etudiant

Thank you for your ongoing excellent coverage of the Atlantic storm season.

12 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

At least some research shows that at least parts of the Arctic today are the warmest in at least the last 44,000 years.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2013GL057188

Thank you, that is a well documented piece of work.

I'd thought that the primary objection was not denial of the current evidence, but rather claims that similar or warmer conditions were in effect in prior recorded history, for instance during the Norse settlements of Greenland..

That then translates into a claim that there is a natural warm cold cycle, which the current models fail to capture. The Norse settlement was not small, it was big enough to be allocated its own bishop and they were able to sustain cattle and sheep.

Presumably there could be some isotope measurements possible in stalactites or glacier ice which provides some guidance on this issue, but I've not seen anything that really digs into the question.

I suspect we all underestimate the potential for reform. If people want change, they will get it. With effectively unlimited power from nuclear, even extreme efforts such as carbon capture are feasible.

What is required is a broad recognition that there really is a problem. That has not been achieved, imho partly because the early AGW researchers desperately oversold the immediacy of their findings. The subsequent pause after 1998 put them into the 'boy who cried wolf' category and that has impeded any further consensus action.

Sadly I believe it will now take a climate catastrophe to spur any concerted action. A collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet might force a recognition of the problem, but failing that, business as usual remains the most likely outcome. The best hope for progress is from the renewable energy sector. If it can continue to deliver increasingly economical power, we might buy some additional decades to find a solution to the problem.

On 9/20/2019 at 9:33 PM, Vice-Regent said:

The only known way to solve the problem is to abandon Civilization from the equation. Stop population overshoot and the ability to exploit the environment at will en-masse. (with the adjacent technologies).

Humans like any other organism must live in equilibrium with it's environment. There is a place for us. A world without civilization is worth living in.

That leaves it up to nature to balance the equation, which she is quite capable of doing, but I doubt we would like the process.

It seems a counsel of despair, that we cannot manage ourselves, which also is quite wrong by the evidence of collapsing birth rates in Asia, Europe and the Americas.

Only Africa still has rapid  population growth, but that will adjust as the continent becomes more urbanized and civilized.

The discussion was about the difficulty of mobilizing the public to tackle climate change as an imminent danger.

I  was simply pointing out that the actions by the most powerful leaders in the debate undermine the narrative for the broader public.

An other problem imho is the dissonance between the rhetoric and the actions of the leading AGW politicians.

The public sees that both Al Gore as well as Barack  Obama bought large oceanfront estates shortly after leaving office. Presumably these well informed individuals would not buy such homes if they anticipated losing them shortly to rising seas.  John Q Public takes comfort from this evidence that there is no imminent danger. 

11 hours ago, IWXwx said:

I imagine that the farmers in our area are thankful for this dry weather and much above normal temperatures continuing into late September to allow their corn to mature properly. Most fields around here were planted very late.

Always thought that this is a wild card that does not get enough attention. A premature frost would have massive global consequences, because the US corn crop is a third of the world total.

I don't think action is easily compelled, even less so when there is little leadership and few clear examples of the way forward.

Germany is a case in point, vocally green and yet more dependent on coal and energy imports than before. If Japan could be mobilized, that would be a persuasive step, but there is no sign of such.

Meanwhile, the evidence of a real ecosystems breakdown is all around us, evidenced by the recent report on declining bird numbers (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-science-birds-idUSKBN1W42NA)

That is a disaster arising from habitat destruction, bad land use and indiscriminate use of pesticides, all problems that can be fixed, at a price. Who pays the price is the sticking point, even though long term we all share the hurt that is being inflicted.

On 8/29/2019 at 9:17 PM, winterymix said:

Nice discussion, Don.

 

Don't think this is a helpful cartoon. It is deeply anti scientific, an appeal to mass authority. 

In response to a book 'A hundred authors against relativity'. Einstein said: 'Why 100? If I were wrong, one would have been enough.'

Einstein said 'Why 100? If I were wrong, one would have been enough.'

15 hours ago, mayjawintastawm said:

Thanks Don for chiming in on the Mtn West page... Out of curiosity I looked at Denver's climate pages for September today. Records have been kept for 148 years. We moved to CO in August 2010. Of the 30 daily record highs in September, 14 have been set since we moved here. That is COMPLETELY nuts.

