donsutherland1

As with other technologies as they advanced, one will likely see efficiency gains with renewables. That will lead to more output relative to the size of solar and wind farms, meaning fewer or smaller solar and wind farms would be necessary for a given level of output. There is also nuclear power. Finally, even as it is invisible, the dumping of greenhouse gas emissions into the climate system is having a growing adverse impact. The changing climate poses major risks to nature, including wildlife e.g., reduced biodiversity. Some recent papers: https://www.pnas.org/content/117/8/4211 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/367/6478/685 https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/2/eaaq1819.short If one truly cherishes nature and wildlife, why would one advocate a continuation of the very practices that pose perhaps the greatest long-term threat to nature and wildlife?

Heat and drought have been feeding off one another. Such situations are expected to become increasingly common as the climate continues to warm. Through yesterday, Las Vegas had seen no measurable rainfall for 170 consecutive days (the old record was 150 days).

No one is ducking anything. I recognize that renewable energy is still evolving and that their are some issues. @skierinvermont provided some concrete data. Exaggerated claims don’t accurately reflect the situation. Ignoring the CO2 emissions of fossil fuels skews the picture, as the true costs and hazards are set aside to sustain an inaccurate picture of costs, trade-offs, etc.

Numerous scientists do not view wood-burning as green energy. I believe their case is strong. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9HP_Rf4_eHtQUpyLVIzZE8zQWc/view

All of the hyperbolic claims about environmental degradation caused by renewable energy technologies, which are continuing to improve, pales in comparison to the colossal environmental degradation caused by dumping carbon into the atmosphere. If one were to attach a cost to the carbon pollution, ExxonMobil alone would be responsible for more roughly $9.5 billion in annual carbon pollution (124 million metric tons x $70 per ton). The emissions are from Statista for 2018. The cost is the midpoint between estimates made by Nordhaus ($40 per ton) and Stern (just over $100 per ton). That’s just one giant polluter. Worse, it is a free rider that does not have to bear the costs of its pollution. Society currently bears those costs resulting in an artificial suppression of the cost of oil, resulting in greater quantity demanded than would otherwise be the case (translating into more pollution than would otherwise be the case). Moreover, it ignores pollution related to production, accidents, etc. It also does not consider opportunity costs. The opportunity costs of delaying the shift to clean energy are very high (even if all uncertainties about the consequences of climate change are assumed to be relatively benign, which hasn’t been the experience so far as uncertainties begin to be resolved).

IMO, there needs to be a price placed on carbon. The polluters should bear the costs of their emissions, not society.

I did. That's why significant obstacles lie ahead of efforts to address climate change.

Phoenix Experiences its Hottest Week in October: Following its hottest summer on record, Phoenix experienced its warmest first week of October and warmest seven-day period in October with a mean temperature of 89.0°. The previous seven-day record in October was 88.8°, during October 5-11, 1991. October 1-7, 2020 Summary: Average high temperature: 105.0° (old record: 103.7°, 1980) Average low temperature: 73.0° (13th highest) Average temperature: 89.0° (old record: 88.7°, 1991) The average high temperature of 105.0° would rank as the 33rd highest summer average. During the first week of October, Phoenix registered 5 temperatures of 105° or above: October 1: 107° (tied October record high) October 2: 106° October 3: 105° October 4: 105° October 5: 105° That number surpassed the previous monthly record of 2, which was set in 1980. Since 1895, Phoenix has had 12 days in October when the temperature reached 105° or above in October. 6 (50%) have occurred since 2000, 5 (42%), of which have occurred 2010 or later. There remains large year-to-year variability during the first week in October with very warm Septembers and/or very wrm last weeks of September often followed by unseasonable warmth during the first week in October. During the 1895-2019 period, in cases when September had a mean temperature of 87.0° or above, October 1-7 had a mean temperature of 82.0° with 71% of cases seeing a mean temperature of 80° or above during the first week of October. In cases when the September 24-30 mean temperature was 84.0° or above, October 1-7 had a mean temperature of 82.2° with 70% of cases having a mean temperature of 80° or above during the first week of October. In cases where September had a mean temperature of 87.0° or above and the last week of September had a mean temperature of 84.0° or above, the mean temperature during October 1-7 was 82.9° and 81% of cases saw mean temperature of 80° or above during the first week of October. Overall, the first week of October has seen an increase in temperatures. High temperatures have increased modestly since the 30-year periods ending as recently as 1970. Low temperatures have increased notably since the 30-year period ending in 1970. There has been a modest increase in the average number of days on which the temperature reaches 100° or above. Table 1: Select October 1-7 Data (30-Year Moving Average) Table 2: Record High Maximum Temperatures

They simply don’t care. They are little better than those who have rationalized atrocities under the claim that the end justifies the means. In this case, the harm they inflict (and society pays for) is justified by their carbon-based profits.

