438 m² kg^-1. The mean figure for Hanel et al. (1963) is 0.07, while Gonima (1992) finds 20 and Evans (2001) reports a point measurement of 16.3. Clearly 1960s figures are very low compared to later ones.

Nowadays, a researcher who wants to create a band scheme for a planet's atmosphere uses "line-by-line" software on the Air Force HITRAN or HITEMP line data compilations.  From individual lines, one estimates a mean absorption coefficient in a given wavelength domain.

But HITRAN only came out in 1973. Elsasser and Culbertson based their work on laboratory test data on carbon dioxide in glass tubes, with nitrogen as a line-broadening agent. Either because of problems with their mathematical model, or problems with the lab procedure, they concluded that carbon dioxide was a much weaker greenhouse gas than it really is. Similar problems must have arisen for Hanel et al. By the time of Gonima's paper, both better models and better data were available.

So because of earlier work which showed Earth orbiting very near the outer edge of a narrow CHZ, in danger of runaway glaciation if sunlight fell by even a few percent, and because of mistakes about radiation transfer in the source material available to him, Hart's planet temperature model really did have serious problems, as Kasting proposed. A better semigray model might have provided different results, even without considering the stabilizing feedback of Walker

Biodiversity loss is an order of magnitude worse than other climate impacts....

...if you measure by recovery time. Full recovery of the climate from anthropogenic GHG emissions will take hundreds of thousands of years. Recovery from mass extinctions, like the one that climate change is exacerbating for 1 out of 6 species, can take 10 million years (or longer).

The biodiversity crisis seems underemphasized to me. I think there's a chance that with a combination of luck both on climate sensitivity and speed of technological change, together with achieving the better end of the range of feasible political action on climate, we can escape a climate tragedy (for most people). The mass extinction, though, is already here. It's just a matter of how much worse we'll make it.

Why Jim Hansen Worries

Back in 1988, in the original GCM, Hansen summarized the situation going forward.  The most important part of this figure is that grey band, and the implication that the world would soon enter that region,

as indeed it has.  The top end of the gray Eemian is well below 2 C  pre-industrial, something that scared Hansen thirty years ago, because he knew what that meant for the world.

A couple of days ago Jim Hansen laid it out for Australian Broadcasting in detail.  You can listen to Fran Kelly's interview, or read it at Rabett Run.  Eli reserves the right to inject a word or two here and there.  Kelly (in italics) introduced Hansen who was at the 2015 Conference on Advances in Nuclear Power Plants and inquired why he refused to sign the Nuclear for Climate Declaration from the  conference.  Hansen pointed out it was not that Declaration he refused to sign

----------------------------------------------

That's regarded by most as being the safe level of climate change and it's the same goal that will be on the table at Paris later this year at the UN Climate Talks. . . .  The top US climate scientist James Hansen thinks says the goal is a nonsense and the world is on the wrong track thinking that two degrees of warming is safe.  . . . James Hansen you have long been a supporter of nuclear power because it can significantly limit global warming but you are refusing to sign this Nuclear for Climate Declaration

No, someone has misinformed you.  What I refused to sign the Vatican Declaration which had the 2 degree limit and the reason I do not sign that is that the 2 degrees is actually a prescription for disaster. That’s actually well understood by the scientific community.

We know that the prior interglacial period about 120,000 years ago – it’s called the Eemian in Europe –but it  was less than 2 degrees C warmer than pre-industrial conditions and sea level was a least 6 to 8 metres higher, so it’s crazy to think that 2 degrees Celsius is safe limit.

The only thing you can argue is that, well, it might take a while for the sea level to rise that much, but we know that it would happen because once the fossil fuels are burned to reach that level they are not taken out of the systems for millennia, and it does not require millennia for the ice sheets to disintegrate.

If you say it would be crazy to shoot for two degrees but that is exactly what we are going to be shooting for in Paris at the global climate talks

That number (2 degrees) was chosen because it was convenient and thought that well that will give us a few decades so we can set targets for the middle of the century.

Actually what the science tells us is we have an emergency, this is actually a global crisis and the science for that is crystal clear. It’s not obvious to the public because the climate system responds slowly, the ocean is 4 kilometres deep, these ice sheets are 3 kilometres thick. They only respond over timescales of decades to centuries, but once the processes are started it’s going to be extremely difficult if not impossible to stop them.

