World PoliticsSocial IssuesMilitaryEconomyUS PoliticsActivismGovernment

How Accurate Are Climate Change Predictions, Really?

Updated on March 23, 2017

Conversation and Challenge

"What would it take,” I asked fellow writer and climate skeptic jackclee, “to convince you that we have a climate problem?”

We’d been having an extended discussion in the comments of my article, Climate Change: How Much Time Do We Have? Jack responded:

Doc, the one evidence I need is for the various climate models to agree with reality. There projections has consistently over estimated the temperature rise. I just don't trust them considering how the models have such variables which are based on assumptions and the small tweak can cause large changes in the model outputs. In a few short years, we will see if these models are for real or they are contrived. Please revisit this in a few years. Take care.

Though marked by Jack’s customary civility, it was a frustrating response for me, as the article in which the conversation was occurring had gone to considerable lengths to examine how much time remains to us to take action on climate, concluding that in certain respects it is already too late. The least misleading answer to the question “How much time do we have?” was, I wrote:

None, really. We are late, and we just need to work not to get any later.

That was true, I had said:

  • Because it’s already too late for the victims of climate change to date.
  • Because climate change is insidious--as with tobacco smoking, the damage is often done before symptoms are evident.
  • Because global carbon emissions still seem to be increasing.
  • Because we are running out of time to avoid what is generally considered ‘dangerous’ warming.

So I tried to address Jack’s concern directly, citing data and discussions that show that, in fact, the observations are consistent with IPCC projections of temperature, as linked in the sidebar below.

Original Model-Observation Comparison Graphs

Source

Updated Comparison Graph, August 2016

Updated observation-model comparison, August 2016.  Graphs courtesy of RealClimate.
Updated observation-model comparison, August 2016. Graphs courtesy of RealClimate.

BEST update, to February 2017

Updated model-observation comparison, courtesy of Dr. Zeke Hausfeather of BEST.
Updated model-observation comparison, courtesy of Dr. Zeke Hausfeather of BEST. | Source

Although temperatures had been running lower than the central estimate of IPCC projections in recent years, they were, and are, still within the projected ‘envelope,’ as shown in the figure above and discussed at length in the linked articles.

Moreover, I added, there was and is a long track record in the scientific literature of successful predictions by climate models. It was collected and documented by Barton Paul Levenson (also linked in sidebar.)

I quoted Barton as follows below:

Global Climate Models have successfully predicted:

  • That the globe would warm, and about how fast, and about how much.
  • That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool.
  • That nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures.
  • That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures.
  • Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles).
  • That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic.
  • The magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.
  • They made a retrodiction for Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with the paleo evidence, and better paleo evidence showed the models were right.
  • They predicted a trend significantly different and differently signed from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data.
  • The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO.
  • The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole.
  • The expansion of the Hadley cells.
  • The poleward movement of storm tracks.
  • The rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude.
  • The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics.
  • The near constancy of relative humidity on global average.
  • That coastal upwelling of ocean water would increase.

Seventeen correct predictions? Looks like a pretty good track record to me.


Jack's response to that was indirect:

Doc, I came across this web site recently and would like you to comment -

(Jack's site is linked in a second sidebar.)

I will make a pledge to you.

You ask me what it would take to be convinced.

If the items in the forecast for 2015 and 2020 comes true as they projected, I will be convinced.

There were problems with that. The worst for me is that there is simply no point in convincing Jack (or anyone else, for that matter) sometime in 2020 or 2021. We need decisive action on climate, and we need it now.

But there are other issues, too. Some of the ‘predictions’ involve things that are really not all that relevant—global air conditioner sales, for instance. And what would the criteria for predictive success be? Surely it would be unrealistic to expect each and every point to come true precisely? For that matter, some of the projections are not couched very precisely. How could we decide whether or not they should be considered ‘successful’?

Noting all these problems—and, frankly, hoping to split up what looked like a daunting workload—I made a suggestion to Jack:

So, how about this: you and I make a project. We'll sort the predictions for this year (ie., predictions on the 2015 page of the site) that we want to assess--other than what I've done here, no looking ahead! (Full disclosure: I already looked at the case of Lagos, Nigeria, a bit.) Then we'll research them and compare what we find. We each write an article about it.

