The Economist has a summary of what yesterday’s IPCC report says. Here is a graphic that Deutsche Bank research is circulating.
Source: Jim Reid, Chart of the Day, Deutsche Bank, 9 August 2021.
The entire IPCC summary for policymakers is here [corrected 8/10 h/t 2slugbaits].
I had hoped to have something to contribute on how to assess the forecasting accuracy of the IPCC reports, but this is harder to do (in an easily understandable language) than I had thought. So I pass on some informal thoughts circulating amongst some people in the know, related to me by my colleague Greg Nemet.
- Global average temperature is the most basic prediction, so a good one to focus on
- Each IPCC assessment (2000, 2007, 2014, 2018, 2021/2…) updates temperature projections based on recent temperature observations.
- The way any changes get most clearly revealed is in the “carbon budget” ie how many tons of CO2 available to put in the atmosphere before reaching +2 degree temperature change.
- There was an expansion of the carbon budget in the 2014 report because models had been “running hot” compared to observations
And he also points me toward this twitter thread from Zeke Hausfather (I don’t usually link to tweets, but I’m making an exception here). That thread describes how they narrowed the “band of sensitivity”, i.e., the likely ranges, using outcomes vs. predictions. Using my language of forecasting (which is probably not very accurate of the proper way of describing the statistics), the point forecast is relatively unchanged, but the forecast interval is smaller.
Last two posts are really top-notch, Menzie. Above your usual, which is a pretty high standard. One of the reasons that Mark Thoma and Felix Salmon were great bloggers “back in the day” was their ability to “amalgamate” data from other sources. These gems you have put in the last two posts put me in the mind of that.
An update on the discussion of how lipids are a key component in the production of the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines:
https://cen.acs.org/business/outsourcing/Lipids-unsung-COVID-19-vaccine/99/web/2021/02
It seems production is ramping up in places like Alabama, Colorado, Germany, and Switzerland. All much more interesting than the dishonest JohnH rage against Paul Krugman indeed.
Why is JohnH so angry at Krugman? Beats me but it seems to be about the low tax rates in Ireland. Like the Irish cannot produce quality lipids??? Oh well – Germany’s tax rate is pretty high even if Switzerland is a tax haven. So the fact that this discussion did not get into international taxation may likely mean more really dumb rants from JohnH. Ahem!
I don’t expect pgl to have the intellectual capacity to understand this, but the reason I criticized Krugman is because he usually presents a totally one-sided view of globalisation. Yes, Pfizer’s supply chain is interesting. And, yes, it does involve a number of countries, which probably has little publicly beneficial economic justification behind it, because the inputs could probably be produced at scale at far fewer locations sited at any number of other places.
The unmentioned negative side of Pfizer’s strategy is that site selection, which as I mentioned, is of no particular value to the public economically, probably is the result of two factors which probably actually harm the general welfare: 1) Pfizer’s relentless pursuit of tax avoidance, which reduces monies available for programs beneficial to the public, and 2) an aggressive acquisition program designed to cement Pfizer’s market dominance in a number of product areas, which probably caused prices to rise and innovation to decline as it often does in highly concentrated markets.
Krugman avoided a crafting piece that could have served as a teaching moment about globalisation and instead used it to sing the praises of a notoriously greedy industry that serves the public interest and develops drugs only if it can extort enough money from some government, in this case Germany.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-09/pfizer-vaccine-s-funding-came-from-berlin-not-washington
Interesting, isn’t it that Germany negotiated such a bad deal that the US got most of the doses long before the Germans?
But pgl, obviously an acolyte of Milton Friedman, seems to believe that Pfizer has no particular duty to serve the public interest or to promote the general welfare. Pfizer’s only apparent duty is to make as much profit as it can, even if it means ripping off individuals and governments. And we certainly have not come to expect such straight forward talk in Krugman’s superficial pieces published from his bully pulpit at the New York Times. When it comes to globalisation, Krugman is all about hearing no evil, seeing no evil, a disgraceful stance for such a renowned academic.
“I don’t expect pgl to have the intellectual capacity to understand this, but the reason I criticized Krugman is because he usually presents a totally one-sided view of globalisation.”
I have the intellectual capacity to understand that you are being a pathetic bore as well as a serial liar. I guess you do not get this. DUH!
Actually, there is documentary evidence that Krugman tried to dissuade a prominent economist from publishing a book raising serious questions about globalization.
pgl seems to be a self-anointed enforcer of a certain, weird kind of Clinton Democratic view of the world, constantly trying to cancel alternative viewpoints by mocking, misrepresenting, and even lying about them as well as just physically drowning them out by taking up an inordinate amount of space with his attacks.
JohnH: I am curious. I would like to see more of this documentary evidence. Please provide a URL, so that we can assess.
Dani Rodrik: “Some ten years ago, I remember sending a draft of my book Has Globalization Gone Too Far? to a very well known and outspoken economist (and no knee-jerk free trader) whose views I admired greatly. He told me he had no quarrel with my economics, but that I should not be “providing ammunition to the barbarians”–that is, I should not give comfort to all those protectionists who stand ready to hijack any argument that seems to provide intellectual respectability to their positions.”
https://rodrik.typepad.com/dani_rodriks_weblog/2007/05/are_there_barba.html
This respected and admired economist was advising against raising questions about globalisation. Later Rodrik revealed that this economist was none other than Krugman.
https://books.google.com/books?id=99sUDAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Globalization+Paradox&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi_iZuVo6LgAhUpmeAKHXjyB-AQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=barbarians&f=false
Of course, Krugman railed against Very Serious People who argue in bad faith. While I doubt that Krugman ever knowingly lies, he is definitely artful in his telling of the truth or, in many cases, half of the truth…like a used car salesman leaving out significant information detrimental to his agenda.
By contrast, Stiglitz has written that “(Economists’ first professional responsibility is to the public and to knowledge
• Accuratelyreflectingwhatweknowandwhatwedon’tknow
Withalltheuncertainties
Theseprofessionalresponsibilitiesshouldbeoverriding
https://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jstiglitz/sites/jstiglitz/files/The%20Overselling%20of%20Globalization.pdf
Rodrik has written statements that echo Stiglitz’ professionalism.
Krugman’s approach may be expedient. And his fans love his attacks on the barbarians. But his approach sullies the reputation of his profession and fosters distrust in experts and in authorities, ultimately damaging democracy.
JohnH, what’s happening on the minimum wage front in Florida? You were doing back flips over it going to $8.65/hr because of citizen action where uncaring Democrats in many states were refusing to do much of anything to help low wage workers.
Strange situation, though in Reno. Saw an ad on a large billboard for starting wage of $13 with $15.75 possible. Guess that can happen when those brain dead Democrats run a legislature.
Not to worry. I see the Florida minimum will move to $10 in September. Will they still be lagging 28 other states and DC when that happens?
Mea culpa. The minimum wage in Nevada actually has two tiers. In the first tier, it’s $8.75/hr. if “qualifying health benefits” are included.$9.75/hr.without health benefits. MW will increase by .75/hr. each year.
The $13/hr. Job offering is for a new In-N-Out (the fabled West Coast burger hot spot) under construction on Reno’s west side. Not a bad starting wage and far above the minimum.
NY State update – Kathy Hochul will be our governor in 2 weeks. Yes Randy Andy is resigning. Good riddance.
You’ve been a very poor example and a bad influence on your protégé JohnH. You didn’t get this breaking news off of msn dot com, did you??
What an idiotic comment even for you. Do you take great pride in being a completely pointless little twit?