So what the science actually tells us is that we should reduce emissions as fast as practical, bearing in mind the economic consequences, but in fact the actions that are necessary are not economically harmful. You just have to make the prices of fossil fuels honest

I just want to stay with reducing emissions as fast as practical. Is that why generally the global community including what is on the table at Paris is looking at two degrees because that is what is practical

That's what they would argue but they are talking about ways of doing it which are extremely ineffectual like the Kyoto protocol. This cap and trade with offsets, it is very ineffectual.  What you actually need to do is make the price of fossil fuels honest instead of subsidizing them. It's been shown with economic studies that if you add a gradually rising fee to carbon collected from fossil fuel companies at the source, the domestic mine or the port of entry, and distribute that money 100% to the public, an equal amount to all legal residents  it will actually spur the economy and increase the GNP and allow you to phase down emissions  much more rapidly than with these screwy cap and trade with offset schemes

So you are saying that is much simpler kind of system than a cap and trade or what Australia had

A system that's designed for the public not for special interests.  In the United States we had a bill introduced 3500 pages of give aways to every special interest that could lobby Congress and get its favorite thing in there.  But that is not what you need. You need a simple honest system which would require one or two pages.  But that's what politicians have not come up with yet

Eli:  The laws and procedures for levying, collecting and distributing that tax would require much more than one or two pages.  Much, much more. Hansen is either being naive or political here. 

You are right that's what politicians have not come up with, but the scientists, the IPCC they are still talking about a 2 degree limit.  The assessment report five that came out of the IPCC last year predicted sea levels will rise between 22 and  86 centimeters by the end of this century.  You are actually saying  it will rise much more than that and even more quickly

The paleoclimate evidence indicates the ice sheets are much more sensitive than the glaciologist, the modellers of ice sheets have indicated and furthermore we now have satellite data over the last 12 years that confirms that ice sheet disintegration is a non-linear process that should not have been surprising, and I have been saying that for 10 years, but now this satellite data confirms that.

The ice sheets are losing mass faster and faster with a doubling the of about 10 years. If that continues, we would get sea-level rises of several metres within 40 to 50 years.

So we really do not want to continue forcing the system at the rate we are doing now

So spell that out for us James before we move on, sea level rises of several meters in forty years, what would that look like in terms of our lives

The consequences are almost unthinkable. It would mean that all coastal cities would become dysfunctional, some parts of the cities would still be sticking above the water but they would not be habitable, so the economic implications are incalculable. We really cannot go down that path, this is an issue of intergenerational injustice.   It’s a moral issue because the current generation is burning the fossil fuel and getting the benefits and creating a situation that for young people, our children and grandchildren and future generations is going to have enormous consequences.

James Hansen a report from the UK Grantham Institute this week makes it clear that based on current pledges and targets the world is not even close to delivering on a 2 degree goal which you say is not enough.  Does that mean that we have to be looking elsewhere, seriously at some sort of negative emissions technology, drawing down atmospheric or  ocean carbon what may that technology be.  Is that answer nuclear.  A emergency requires emergency actions.

I hate to sound like I am disagreeing with all the scientists but that's not true that we are necessarily beyond 2 degrees, we could actually come in below 2 degrees.  We could actually come in well under 2 degrees.  But it does require beginning to phase down  fossil fuel emissions and that requires two things.  The most fundamental is making the price of fossil fuel honest and that would encourage alternatives.  But those alternatives are going to have to include technological advances

You mentioned that I have been supporting nuclear power for decades but that is not actually true.  It is only in the last several years as I have begun to look at the energy situation and see what is actually happening.  You hear all this stuff about renewables.  Solar are becoming very cheap and they are taking over.  Well, in fact, non-hydro renewables are providing only 3% of the energy even though they have been subsidized heavily for several decades.  They are an important part of the solution but not an adequate part.  

Eli:  Those subsidies are beginning to pay off big time with huge decreases in the cost of solar and wind power as economies of scale and research advances begin to bite.  Whether these will be enough to save the day without nuclear power is a debate between Hansen, Barry Brook and Joe Romm.  Eli's POV is somewhat intermediate, that nuclear to carry the entire load requires new reactor designs, but today's reactors can contribute.

Nuclear power is the one thing that could help give us carbon free electricity, and if we get carbon free electricity as Sweden has right now, then the problem can be quickly solved.  

The only thing that would be required in addition is liquid fuels but you can make non fossil fuel liquid fuels, but you can do that with energy from electricity.  So if we have carbon free electricity the problem is solved. 

And that's a doable thing.  But it does require technology development as well as a rising fee on fossil fuels.  

As you say you have been sounding this alarm for a long time now and many others have too.  But for some years there the whole argument descended into a debate between the so called climate skeptics and the so called global warmists.  Are we through that yet and what do you think the voice of the skeptics vs. the others 

On the surface that appeared to be what was happening but in reality the contrarians were representing the conservative side who felt that liberals are going to use this as a method to raise taxes and increase control over their lives and that's exactly what they do not want and I don't blame them.  But they were simply denying the science because they did not want those political consequences.  It did not really have much to do with science and it still does not.   and we really do need to get the conservatives to understand the situation because they need to be part of the solution and I think that they will be but it needs to happen pretty quickly.

Eli: Hansen underestimates the role that the fossil fuel company rat-fuckers have played.