What do you say?

Jack accepted, and so the present article was born.

Sorting The "Predictions"

My first task was to read and sort the predictions on the 2015 ‘predictions’ page. Readers can find it on the site page linked above, but for convenience, here is the specific page relating to 2015-relevant predictions (sidebar, right--or above, on mobile devices.)

Cutting to the chase, a tedious process of listing, winnowing, consolidation and tabulation eventually produced a more-or-less manageable list of 28 items. Fourteen of them were then eliminated ‘for cause.’ These items (with their original list positions and ‘cause for dismissal’) are listed in Table 1:

Table 1: Rejected 'Predictions'

Item Description
Original list #
Reason for rejection
Global air conditioner sales increase
2
Silly proxy. Sales can be affected by too many things besides climate. (But the projection did apparently come true, FWIW.)
Global emissions projections
4
Not actually a prediction, and a driver of climate, not a consequence of it.
Lake Mead dry by 2014, 10% chance
9
Too low a chance to count as a ‘prediction.’
Suna’a, Yemen, to run dry by 2017
11
Water situation serious, but civil war renders clear outcome relative to prediction impossible.
Various population projections
14
Not climate predictions, though growing populations do tend to use more energy.
Climate-driven migration in Nigeria
17
Civil conflict and weak governance make this impossible to assess.
Loss of climate measurement/observation capability
18
Not a climate prediction, though it makes climate study harder (and has occurred).
Rare earths shortages by 2015
21
Not a climate prediction.
Worldwide oil supply shortage of 10M barrels/day by 2015
22
Obviously a bad miss, but still not a climate prediction.
No ‘demand challenge’ to global energy supply in 2015
23
One more time—not a climate prediction.
Global energy prices to be unstable during 2000-2015.
24
Certainly, but no, not a climate prediction.
Solar energy predicted to be the least expensive source of electricity by 2016.
25
Not a climate prediction, but will comment briefly as ‘appendix.’
China to mine 25% more coal; consumption to reach 2.3 billion tons by 2015.
26
Not a climate prediction, but will comment briefly as ‘appendix.’
US agriculture suffers due to lack of pollinators, leading China to supply up to 40% of US vegetables
28
CCD—the epidemic of bee deaths—is still quite a problem, but hasn’t undermined US ag quite that badly. And the Chinese economy has grown in ways not well anticipated in 2006.
Table 1: Rejected 'Predictions'

The Rubric

That leaves 14 predictions to assess. But how to assess them? Not all were precisely quantified, and even when they were, available data aren’t necessarily sorted in such a way that direct comparisons can be made.

I fell back on classroom teaching experience to create a rubric to enable ‘grading’ of each prediction. Here’s what it looked like:

Predictions rubric

Quantitative:

  • 4—Prediction within 10%
  • 3—Prediction within 25%
  • 2—Prediction within 50%
  • 1—Correct sign
  • 0—Wrong sign

Qualitative:

  • 4—Outcome closely resembles prediction
  • 3—Outcome reasonably resembles prediction
  • 2—Outcome somewhat resembles prediction
  • 1—Outcome points toward possibility of prediction being realized, given enough time
  • 0—No resemblance between outcome and prediction

(1 additional point may be awarded in cases where outcome exceeds prediction--that is, where climate change is worse than predicted.)

With that in hand, I attacked the list of remaining predictions. Here are the results, item by item, and with a discussion of what I see as important points relating to each.

Assessing The Predictions

In all cases, the supporting web links for the prediction and outcomes will be found in sidebar capsules (right--or above for mobiles).

1. The prediction:

Stanford computer models project a dramatic spike in extreme seasonal temperatures during the period 2010 - 2019. "The Stanford team also forecast a dramatic spike in extreme seasonal temperatures during the current decade [2010 – 2019]. Temperatures equaling the hottest season on record from 1951 to 1999 could occur four times between now [2010] and 2019 over much of the U.S., according to the researchers. The 2020s and 2030s could be even hotter, particularly in the American West."