But pgl said she skipped my comments?? This is strange….. Let us know how the copy/paste boys at TPM, MSN, and your all time favorite “VeteransToday dotcom” pieced this “shocking” Cuomo resignation together, OK?? No one had any idea this was going to happen, or even had reported it would for weeks. Cuomo’s other choice was certain impeachment with no deals. Must have been an “excruciating decision” for the man you called America’s leader on Covid-19 policy response.
Any updates on the Weinstein/Cuomo 2024 presidential ticket?? You ARE going to keep us all updated with your “New York Insider” insight, right?? I think Weinstein/Cuomo 2024 better put pgl in the campaign “War Room” so she can keep them abreast on if Thomas Dewey plans to throw his hat in the race.
Moses Herzog: Well, not going to remark on the bulk of your comment. However, I don’t think TPM is altogether as bad as you make it out to be.
@ Menzie
I’m going to take 3 near adjoining portions from a book written back in 2010 called “The Death and Life of American Journalism” by Robert W. McChesney and John Nichols:
“Like ‘The Drudge Report,’ ‘TPM’ employs language that is more raucous and sensational than might be found in most contemporary newspaper or magazine articles—Marshall labeled Bush’s speaking tour on behalf of Social Security reform “Bamboozlepalooza” and called Democrats who wavered on the issue “Mumbojumbocrats”—but the wordplay would have been familiar to Upton Sinclair and the muckrakers of the previous century. And it was effective on multiple levels. During the Social Security debate, Marshall built a community of readers and contributors, a sort of journalistic social-networking similar to that seen on the liberal “Daily Kos” and conservative “Red State” sites…… ”
farther down:
“……. ‘This is crowdsourcing—reporting based on the work of many people, including your readers,” explains media critic Dan Kennedy, who describes these sorts of initiatives, in which “TPM” specializes as ‘a different kind of journalism, based on the idea that my readers know ore than I do’ ”
and going on later
” ‘TPM’ still does a lot of aggregating—borrowing from and commenting upon journalism produced by old media.”
When you read up on TPM, you see in about 20 years of history, they’ve really only broken ONE original story:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/20th-anniversary/the-2007-story-that-brought-tpm-into-the-major-leagues
That was about 14 years ago. Good luck finding the others they broke themselves.
You know how jerks like David Brooks get away with little snide comments that go something like “It’s just a blog” in condescending tones?? Because certain idiots keep them an “ongoing concern” even though in roughly 20 years of existence it amounts to about one good piece of journalism and roughly 7300+ days of placating red-meat chasing readers by adding “colorful” language to journalism done by others.
A link to the book I referenced. Apologies to the book authors for not asking permission:
https://www.amazon.com/Death-Life-American-Journalism-Revolution-dp-1568586361/dp/1568586361/ref=mt_other?_encoding=UTF8&me=&qid=1628643738
To suggest I am supporting a disgusting pig like Harvey Weinstein for President is beneath dishonest. Look – we know you have no life beyond falsely accusing other people with this lame intellectual garbage but I guess you have been too drunk to notice my latest comments about Randy Andy. But my apologies for interrupting your lame dishonest rages so please have another jug of expensive wine on me.
More news about the man pgl told people on this blog (or certainly one person) that if they attacked him, it meant they were a trump-lover. Well, no one could ever deny pgl is an “independent thinker” and pgl’s analytical skills judging human character are surpassed by no one.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/andrew-cuomos-war-against-a-federal-prosecutor
Certainly pgl is not the type to praise a bastard of a man simply because he belongs in the same party as herself. Never seen it here on this blog anyway.
You do have a weird obsession with pointless whining. I guess you get the gold medal for being the most worthless troll ever.
Also a nice railroad job. Half of the so called “incidents” were staged lies.
And I thought Cuomo’s attorney was a disgusting liar but she is no match for you.
Now, we’ve talked about this. Remember? You’ve made a math claim without any evidence. You’ve claimed “railroad” as if it’s a fact without any evidence of such fact. Your behavior is straight from the faux news style sheet.
And besides, politicians should not be shielded from the same risks the rest of us face. Every employment contract and employee handbook I ever had made clear that my employment could be terminated if I became a reputational liabiitiy to my employer. Or if I couldn’t work well with colleagues. Or if my pinky was too long or short. The rich and powerful get way more tears when they lose a job than regular folks. Time for Andy to put on big-boy pants.
Let’s say this lying bot is right and 5 of these ladies are lying, which is basically the claim made by Cuomo’s slime ball lawyer. Then he sexually harassed 6 ladies since 11 said he did. Oh wait – Bot thinks unless one sexually harasses 8 ladies or more – all is good. This strikes me as the Bill Cosby defense.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/09/climate/climate-change-report-ipcc-un.html
August 9, 2021
A Hotter Future Is Certain, Climate Panel Warns. But How Hot Is Up to Us.
Some devastating impacts of global warming are now unavoidable, a major new scientific report finds. But there is still a short window to stop things from getting even worse.
By Brad Plumer and Henry Fountain
Nations have delayed curbing their fossil-fuel emissions for so long that they can no longer stop global warming from intensifying over the next 30 years, though there is still a short window to prevent the most harrowing future, a major new United Nations scientific report has concluded.
Humans have already heated the planet by roughly 1.1 degrees Celsius, or 2 degrees Fahrenheit, since the 19th century, largely by burning coal, oil and gas for energy. And the consequences can be felt across the globe: This summer alone, blistering heat waves have killed hundreds of people in the United States and Canada, floods have devastated Germany and China, and wildfires have raged out of control in Siberia, Turkey and Greece.
But that’s only the beginning, according to the report, issued on Monday by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a body of scientists convened by the United Nations. Even if nations started sharply cutting emissions today, total global warming is likely to rise around 1.5 degrees Celsius within the next two decades, a hotter future that is now essentially locked in.
At 1.5 degrees of warming, scientists have found, the dangers grow considerably. Nearly 1 billion people worldwide could swelter in more frequent life-threatening heat waves. Hundreds of millions more would struggle for water because of severe droughts. Some animal and plant species alive today will be gone. Coral reefs, which sustain fisheries for large swaths of the globe, will suffer more frequent mass die-offs.
“We can expect a significant jump in extreme weather over the next 20 or 30 years,” said Piers Forster, a climate scientist at the University of Leeds and one of hundreds of international experts who helped write the report. “Things are unfortunately likely to get worse than they are today.”
Not all is lost, however, and humanity can still prevent the planet from getting even hotter. Doing so would require a coordinated effort among countries to stop adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere by around 2050, which would entail a rapid shift away from fossil fuels starting immediately, as well as potentially removing vast amounts of carbon from the air. If that happened, global warming would likely halt and level off at around 1.5 degrees Celsius, the report concludes.
But if nations fail in that effort, global average temperatures will keep rising — potentially passing 2 degrees, 3 degrees or even 4 degrees Celsius, compared with the preindustrial era. The report describes how every additional degree of warming brings far greater perils, such as ever more vicious floods and heat waves, worsening droughts and accelerating sea-level rise that could threaten the existence of some island nations. The hotter the planet gets, the greater the risks of crossing dangerous “tipping points,” like the irreversible collapse of the immense ice sheets in Greenland and West Antarctica.
“There’s no going back from some changes in the climate system,” said Ko Barrett, a vice-chair of the panel and a senior adviser for climate at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. But, she added, immediate and sustained emissions cuts “could really make a difference in the climate future we have ahead of us.”
The report, approved by 195 governments and based on more than 14,000 studies, is the most comprehensive summary to date of the physical science of climate change….
This elegant NASA paper organizes the way in which I consider aspects of climate change:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha00410c.html
December, 2008
Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?