2 - 3 < 0 Or Why Natural Sources and Sinks Are Not the Source of Increased Atmospheric CO2

Of course, this is an old argument. Eli prettified it up a bit at Bishop Hill and repeats the argument here in polite company (You, yes you in the back.  Stop laughing).  Apologies to the original source

Postscript:  Dikran with the algebra at QuantPaleo

If

Δ - is the change in atmospheric CO2, over any period of a year or greater  

He - is the emission of CO2 due to humans burning fossil fuel, 

Ne -  is the natural emissions of CO2 from all sources. Here, Eli is using the word nature to stand for everything except CO2 generated by burning fossil fuels. 

Na - is the total natural absorption of CO2,

We can simply write

Δ = He + Ne - Na

This is an accounting identity. Rearrange the equation by subtracting He from both sides of the equation

Δ - He = Ne - Na

We know that emissions from humans burning fossil fuel He are greater that the change in atmospheric CO2 by about a factor of 2, so He > Δ and (Δ - He) is negative.

0 > Δ - He = Ne - Na

This means that Ne - Na must be negative, so the natural emissions must be less than the natural absorption or, Ne < Na, and nature is not the source of the observed increase in CO2 since the amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere by everything except burning fossil fuels is less than the amount of CO2 absorbed from the atmosphere by both physical and biological processes.

See how easy it is. It is only necessary to know two things.

First that the change in CO2 atmospheric concentration, Δ, is positive. That comes from the Mauna Loa observations, ice cores, you name it. Second that emissions due to burning of fossil fuel would increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere more than the observed increase (Δ-He < 0).

That is known both from the source term, the amounts of fossil fuels mined (coal and tar sands), pumped (oil and gas) and a sink term, the amounts burned to generate electricity, run cars and trucks, etc. I f anything the measures of He are underestimates.

More on APS statement on climate change

The APS is soliciting comments by its members on a draft statement on climate change, following up their 2007 statement.

The current draft has three sections: On Climate Change, On Climate Science, and On Climate Action. Eli has written earlier about the near-kidnapping of the process by a subcommittee stacked with several climate change deniers. Here is the draft of my suggestions. The draft was reduced in length to match APS's 3500-character limitation.
Suggestions for APS statement on climate change

Change the last sentence of the first paragraph (On Climate Change) to read….

The potential consequences of climate change are great: rising temperatures, melting polar ice caps, rising sea levels, ocean acidification, and more intense extremes of the hydrological cycle (drought and floods). Some of these consequences of anthropogenic global warming (including melting of the polar ice caps) are happening now, and will become more severe in the future. The policies of the next few decades will determine human influences on the climate for centuries.

On Climate Science

The basic ideas underlying the Greenhouse Effect have been recognized for nearly two centuries. The atmosphere is largely transparent in the visible part of the spectrum, and largely opaque in the infrared part of the spectrum. This fact, combined with the Stefan-Boltzmann law, explains why the Earth is warmer than it would be in the absence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. A simple calculation shows that in the absence of greenhouse gases, the earth’s surface temperature would be -18 C, colder than the freezing point of water. Instead, the Earth’s surface is +15 C, which is 33 C warmer. This naturally occurring Greenhouse Effect is a large effect, which has existed ever since the early Earth acquired a greenhouse atmosphere billions of years ago.

Since the industrial revolution two centuries ago, the burning of fossil fuels has increased the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This leads to an anthropogenic enhancement of the greenhouse effect and further warming. The argument is a short and simple one: burning of fossil fuels —> increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide —> enhanced greenhouse effect —> modern anthropogenic global warming.

Modern climate scientists argue about the details, but not about the basic finding; i.e., whether or not anthropogenic global warming is happening at all. A useful analogy is with evolution in biology: Nearly all biologists believe in evolution. Biologists argue about the details of evolution, but not about whether or not evolution is happening at all.

A crucial question is whether or not modern anthropogenic global warming will cause a temperature rise that is large enough to cause a problem. The research, summarized by the IPCC, has asked what temperature rise would result from a doubling of carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere compared with preindustrial levels. Estimates center on a temperature rise of 3 C. While this result is calculated by computer modeling, it agrees with estimates using the sensitivity of the earth’s climate, as measured using the empirical data from the Earth’s warming at the end of the ice ages. This enhances confidence in the computer models.

A temperature rise of 3 C will be enough to melt the polar icecaps. Indeed the polar icecaps are starting to melt already.

On Climate Action

Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are currently 400 ppm, 43% higher than the preindustrial level of 280 ppm. A level of twice the preindustrial level (560 ppm) will be reached within a few decades if current trends continue. The situation is urgent because increased carbon dioxide concentrations persist in the atmosphere for centuries.

After the current final sentence:

The APS further urges physicists to collaborate with colleagues across disciplines in climate research and to contribute to the public dialogue.