The reality:

The US experienced significant heat waves in 2011 (“On a national basis, the heat wave was the hottest in 75 years”), 2012 (March brought “a remarkably prolonged period of record setting temperatures”), 2013 (regionally, in the Southwest “46 monthly record high temperatures were reached or broken, and 21 records for the highest overnight temperatures were reached or broken”), and 2015 (“triple-digit heat indices across a large swath of the U.S...”)

Interestingly, consideration of one obscure but telling statistic—the tally of ‘cooling degree days’—the top three hottest US summers occurred during the prediction period so far. In order, they are: 2011, 2010 and 2012.

Given that the prediction period ran from 2010 through 2019, and is thus only about half over, it is tempting to rate this prediction as a ‘5’—that is, the number of observed events matches the predicted number of events, for a ‘4’ on the quantitative rubric, plus a bonus point since there are still several years to run in the prediction period.

However, considering that there are serious definitional issues about just how geographically widespread and how long-lasting a heatwave needs to be to count, and considering my own biases, I reduced that to a ‘3’—“outcome reasonably resembles prediction.”

March 2012 heatwave.  Image courtesy NASA Earth Observatory & Wikimedia Commons.
March 2012 heatwave. Image courtesy NASA Earth Observatory & Wikimedia Commons. | Source

2. The prediction:

Britain’s Met Office projects 2014 temperature likely to be 0.3 degrees Celsius warmer than 2004. “Here is the climate forecast for the next decade [2007-2014]; although global warming will be held in check for a few years, it will come roaring back to send the mercury rising before 2014."

The reality:

Once again, definitional issues cloud the picture a bit. Using the data set associated with Britain’s Meteorology Office, HADCRUT 4, one finds that 2014 temperatures were not 0.3 C warmer than 2004, but rather 0.117 C. (NASA’s data would have made that figure 0.20 C.) Clearly, less warming than forecast. On the other hand, the shape of the temperature curve does match the description given: “...global warming will be held in check for a few years [but will] come roaring back.”

Overall, I rate that as a ‘2’—“outcome somewhat matches prediction.”

It’s worth noting, though, that this is more a test of ‘the Met’s’ experimental long-term forecasting ability than of climate modeling; though the 10-year is very long for weather, it is very short for climate. According to Santer et al., the shortest period for which one might expect to see a statistically-significant warming trend is 17 years.

3. The prediction:

By 2015 10 million acres of national forests may be at high risk of uncontrollable, catastrophic wildfires... as much as $12 billion, or about $725 million a year, may be needed to treat the 39 million acres at high risk of uncontrollable wildfire by the end of fiscal year 2015.

The reality:

By September 25 of this year, over 9 million acres had in fact burned. By the end of October (the conventional end of the ‘fire season’, the number had reached 9,407,571 acres. Clearly that is well within the 10% envelope for a ‘4’. There aren’t yet comprehensive numbers on the cost of those fires, but on August 5, a Forest Service Report informed us that “For the first time in its 110-year history, the Forest Service, part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is spending more than 50 percent of its budget to suppress the nation's wildfires.” That was not a result of one exceptional year, but rather a consistent trend in fire-fighting costs. The Service called for a change in the funding mechanism to reflect this reality, as ever-increasing proportions of the Service budget were being absorbed by fire-fighting costs, to the detriment of other functions. (The full report link is in the sidebar.)

Rating: 4 “Prediction within 10%.”

Washington State wildfires, 2015.  Image courtesy NASA & Wikimedia Commons.
Washington State wildfires, 2015. Image courtesy NASA & Wikimedia Commons.

4. The prediction:

Water shortages projected for 36 states by 2013. Water managers in most states expect shortages of freshwater in the next decade [2003 – 2013]

The reality:

Unclear. Although the General Accounting Office publishes periodic surveys of state water manager expectations, they do not examine the actual outcomes. And among the responses of the water managers are survey responses that raise real questions about response quality. Apart from answers that were unresponsive—in 2014, the most recent such survey, Indiana and Ohio were both listed as ‘no response or uncertain’—there were instances that were simply not credible.

A notable example is provided by the states of Alabama and Georgia, which both report no concerns about freshwater availability despite the fact that they are, along with Florida, embroiled in a legal and political wrangle over the apportionment of freshwater flowing out of Lake Lanier, the sole source of most of Atlanta’s drinking water. The ‘tri-state water war’ has been before courts since 1990, and was the subject of a closed-doors meeting of all three governors as recently as June 2015.

