From WaPo today:
The Trump administration has decided to disband the federal advisory panel for the National Climate Assessment, a group aimed at helping policymakers and private-sector officials incorporate the government’s climate analysis into long-term planning.
The charter for the 15-person Advisory Committee for the Sustained National Climate Assessment — which includes academics as well as local officials and corporate representatives — expires Sunday. On Friday, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s acting administrator, Ben Friedman, informed the committee’s chair that the agency would not renew the panel.
The current — and apparently last — draft assessment was discussed in this post. The article quotes an official indicating this draft will still be released. I will believe it when I see it.
Climate research is heavily politicized. Just look at how you tout it despite lacking working experience or academic training suitable to grappling with what is a complicated problem with different levels of uncertainty.
It’s not about actually thinking about things and analyzing them, here. It’s about value-signaling and tribalism. You can signal that you are a suitable NPR liberal by saluting the climate change flag.
“Just look at how you tout it despite lacking working experience or academic training suitable to grappling with what is a complicated problem with different levels of uncertainty.”
and do you have the “working experience or academic training suitable” to criticize menzie on climate change?
“You can signal that you are a suitable NPR liberal by saluting the climate change flag.”
what you mean is that if you have scientific inclination, you can look at the data and conclude humans are having an impact on global climate change. and if you are not scientifically inclined, your are part of the denier tribe. this discussion really breaks down to one’s ability to embrace science, or not.
So after you bemoan the “heavily politicized” climate conversation, you go on to make an extremely politicized (and incoherent) statement about climate policy.
Well done, sir. The classic know-nothing, “my ignorance is just as valuable as your facts” approach.
The report (by the “Deep State”) says: “…the United States faces temperature increases of 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit over the next few decades “even under significantly reduced future emissions.””
That’s the only thing close to making sense, although a prior prediction fell short by two-thirds – humans cannot begin to slow the warming cycle (which may be within more than one longer term warming cycle). So, why waste money?
So you’ve evolved from “it’s not warming” to “it’s warming, but not because of humans” to “too late ¯\_(ツ)_/¯”.
The only reason we’re in this position is because of un-yielding and well-funded interests and fringe groups (and people like you who spread misinformation on their behalf, for some nihilistic reason), so I wouldn’t tout that as an accomplishment.
And, for the record, climate predictions have been very accurate, if not too conservative. For example, sea level increases have come in 60% higher than 1993 forecasts. https://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
Mike, I’ve been consistent in my statements – it’s you creating fake news, including in saying “climate predictions have been very accurate, if not too conservative,” which is laughable. You need to see credible links, and stop posting extremely biased links.
Climate models are grossly imprecise:
http://www.hoover.org/research/flawed-climate-models
so you get your scientific climate insights from an economist and a biopharma professional. well done sir.
I get my info from credible sources, rather than from hysterical or biased extremists, and tie everything together for a general understanding, since there are no sound general equilibrium models.
Maybe according to the biased blogs and explicitly right leaning think tanks you are reading.
But, according to the peer reviewed research and the basic data, you’re wrong.
Baffling, why don’t you explain why the message is wrong rather than attacking the messenger, just because he’s not hysterical about climate change, like you.
Mike, our understanding of climate change is weak, and only as good as the models we create, which have poor predictive power. The science is not settled. Moreover, there’s a strong political bias in scientific papers on climate change. It’s happened before, e.g. Lysenkoism.
“The science is not settled.” Again, you don’t cite science; you cite blogs/think tanks with an explicit agenda. The fundamental physical properties of GHGs do not change because the political ideology you choose to proselytize wants them to.
Mike, I’ve cited the scientific methodology to explain why the climate models have been wrong. And, I’ve cited an unbalanced influence from government or politics. It’s foolish to assume the science is settled, whatever that exactly means.
You cited a Hoover Institute post. Not a peer reviewed, scientific study from an established journal like Nature, or Science.
Listen to that whooshing sound as another liberal pillar is swept away. But, don’t worry, another will be soon raised in its absence.
Swept away by rising sea levels and quickly shrinking polar ice-caps?