Add the following…
The APS is not acting in isolation, as shown by the 36 science academies from countries or regions around the world that have issued statements accepting global warming.

These include: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, the Caribbean region, China, France, Germany, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, New Zealand, Russia, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Sweden, Switzerland, Tanzania, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

National and international organizations from nearly every field of science have issued statements accepting global warming. No scientific organization (which excludes denier websites and front groups) has issued a statement rejecting the basic findings of human-caused global warming.

The list of over 60 organizations includes: American Academy of Pediatrics, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Association of Petroleum Geologists, American Association of State Climatologists, American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians, American Astronomical Society, American Chemical Society, American College of Preventative Medicine, American Geological Institute, American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Physics, American Institute of Biological Scientists, American Institute of Professional Geologists, American Medical Association, American Meteorological Society, American Physical Society, American Public Health Association, American Quaternary Association, American Society for Microbiology, American Statistical Association, Arctic Climate Impact Association, Australian Coral Reef Society, Australian Institute of Physics, Australian Medical Association, Australian Meteorologic and Oceanographic Society, Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences, Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Engineers Australia, European Academy of Sciences and Arts, European Federation of Geologists, European Geosciences Union, European Physical Society, European Science Foundation, Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies, Geological Society of America, Geological Society of Australia, Geological Society of London, Institute of Biology (UK), Institute of Professional Engineers (NZ), InterAcademy Council, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, International Association for Great Lakes Research, International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences, International Council on Science, International Union for Quaternary Research, International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies, National Association of Geoscience Teachers, National Center for Atmospheric Research, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Research Council, Network of African Science Academies, Pew Center on Climate Change, Polish Academy of Sciences, Royal Meteorological Society (UK), Royal Society of New Zealand, Society of American Foresters, State of the Canadian Cryosphere, The Wildlife Society (International), Union of Concerned Scientists, US Geological Survey, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, Woods Hole Research Center, World Federation of Public Health Associations, World Health Organization, World Meteorological Organization, World Wildlife Fund.

Reference for the science academies and professional organizations: James Lawrence Powell, The Inquisition of Climate Science, Columbia University Press, New York, 2011, reviewed by me in 2012.

Quadratic Coke

Eli has been spending some time over at Bishop Hill's talking the Salby.  To be honest Frederick Engelbeen has been carrying the load, but Eli has been ducking in now and again.  The issue, of course is whether pCO2, the pressure of CO2 above the oceans follows the temperature (Salby) or drives it (Everybunny sensible).

There are lots of reasons to hold that the Murray is wrong, not only the old standbys, but some new ones, which will be discussed in a following post, but something interesting (to Eli, but Eli is easily amused) about the fizzy coke effect came up, how useful is Henry's law for describing the equilibrium concentration of CO2 above the ocean given the complex equilibrium between CO2 in the gas phase and in the ocean, and the carbonic acid, H₂CO₃, the hydrogen carbonate ion, HCO₃^-, and the carbonate ions CO₃^2-.

Henry's law states that the pressure of CO2 in the gas phase is related to the amount of CO2 dissolved in the liquid,

pCO2 = k[CO2(aq)]

For most purposes, e.g. physical chemistry classes, k is treated as a constant.  Not a bad approximation, but really is a function of temperature, T, and in the oceans, the salinity, S

k= exp [-60.2409 + 9345/T + 23.3585 log(T/100)]
 + S [0.023517 - 0.00023656 T + 0.0047036 (T/100)²]

 

Fortunately, there is an app for that, which includes the nice figure to the right, the R code for the calculation and the applet, and a discussion of the chemistry involved with pointers to the original articles.

For this Eli has to thank Scott Denning at Colorado State and his group.

Runing the calculation at fixed alkalinity and dissolved inorganic carbon over a range of temperature more or less representative of what is found in the oceans shows that pCO2 varies pretty close to quadratically with temperature

Both the Henry's law constant, k, and the  [CO2(aq)]/[HCO₃^-(aq)] equilibrium ratio change quadratically with temperature over the same range.  As a practical matter, 

pCO2(T) = k(T)[CO2(aq)](T) 

where all three terms are quadratic functions of temperature (ok, well approximated as quadratic functions, but R²  >  .9997 for all three)

The oceans are non-linear fizzy coke.

Ben E. King September 28, 1938 - April 30, 2015

You Load 16 Tons

Don Blankenship, the former CEO of Massey Energy, aka coal in WVa, has a Nixon problem.  Turns out the Don recorded his phone calls and now the prosecutors have them.  How they have them is one of those stories.

When Blankenship was under pressure, he sold Massey off to Alpha National Resources with the understanding that Alpha would cover his legal expenses, and, of course, he has them, being under indictment for evasion of mine safety and financial reporting requirements.

The Charleston Gazette reports that when Alpha got into Blankenship's office they found a telephone recording setup and a pile of tapes.  The listened to the tapes.  They blanched.  They turned the tapes over to prosecutors.