In my view, if that is not cause for ‘concern’, then something is wrong with the definition of ‘concern’ in use. (To be completely clear, though, water problems in the Southeast are not a climate change issue—regional modeling does not project drought problems to be likely, as overall the region seems likely to become slightly wetter—but a policy and resource versus population issue.)

However, despite such concerns, the 2014 report has the number of ‘concerned’ water managers up by 4 to 40. And in the general media there were very serious water shortages reported for 7 states in 2015. (Of course, the current serious water shortages in California are too well-known to require a citation.)

Considering the information available, the outcome seemed ‘somewhat’ to resemble the prediction, for a rating of ‘2’.


5. The prediction:

Lake Mead’s water levels could drop below its water intake pipes by 2013. "Southern Nevada Water Authority chief Pat Mulroy . . . said the authority is in a race against time to complete a new [third intake] system [or third straw] to draw water from deep in Lake Mead [Hoover Dam]."

The reality:

The Water Authority won their race, but not by much. The ‘third straw’ project is now complete, at an announced cost of $817 million, with another $650 million for a new pumping station. The level didn’t quite reach crisis levels: problems start at a level of 1062 feet, and the system as it was would have been shut down at 1050. This summer saw levels of a little over 1075. That margin of less than 14 feet may not seem small to some, but for context, consider the ‘old normal’: in 1983 Lake Mead stood at 1225 feet.

The outcome reasonably resembles the prediction, for a rating of ‘3’.

Hoover Dam, 2012, with the 'bathtub ring' showing low water level.  Image by Tony Webster, courtesy Wikimedia Commons.
Hoover Dam, 2012, with the 'bathtub ring' showing low water level. Image by Tony Webster, courtesy Wikimedia Commons.

6. A related prediction:

Hydroelectric turbines at Hoover Dam could cease generating electricity by 2013. “After 75 years of steadily cranking out electricity for California, Arizona and Nevada, the mighty turbines of the Hoover Dam could cease turning as soon as 2013, if water levels in the lake that feeds the dam don't start to recover, say water and dam experts. Under pressure from the region's growing population and years of drought, Lake Mead was down to 1,087 feet, a 54-year low, as of Wednesday [September 8, 2010]. If the lake loses 10 feet a year, as it has recently, it will soon reach 1,050 feet, the level below which the turbines can no longer run.”

The reality:

Fortunately, the loss rate since 2010 did not continue uniformly, and although there is a small net loss, the turbines still turn—albeit with a 25% power loss. It’s worth noting, though, that hydropower in California is seriously affected by the ongoing drought and water shortage, with reductions of around 60%. As a linked story puts it:

California’s drought is just four years old. But the drop in the state’s hydroelectric production has been precipitous. Hydroelectric sources are projected to contribute just 7 percent of the state’s power this year, down from 23 percent in 2011.

Overall, the outcome was judged as pointing toward a later possibility of realizing prediction, for a rating of ‘1’.



7. The prediction:

Nearly half the world’s population will live in water-stressed countries by 2015. “By 2015 nearly half the world's population — more than 3 billion people — will live in countries that are "water-stressed" — have less than 1,700 cubic meters of water per capita per year, mostly in Africa, the Middle East, South Asia, and northern China."

Note the wording: this does not say that half the world’s total population will be water-stressed; it says that countries accounting for half the world’s population will experience significant water stress.

The reality:

This appears to be a solid ‘hit.’ Though definitive numbers for 2015 are not available, India and China are indeed both experiencing water stress at very significant levels, as has been the case for some time, and together account for close to 50% of global population. The story in the UK's Guardian newspaper, linked, tells the wider tale.

Rating: ‘4’.

Ladakh, India, 2014.  Image by Christopher Michel, courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.
Ladakh, India, 2014. Image by Christopher Michel, courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

8. A related prediction:

By 2015 a number of developing countries will be unable to maintain their levels of irrigated agriculture. “In the developing world, 80 percent of water usage goes into agriculture, a proportion that is not sustainable; and in 2015 a number of developing countries will be unable to maintain their levels of irrigated agriculture...”