Who do you think holding opinions like yours helps? Like, what is your end-game?
Mike v asks: “what is your end-game?” To just have a discussion. In this case over the politics of disbanding a policy group, when you do not have the same faith in the science s the members.
The only thing worth discussing is what kind of policy response there needs to be. You have clearly made up your mind that you want no part in that discussion. You are afraid to upset your tribal identity that insists climate change skepticism is a righteous, edgy virtue, and that prevents you from even acknowledging that the thousands of PhDs studying this for decades *might* know more than you.
People like you and PeakTrader are doing work for special interests, like Exxon, by spreading confusion and nonsense dressed up as “honest analysis” except you’re not even getting paid for it (which is baffling and sad!). I use Exxon as an example because a Harvard peer reviewed study released this week showed “Exxon Mobil Corp made “explicit factual misrepresentations” in newspaper ads it purchased to convey its views on the oil industry and climate science.” http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-climatechange-exxon-idUSKCN1B31TR
We’ve had plenty of discussions around this. We’ve literally been having the “discussion” since the 1970s (https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-92/pdf/STATUTE-92-Pg601.pdf). You can take it a step further and include the science dating back to the late 19th century that clearly explained the greenhouse effect).
Mike v, you complain that Peak has not referenced science but biased blogs, articles, think tanks and yet you have done the same thing. Skeptical Science (SkS) is one of the worst, and yet appears to be your “go to” source.
As I have already stated the science has yet to define Climate Sensitivity, anyet you are trying to argue that the science is settled re: the GHE. If so settled, why do we see sensitivity estimates ranging from ~0.5 to 9.0? Without limiting sensitivity estimates there is no GHE impacts of merit. All we have is best guesses, and too many are of the catastrophic genre.
Skeptical Science directly quotes and cites peer reviewed studies in every post.
Mike v, I know what and how SkS writes its articles. I have poured hours into deciphering how they have colored an article, even with cites and quotes from peer reviewed sources, and have since given up reading them unless they are exceptionally pertinent. Finding an article that was fairly reported was so rare I just quit.
I have better things to do with my waining years than try to determine how SkS, one of the most biased of climate cites, has colored or misrepresented the latest article. I now just review SkS daily to see what the latest issue will be.
Newt Gingrich must be very proud of Trump. After all disbanding actual policy analysis was part of that Contract on America.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/20/a-consensus-of-convenience/
“Climate science is the most controversial science of the modern era. A reason why the controversy has been so persistent is that those who accept the IPCC as the arbiter of climate science fail to recognize that a controversy even exists. Their rationalization is that the IPCC’s conclusions are presented as the result of a scientific consensus, therefore, the threshold for overturning them is so high, it can’t be met, especially by anyone who’s peer reviewed work isn’t published in a main stream climate science journal. Their universal reaction when presented with contraindicative evidence is that there’s no way it can be true, therefore, it deserves no consideration and whoever brought it up can be ignored while the catch22 makes it almost impossible to get contraindicative evidence into any main stream journal.
This prejudice is not limited to those with a limited understanding of the science, but is widespread among those who think they understand and even quite prevalent among notable scientists in the field. Anyone who has ever engaged in communications with an individual who has accepted the consensus conclusions has likely observed this bias, often accompanied with demeaning language presented with extreme self righteous indignation that you would dare question the ‘settled science’ of the consensus.”
There are several key items most skeptic and alarmist scientists can agree:
1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that GHG gases contribute to making the surface warmer than it would be otherwise, that man is putting CO2 into the atmosphere and that the climate changes.
2) Most skeptics would agree that if there was significant anthropogenic warming, we should take steps to prepare for any consequences.
3) Most skeptics would agree if you have sufficient food and water, you can survive indefinitely in the warmest outdoor temperatures found on the planet. This isn’t true in the coldest places where at a minimum you also need clothes, fire, fuel and shelter.
4) There’s one factor upon which most disagree about and this is the basis for all other differences. … The controversy is about the size of the incremental effect atmospheric CO2 has on the surface temperature which is a function of the size of the incremental effect solar energy has. This parameter is referred to as the climate sensitivity factor.