By James Hansen, Makiko Sato, Pushker Kharecha, David Beerling, Robert Berner, Valerie Masson-Delmotte, Mark Pagani, Maureen Raymo, Dana L. Royer and James C. Zachos
Abstract
Paleoclimate data show that climate sensitivity is ~ 3°C for doubled CO2, including only fast feedback processes. Equilibrium sensitivity, including slower surface albedo feedbacks, * is ~ 6°C for doubled CO2 for the range of climate states between glacial conditions and ice-free Antarctica. Decreasing CO2 was the main cause of a cooling trend that began 50 million years ago, the planet being nearly ice-free until CO2 fell to 450 ± 100 ppm; barring prompt policy changes, that critical level will be passed, in the opposite direction, within decades. If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm ** to at most 350 ppm, but likely less than that. The largest uncertainty in the target arises from possible changes of non-CO2 forcings. *** An initial 350 ppm CO2 target may be achievable by phasing out coal use except where CO2 is captured and adopting agricultural and forestry practices that sequester carbon. If the present overshoot of this target CO2 is not brief, there is a possibility of seeding irreversible catastrophic effects. ****
* Surface reflectivity of sun’s radiation
** Currently 417 ppm
*** Net change in radiant emittance or irradiance
**** https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Hansen_ha00410c.pdf
Of course, China is a very large contributor to climate change. China accounts for about half the coal burned in the world even though it only accounts for about 18% of the world’s human population. A few countries consume more coal on a per capita basis, but among them, none exceeds 3% of total coal burnt. (Germany is the 3% country).
China is also the world’s largest source of CO2, but at 29% of the total, more in line with it’s share of population. Many countries, including the U.S., produce more CO2 per capita than does China.
Aside from CO2, the issue with coal is soot (black carbon), which is a significant contributor to global warming, Soot absorbs solar radiation, unlike most aerosol particles, which reflect solar radiation.
While you can find lots of reporting on the shutting down of small coal-fired plants and the use of coal for home heating in China, that doesn’t mean China has changed it’s coal-consuming ways. The current 5-year plan includes continued expansion of coal use: https://www.climatechangenews.com/2021/03/05/china-makes-no-shift-away-coal-five-year-plan-crawls-carbon-neutrality/
China has also peddled coal-fired power plants through much of Asia.
for the skeptics out there, it is indisputable that temperatures have changed, rapidly. if you want to deny that humans are the source, then please provide a rational explanation for why the temperature has risen so quickly. we now have the data. please give me a model that explains what is going on. on one side, we have a greenhouse gas based theory that corresponds to the trends we are seeing. what kind of model do you have?
The same IPCC that colluded with oil companies to cover up evidence for 40 years? The IPCC is irrelevant and useless. Disbanding uselessness is the first thing that needs done.
stop with the distraction. the report is pretty accurate with the data presented. you want to deny the data?
That’s exactly right. This is the same tactic John uses to denigrate Democrats. Who cares if Democrats are the lesser evil? Dump on them and let Republicans off the hook because…? Because dumping on Democrats can lead to apathy and that’s helpful to Republicans.
Same with climate change. How do you dump on science without being obvious about it? Dump on scientific organizations. “Me? A science denier? Never!!! Man, those scientists are crooks, aren’t they?”
Trump voters are locked in. Progressives are locked in (and vote in large numbers as long as a charismatic person tells them to and it isn’t raining.) The goal of Republican tacticians is to keep people who agree with Democrats/scientists/social reformers but are not sure about who’s who (thanks he-said/she-said journalists) disaffected. And here’s our Johnny, dumping* on the good guys, such as they are, while claiming to be on the side of good.
*For “dumping”, insert some word, any word, which would prevent our hosts from publishing this comment.
Oh, sorry. This time it’s the bot, not Johnny. Samr tactic though.
And if you think I’m making this stuff up, just watch the non-echo-chamber comments, letters ro the editor, editorials and so on. Republicans are rolling out an attack on Democrats/science/social reform camouflaged as supporters of liberal causes, science and social reform. This is wedge politics, but the wedge isn’t just issues. It’s virtue. The Bernie/Ocasio-Cortez faction is standing with Biden’s guys for now. That has to stop. The median voter really doesn’t like most of the Republican agenda, so they must have any enthusiasm for Democrats, science, goodness in general drained out of them.
It’s poor man’s Brooks and Samuelson all the way to November 2024.
Bot is Brooks and JohnH is Samuelson (no relationship to Paul). Best comment I have read all year!!
Bot,
What are you talking about? This is ridiculous. IPCC has not been covering up anything. One can argue about their methodology on lots of pieces of their projections, but keep in mind that a very large number of scientists from many countries are involved in their studies and projections. The idea that the UN, which oversees their operations, is somehow intervening, or these companies are intervening in some way with all these people, is just absurd.
If you are going to make up stuff, Bot, try to do something a bit more ctedible. You really do seem to be some sort of troll, although not a very consistent one.
This Bot starts with “The same IPCC that colluded with oil companies to cover up evidence for 40 years? ”
Really? IPCC was formed in 1988 and its first report was issued in 1990. So it did not even exist 40 years ago. No this Bot has no clue what he is babbling about.
that comment was meant to distract and try to bring disbelief into the conversation. standard operating procedures from those on the right. even if they can get a couple of people to link the IPCC with the oil companies, then the bot would have achieved his goal of spreading misinformation. this is how it starts. its laying the groundwork for some gaslighting later on.
Huh – is this Bot dating Marjorie Taylor Greene as he has learned her MO. Now Marjorie may be really ugly but I hear she gets around!!!
It’s fascination the type of characteristics pgl chooses to highlight about a woman who has a laundry list of other facets she could be attacked on. This from the man who claims he was “lucky enough” to “shutdown” “a few” rapes. Gee, those women sure could have used pgl’s ability at appearing magically at these sort of dark events~~right before they were molested by Cuomo. Or maybe he did. We know pgl would never tell a dubious tale–so we’ll have to ask pgl and see.
Actually now I’m starting to wonder if pgl has one of those Y-shaped twigs, “witching rods” they had in the Old West times that he carries with him at all times to magically show up when attempted rapes are about to occur. You know, because pgl has been “lucky enough” to “shutdown” rapes “a few times”. Wow. That’s magical. That’s like superhero type magic. Is pgl really “Captain America”?? Wolverine perhaps?? It’s hard to tell.
To whom it may concern: Since almost everybody who is posting is posting anonymously, I would think it wise for all to cease questioning whether one individual or another has intervened to prevent a heinous crime from occurring. Until such day as people comment under their own name (and kudos to those who do), a little circumspection is necessary.
Yes – you are indeed a bot!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an intergovernmental body of the United Nations mandated to provide objective scientific information relevant to understanding human-induced climate change, its natural, political, and economic impacts and risks, and possible response options. It was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and was later endorsed the same year by the United Nations General Assembly. Membership is open to all member states of the WMO and UN, and currently 195 countries have joined.
One can find all their reports online starting with this one from 1990:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar1/wg1/
Of course our Bot has not read any of these reports which is why he feels free to make such a stupid allegation.
Some good news – Twitter has pulled the account of Marjorie Taylor Greene! It seems this ugly witch with a B was telling her followers that the vaccines were failing. Well – they won’t work if one does not get the shot.
The good fit between the central “human and natural” forecast and he actual doesn’t necessarily mean forecasts generated by the model will be a good match to future outcomes. Smart people aiming at generating a good it will get one, even if the model is wrong: https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-soil-science-revolution-upends-plans-to-fight-climate-change-20210727/
The risk of tipping points being reached sooner than anticipated is far higher than the risk of them being reached later than anticipated. The risk onupside surprises is far higher than downside surprises.
If we were forecasting lumber prices, no big deal. We are instead forecasting liveability in the medium term and survival in the long term. The central forecast says we are waaay behind in turning away from fossil fuels (thanks, science deniers). And the risks are bigger on the upside than the downside.