Now this was not a totally disinterested act of public responsibility.  After all Alpha mines coal, but as they now say, since Blankenship was actually doing the things that he is charged with they have no responsibility to pay for his defense.

Blankenship was infamous for forcing his mine workers to run coal at all costs and obstructing the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) and their inspectors, again at all costs, and he knew what he was doing

“Sometimes I’m torn with what I see about the craziness we do,” Blankenship told then-Massey chief operating officer Chris Adkins in November 2009. “Maybe if it weren’t for MSHA, we’d blow ourselves up.” 

Blankenship said, “I know MSHA is bad, but ... I tell you what ... we do some dumb things. I don’t know what we’d do if we didn’t have them.”

Coal mining is dirty

The Good Donor's Choice

Drug Monkey (a rather opinionated biomedical blogger, which probably is why Eli likes his blog) has a considerate way of helping people in areas beset by troubles.  He goes to  Donors Choose (nonono not that one John) and commits acts of kindness by giving to classroom needs that teachers in the beset area have posted.  He also posts on his blog for others who might be seeking to help.  Perhaps some here might want to help children and teachers in Baltimore.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ms. Polmisano's supplies project at Armistead Gardens Elementary School in Baltimore is one Eli gave to.

My Students: "Tell me, I'll forget. Show me, I'll remember. Involve me, I'll understand." This quote sums up our approach to learning in our STEM Resource Classroom. Throughout the year, students of all ages actively engage in engineering design challenges that aim to solve real world problems.

Our students are smart, curious, thoughtful, and respectful. They love learning and are always eager to try something new! They value what they have, which isn't always much. Our school is a Title I school located in Baltimore City. As a large urban school district, resources are spread quite thin. We are a PreK-8th grade school located in East Baltimore. Over 600 students attend our school and represent multiple nationalities.

Our students are curious, creative, and cooperative learners! They look forward to our projects with excitement and anticipation. Our classroom is a highly active and engaging learning environment. Students are always on the go as they’re guided through the Engineering Design Process. By brainstorming, planning, creating, testing, and improving products and prototypes, students are learning and applying science and math concepts, while exploring a variety of fields of engineering.

My Project: Students will engage in two new engineering challenges where they will explore materials and their properties in order to build devices. We will begin with simple machines, where students will research catapults, and explore the function of levers. We will test a variety of materials while designing a simple catapult system. Student teams will then be provided with a variety of materials to design their own unique catapult system, and compete in a catapult showdown to determine which models succeeded with both distance and accuracy.

We will then move on to our hydraulics and pneumatics unit, where we will explore the mechanical properties of liquids and gases. Students will participate in a variety of demonstrations and hands on activities to better learn how air and liquid can be used to design and improve mechanical systems. They will then develop their own pneumatic or hydraulic system that can be used to accomplish a common task.

In order to construct these designs and complete these investigations, my students require various building materials including syringes, pneumatics and hydraulics kits, catapult kits, a bottle launcher, paint stirrers, glue guns and glue, and rubber bands.

Today's students are the future scientists and engineers of tomorrow. It's important for educators to help students learn the skills and knowledge needed to be successful in these fields. Engineering challenges allow students to explore science concepts, apply math skills, and become familiar with STEM careers. These hands on activities engage all learners, and help students realize their valuable role on a work team. Students walk away not only knowledgeable, but also inspired and empowered!

My students need syringes, pneumatics and hydraulics kits, catapult kits, a bottle launcher, paint stirrers, glue guns and glue, and rubber bands, to explore the physical science concepts of hydraulics, pneumatics, levers, and simple machines.

Donor's choose.

Scheduled for publication in Energy and Environment

So Eli was looking at the tweets and the Bunny came across this from Roger Sr.

Primary assessment product will be ISI recognized peer reviewed paper(s) - http://t.co/pvzRF0yXlF An overdue evaluation.
— Roger A. Pielke Sr (@RogerAPielkeSr) April 27, 2015

about his plans for publishing.  As Victor Venema puts it

By coincidence this week two initiatives have been launched to review the methods to remove non-climatic changes from temperature data. One initiative was launched by the Global Warming&nbsp Policy Foundation (GWPF), a UK free-market think tank. The other by the Task Team on Homogenization ( TT-WMO ) of the Commission for Climatology (CCl) of the World meteorological organization (WMO). Disclosure: I chair the TT-HOM. . . 

Some subtle differences. The Policy Foundation has six people from the UK, Canada and the USA, who do not work on homogenization. The WMO team has nine people who work on homogenization from Congo, Pakistan, Peru, Canada, the USA, Australia, Hungary, Germany, and Spain.