5) The IPCC’s sensitivity has never been validated by first principles physics or direct measurements. It’s most widely touted support comes from models, but it seems that as they add degrees of freedom to curve fit the past, the predictions of the future get alarmingly worse.
What bothers the alarmist scientists is the new opportunity available to skeptics scientist to sit at the table reviewing the literature such as the SCCR.
Remember, if the CO2 sensitivity can not be measured or well predicted, then the science based upon it is not proven. No matter how wide is the consensus. Unproven hypotheses that impact policy and costs in the trillions is always going to be questioned.
If its not clear much of what I provided in this comment was a paraphrase from cited article, which provides a physical model for the GHE. At least scan the article to get a concept of the components of GHE and their so often cited but seldom understood physics.
If you want a description of what happens on skeptical sites read the comments. Then compare them to the rah, rah alarmist sites where alternative views are banned. Some of the better comments are from skeptics. What didn’t surprise me was the low number of comments from consensus obligated alarmists. Most don’t even know the physics.
At least CoRev now agrees that C02 is a greenhouse gas. And it’s good that he agrees we should take steps to mitigate warming if there is evidence of manmade global warming. So here’s some evidence using Lowess smoothing:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
Most skeptics would agree if you have sufficient food and water, you can survive indefinitely in the warmest outdoor temperatures found on the planet.
Skeptics might agree, but no one else would or should. Why? Because it begs the question and assumes that you can both have sufficient food & water and very high temperatures. You cannot. You also cannot have civilization as we know it if global temperatures approach the 5% tail probability.
especially by anyone who’s [sic] peer reviewed work isn’t published in a main stream climate science journal.
I suppose it’s too much to expect a TV weatherman to understand how the peer review process actually works. Hint…passing around papers is not part of the peer review process.
2slugs, I see you haven’t read the reference, just my cuts from it. For you, Mike V, Baffled, Menzie etc this is an important passage:
“This prejudice is not limited to those with a limited understanding of the science, but is widespread among those who think they understand and even quite prevalent among notable scientists in the field. Anyone who has ever engaged in communications with an individual who has accepted the consensus conclusions has likely observed this bias, often accompanied with demeaning language presented with extreme self righteous indignation that you would dare question the ‘settled science’ of the consensus.”
What value is a 5% tail when we have a several billion year history of run away warming NEVER ever happening. No matter what assumptions were input to the variables of the statistical model history trumps them.
You also provided a GISS graph without even looking at it. It shows an ~2C variance with a few outliers and the vast bulk of the annual averages well within 1C. Just more history to refute your runaway warming fears.
“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”
“What bothers the alarmist scientists is the new opportunity available to skeptics scientist to sit at the table reviewing the literature such as the SCCR.”
actually what bothers people is when you allow ignorant pseudoscientists a place at a scientific table. most true deniers are not credible scientists. the reason they are not published is not political bias. it is because they do not produce quality scientific output. they produce pseudoscience. and it cannot be accepted into peer review journals for print. if you want to have a place at the table, produce good strong scientific studies. the lack of such studies is indicative that current denier positions are not supported by the physical laws of the universe.
Baffled, there are many accepted papers from skeptical scientists. Just because you don’t know of them nor of the authors show nothing more than your own ignorance. To repeat:
““Climate science is the most controversial science of the modern era. A reason why the controversy has been so persistent is that those who accept the IPCC as the arbiter of climate science fail to recognize that a controversy even exists. Their rationalization is that the IPCC’s conclusions are presented as the result of a scientific consensus, therefore, the threshold for overturning them is so high, it can’t be met, especially by anyone who’s peer reviewed work isn’t published in a main stream climate science journal. Their universal reaction when presented with contraindicative evidence is that there’s no way it can be true, therefore, it deserves no consideration and whoever brought it up can be ignored while the catch22 makes it almost impossible to get contraindicative evidence into any main stream journal.”
“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”
Yes, the debate is being lost both scientifically and politically.