From Bloomberg.com: Exxon Mobil Corp. has been planning to increase annual carbon-dioxide emissions by as much as the output of the entire nation of Greece, an analysis of internal documents reviewed by Bloomberg shows, setting one of the largest corporate emitters against international efforts to slow the pace of warming. The drive to expand both fossil-fuel production and planet-warming pollution comes at a time when some of Exxon’s rivals, such as BP Plc and Royal Dutch Shell Plc, are moving to curb oil and zero-out emissions. Exxon’s own assessment of its $210 billion investment strategy shows yearly emissions rising 17% by 2025, according to the internal documents. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-05/exxon-carbon-emissions-and-climate-leaked-plans-reveal-rising-co2-output This is what happens when mega-polluters such as Exxon Mobil receive subsidies to underwrite the exploration for fossil fuels, are held immune to the costs of their pollution, and have taxpayers pay for the costs of their pollution. Incentives are skewed, pollution is maximized, and with pollution, societal harm is maximized.

In the wake of yesterday’s 60 Minutes documentary linking climate change to recent extreme weather and wildfires, all of which is supported by the literature, climate change deniers are angered that they are no longer gaining media platforms to promote their discredited beliefs and sap the public of understanding both the magnitude and urgency of the climate change issue. One complained over Twitter, “Love the way 60 Minutes refuses to show any challenges to the AGW dogma, or even the other side of the issue.” First, the overwhelming body of scientific literature, not to mention the laws of physics concerning the properties of CO2, support AGW. At least when it comes to science, the debate about the primary cause of the observed ongoing warming is over. Greenhouse gas emissions from human activities that driven an increase in the atmospheric concentration of such gases. In turn, those gases had driven a sustained energy imbalance that has led to an increase in oceanic heat and rising temperatures, with adverse effects ranging from increasingly severe heat events to extreme wildfires. Those who reject AGW cannot provide a credible alternative backed by peer-reviewed scientific research. They have no unifying theory, no new forcing, no rational explanation. They have nothing. That’s why the debate is over and the focus is shifting to areas of uncertainty, feedbacks, etc. At the same time, that’s why public pressure, especially among the younger generations who bear much greater exposure to the increasing consequences of climate change, are leading a movement for big policy changes. Second, if the debate concerning the cause of climate change is over and no credible scientific case can be made for the “other side of the issue,” that side does not exist as far as science is concerned. It only exists in terms of rhetoric, pseudo-science and politics. Therefore, as the 60 Minutes program was focused on science, it could only draw upon the knowledge that has been borne out through decades of empirical research. There is no point in promoting rhetorical or political beliefs that lack scientific foundation in a documentary concerning science. Doing so would be little different than granting an audience to the handful who reject gravity, embrace a belief that the world is flat, and/or dismiss Evolution. That would not be science. That would be confusing noise. Such noise would only further delay the kind of policy and technology changes that are needed to begin to address the challenge of climate change.

Ocean temperatures have now been above the 20th century average for 532 consecutive months: On GISS, the last year with a cool global anomaly was 1976 and the last month with a cool global anomaly was September 1992.

The implicit assumption of little or no increase in production of renewable energy to support the idea that California’s electric car mandate would be a disaster is almost certainly not the most likely outcome. Overall, California’s revised mid-range estimate for annual energy consumption growth over the next 10 years is 1.3% per year. Cost advantages currently exist for fossil fuel companies, but not all for market-based reasons. First, the federal government subsidizes oil and gas activities with roughly $10 billion per year in assistance, through tax expenditures that include energy production tax credits, energy investment tax credits, expensing of exploration/development costs, and even modest royalty payments to coal companies. Second, fossil fuel companies do not have to pay any of the cost associated with their carbon-related externalities. This leads to a significant underpricing for the companies, as society winds up bearing those costs through increased costs of disaster recovery, mitigation for rising seas, etc. Put another way, taxpayers wind up paying for the costs of pollution they did not cause. Until those factors are addressed, the reported production cost figures come with a huge asterisk. The numbers are skewed, because part of the fossil fuel companies’ expenses are paid not by the companies, but by the taxpayers/society.