So, who drives? Sorry, that was mean.
Who drives a bigger, newer, more powerful vehicle than is absolutely necessary? Who drives faster, accelerates harder, coasts less than absolutely necessary? Eats meat? Larger house than needed? Fly much? Trips to the outter atmosphere? Bass boat? I could go on…
Menzie admits: “I had hoped to have something to contribute on how to assess the forecasting accuracy of the IPCC reports, but this is harder to do (in an easily understandable language) than I had thought. ”
and
“That thread describes how they narrowed the “band of sensitivity”, i.e., the likely ranges, using outcomes vs. predictions/b. …, the point forecast is relatively unchanged, but the forecast interval is smaller.”
I am disappointed you failed to contribute an article, but far from surprised that you misunderstood AGW (not IPCC) forecasting accuracy. There is library full of studies (peer reviewed and otherwise) of failed climate forecasts. Also, the IPCC does not forecast nor predict but does PROJECTIONS.
As for another early quick review of AR6 try R Pielke Jr tweet: https://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/1424717201488060420/
So Greece and Australia have the same problem as California??~~too many dry leaves and a bad forestry service. Another global problem solved by CoRev and MAGA illiterates. I feel better now.
CoRev,
The purpose of models is not to predict the future. It is to change behavior. In this case it is to scare people into ceding control of their carbon usage to some governmental body. And whoever controls carbon usage controls everything
Change behavior? What happened to you today – some bootlicker Biden socialist attacked you in the park and then forced you to wear a mask?
The twitter account of Roger A. Pielke Jr.? A well known climate change denier? OK he is sort of an expert on sports governance which I respect. Could you please let us know what he thinks of the sexual assault of male wrestlers at Ohio State when your boy Jim Jordan was assistant coach for this program?
Another useless comment by corev. Me thinks you should check to see if another artery is clogged, based on your silly comment. Blood flow to the brain may be impeded
CoRev There is library full of studies (peer reviewed and otherwise) of failed climate forecasts.
Agree. For the most part there has been a distinct bias towards underestimating the rate at which the climate is changing.
As to Roger Pielke, he has a longstanding reputation of asking good questions but refusing to accept the answers to those questions long after the verdict has come in. It’s part of his schtick of looking like a reasonable fellow while being unreasonable.
Now let’s talk about your climate predictions. For decades you’ve haunted the internet predicting that warming is over and the earth will be entering a cooling phase. Howz that working out for you?
2slugs, “Agree. For the most part there has been a distinct bias towards underestimating the rate at which the climate is changing.” Let’s talk about this report to explain that bias. Even here they call scenario 8.5 unlikely, but still 41% of the projections are from using it.
BTW, when talking about rates isn’t appropriate to show your source(s)?
For example: For over a decade you’ve haunted the internet you’ve cited an agriculture study predicting lower grain production.https://www.theglobaleducationproject.org/earth/infographics/hdpi/food_grain-production-consumption-stocks-2019.webp Howz that working out for you?
Perhaps a blip? You’re quite familiar with blips, as I recall
CoRev As an old man your memory isn’t too good. What I said was that temperatures above a certain threshold hurt growth rates for most grains (viz., corn, soybeans and rice). You can consult any agronomy book on that. But since you’re too lazy to actually consult an agronomy source, I’ll turn things over to Pioneer: https://www.pioneer.com/us/agronomy/soil_temp_corn_emergence.html Optimum root growth is at 86 degrees (F) and shoot growth is at 95 degrees. If you will notice, the average daily high in July for Des Moines, IA is…wait for it…86 degrees. In other words, the corn belt is not quite beyond the optimum growth temperature, so it shouldn’t come as a big surprise that yields haven’t plunged. The point is that all of those papers I cited were warnings about future agricultural productivity, not current output. I know this sort of thing is difficult for you, but give it a try. The world is not static. Telling us that there’s no problem today is not an answer to a question about problems tomorrow. I know you can’t be bothered to actually read this stuff, but here are a few relatively recent papers that explore crop yields and variability under different climate scenarios:
https://www.nber.org/papers/w23533
https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/115/26/6644.full.pdf
The last paper makes a very important point about how climate change has the unwanted effect of correlating yields across different regions. Very bad.
And since yesterday was the one year anniversary of Iowa’s derecho, I’ll just note that it wiped out 850,000 acres of cropland and almost 700,000 trees in the city of Cedar Rapids alone. It was the most expensive weather event in US history.
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/money/agriculture/2020/10/09/usda-iowa-acres-farmers-unable-harvest-grow-more-than-third-850-000-corn/5937329002/
2slugs gives us an an amazing case of BIAS CONFIRMATION with his 1st reference:
“Summary
Corn is a warm-season crop. Germination and emergence are optimal when soil temperatures are approximately 85 to 90 F. Cool conditions during planting impose significant stress on corn emergence and seedling health.
Corn seed is ,b>particularly susceptible to cold stress during imbibition. Warmer, moist conditions for the first 24-48 hours after planting can mitigate much of the cold stress.
In lighter-textured soils, spring nighttime temperatures can drop significantly below 50 F, even after warm days, inflicting extra stress on corn emergence.
High amounts of residue can slow soil warming and the accumulation of soil GDUs needed for corn emergence.
Pioneer® brand corn products are rated for stress emergence to help farmers manage early-season risk. Choosing hybrids with higher stress emergence scores can help reduce genetic vulnerability to stand loss due to cold soil temperatures.
Remember catastrophic WARMING is bad, sayeth the TRUE BELIEVERS. Unless its not. Our earlier discussion re: his claims and references was farmers mitigate these warming issues by [planting earlier, planting more acres, and/or changing crops more appropriate for conditions.
2slugs then makes the classic error of relating a singular WEATHER EVENT to climate, usually an average over ~30 years.
Worse than the obvious bias confirmation of his AG. references, on an economics blog he says this: “It was the most expensive weather event in US history.” Which, BTW, a claim never made in his reference, and if you do a search is quickly shown to be an EXAGGERATION even for the year.
How much more wrong can anyone be?
CoRev on an economics blog he says this: “It was the most expensive weather event in US history.” Which, BTW, a claim never made in his reference, and if you do a search is quickly shown to be an EXAGGERATION even for the year.
You are correct. It was the third most expensive weather event in history, but the most expensive thunderstorm.
https://cbs2iowa.com/news/local/derecho-damage-adjusted-to-11-billion Still pretty bad.
And you must be one lousy farmer to so completely misunderstand the relationship between heat and yield. Critical high temperatures that hurt growth occur in July and no corn farmer begins planting in July. So your comment about warm soils aiding in germination is utterly beside the point. Planting is done in April/May, not July, and in April/May soils can be cool. Do you not understand the difference between optimal planting temperatures and optimal growing temperatures?
farmers mitigate these warming issues by [planting earlier, planting more acres, and/or changing crops more appropriate for conditions.
As a side note, the derecho prevented farmers from being able to choose between corn and soybeans. As a result of the derecho a lot of last year’s corn produced “volunteer corn” which effectively forced farmers into planting “dirty field” soybeans this year. Volunteer corn is a major concern this year.
2slugs, its like talking to a dead tree stump.
2slugs thank you for admitting: “You are correct. ” You also mistake the intelligence of farmers: “And you must be one lousy farmer to so completely misunderstand the relationship between heat and yield.” How can anyone mistake the need for mitigation efforts. You obviously don’t understand that there are varietal differences where some corn is planted in July for harvest in fall. BTW, just north of Iowa is where sweet corn is so planted for the Fall market.
What truly amazes is his failure to understand the actual production results in a warming world: https://www.theglobaleducationproject.org/earth/infographics/hdpi/food_grain-production-consumption-stocks-2019.webp
What is truly funny is 2slugs confirms the importance of farmers weather concerns re: my soybeans comments.