“there are many accepted papers from skeptical scientists.”
there are some. but you complain there should be more. i simply make the statement, if the science is good (or great), it will be published. but currently the data does not support the position of the deniers. that is why there are so few papers. you cannot publish pseudoscience. if you can produce legitimate scientific studies that favor your position, they will be published. the lack of such papers should give you cause for concern about your current position.
Baffled, i suggest you take it up with the many skeptical authors rejected, and who can’t get through the 1 st door. I don’t think you even read my comment just emoted another response. The author said: “…the threshold for overturning them is so high, it can’t be met, especially by anyone who’s peer reviewed work isn’t published in a main stream climate science journal. Their universal reaction when presented with contraindicative evidence is that there’s no way it can be true, therefore, it deserves no consideration and whoever brought it up can be ignored while the catch22 makes it almost impossible to get contraindicative evidence into any main stream journal.”
It makes perfect sense for Trump to abolish the advisory committee. It’s a matter of efficiency in government. He isn’t going to pay any attention to science, nor will he allow other policy makers to pay attention to science, so there is no need to pay anyone to provide policy makers with the best that science has to offer.
Similarly, he has disbanded his business advisory councils, to which he had presented no questions and which had never done any actual work. Waste of time.
Under a president who seems unaware of the bounty that science has provided humankind, climate science has no place. As with other forms of progress, progress in limiting human contributions to climate change will have to wait until he’s gone.
We can’t afford the delay, but that’s how Trump’s backers want it, so that’s how it’s going to be for a while.
macroduck, “We can’t afford the delay, …” Why? Temps have increased on average ~1C since the start of generally global level record keeping. It has seen peaks at or above the terrifying 2C, and nothing has happened. Your evidence for your concern is…?
I’ve tried to explain the misconception of “trapping” heat in the Green House Effect (GHE) theory. Here is even another attempt by the author of the article I referenced above in comments.
“Except that no energy is converted between the state energy of an energized GHG molecule and the kinetic energy of translational motion by a collision. Quantum mechanics requires the entire quanta of absorbed energy be absorbed or emitted as a single event so the most likely event is that a collision will cause an energized GHG molecule to emit a photon and return to the ground state. The photon of energy is never ‘thermalized’ unless it happens to be absorbed by the liquid or solid water in clouds, or the sensor of a thermometer, and the entire quanta is thermalized at once. Of course, each re-emission pair involves a new photon of the same energy as the absorbed photon.”
“Trapping” exists, but the time frame is in the nano- millisecond range before it is released to occur again and then eventually be lost to space or return to earth at the original temp.
co2 is one of the molecules that can absorb infrared energy levels. it absorbs the photon that was reflected off of the surface of the earth. rather than have that photon return to space, it is absorbed by the co2 and then reemitted. prior to this process, the photon was moving in a direction away from the earth. as it reemits from the co2 molecule, it has an equal probability of emitting up as down. the infrared photons which emit down return to the earth and have a greater chance of being captured as heat on the surface, increasing earth’s total heat content. global warming. we have observed less infrared leaving earth’s atmosphere with increasing co2, indicating this mechanism is resulting in less loss of heat and a growth in temperatures.
Baffled, how does that differ from the many explanation I have provided. You still continue to think that skeptics do not accept CO2 as a GHG nor that they deny GHGs delay the cooling.
As I presented earlier that has not been the issue. How much warming can be attributed to GHGs, and particularly AGHGs? To repeat so it is made clear: “… The controversy is about the size of the incremental effect atmospheric CO2 has on the surface temperature which is a function of the size of the incremental effect solar energy has. This parameter is referred to as the climate sensitivity factor.”
corev, i simply posted to clarify the important workings of co2 in the discussion. you posted a copy of a response that tries to impress with the use of “quantum mechanics”. and you comment on the time period of nano to milliseconds. but this is stated in order to create doubt. the implication: it’s a complicated process that occurs on such short time scales that it cannot possibly be an issue in today’s longer term temperature observations.
the reality is the short time scale is basically irrelevant. the mechanism exists and works by returning energy back to each. whether it does this in 1 nanosecond or 1 hour is irrelevant. and if you want to blame increased solar input as the source of increased temperatures, you need to understand that the greenhouse gas effect simply amplifies this by keeping more of that solar input inside the atmosphere. we have seen this through a drop in measured infrared leaving the atmosphere with rising co2. all you try to do is create doubt in little parts rather than understand the total framework.