The TT-HOM team has simply started outlining their report. The Policy Foundation creates spin before they have results with publications in their newspapers and blogs and they showcase that they are biased to begin with when they write:

But only when the full picture is in will it be possible to see just how far the scare over global warming has been driven by manipulation of figures accepted as reliable by the politicians who shape our energy policy, and much else besides. If the panel’s findings eventually confirm what we have seen so far, this really will be the “smoking gun”, in a scandal the scale and significance of which for all of us can scarcely be exaggerated.

My emphasis. Talk about hyperbole by the click-whore journalists of the Policy Foundation. Why buy newspapers when their articles are worse than a random page on the internet? The Policy Foundation gave their team a very bad start.

Victor goes on to give a masterful explanation of what homogenization is about and why it is needed, even as the saying goes, for the satellite (A)MSU records.  Highly recommended. The Weasel is having some fun with the latter.

Eli, OTOH can see a hanging curve when a Pielke chucks one and tweeted back

@VariabilityBlog @richardabetts @badgerbod @theresphysics @1RonanConnolly @HG54 @RogerAPielkeSr Slotted into Energy & Environment Roger?,
— eli rabett (@EthonRaptor) April 28, 2015

Count your fingers when you shake hands with a Pielke.

Shortened version of Obama with Anger Translator

I've been playing with video editors, so if anyone wants a shorter version of Eli's clip below, here it is. I kept the intro but cut out a minute of the video preceding the climate change section:





The anger translator, btw, is half of the comedy duo Key and Peele. They're very funny, with lots of excerpts on Youtube and Comedy Central.

UPDATE: Here's one of my favorites:

Sausage Grinding School

Bismark is rumored to have pointed out that one should never look took closely at the fabrication of producing sausages and laws.  In the March 6 issue of Science a number of worthies from various conservation oriented organizations first authored by S.L. Maxwell, add environmental treaties to the list, but with a twist worthy of consideration. (Free range version here)

They point out that conservation treaties have strived for targets that are specific, measurable, ambitious, realistic and time-bound (SMART), but that for the most difficult problems a better goal might be to leave a whole lot more wiggle room.

Because different parties have different objectives each of which will be passionately defended science, no matter how well established, is not necessarily going to help much.  In such a situation, it is, the author's say, and Eli agrees, much more important to build trust and work towards common goals than it would be to impose them at the beginning.

The Montreal Protocols provided the wiggle room by setting out different classes of nations, with different goals and schedules for each.  Because the Protocols built trust over two decades, in no small part through financial aid in helping the developing countries to meet their goals (and yes, accepted a degree of chicanery by China and India in particular) it has been successful.

The problem is

A primary focus for international environmental accords should be to promote collaboration, trust and innovation between stakeholders to enable long-term measurable action toward environmental sustainability.  SMART targets provide a potential pathway for achieving this, but the process of building consensus and collaboration when working toward SMART targets is vital.

So what are the principal rules of wiggle for negotiating environmental treaties

Without this, contentious environmental issues can force environmental policy makers to build flexibility into targets as a way to secure agreement.  We identify three common pathways for providing this "wiggle room":  targets that are ambiguous in definition, ambiguous  in quantification or clearly unachievable.

This is basically a half a loaf strategy, which may not be sufficient, but as is pointed out, such treaties and actions in support of them change the playing fields in the direction of SMART treaties that can be established at a later stage.  Moreover, bilateral agreements with SMART goals can be much easier to negotiate in a global "wiggle room".

Game theory can provide insights into why stakeholders adopt certain positions, the conditions under which they are likely to cooperate, and the likelihood that agreement can be achieved.  Smead, et al, used a game theoretic approach to examine failures of, and prospects for, international climate agreements.  They demonstrated that very high initial demands for greenhouse gas reductions made by numerous countries led to negotiations breaking down.  They suggested that future agreements are more likely to succeed if countries (particularly large emitters) reach bilateral reduction agreements before major international meetings as happened in late 2014 between the United States and China.

Maxwell, et al, hold that the targets for international environmental treaties should focus first on building trust and establishing collaborations amongst the parties.  They see local and regional lawmaking on environmental issues as being a better model for negotiation international treaties and point out the role that scientists have played.  Of course, in the US, this is a double edged sword in states that have banned the words climate change.

Does He or Don't He

No Drama Obama is, by nature and training, cool, not hot.  He is careful in what he says, extremely careful and certainly needs an interpreter to reach beyond the placid surface.  He needs his anger translator, Luther, to translate.  Sometimes

The framing as humor allows Obama to say something serious.  The look at the end?  Think Jack Benny

More from Andy Lacis

Andy Lacis comments on Judith Curry's visit to the hall of mirrors at And Then There is Physics, but in the spirit of the think, allow Eli to repost.
-----------------------------

Let me toss on here what I posted on ClimateEtc in regard to the recent (April 15, 2015) Science, Space, and Technology Committee Congressional Hearing:

As was to be expected, Congressional hearings are more about political posturing rather than being a directed effort of objective information gathering. Naturally, there was the perfunctory public posturing of pretending to appear “fair and balanced”. But the unmistakable overall flavor was really one of there-we-g0-again legalistic tribunes where selected legal briefs are presented on behalf of well-known staked-out positions by convenient plaintiffs who get to argue the virtues of their special points of view on their favorite issues regarding global warming and global climate change.