How much more wrong can anyone be?
CoRev: When talking about errors, may I remind you about…soybeans?
Menzie, if you want to talk about soybeans and errors, OK! If so please start with my 1st comment re: weather and farmers’ concerns. I’ll wait.
CoRev: No, let’s start with your assertion that soybean futures aren’t good predictors. Since part of the argument that soybean futures “work” is that weather — and news about weather — is incorporated into futures prices (a la Efficient Markets Hypothesis) then you will understand (perhaps finally) nobody disputed your assertion that weather matters.
@ CoRev Oh, I just wanted to update you, here is another nation with dry leaves and bad forestry service.
https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/algeria-blames-forest-fires-arson-death-toll-rises-six-2021-08-10/
Well, it’s like Billy Crystal said, “I hate it when that happens”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Im1aXFYoedg
Menzie,
Your link is aimed at the IPCC special report on limiting the temperature rise to 1.5C, rather than the new IPCC report. You may want to update it.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/
Rick Stryker: Thanks! Link corrected now.
The language in the new AR6 physical risk report is less objective and a bit more polemical; no doubt the IPCC has been criticized for not advocating for policy changes strongly enough and it has responded. Nonetheless, if you read the report carefully, you see the same basic points as in the previous reports, with some additional good news.
For example, the IPCC continues to conclude that equilibrium climate sensitivity is about 3C, but they have also reduced the range of uncertainty. That is a welcome development. The larger uncertainty had encouraged people to conjecture about large tail-event temperature increases, even though there was no real evidence of this possibility. The late Harvard economist Marty Weitzman was notorious for engaging is this sort of baseless speculation that was mindlessly repeated by climate alarmists, apparently unaware that Weitzman just made it all up. Supposedly, there may be potential “tipping points” or nonlinearities in the climate system that could lead to a very high temperature disaster, albeit with a small unknown probability. These speculations terrified impressionable and vulnerable teenagers like Greta Thunberg, who mistakenly thought they were scientific facts. Now that the IPCC has clarified the range of uncertainty, perhaps this alarmist speculation can be tempered.
Similarly, the IPCC has strengthened its conclusion that days with high temperatures will go up. But they have also solidified the conclusion that periods of unusually cold days will decline. That’s important because extreme cold periods kill far more people than extreme hot periods. The rising temperatures have actually saved lives on average. This is one aspect of the good news of temperature increases that no one ever talks about.
Before this new AR6 report, the news media and other climate alarmists had consistently misquoted the IPCC reports as saying that the frequency and intensity of tropical cyclones was rising as a result of GHG emissions. The IPCC reports actually never said that with any conviction, as there was no consensus on that point. The new AR6 report seems to suggest that tropical cyclones will be worse, but if your read the report carefully, along with the cited sources, you will see that nothing has change fundamentally. It’s a subtle distinction, but the new AR6 report says that the proportion, not the frequency, of category 4-5 tropical cyclones will rise. The media and the climate alarmists will no doubt misreport this point as “frequency.” But the report actually says that the number of tropical cyclones will decline with GHG emissions, with more declines in the category 1-2-3 storms than the 4-5 storms. As a result, the proportion of category 4-5 storms will increase, but not necessarily the absolute number. The report also claims that wind speed of the category 4-5 storms will increase, but if you read carefully and look at the underlying sources, you’ll see that increase is about 5%. So, hurricanes are still not much of an issue with rising GHG emissions.
Overall, my impression of the report is that not much has changed from previous reports, other than the abandonment of a more neutral, objective tone in favor of more politically charged language. Ignore the rhetoric and look at the what the report actually says and you’ll see there is no reason to panic.
How does the windspeed of a category 4 storm increase by 5% ?
Baffled,
The 5% number refers to the maximum surface wind speed of category 4-5 tropical cyclones. Given 15 studies of models that simulated maximum surface wind speed, the mean and median increase in the maximum surface wind speed was 5%.
The range in the model estimates was between 1 and 10 percent.
given that the force on a structure is a function of the wind velocity squared, that 5% increase in wind speed will increase the force on the structure by about 10% for a low end cat 4 hurricane. similar impact throughout the cat 5 range. increasing a peak load by 10% on a structure already subject to high wind loads will most certainly result in additional damage and loss of life. don’t let that 5% number mislead you rick, the impact is greater than 5%.
for those interested, there is a wave tank at the rosenstiel school in miami that looks at wind behavior in this boundary layer, where land, structures and waves interact with the wind. have not kept up with their work in the last few years. but the facility is impressive. https://sustain.rsmas.miami.edu/index.html
Baffled,
Yes, you are correct that the damage is not a linear function of the wind speed. It’s actually much worse than quadratic. Studies of Hurricane damage as function of wind speed estimates the exponent on wind speed between 3 and 9. So, if the exponent is 5 for example, a 140 mph storm will cause 27% more monetary losses with a 5% increase in wind speed.
However, the situation is more complicated than that. Damage depends on other factors such as how widely the wind is blowing across an area, time of sustained high wind speed, whether the Hurricane makes landfall and if it does whether it’s been downgraded, etc. We can’t conclude too much just from wind speed. Much of the damage is caused by lower category hurricanes when they make landfall and the IPCC believes that there will be fewer of these hurricanes as a result of climate change.
Rick & Baffled, living in hurricane country I have been told many, many times that WATER/FLOODING is a major cause of damage. As for deaths flooding is the major cause.
“Studies of Hurricane damage as function of wind speed estimates the exponent on wind speed between 3 and 9. So, if the exponent is 5 for example, a 140 mph storm will cause 27% more monetary losses with a 5% increase in wind speed.”
what needs to be understood is that most structures are designed to a limit load. thus wind speeds under 120 mph may cause some damage, but most structures have a design load that can handle this wind speed. but as you get to say 140 mph or higher, you begin to exceed the design loads of those structures-they start to deteriorate rapidly. that is why you get this power law rather than linear behavior at higher wind loads. a lot of the country begins to run into trouble as wind speeds exceed 120 mph. the exception is south florida, where they have the most stringent wind building codes in the country. in the most recent update to the building code, their most important buildings now must resist 200 mph winds. those buildings don’t look very pretty because they are basically bunkers!
“We can’t conclude too much just from wind speed.”
just the opposite. if wind speeds for stronger storms are expected to get stronger, you absolutely know that more structures will exceed their limit load. any activity that increases the number of strong storms will result in much more significant danger. increases in category 1 storms are not an issue from a damage perspective.
Baffled, perhaps the most ignorant question I have seen.
And if there’s one guy familiar with ignorant questions…and answers. Mirror, mirror on the wall
corev, get back in your own lane before you have another stroke.
@ CoRed
You have a PhD in ignorance, so we finally found a topic you are an authority on. Baffling is attempting to learn something new, you might try it sometime. I live in a red state perennially ranked low in public education compared to most U.S. states and I can most assuredly tell you the mating call of illiterate rednecks is “That’s a stupid question”.
it’s not a stupid question at all, and rick answered properly. by definition, a cat 4 storm is defined by a specific range of max sustained wind speeds. so if somebody says that cat 4 storms will increase wind speed by 5%, that is ambiguous. it begs the question, what wind speed are you talking about? max speeds, max gusts? or as rick noted, surface wind speeds. corev simply gets angry sometimes, probably when his stents begin to clog up the blood flow to his brain a little bit. he really should go on a low fat diet and watch his cholesterol.
Stryker,
You are full of bs in your comments on the late Marty Weitzman, whom I knew and who committed suicide because he did not get the Nobel Prize. You may think that shows that he was full of it, but in fact he did deserve it more than Nordhaus who did get it.