This behavior fits the economic literature quite well. Status quo firms are often complacent. Others, pioneer new approaches and make incremental improvements. Over time, the new approaches are feasible and lower costs than status quo approaches and offer comparable or superior value. Once that happens, these new approaches become disruptive innovations and most of the firms that had committed to the status quo see their market position dramatically weakened. At that point, even if they can imitate the production of the disruptive technology, their cost curves are consistent with the earlier technology and the cannot compete effectively or profitably.

Unfortunately, even if all greenhouse gas emissions ceased today, the world has committed to additional warming from the present atmospheric concentration of such gases. In terms of the Arctic, prior to 1990 (1851-1989), the NSIDC extended ice record indicated only 1952 had a minimum extent value below 7 million square kilometers. After 1990,, such figures became routine. Then, as Arctic warming accelerated, things deteriorated. 2009 was the last year during which the figure stayed at or above 5 million square kilometers. It is possible that the world has now reached the point where the minimum extent values will routinely fall below 4 million square kilometers. If not, it will very likely happen this decade. The 2012 minimum figure will probably be surpassed this decade, as well.

I agree. I believe nuclear power is part of a solution toward moving away from fossil fuels.

There’s no empirical evidence that rapid adoption of renewable energy, for which costs of production have been falling rapidly relative to fossil fuels—cost developments that have already rendered coal economically nonviable—would mean economic destruction. If anything, insistence on the status quo is far more likely to ensure that sustainable competitive advantages in energy will emerge outside the United States. The opportunity costs of such an outcome would only add to the already high and growing costs related to fossil fuel externalities that are currently borne by society rather than the industries responsible for that pollution. In fact, compelling society as a whole to bear those costs leads to severe underpricing of fossil fuels, both in absolute and relative terms. Had FDR had such limited confidence in American science, the U.S. would never have developed the atomic bomb ahead of Germany. Had JFK had such low confidence in the nation’s capacity to innovate, the U.S. would have resigned itself to Soviet domination in space. Had Reagan lacked confidence in the nation’s ability to replace CFC’s, Antarctica’s ozone hole would have continued to grow. All three cases were successful, because the nation’s leaders believed that its people, scientists, and industries could meet big challenges. Setting big challenges is not socialism. Socialism is defined by who owns the means of production. Instead, big challenges framed more appropriately are big opportunities for those who dare to pursue them. A “can’t do” perspective stifles the dynamism that is the soul of creative destruction. Creative destruction in which innovation, which often leverages scientific advances, supplants earlier technologies and entrepreneurs displace established firms, are major reasons why living standards have advanced. Locking in the status quo would constrain progress. A world in which innovation ceases would produce stagnation. One in which energy innovation is discouraged by protecting the politically-favored industries responsible for the anthropogenic emissions driving climate change will face increased heat, more expansive wildfires, more intense storms, rising sea levels as Greenland’s and Antarctica’s ice continue to melt, shifts in agriculture, shifts in the zones in which tropical diseases spread, among other adverse developments.