What went missing in this Congressional climate forum was any kind of real balancing testimony from experts in the field who have spent decades to analyze this important topic of global climate change. Regrettably, there was no real discussion as to what we actually do know about the global warming problem, and why we know it.

But, looking on the brighter side, perhaps there may have been a small modicum of progress having been made in that the likes of Senator James Inhofe (R, Oklahoma) and Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R, California) were not out there lambasting global warming and climate change as being the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on humanity. It appears that perhaps at this point in time, making such blatant denials of reality could be perceived as being unnecessarily clueless and ignorant.

But then there is also the contrary example of courageous conviction, and understanding of the global warming reality, exhibited by former Congressman Bob Inglis (R, South Carolina), who paid the price for being politically incorrect. One can only hope that at some point, pragmatic sanity will eventually prevail.

Even some of the staunchest of the global warming doubters have now grudgingly come around to acknowledge that CO2 does indeed absorb thermal radiation (but they want to claim that the absorption is small, that CO2 is saturated, and that water vapor actually absorbs more strongly); that while there might have been some increase in global temperature (it all has been mostly due to natural variability, and as such, it has been beneficial); and that while humans might have contributed to the rise in atmospheric CO2 (it has not been significant, and besides, the plants have benefitted from more CO2).

While there was nothing that was specifically erroneous in these Congressional Hearing presentations, it was the usual problem of half-truths, misdirection, and non-sequiturs being used to paint a picture that is not an accurate description of where we stand in our understanding of the current climate situation.

Part of the problem may also be attributable to the flexible nature of some basic definitions. What exactly is meant by this common term “global warming”? Literally, the term “global warming” would signify that the global-mean temperature is rising, and if the global-mean temperature were to be decreasing, the situation would then become “global cooling”. But this frequently used term has also acquired a more technical meaning as it is being used in climate science. As the key cause and principal component of global warming, it is the rise in atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases that act to increase the strength of the terrestrial greenhouse effect, and induce more water vapor in the atmosphere as a feedback effect. This inevitably leads to an increase in global surface temperature. This is really what the term “global warming” represents.

But there are other factors that also affect the global temperature. These can be caused by changes in solar irradiance, volcanic aerosols, and the natural variability of the ocean. Changes in solar irradiance and volcanic aerosols are typically known accurately enough. It is the variability of the ocean that is the principal source of uncertainly, such as a strong negative branch of the PDO cycle that can keep the global temperature from rising while atmospheric CO2 continues to increase unabated.

It is important to remember that the present-day changes affecting the global climate consist of two basic components: (1) the ongoing global warming component fueled by increasing atmospheric CO2, and (2) the natural variability of the climate system that consists of random-looking fluctuations about a slowly evolving zero reference point of the climate system.

It would be a misdirection to suggest that global warming has just somehow stalled simply because there has been only a little rise in global surface temperature since the prominent peak in 1998. There was no comparable “pause” in the rate of atmospheric CO2 increase during this time period. Instead, the global energy imbalance of the Earth increased as the heat energy that would have been warming the ground surface was being diverted toward heating the ocean. This puts more unrealized global warming into the “pipeline”, from which it will be emerging as the PDO cycle shifts toward its positive phase.

The natural variability of the climate system also makes it difficult to infer climate sensitivity to the radiative forcing by atmospheric CO2. Reliable estimates of the equilibrium climate sensitivity (equivalent to about 3 K for doubled CO2) are obtained from the geological record and from climate model calculations. The transient climate sensitivity is by definition a moving target since it depends on the rate of change of heat transport into the ocean (which itself is a changing factor), and estimating the transient climate sensitivity from observational data is particularly difficult (and uncertain), because it is necessary to know all contributing forcings in order to disentangle the feedback contributions from the total climate system response. While the CO2 forcing may be known accurately, it is big uncertainty as to the “virtual” forcings due to the natural variability of the ocean that are the most difficult to determine. Thus, estimates of the transient climate sensitivity (whether high, or low), will continue to remain highly uncertain.

In view of the above, the suggestion that climate models are running “too hot” compared to observations is disingenuous. Climate models may well run “cold” while simulating El Nino events, and run “hot” while simulating the global temperature during a strong negative PDO. Both climate models and the real world exhibit a form of unforced natural variability. And in both cases, this natural variability is quasi-chaotic, with no real way to coordinate the phasing of this variability. Any short-term comparisons between climate model results and observations need to keep this in mind. To sidestep this problem, the time period for comparisons must be long enough for the natural variability contributions to average out.