His completely valid point was that the underlying distributions of many crucial variables in the global climate-economy system are much more likely to be fat tailed power law distributions than Gaussian normal ones. This means that indeed there is a much higher probability of extreme outcomes, and the latest IPCC report seems to support that he was right and that temperature is rising more rapidly than previously projected. What underlies this is the nonlinearity inherent in many of the functional relationships in the system, which is indeed a complex system, something that sometimes climate deniers sometimes glom on to as an excuse for arguing that nothing should be done because there is so much uncertainty in the system (or at least the models). It is true that these fat tails are symmetric, so much lower outcomes are also more likely, but any sort of precautionary principle suggests that we should prepare to deal with the more dangerous upper end outcomes.
Your sneering at the late Weitzman is really beneath contempt and only shows your comments to be utterly worthless. You should be ashamed of yourself, for being so notoriously woethles.
Barkley Rosser It’s also worth pointing out that while the IPCC report only concerned itself with climate outcomes over the next 79 years (roughly one human lifespan), Weitzman looks out several human generations because GHGs are very persistent. Today’s GHG emissions won’t just affect us and our children, but their children’s children across half a dozen generations. I suspect that folks like Rick Stryker and CoRev don’t give a damn about future generations because they won’t be around to suffer the consequences of their actions. I guess that’s just one of the advantages of not being “woke.”
Barkely,
You claim to have know Weitzman but you obviously don’t know his work. Wietzman did not argue that climate variables had fat tails or were likely to have fat tails; rather he argued that they might have fat tails and if they do the consequences would be devastating. Therefore, Weitzman believed uncertainty about fat tails should be taken into account in climate policy.
Weitzman was careful to sufficiently caveat his speculations. Here are some quotes from the article I linked to:
“Thus, any curve-fitting exercise attempting to attribute probabilities to S >= 4.5C, such as
I am doing here, is little more than conjectural speculation. My purpose is merely to show that
critical results can depend on seemingly casual decisions about how to model tail probabilities.”
“So what should the damages function be for very high temperatures? No one knows, of
course.”
“Of course, I have no objective way to determine the magnitudes of high-temperature damages.”
So yes, Weitzman caveated his speculations. However, when the media and climate alarmists translate “scientific research” like this, it suddenly gets promoted from speculation to scientific fact. That’s why an impressionable, vulnerable teenager like Greta Thunberg can say “how dare you” since she believes that “the popular idea of cutting our emissions in half in 10 years only gives us a 50% chance of staying below 1.5 degrees [Celsius], and the risk of setting off irreversible chain reactions beyond human control.” Little does Thunberg know that her fears were made up by Weitzman in an onanistic orgy of academic speculation.
Weitzman, despite his caveating, contributed to climate hysteria. The Nobel Committee was correct to deny him the prize.
Stryker,
I have no doubt I know his work far better than you do. I have been researching this stuff and publishing on it for nearly a half century.
So, here is the latest; Marc N. Conte and David L. Kelly, “Understanding the Improbabl: A Survey of Fat Tails in Environmental Economics,” Annual Review of Resource Economics, 2021, 3: 1-24, moya.bus.miami.edu/-dkelly/papers/FTsurveys.2-15.pdf .
They show that long run studies see fat tails in climate sensitivity, but using modern data there is not enough to determine the a prior distribution for sure. But they note some solid theoretical literature that supports it based on precisely the arguments I noted, the “multiplicative” effect arising from well-known positive feedback results. This has been known for a long time, and there is well-known evidence that movement in and out of ice ages was generally very rapid in geological time measures, strongly supporting such effects. You really are in over your head on this, Styker.
I note that in 2011 Nordhaus himself basically accepted Weitzman’s arguments, but he and the DICE modelers continued to stick with Gaussian distributions because they were focusing on 90% intervals, not to mention wanting to avoid computational complications in what was alreadly a massively complicated model.
So, sorry, there is no “there” in your claims on this.
Given that I have been going on a lot here lately about Nobel Prizes and I am defending the late Marty Weitzman for having deserved one while Rick Stryker has ridiculed that, I suppose I should comment further, in particular repeat a theory I put forth on Economists View about the 2018 prize to Nordhaus and Roemer well before Marty’s suicide. Interestingly then it was anne who commmented on my comment, initially questioning my theory, then later saying I had made a good argument for it, even as she concluded with the idea that the Nodhaus-Roemer pair was appropriately complementary.
I also note that when Marty died I posted twice on Econospeak about the matter, with 2 Slugbaits commenting on one of my posts. I did not put forward my theory then. Those posts both got caught up in a bunch of commentary by the notorious Egmont, who decided this was an issue triggering him to spout for the umpteenth time his vacuous profit theory and denoucing all other economists.
Anyway, my theory is the following, although I have no external evidence for it. But it is based on being aware that for decades environmental economists had been expecting/forecasting/hoping for a Nobel to go just to envornmental. It was almost always posed that it would go to both Nordhaus and Weitzman, with a possible third, although there was a long list of candidates for that. But it was almost always accepted that two of them, possibly only them, would be Nordhaus and Weitzman. So, why did that not happen?
My theory is that there was a sharp debate on the Nobel committee between a group that favored macro and endogenous growth, probably pushing a Roemer-Barro combination against an environmental group that pushed a Nordhaus-Weitzman combination. As it is, can’t give it to four, so a compromise was reached: give it to the two least controversial, one from each, out of these four. That would be the two who got it. As it was, although anne would in the end accept as reasonable the official explanation, it always looked kind of cooked up to me: Roemer shows how long-run growth can keep going while Nordhaus raises questions about the limits to growth.
So I shall note that there are other reasons why it shiould have been Weitzman, with him arguably deserving it more than Nordhaus, although the latter does have more google scholar citations, and his role as the chief economist in the IPCC efforts gave him many supporters. But in fact Marty has the most cited environmental econ paper of the two of them, probably the most cited such paper of all time. That would be his 1974 Review of Economic Studies paper, “Prices and Quantites,” cited over 4000 times and the basis for all current discussion of taxes versus cap and trade for dealing with global warming. Nordhaus’s most cited environmental econ paper is his review of the Stern report, with just over 3000 citations.
Marty also published highly influentially on gamma discounting, although he was not arguably the first out the door on that one. He also published in other areas, such as on the share economy. Of course Nordhaus has also published in other areas, with a 1975 paper on the political business cycles getting over 5000 citarions. But that was not what he go the Nobel for, and almost nobody pays any attention to that anymore, whereas people regularly cite Marty’s “Prices and Quantities” all the time.
And, he was definitely first out the door on the matter of fat tails and global warming, with if anything his views being supported increasingly rather than less so, and indeed, as Stryker noted, him always being very careful about what he wrote and properly caveating. I do understand well why he was upset that he did not share the prize withNordhaus, and Stryker’s comments on this are just massively ignorant and misguided.
Barkley,
You are showing yourself to be a #fakeeconomist again. Why post a paper you obviously haven’t read and which contradicts your main point? Here is what the authors of the paper you referenced conclude about whether climate sensitivity has fat tails:
“In summary, data limitations prevent estimation of a precise empirical distribution for
the climate sensitivity, a problem magnified for the resulting consumption distribution.
Whether or not existing studies based on short/medium run data are sufficient to declare the consumption distribution thin or fat tailed has unfortunately not been established
(Pindyck 2011). Still, certainly nothing in the empirical literature contradicts Weitzman’s
characterization of a fat tail derived from diverse GCM model outputs and limited data.”
The authors of this paper seem to think that Weitzman “characterized” some sort of fat tail in climate sensitivity. But here is how Weitzman “characterized” his derivation of climate sensitivity fat tails in his 2009 Rev Stat paper: “These small probabilities of what amounts to huge climate impacts occurring at some indefinite time in the future are wildly uncertain, unbelievably crude ballpark estimates–most definitely not based on hard science.