So here is peer reviewed papers on the MWP and LIA in other parts of the world that are probably ignored because it is very inconvenient to mainstream climate folks. How do we not know that we are just rebounding from the LIA with some added CO2 forcing and of course UHI effects which are often ignored too. Thank you for posting those papers. I will clarify my language to be somewhat more precise. Both the MCA (aka MWP) and LIA were largely regional events with a degree of global synchronicity. The magnitude of standardized temperature anomalies were nowhere near as uniform as they are today. The papers, if one reads closely to consider lags and areas covered (differences in Australia, parts of South America, parts of Antarctica), are still reasonably consistent with the temperature anomalies found by Mann et al. Here are the charts from the Mann paper: The Neukom et al., 2019 paper addresses the latest scientific understanding of past warm and cool epochs during the last 2,000 years and contrasts those periods with the ongoing anthropogenic warming. It explains: No preindustrial epoch shows global coherence in the timing of the coldest or warmest periods. There is, however, regional coherence. For example, there are almost continental-scale patterns during many of the periods, and there is a coherent pattern in the tropical Pacific in the RWP, DACP and LIA periods, reminiscent of the El Niño–Southern Oscillation—the most dominant mode of interannual variability in the climate system. In contrast to the spatial heterogeneity of the preindustrial era, the highest probability for peak warming over the entire Common Era is found in the late twentieth century almost everywhere (98% of global surface area), except for Antarctica, where contemporary warming has not yet been observed over the entire continent. Thus, even though the recent warming rates are not entirely homogeneous over the globe, with isolated areas showing little warming or even cooling, the climate system is now in a state of global temperature coherence that is unprecedented over the Common Era... Against this regional framing, perhaps our most striking result is the exceptional spatiotemporal coherence during the warming of the twentieth century. This result provides further evidence of the unprecedented nature of anthropogenic global warming in the context of the past 2,000 years. The underlining is mine. Here are the charts from the Neukom paper:

As noted previously, the MWP and LIA were regional events. The chart in question concerns global, not regional temperatures. As previously posted, three papers and the abstract of another (the full copy of which can be requested from the authors): https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1797.epdf?sharing_token=Pm1NFtFxqxcwIUqtvBVOsdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0OXdKps0x-mydYxlxY1CTS2FraCgd_SIOyFr3Frnr2wB7rEiUt5oncmTKp32KflJCHeITcA-EqP5p3xfWpkUotuN0E3ir4Us_bcTtsZ27MrFmdPv9A4iznKkWIxs3GlY8t2zgJ1RqKr1SMAGJNtp3FZCGkf9OhfrosIZ6HA_48P3A%3D%3D&tracking_referrer=www.realclimate.org http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/MannetalScience09.pdf https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/11/e1500806 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334662695_No_evidence_for_globally_coherent_warm_and_cold_periods_over_the_preindustrial_Common_Era

High solar activity was very likely the main cause. But in the background, fossil fuel consumption had begun to gradually increase starting around 1750. Such consumption would increase dramatically by the 20th century. http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/data/historical_tsi/

UHI plays a role, but one can’t exclude climate change. From the Phoenix NWS: https://twitter.com/NWSPhoenix/status/1300628556762939392?s=20

Phoenix Records a 90° Mean Temperature for September: Following its hottest summer on record, Phoenix experienced its 3rd warmest September on record with a mean temperature of 91.5° and warmest June-September period on record with an average temperature of 95.4°. 2020 was the 13th year on record where Phoenix recorded a mean temperature of 90.0° or above in September. 9/13 (69%) of those years have occurred 2000 or later and 4/13 (31%) have occurred 2010 or later. September 2020 is the most recent example demonstrating that anthropogenic climate change is producing what amounts to a lengthening summer. September 2020 Summary: Average high temperature: 104.1° (2nd highest) Average low temperature: 79.0° (9th highest) Average temperature: 91.5° (3rd highest) In addition, all five September cases with a monthly mean temperature of 91.0° or above occurred 2000 or later. Four (80%) of those cases occurred 2010 or later. During the 1980s, the 30-year moving average mean temperature for September broke out of the multi-decade range 84.0° - 85.0° that had held since 1950. The September mean temperature now exceeds 89.0°. The average high temperature now stands at 100° or above. The number of days on which the temperature reaches 100° or above has increased by 2.3 days since 2000. The number of days on which the temperature reaches 105° or above has increased by 2.0 days. The frequency of low temperatures at or above 80° has increased by 3.6 days since 2000. Such elevated minimum temperatures now account for nearly 3 out of every 8 days in September. Table 1: Select September Data (30-Year Moving Average) Table 2: Record High Maximum Temperatures Table 3: Record High Minimum Temperature June-September 2020 was, by far, the warmest June-September period on record for Phoenix. The four-month mean temperature was 95.4°. The old record was 93.9°, which was set in 2011. That four-month average exceeds the hottest summer temperature prior to 2020, which was 95.1°. That prior record was set in 2013 and tied in 2015. All 9 June-September periods with a mean temperature of 93.5° or above have occurred in 2000 or later. 6/9 (67%) have occurred during 2010 or later. The average June-September period is now as warm as the average summer was during the 30-year period ending in 2000. The last time Phoenix had a June-September mean temperature below 90° was 1984 when the four-month mean temperature was 89.8°. Table 4: Average Summer and June-September Temperatures (30-Year Moving Average) Just as summer 2020 provided a foretaste of the kind of summers that are expected to become routine by 2050 on account of climate change, September 2020 and the June-September 2020 period offered a glimpse into the future of longer summers that will continue to emerge from the evolving climate regime.