Granted, the definition of “dangerous” climate change is ambiguous. And there is probably no real way to quantify just what “dangerous” actually represents. Perhaps the example of the Titanic may help.
At what point did the situation on the Titanic become dangerous? There was no perceived danger when the Titanic left Southampton for New York. Most of the passengers were still dry and alive some two hours after hitting the iceberg. Did the danger begin when the iceberg was spotted, but there was not enough time to avoid the collision? Or was the danger already brewing when Captain Smith ignored reports of icebergs and continued full steam ahead? There might be some relevant parallels to draw.

Global-mean winds, global-mean temperatures, and global-mean precipitation, compared between a doubled CO2 climate and the current climate would not appear to be consequentially different. But it is the extreme weather events that cause the damage. Whether humans get blamed, or not blamed, neither adds nor detracts from the problem. Global warming puts more heat, water vapor, and latent energy into the atmosphere. And that is the fuel that makes the extreme weather events more extreme. So, there actually is a real relationship to be had between global warming (human induced) and a growing danger of more severe weather extremes. A better studied quantification of this relationship would certainly be very useful.

It would seem more appropriate to assign “wickedness” to problems that are more specifically related to witches. The climate problem, while clearly complex and complicated, is not incomprehensible. Current climate models do a very credible job in simulating current climate variability and seasonal changes. Present-day weather models make credible weather forecasts – and there is a close relationship. Most of the cutting edge current climate modeling research is aimed at understanding the physics of ocean circulation and the natural variability of the climate system that this generates. While this may be the principal source of uncertainty in predicting regional climate change and weather extreme events, this uncertainty in modeling the climate system’s natural variability is clearly separate and unrelated to the radiative energy balance physics that characterize the global warming problem. The appropriate uncertainty that exists in one area of climate modeling doe not automatically translate to all other components of the climate system.

Besides, the persistent uncertainties regarding the natural variability of the climate system are not the real problem that we face. The real problem is the continued increase in atmospheric CO2 that is causing the ongoing global warming. And, the basic facts and physics for understanding this aspect of global warming are all well established and well understood.

There always seem to be temptations to minimize the consequences of the global warming problem, or the cost-effectiveness of proposed efforts taken or suggested to counteract the global warming problem. That is just what Steven Koonin attempted to do in a previous post, nor does it appear to be different in this Congressional hearing.

Typically, the economic costs of taking action to address the global warming problem are always cited as being unnecessarily excessive. This was true of the proposed expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars to upgrade the levees and shoreline in New Orleans prior to Katrina, and in New York prior to Sandy. Had this money actually been spent to make New York and New Orleans more hurricane-proof, we might never have known that hundreds of billions worth of hurricane damage might have been averted.

The economic cost of combating global warming is likely to be many hundreds of billions of dollars. But has anybody tried to calculate how many trillions of dollars it would cost to relocate Miami, New York, Washington DC, and New Orleans to higher ground? Surely, there are bound to be many other economic costs to tally up, brought on by the inaction to counteract the impending consequences that global warming is sure to bring.

Clearly, decisions will need to be made, and they will need to be made sooner rather than later. Is there anybody in Congress who is capable of making the hard decisions? It is actually important to first fully understand the problem before deciding to act, or in justifying the decision not to act.

March gave us the warmest 12 months in a row. And the warmest 13 months, 14 months...20 months...40 months...59 months...

...but not the warmest 60 months in a row, so climate change is a hoax. The warmest 60 months in a row happened in ancient history, from March 2010 through February 2015. OTOH, the warmest 61 months in a row did just happen in March, as well 62 months, 63 months, 70 months, and on for quite a while.

The point is that as you look at longer periods, it becomes even more obvious that we're still warming. Denialists made a lot of hay out of the fact that 2014 was the warmest calendar year based on probability, with a lesser-but-still real possibility that another year was actually warmer. They die by the probabilistic sword though if you look at longer periods. There's virtually no chance that any period in the instrumental record longer than 18 months happened before 2014.

Anyway, I thought this is another way to communicate the idea (that temps are warming).

In other news, my careful reading of Tamino's recent blogging frenzy pulled out these two gems from Ted Cruz. In January, Tamino quotes Cruz saying (presumably in 2014):

The last 15 years, there has been no recorded warming. Contrary to all the theories that — that they are expounding, there should have been warming over the last 15 years. It hasn’t happened.

In March, Tamino says Cruz says:

Many of the alarmists on global warming, they’ve got a problem because the science doesn’t back them up. In particular, satellite data demonstrate for the last 17 years, there’s been zero warming.”

Goalpost much? Someone should ask Ted why he's changed his tune, other than fine-tuning his cherrypicking to the only dataset he can still use.

One disadvantage for him in being a presidential candidate is that it becomes a little harder to duck questions.