(This comes from the same 2000 report as item #7, and is not linked again.)

The reality:

The situation for irrigation is bad and getting worse in both India and China. Additionally, Africa has serious problems, though these arise from a whole network of reasons, from climate change to population growth to poor policy and migration.

Rating: ‘4’.

9. The prediction:

Mt. Kilimanjaro’s remaining ice fields likely to disappear between 2015 and 2020... if current climatological conditions persist, the remaining ice fields are likely to disappear between 2015 and 2020.

The reality:

Thankfully, ‘the snows of Kilimanjaro’ currently seem unlikely to disappear any time soon. This prediction would receive a clear zero, except for one thing: attention to the issue, prompted by the possibility that the prediction could come true, may have been crucial.

Initially, the observed loss of ice mass on Kilimanjaro’s summit was ascribed more or less directly to global warming. But further analysis showed that the loss was probably due to less precipitation falling at the summit, and that in turn this was not so much due to global changes, but to more local ones: deforestation on Kilimanjaro’s massive slopes had altered the local water cycle. Replanting those slopes seems to have helped increase precipitation, slowing (though not halting) ice loss:

...the massive tree planting around the mount Kilimanjaro could have been mitigated the ripple effects of the global warming.

Alarmed by the...Thompson study, way back in 2006, Tanzania President Jakaya Kikwete imposed a total ban on tree harvesting in Kilimanjaro region in a move aimed to halt catastrophic environmental degradation, including melting of ice on Mount Kilimanjaro.

As a result of the measures, the forest cover on the mount Kilimanjaro is slowly, but surely becoming thick.

Experts say the forests on Kilimanjaro's lower slopes absorb moisture from the cloud hovering near the peak, and in turn nourish flora and fauna below...

Given that ice loss has not been completely arrested and that warming continues, the outcome points toward a possibility that the prediction may become true in time, which rates a ‘1’.


Aerial view of Kilimanjaro, showing ice fields on Kibo peak.  Image by clem23, courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.
Aerial view of Kilimanjaro, showing ice fields on Kibo peak. Image by clem23, courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

10. The prediction:

Computer model forecasts taking into account sea ice thinning and albedo effects project an ice-free summer Arctic Ocean between 2010-2015. “The Arctic Ocean could be free of ice in the summer as soon as 2010 or 2015 -- something that hasn't happened for more than a million years, according to a leading polar researcher. Louis Fortier, scientific director of ArcticNet, a Canadian research network, said the sea ice is melting faster than predicted by models created by international teams of scientists, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. They had forecast the Arctic Ocean could be free of summer ice as early as 2050.”

But this 'prediction' needs more context. Note what is said in this story—(so-called) ‘IPCC models’ at that point (November, 2007) had been estimating that the Arctic sea ice would likely be gone at the annual minimum in September ‘as early as 2050’, but a new regional model by Dr. Maslowski, of the US Naval Observatory, had projected that a much earlier outcome was possible.

Note, too, that the 2007 minimum thoroughly shocked experts; they had been concerned by the record low of 5.6 million square kilometers (mean value for the month of September). Prior to 1990, only once had that value dropped below 7 million square kilometers, and never had it broken through 6 million square kilometers. But in 2007, the disturbing record clocked in 2005 was obliterated by a stunning 4.3 million square kilometer mean September extent--a full 1.3 million kilometers less than the 2005 record (roughly 23% lower). Dr. Fortier’s comment that ‘...it's probably going to happen even faster than that” should be read in the context of the shock the 2007 minimum provided.

Graph courtesy Dr. Larry Hamilton.
Graph courtesy Dr. Larry Hamilton.

It should also be noted that the newspaper story is almost certainly wrong in one respect. Though the identity of the ‘computer models’ referred to is never given in the story, it is undoubtedly the regional modeling of Dr. Wieslaw Maslowski, of the US Naval Observatory, as reported in the BBC story linked above.

Dr. Maslowski is directly quoted in another story from the same time:

Given the estimated trend and the volume estimate for October–November of 2007 at less than 9,000 km3, one can project that at this rate it would take only 9 more years or until 2016 ± 3 years to reach a nearly ice-free Arctic Ocean in summer. Regardless of high uncertainty associated with such an estimate, it does provide a lower bound of the time range for projections of seasonal sea ice cover.