Baffled claims: ” all you try to do is create doubt in little parts rather than understand the total framework.” I only cited a scientific fact. Why would such a scientific fact raise doubts, unless their understanding was more emotional than knowledge based?
My point was to clarify the oft repeated claim that CO2 “traps” LWIR. iT was not clarify the CO2GHG impacts on LWIR. My point was that “trapping” was a false, exaggerated, or misconception of wthat takes place in the atmosphere. If emotion tells you that nano to millisecond time frames are equivalent to “trapping”, then you are an alarmist.
Now that you have outlined the “…mechanism exists and works by returning energy back to ?each?.” Each –what? Since you almost understand the gross process, why not take a crack at how much of the GHGs are anthropogenic in origin. What percentage of the atmospheric CO2 is ACO2? How much of that temperature rise is so associated? As I have often repeated: do the math.
Repeatedly you read into commentary that just isn’t there. “you posted a copy of a response that tries to impress with the use of “quantum mechanics”. ” Remember your claim that skeptics did not know science, are just pseudo-scientists, and that didn’t couldn’t understand the science? Yet we had a discussion over the value of a paper in the last thread and now that I referenced an article using “quantum mechanics”. I neither tried to impress nor tried to confuse. Just passed along some of the latest information.
Actually, had you actually read the article you would have realized it used physics to develop a successful physical model of the GHE in the atmosphere. Successful in that it was able to predict and not just project as do today’s GCMs.
“each” should read “earth”. auto spell check bites.
“My point was that “trapping” was a false, exaggerated, or misconception of wthat takes place in the atmosphere.”
this is almost a stawman argument on your part. the ghg traps the heat within the confines of earth’s environment. by trap, most people imply it traps, or keeps, the energy within the physical system of earth and its atmosphere. meaning it does not let it escape to space and leave the earth system. your issue with this concept is weird.
Baffled, why do you shy away from the “do the math” issue?
Now you want to change GHG “trap” heat to t5he environment traps it due to
Photons returned back to the surface. How is it there trapped? Certainly you do not think the surface temps are stable. Certainly you do not think that the surface stop transferring heat convection, diffusion, conduction and radiation. These processes are also in the super short time frame. To wit radiation physics is unchanged whether it originates from an atmospheric or a surface molecule.
BTW, the only surface that makes a difference in trapping is water, but although water is a good receptor of LWIR it does not penetrate (trap it). It absorbs within the first few mills of the surface and then increases evaporation.
corev, as i have stated before, your comments evolve into random incoherent monologues.
“BTW, the only surface that makes a difference in trapping is water, but although water is a good receptor of LWIR it does not penetrate (trap it). It absorbs within the first few mills of the surface and then increases evaporation.”
i don’t even know where to start with you. are you telling me the heat on the surface does not transfer into the water bulk? again, you appear to want to create a strawman argument. at least present a clear and comprehensive description. all i read is incoherent gooblygock.
Gobblygock? I think that’s been my point about you and so many of the other alarmists commenting. In one comment you accuse skeptics of not knowing the one true science, and then accuse me of trying to spread doubt in little bites. Now you are confirming you can not understand the science since it is gobblygock.
As an example of this understanding failure you come back with even another emotional response: “are you telling me the heat on the surface does not transfer into the water bulk?” We were talking about about molecular physics, and that sentence added another component, evaporation, to the heat transfer processes.
Of course the heat on the surface can be transferred into the water bulk. Water is the most efficient at doing so, accordingluy, water is the capable of “trapping” for a long time the remaining heat gain from LWIR not lost to the cooling from evaporation.
And yet you want us to believe that skeptics do not understand the science, when in almost every discussion we see these kinds of strawman argumentation. It’s not about the science it is about the emotion.