You’ve been studying this for 50 years?
Stryker,
Everything I wrote is correct. There is not enough data to confirm what the distribution is now, but the long run distribution does look fat tailed. You missed that? Also, there are a lot of other complications in estimating the near term distribution that I did not get in to, but that you ignore. You also ignore that these people accept that the theoretical arguments look sound.
It is also funny that you dump on Weitzman for being careful about caveating his results. You seem to think that when somebody caveats that means they have somehow admitted they are wrong. Marty was fully aware of the data situation, which in fact means we are unable to determine what the distribution is from current data. But it remains that there are strong reasons to believe he is likely to be right, both based on the long run stuff and the theoretical stuff, which is not all that theoretical. We know for a faxt that those positive feedback effects exist, and they imply fat tails. That they are in the short run distribution, even if it is impossible to estimate one way or the other, means we need to take his arguments seriously, and he was the first person out the door with this.
…that they are VERY LIKELY to be in the short run distribution… (even though we are unable to estimate the short run distribution at all)
Stryker,
A further btw on this, since you snarked at my being at this for so long. That point I made about the short time period of entering and leaving ice ages was not in the paper I linked to. It is an old and well known result that I have been aware of for over 40 years, and is essentially universally accepted among climatologists.
Now it does not prove that the positive feedback effects exist or are important, although it tends to support that view and why I mentioned it. It is possible that what was going on in those periods was always very rapid changes in exogenous variables with us unable to measure that. But it is consistent with the positive feedback result, and we know that effect not only exists but is happening. As glaciers and ice cover melts, reflectivity declines and heat is absorbed tending to heat things up more. When a cooling trend is kicked off, this goes into reverse, with increasing snow and ice cover increasing reflectivity (albedo) and thus further stimulating cooling. Got it?
Rick cannot accept the possibility that fat tails exist, as it undermines his denier position of the past decades.
the news media and other climate alarmists had consistently misquoted the IPCC reports as saying that the frequency and intensity of tropical cyclones was rising as a result of GHG emissions.
Perhaps, but I’m more inclined to think that climate change deniers set up that claim as a kind of strawman that’s easily dismissed. I don’t know which news media you listen to, but what I’ve heard is that climate change is leading to warmer oceans, which increases the amount of energy in the oceans. Greater energy means a greater potential for tropical storms to develop; however, it also means greater potential for wind shear, which makes it harder for tropical storms to develop. So on balance it’s unclear whether climate change leads to fewer or more tropical storms. What is clear is that of those that do form, it is more likely that they will be stronger and carry more water. Or you could just look at NOAA’s data https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/comparison_table.html nicely summarized in this handy dandy graph:
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-tropical-cyclone-activity
I think you’re being unfair to Marty Weitzman. His argument was all about tail events in fat tail distributions, not central tendencies in normal distributions. What we observe is a steady rightward progression of temperature distributions with each thirty year window. That strongly suggests a fat tail is more likely than a thin tail.
“As a result, the proportion of category 4-5 storms will increase, but not necessarily the absolute number.”
it is most likely that the absolute number will not decrease. and since the cat 5 wind speed is unbounded, you omit the impact of even stronger cat 5 storms in the future. that is quite problematic. we have seen evidence that the warm waters of the gulf stream supercharge hurricanes as they make landfall. higher water temperatures will result in stronger storms.
“Supposedly, there may be potential “tipping points” or nonlinearities in the climate system that could lead to a very high temperature disaster, albeit with a small unknown probability. ”
there could also be higher probabilities for tipping points which lead to high temperature disasters. very high temperatures may be unlikely, but that does not discount that temperature rises will lead to disasters. we have temperature disaster scenarios that are not in the tail risk area.
“look at the what the report actually says and you’ll see there is no reason to panic.”
only a paid shill would make such a statement. or one who is dying soon and simply has no regard for the future.
Ever wonder what life would be like if you were at an IQ level just barely above mentally handicapped in a nation that offers you a FREE vaccine that will save your life??? The average citizen of the state of Oklahoma, is here to show you a realistic simulation of life lived just barely above mentally handicapped level IQ:
Think of 1/3 Barney Fife, 1/3 Kelly Bundy, and 1/3 Woody Boyd. Then subtract 10 IQ points. They are commonly referred to by their species name—Oklahomans. You can also think of it as 2/3 ape, 1/3 Homo sapien.
https://kfor.com/news/local/were-in-the-middle-of-a-bed-crisis-some-oklahoma-patients-die-waiting-for-room-others-sent-to-neighboring-states-as-covid-19-surge-maxes-out-hospital-bed-capacity/
Moses,
The least vaccinated groups by race are Black and HIspanics.
Overall, across these 40 states, the percent of White people who have received at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose (49%) was roughly 1.3 times higher than the rate for Black people (38%) and 1.1 times higher than the rate for Hispanic people (43%) as of August 2, 2021.
https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/latest-data-on-covid-19-vaccinations-race-ethnicity/
Why don’t you lob a few racially tinged insults their way?
@ sammy
I’ll give you a straight and sincere answer to your question, but you have to answer this question first—-Which part/wording of my comment did you take to be “racially tinged”??
Sammy,
But check out the sub-group “white evengelicals.” They have a higher refusal rate than either Blacks of Hispanics. Your link does not pull them out. Most of us non-evangelical, and better educated, whites have gotten vaccinated. But the worst group in the country is your Trump-supporting redneck religious fanatics.
Barkley lies again. Do a search of Sammy’s reference on his Barkley’s sub-group “white evengelicals.” and see if you also get this for an answer: “Nothing Found”. Or, you could do it on the correct spelling “white evangelicals.” and still get the same answer.
CoRev,
“lies again”? And when did I lie previously? Oh, about you claiming to have received gobs of awards for your work on the Apollo program, about which you made various conflicting claims?
When I googled “white evangelical vaccination rates, lots of links showed up. Something that is a bit misleading is that data bases tend to either focus on religion or race while some do both. So Sammy was being disingenously crypto-racist by citing his data base that was strictly based on race.
One source (among many) confirming the low rate of vaccinatino among white evangelicals is washingtonpost.com/religion/2021/06/18/white-evangelicals-vaccine .
I suggest you do a bit more checking before you foolishly and inaccurately accuse me of lying again, you worthless scambag, CoRev.
How about doing a search on white evangelicals vaccine hesitancy? That took about two seconds to come up with plenty of sites and sources, the first being WSJ and the second Us News. Both report that “vaccine hesitancy” among this group is considerably higher than among others.
Hard to call someone a liar when you’re clueless about the topic at hand, no?
BTW, Sammy might refer to this hesitancy as “fealty” .To Trump, of course. Where Trump is concerned, Jesus takes a back seat in the world of white evangelicals.
@ noneconomist
You correctly state: “Where Trump is concerned, Jesus takes a back seat in the world of white evangelicals.”
You think that’s bad??~~just wait until someone who can read informs them that Jesus and 90%+ of the major personages of the Bible are Jewish. The sh*t is going to hit the fan. That “epiphany” (for them) alone will be enough for 80% of deep south whites to declare the Bible an Antifa-authored manifest.
*excuse me, the last part of my just above comment should read “Antifa-authored manifesto”.
Barkley exaggerates again. His information is dated. He cites a JUNE WaPo article which internally cites a MARCH survey while his comment is dated August 11, 2021.
For all his and others commentary, no one has refuted Sammy’s cited data, which BTW was Published: Aug 04, 2021. C’mon Y’all can do better than that.
Speaking of Sammy, KFF, and recent news: from US News, 8/10.