So the projection, according to the scientist who made it, should be regarded as a “lower bound”, and the time frame is not 2010-2015, as the story had it, but 2013-2019.

The reality:

Dr. Fortier was wrong.

But consider the continuing decline of the sea ice—after 2007, the September mean has never again risen above 2005 levels. And in 2012 the September mean extent crashed to just 3.6 million square kilometers. (September of this month saw the fourth-lowest value in the record, with a mean of just 4.6 million.)

In that context, it is not so clear that Dr. Maslowski was wrong. The window for his ‘lower bound’ estimate runs until 2019.

The IPCC was wrong, too, or so it appears at this juncture. In 2007, they thought that we had until 2050 or so before the first ice-free Arctic summer. The sea ice crash we have seen since then makes that scenario highly unlikely; currently observers such as the National Snow and Ice Center’s Dr. Walt Serreze now think the likely year is sometime around 2030.

Dr. Fortier gets a ‘1’, even though the mainstream science would do better.

Eko-Atlantic City under construction, Lagos, Nigeria, 2011.  Image by omar 180, courtesy Wikimedia Commons.
Eko-Atlantic City under construction, Lagos, Nigeria, 2011. Image by omar 180, courtesy Wikimedia Commons.

11. The prediction:

Lagos, Nigeria projected to be at risk from sea level rise. "Nigeria will suffer from climate-induced drought, desertification, and sea level rise... Lagos, the capital, is one of the West African coastal megacities [along with Alexandria, Egypt] that the IPCC identifies as at risk from sea level rise by 2015.”

The reality:

Again, solid, comparable information is hard to come by, and the prediction itself is not very specific. But it is clear that Lagos is facing increased flooding, forming a serious threat to its infrastructure:

An increasingly important threat to the high population and large concentration of residential, industrial, commercial and urban infrastructure systems in Africa’s coastal megacity of Lagos is flooding. Over the past decade, flooding in Lagos has increased significantly, drawing increasing attention to the need for flood risk management.

It’s not as clear what proportion of this risk proceeds from sea level rise, as identified in the prediction, and what proportion from extreme precipitation and increasing storm surge (both expected consequences of climate change, in general) or from other causes, such as land subsidence (which can be either natural or man-made, and which results in localized ‘relative sea level rise.’)

However, it is noteworthy that the there’s a mega-project, underway since 2003 and now said to be nearing completion, intended to protect the city from sea-level rise—an 8-kilometer barrier dubbed the ‘Great Wall of Lagos.’ Not only that, an artificial island will be the site of a glittering new city center, financed entirely by private investment, and intended to become the “Hong Kong of Africa”. As usual, that is linked right, together with a less enthusiastic take. Not yet reality, but perhaps worth noting in passing, is that serious, widespread issues with both desertification and sea level rise continue to be projected for Africa.

Overall rating: ‘3’.

Adelie penguins.  Image by Jerzy Strzelecki, courtesy Wikimedia Commons.
Adelie penguins. Image by Jerzy Strzelecki, courtesy Wikimedia Commons.

12. The prediction:

Projected extinction of Adélie penguin population around Palmer Station, Antarctica. “A small residual population [Adélie penguins] on Humble Island [near Palmer Station, Antarctica] may survive the climatic shift down the peninsula, [seabird ecologist Bill Fraser of the Palmer Long Term Ecological Research (PAL LTER) project] guessed, but the overall prognosis is that in the next decade the Adélies around Palmer will be gone. ‘Their numbers are in catastrophic decline,’ Fraser said.”

(Unfortunately, the original link appears to be dead, and so is not linked.)

The reality:

The Adelies are not gone yet, though the decline in population continues. Chinstrap and Gentoo penguins, which tolerate warmer temperature better, have been moving in in large numbers.

...it’s been a shock to see how drastically Adelie penguins have declined while gentoos have increased in the last 20 years.

I have linked some of the baseline research, from 1998, and including as one author Dr. Bill Fraser, who was mentioned in the prediction.