“Water is the most efficient at doing so, accordingluy, water is the capable of “trapping” for a long time the remaining heat gain from LWIR not lost to the cooling from evaporation.”
that is heat “trapped” in the environment. again, you acknowledge trapping of heat occurs. but in previous quotes, you rant when people say heat is “trapped”. you simply constantly look to argue and create doubt as your defense mechanism. the heat is trapped in the environment because the co2 does not let it leave the system. that is the big picture. all of your complaints about how people describe the details does not change this outcome-their mechanisms are basically correct. you are simply distracting from the big picture-intentionally.
Baffled, talk about gooblgock. You have taken us from atmospheric CO2 (and maybe GHGs your writing is so convoluted its hard to tell the subject), now to the environment traps heat. Are we going to graduate to the PLANET next.
You continue to show you are a know nothing about climate science.
Corev, the planet is the SYSTEM. The system traps, and accumulates, heat. That is how we get a warmer planet. Basic concepts. It appears you do not understand them. Or you intentionally act dense.
Baffled, wow! How far off topic do you wish to go? Why not talk about the eclipse related to tax regulations. Both are part of the planet/SYSTEM.
This comment string started with my comment re: “…”trapping” heat in the Green House Effect (GHE) theory .” Do you refute my original comment?
This is a new panel created near the end of Obama’s presidency. http://research.noaa.gov/News/NewsArchive/LatestNews/TabId/684/ArtMID/1768/ArticleID/11776/NOAA-establishes-new-panel-to-guide-sustained-National-Climate-Assessment.aspx
Accordingly, this panel has had no influence on US climate policy.
AGW science is in no way settled regarding the influence on climate of ACO2. Emphasis on alternative scientific views will be enhanced as they reflect current administration views. This shift in attentions is needed due to the ongoing arguments due to those previous false claims that AGW science is settled.
The angst over the failure to renew this unused panel reflects this shift in influence as one group of scientists is diminished and the other enhanced. It is mostly from the diminished group of scientist and their supporters from where these emotions emanate.
Since the “science” is so ?settled? this kind of alternative method for evaluating temps is not valid. Just more pseudo-science as the alarmists so vehemently believe. Since it is just pseud-science it will not be reported in the SCCR nor reviewed by the SCAS Panel, and especially not be included in any IPCC document.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214242817300426?via%3Dihub
Titled: “Most of the Recent Warming Could be Natural”
Before folks like Mike V, baffled or 2slugs take a swing read the paper, then explain to the ignorant climate skeptics how this approach is so much worse than selections tree rings or the many other proxies for calculating temperature. Oh wait, that may be a little difficult since the authors state: “AFTER deconstructing 2,000-year old proxy-temperature series back to their most basic components, …”
Is this approach better/worse than the post hoc selection process so prevalent in proxy temperature reconstructions? I doubt it. A different approach that gives a non-consensus is just a threat to the orthodoxy, and their grant resources.
I can’t believe there re still morons out there who doubt the effects of anthropogenic climate change are real. Many fossil fuel companies have known this for decades. The slight of hand by those who profit from the continued burning of fossil fuels most certainly has fooled the those who lack a brain. As for the cost, what will be the cost of increased illness, loss of crop production, the flooding of major cities. The wealthy will be laughing at the idiots whose taxes will pay to try and ameliorate the effects .
And, there are morons who doubt the effects of natural warming and cooling cycles. Much of North America was buried under hundreds of feet of ice not long ago. Only an idiot would make people poorer, sicker, and cause more deaths, in the futile attempt to make the world cooler.
Yes there are natural warming and cooling cycles, yet the data shows that this decades long warming cycle is solely due to the burning of fossil fuels. WE have evidence from the past that the burning of fossil fuels and the resultant increase in carbon dioxide causes a warming climate. Only morons who can’t think and follow the profit seekers line are clueless to the proven truth.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/07/a-road-trip-to-the-end-of-the-world/532914/
Geo, scaring the kiddies again?!? From your scary, scary article: “Admittedly, this is mostly Kump’s speculation, but we do know that something apocalyptic was unfolding then,…”
Might, maybe, coulda. but absolutely no proof beyond speculation. Sounds a whole lot like today’s new-age science.