“About 14% of American adults say they won’t get vaccinated under any circumstances as of June, while the number is much higher among white evangelical Christians, according to a rigorous ongoing survey by KFF, the policy arm of the Kaiser Family Foundation.”
With initial hesitancy high among numerous groups when the vaccines were first introduced, “inoculation numbers have climbed significantly—with a few persistent outliers among them, white evangelical Christians whose vaccination refusal rates have remained high as similar figures for other groups have fluctuated or decreased.”
There’s more: “Anti vaccination attitudes have long been prevalent in America’s white evangelical community ,” says Monique Deal Barlow, a research and doctoral candidate at Georgia State University. The anti vax position has been incorporated into a conspiratorial, anti-science political view Barlow describes as Christian nationalism.”
CoRev,
Wow, you are degenerating right before our eyes.
So first you claim there is no data on white evangelicals, or at least you were unable to find any, but then it was shown you were wrong. But now you somehow think that Sammy presented us with this data that you earlier said did not exist or could not be found. This reminds me of your ever changing stories about your Apollo awards, with numbers and type shifting from post to post.
So, the problem as I noted upfront is that Sammy’s numbers are strictly racial numbers, no religion in there. So, yeah, whites have higher vax rates than Blacks or Hispanics. But that is, as I already pointed out, because there are a lot of educated pro-Biden whites who have gotten vaxxed. But the white evangelicals have not.
I will note that it looks like there might be one religious/ethnic group with a lower vax rate than the loser white evangelicals: Hispanic Protestants, who apparently take very extreme views. But the Catholic ones have much higher vax rates than them or the white evangelicals.
Wait a minute,Sammy. Are you suggesting white people have a higher “fealty” to government? I thought you said that was just genuflecting Democrats . Make up your mind.
I’m wondering, if the shoes/roles had been reversed, and a psychotic/violent Korean customer refused to wear a mask, then acted violently towards customers and a white store manager, what would the knucklehead police have done?? I think we ALL know the answer to that question. The police who refused to act should be suspended for a week without pay. And police wander around scratching their head why 75% of society neither likes them nor respects them. It’s a real mystery watching this violent nutjob threaten multiple people, and then walk away like nothing has happened. Our “brave men in blue” score another one for white racists:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/maskless-california-man-bullies-wrong-223854449.html
Americans with PhDs are the most reluctant to get vaccinated against COVID, study finds.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9893465/Americans-PhDs-reluctant-vaccinated-against-COVID-study-finds.html
Sammy,
Well, that is a curious stat. But note that PhD holders constitute only 1.68% of the population over 25 years of age. OTOH, white evangelicals constitute 32% of the population, so reluctance to vaccinate by the latter is far more important than reluctance by the former.
“Researchers concluded that the most educated people in our society – the people certified to become doctors and treat the virus – are not only the most hesitant about getting vaccinated but are also the least likely to change their minds about it.”
Sloppy reporting. It is not phd’s who treat the virus, it is md’s. Different degrees.
I will point out, this only reinforces the fact that we produce alot of conservative phd’s. Some folks who are antieducation try to promote the idea that academia is liberal. But there are plenty of conservatives getting graduate degrees. Alot of that vaccine skepticism in the article comes from those conservatives.
For those interested, nice little article with graphics illustrating the earths energy balance, or lack thereof, driving the current global warming trend
https://astronomy.com/news/2021/08/earths-energy-budget-is-out-of-balance
Baffled, I think you missed your articles point: ” The vast majority of that is now heating the oceans. While it might sound like a small number, that energy adds up.” Water is the truest medium that actually STORES energy for a significant time frame, centuries to millennia in the deep currents . NOT GH Gas molecules which is for sub-sub second intervals.
After making this statement about warming oceans, your article jumps the shark and uses the traditional misguided description of heating: “The residual between incoming sunshine and outgoing infrared is due to the accumulation of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide in the air. ”
Really! What happened to that energy stored in the oceans?
Before you go off again, we previously discussed the quality of this accumulated ocean energy.
Its like talking to a tree stump.
Of course energy becomes stored in the ocean. I have already tried to explain this to you in the past. And as ocean water warms, it expands in volume, which we see as rising sea levels.
When you leave your car outside in the summer sun, it warms up due to a greenhouse effect. Both the air and the car interior surfaces get hot. But if you pull your car into the garage afterwards, you will find even a few hours later the car has an elevated temperature. Its because the heat from the interior surface continues to emit heat for quite some time into the cars trapped air.
This is why there is long term concern for the heat built up in the oceans. It will continue to heat the atmosphere even after we address the greenhouse gas issue. Thank you corev for pointing out exactly one of the long term issues with climate change. This is why we are studying the heat content of the oceans. You seem to think it is a heat storage with no other impact. Think again.
Baffled, uh huh! What happened to those dangerous GHGs? I thought they were the CONTROL BUTTON for rising atmospheric temps?
Also thank you for recognizing the importance of OHC to long term temperature retention, compared to the short term retention of GHG MOLECULES. I point this out as it is disputed by your reference’s chart.
CoRev,
Did you catch the latest report that July was the hottest month ever recorded? Oh, I know, that is not long term climate, just short term weather, ho hum, no problem, move on.
Corev, you don’t make any sense. The greenhouse gases play the role of keeping the energy from escaping out of the atmosphere. It seems like you have absolutely no grasp of thermodynamics.
Baffled, just a little consistency, please! “The greenhouse gases play the role of keeping the energy from escaping out of the atmosphere.” Really!?! Did you mean TRAPS or delays for sub-sub seconds or is stored in the oceans for indefinite periods?
Speaking of thermodynamics, I guess you don’t believe in thermal equilibrium? Only in Climate Science does heat transfer stop.
“Did you mean TRAPS or delays for sub-sub seconds or is stored in the oceans for indefinite periods?”
this makes no sense as stated. greenhouse gases allow a certain frequency of energy (visible spectrum) to pass from the sun to the earth with little impedance. the energy is absorbed at the surface (either on land or in the ocean), and eventually emitted back into the atmosphere as infrared energy. this frequency of energy cannot pass back through the greenhouse gas in the atmosphere as easily, so it is returned back to the surface more than it is passed through the atmosphere. the energy that is retained is what creates the energy imbalance, and adds to the energy totals of earth. some is stored on land, some is stored in the oceans. but the big picture is that the energy remains on earth, and that increases the energy content (and thus temperature) of the earth. this is not rocket science here.
“Speaking of thermodynamics, I guess you don’t believe in thermal equilibrium? Only in Climate Science does heat transfer stop.”
this is just silly. when you increase the amount of heat introduced into the ocean, you increase the energy stored in the ocean. this is thermodynamics. whether it circulates through the ocean or not is irrelevant. the energy content of that body of water has increased. it is your lack of basic science that makes it so difficult to discuss these items with you, corev. your ignorance is astounding, but you seem to claim it as a badge of honor.
“Speaking of thermodynamics, I guess you don’t believe in thermal equilibrium? Only in Climate Science does heat transfer stop.”
This is just silly. Yet you claim: “some is stored on land, some is stored in the oceans. ” For how long for each? And why have you now ignored stored in the atmosphere’s GHGs?
again corev, your comment is just silly. in the words of pauli, “What you said was so confused that one could not tell whether it was nonsense or not.”
in a literal sense, does the glass of a greenhouse actually store the heat? what function does it serve, corev? it serves as a barrier for the escape of energy, thus keeping the energy within the greenhouse itself. there is a reason these are called greenhouse gases, as the models have a lot of similarities. i think your lack of science understanding and unwillingness to understand how the model works allows you to post some of the silliest questions i have encountered. i can only imagine how pauli would have responded to your incoherent discussions.