Michael Mann has degrees in applied mathematics and physics, physics, and geology and geophysics. He is eminently qualified to research climate and has had breakthrough work related to proxies and temperatures. The atmosphere is a single part of the earth's climate system. One does not need a degree in atmospheric science or meteorology to study climate. Meteorology is a different field. Over his career, Mann has published or co-published more than 400 peer-reviewed articles. To dismiss him as a "climate activist" rather than the serious researcher he is, is absurd. He is taking a visible role in educating and informing the public about the climate change, its causes, its implications, etc. At the same time, he is continuing to research and publish.

Scientists have a very high level of confidence that the ongoing warming, including heating of the oceans is related to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. The earth's energy imbalance has persisted despite fluctuations in solar irradiance. Consistent with the rise in atmospheric greenhouse gases, oceanic heat has been increasing. No credible alternative theories to the consensus AGW position have emerged, especially in the recent scientific literature. What about the 1930s? Excerpts from a relevant paper that looked at longer periods of time: Daily in situ measurements of ocean temperature at century-long monitoring sites were used to examine MHW properties over multi-decadal time scales. We selected six stations for which centennial-scale records (89–111 years) of daily ocean temperatures were available: Arendal (Norway), Port Erin (UK), Race Rocks (Canada) and Pacific Grove, Scripps Pier, and Newport Beach (USA; Table 1). Changes over time were calculated between early and late 30-year periods shared across all stations (1925–1954 and 1984–2013, respectively). All stations, except Newport Beach, exhibited annual mean SST warming of between 0.37 °C and 0.78 °C (p < 0.05); Newport Beach exhibited a non-significant change in SST (−0.003 °C, p > 0.05). There was clear centennial increase in annual MHW frequency at all stations (Fig. 4a–f, black lines). https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-03732-9 Greenhouse gases explain most of the warming that has occurred since the mid-20th century and especially in recent decades. During the most recent period, natural forcings would have suggested a slight cooling.

Excerpts from Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann’s Newsweek column: My colleagues and I have just published an article in the journal Nature Climate Change showing that the oceans are not only becoming more stable, but are doing so faster than was previously thought. Led by Guancheng Li of the Institute of Atmospheric Physics in China, our team (which also includes Lijing Cheng, Jiang Zhu, Kevin Trenberth and John P. Abraham) analyzed a quantitative measure of stability known as "stratification". We found that the stratification of the world oceans is not only increasing, but is doing so at a greater rate than estimated in previous studies. Our study uses more comprehensive data and a more sophisticated method for estimating stratification changes, and we found a nearly 6 percent increase in the stratification of the upper 200 meters (~650 feet) of the world oceans over the past half century.... That's bad for a number of reasons. As we currently watch the most active Atlantic hurricane season on record play out, a key underlying factor is the anomalous surface warmth of the tropical Atlantic. The increasingly intense and damaging hurricanes we've seen in recent years have fed off warmer surface waters. More stably stratified waters tend to inhibit the wind-driven mixing up of cold deeper waters that often serves as a sort of release-valve, shutting off the source of energy at the surface that intensifies these storms. A more stably stratified ocean potentially favors more intense, destructive hurricanes. Warmer waters absorb less atmospheric carbon dioxide (just as warm soda loses its carbonation faster when you open the top.) Less ocean mixing also means that less of the atmospheric carbon dioxide gets buried beneath the ocean surface. So carbon pollution accumulates even faster in the atmosphere, causing yet more warming. The paper can be found here: https://psu.app.box.com/s/2j7cynrci6xlkkoe70cnbqn04dpbr2bd Here’s a simplified summary: https://news.psu.edu/story/633153/2020/09/28/research/increasing-stability-decreases-ocean-productivity-reduces-carbon#