 

As you point out,  this record warmth is obviously your fault. 

 

Not a regular here, but this really needs organization to provide help.

I'm thinking of 10,000 or so households that have lost everything and that are remote from any helping entity.

Is there a shuttle ferry or something similar (airport was under water afaik) to deliver basic supplies?

All we can do here is to send money, but who is a trustworthy recipient? Do any of the regulars here know?

23 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

The science doesn't suggest that in 12 years we will "die." That's a caricature of what the science is actually suggesting: time is somewhat limited if the world is to achieve its 1.5°C goal.

It would be so very helpful if the media presentation of this issue were better guided by the science.

Instead we have a high school kid sailing to the UN to tell the world what to do. Not sure that is a good basis for policy.

5 hours ago, TriPol said:

I was at the park today and saw acorns the size of golf balls. That's going to lead to some fat squirrels. 

Same in Central Park, massive acorns all over, going begging for lack of enough squirrels. Also very generous seed clusters and berries on the various trees and shrubs.

The damp weather we had earlier has yielded a well above average harvest. Migrants will be well fed. Doubt however that it helps predict the winter.

21 hours ago, jfklganyc said:

Now it is animals grazing. The latest reason. 

That is the least of our problems.

Humanity needs to fundamentally switch transportation modes and stop emitting fossil fuels.

That can easily be done with electric cars. 

Planes are a problem. And trucks. And machinery. And electrical generation and on and on.

 

What has become apparent to me, is that none of this is going to happen . There will be incremental cuts to emissions that are reasonable with new technology. And these will be offset by population growth.

Despite a looming threat, humanity will not suffer one day of convenience or comfort or necessity for the sake of cutting emissions.

That is just the reality of humanity.

 

If the earth explodes tomorrow, it isnt cow poop. It is the two SUVs in the garage, your year round HVAC system and YOUR carbon footprint.

Enjoy a guilt-free burger on me tonight.

 

And for the record, the Impossible Whopper tastes very much like a veggie burger.

Quite wrong imho.

The big rise in emissions is from China, India and other developing countries desperate to lift their people out of millennia of poverty.

They need reliable power for their industrial development and coal is the best way to achieve that. Nuclear is better, but costs too much because of the regulatory overhead imposed by anti proliferation and anti exposure rules.

8 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

Abstract:

One of the most destructive natural hazards, tropical cyclone (TC)–induced coastal flooding, will worsen under climate change. Here we conduct climatology–hydrodynamic modeling to quantify the effects of sea level rise (SLR) and TC climatology change (under RCP 8.5) on late 21st century flood hazards at the county level along the US Atlantic and Gulf Coasts. We find that, under the compound effects of SLR and TC climatology change, the historical 100-year flood level would occur annually in New England and mid-Atlantic regions and every 1–30 years in southeast Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions in the late 21st century. The relative effect of TC climatology change increases continuously from New England, mid-Atlantic, southeast Atlantic, to the Gulf of Mexico, and the effect of TC climatology change is likely to be larger than the effect of SLR for over 40% of coastal counties in the Gulf of Mexico.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-11755-z

Not persuaded, it postulates 2 unverified developments, first an accelerating sea level rise and second a pattern of intensifying TCs.

Afaik, there is very little evidence for either at present. So this seems more a 'sky is falling' paper than an evidence based document.

19 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

Multiple steps are required. Bringing about cost parity and later cost superiority (lower costs) is one part of the larger problem. Expansion of the application, including but not limited to issues related to storage is another. Redundancy will still be needed for the foreseeable future, even if solar power ultimately becomes the primary source of electricity.

That redundancy costs a lot of money. Overall, one pays for 2 complete power systems. That makes everyone so much poorer.

I'd much rather see the money spent on low emission nuclear, because it is 24/7 available, so it folds seamlessly into the grid. The associated pollution issues are less imho than the massive problems generated by rare earth extraction for wind power generators or area coverage with solar collectors.

20 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

New research has revealed that solar power has reached grid parity in China’s cities. Such an outcome in which new technologies become cost effective with scale and experience has been the norm with major technologies that move from the introductory to the growth phase. 

The abstract is below:

We reveal that all of these cities can achieve—without subsidies—solar PV electricity prices lower than grid-supplied prices, and around 22% of the cities’ solar generation electricity prices can compete with desulfurized coal benchmark electricity prices.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-019-0441-z

The challenge however is not only cost per kWhr, it is for reliable power.

The lower cost of the solar is no help on a cold winter night, unless there is reliable backup, whether fossil fueled, nuclear or battery or some other technology. Those costs must be considered in any realistic evaluation. The attraction of the fossil and nuclear generators is that they work reliably 24/7. Getting the infrastructure and the people to accept something more erratic will not be easy or cheap.

The recent UK blackout is an illustration of the problem.  Note that in theory, a globally connected very high power grid might be the answer, but politics do not seem to favor this supranational option.

On 8/14/2019 at 8:11 PM, donsutherland1 said:

New research highlights the role “new media” is playing in promoting climate disinformation. That role underpins the importance of assuring the public a reliable and continuing source of climate science information.

From Nature:

We juxtapose 386 prominent contrarians with 386 expert scientists by tracking their digital footprints across ∼200,000 research publications and ∼100,000 English-language digital and print media articles on climate change. Projecting these individuals across the same backdrop facilitates quantifying disparities in media visibility and scientific authority, and identifying organization patterns within their association networks. Here we show via direct comparison that contrarians are featured in 49% more media articles than scientists. Yet when comparing visibility in mainstream media sources only, we observe just a 1% excess visibility, which objectively demonstrates the crowding out of professional mainstream sources by the proliferation of new media sources, many of which contribute to the production and consumption of climate change disinformation at scale. These results demonstrate why climate scientists should increasingly exert their authority in scientific and public discourse, and why professional journalists and editors should adjust the disproportionate attention given to contrarians.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09959-4

Dr Judith Curry is not a fan of this work, calling it 'the worst paper I have ever seen published in a reputable journal'.

Her blog explains why she is irate.  https://judithcurry.com/2019/08/14/the-latest-travesty-in-consensus-enforcement/

Silly story imho, especially as the US tried to buy it once before, after WW2. At that time, the offer price was $100 MM, but Denmark did not rise to the bait.

On 8/9/2019 at 7:22 PM, IrishRob17 said:

Third time is the charm, right fellas?!  Ahahahaha, that’s a long story but this time I’m doing it right. One of my sons is ordained and will marry us in a short quick ceremony and then it’s party time.  Nothing fancy this go around, just a good time. 

Good on you!

Cognitive dissonance.

Germany has a strong political belief in climate science and heavily subsidized renewables.

Meanwhile, their CO2 emissions are setting new records, at least based on the most recent reports I could find.  

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2017/10/10/why-arent-renewables-decreasing-germanys-carbon-emissions/#137550ae68e1

4 hours ago, AfewUniversesBelowNormal said:

This stuff in the GOA is just model adjust SLP norms picking up on Arctic circle high pressure adjustment

Universes, please give us readers a bit of help.

I have no idea how to read these maps or what they signify. Obviously they are clear to you, but others less skilled need help!

2 hours ago, drstuess said:

What are these yuge malinvestments with huge societal costs? People out in industry aren't running around with their heads cut off...

Investors surely are not stupid, so when the government offers large subsidies for hugely more costly but guaranteed profitable duplicate alternative energy sources on grounds that they are not emitting CO2, the money will flow.

Sadly the wind does not blow regularly or evenly, nor does the sun shine constantly or reliably, so old style conventional backup power remains essential and maintenance costs remain high.

In essence society spends resources duplicating its power sources, at the expense of more socially beneficial alternatives. I call that malinvestment and it is very large.

2 hours ago, drstuess said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

38 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

The scientists aren’t politicizing the science. The science is solid. Others outside the field have been doing so.

No argument there, the but not to object when the science is widely presented with nonsense exaggerations feeds the conspiracy theories and hurts the credibility of the underlying discipline.

There are huge malinvestments being made in response to these exaggerations and they come at a considerable social cost. As guiding members of society, scientists do have a responsibility to help it avoid doing stupid stuff imho.