It would be great to see some hard numbers on the Adelie population of Palmer Station, to get a better feeling for how the trends are playing out. But it appears that the prediction is somewhere in the midrange: 2018 is probably too aggressive, but all sources discussing the population agree that the species is in trouble in the Palmer Station area.

Rating: ‘3’, “Outcome reasonably resembles prediction.”


Update on Adelie penguins, 7/2/16

A recent article on the prognosis for Adelie penguins, not just around Palmer Station, but around the whole Antarctic continent, stated that, as of 2013, the Palmer Station population had been reduced by about 80%.

The outlook for the species generally is not great:

by 2099, our projections suggest 78% to 51% (mean 58%) of colonies could experience declines, containing 64% to 39% (mean 46%) of the current abundance.

Luckily, while Adelies look to be vulnerable to decline, there are areas projected to serve as 'refugia', so complete extinction doesn't appear to be a risk--over the course of this century, at least. Of course, under any 'business as usual' scenario, warming will not stop magically when the 22nd century arrives.



13. The prediction:

Antarctic ozone hole will continue to expand through 2015. “Some existing agreements, even when implemented, will not be able by 2015 to reverse the targeted environmental damage they were designed to address. The Montreal Protocol is on track to restore the stratospheric ozone layer over the next 50 years. Nevertheless, the seasonal Antarctic ozone hole will expand for the next two decades [2000-2020] — increasing the risk of skin cancer in countries like Australia, Argentina, and Chile—because of the long lag time between emission reductions and atmospheric effects.”

(The source for this prediction is the same as #11, above, and is not re-linked.)

This is not really a climate prediction, either, but I consider it nevertheless because it bears in several ways on the current topic, aside from the fact that it was included on the website. Essentially, it’s an important environmental issue involving science, global policy, and numerical modeling of atmospheric processes, and one in which we can observe the outcome of an international treaty intended to mitigate human-induced damage to the atmosphere.

The reality:

Essentially, ozone loss has gradually stabilized since implementation of the Montreal Protocol. The lowest 30-day extent occurred in 2006, but this year saw the single largest one-day ozone hole on the record. Despite that, some thickening of the ozone layer has been observed, and scientific observers believe that recovery of the layer may have begun.

Rating: ‘4’.

Israeli corals near Eilat, at the head of the Gulf of Aqaba.  Image by Ludwig14, courtesy Wikimedia Commons.
Israeli corals near Eilat, at the head of the Gulf of Aqaba. Image by Ludwig14, courtesy Wikimedia Commons.

14. The prediction:

By 2015 the cost in lost income of degraded coral reefs is projected to reach several hundred million dollars annually.

The reality:

Again, one might wish for better numbers. But the worldwide decline of coral reefs is so serious as to merit an entire chapter in Elizabeth Kolbert’s Pulitzer-winning book, The Sixth Extinction, and NOAA officials warned last month of a third-ever global-scale coral-bleaching event:

This bleaching event, which began in the north Pacific in summer 2014 and expanded to the south Pacific and Indian oceans in 2015, is hitting U.S. coral reefs disproportionately hard. NOAA estimates that by the end of 2015, almost 95 percent of U.S. coral reefs will have been exposed to ocean conditions that can cause corals to bleach.

The biggest risk right now is to the Hawaiian Islands, where bleaching is intensifying and is expected to continue for at least another month. Areas at risk in the Caribbean in coming weeks include Haiti, the Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico, and from the U.S. Virgin Islands south into the Leeward and Windward islands.

The next concern is the further impact of the strong El Niño, which climate models indicates will cause bleaching in the Indian and southeastern Pacific Oceans after the new year. This may cause bleaching to spread globally again in 2016.

Earlier, reported estimates put the annual value at risk at about $30 billion, and stated that the Caribbean might have lost 80% of its coral. This estimate dates from 2002, however, and so does not ‘confirm’ the scale of contemporary losses.

Considering the available information, while the value at risk remains uncertain, the estimates of total value imply that the prediction’s losses would amount to a few per cent of the total value. Given that loss rates are very high, it would seem to follow that the outcomes we see are ‘closely resembling the prediction,’ which would merit a rating of ‘4’.

Update, 3/19/17

The "third coral bleaching event" mentioned did indeed continue in 2016, and indeed intensified as the world saw a record-warm year on the strength of the ongoing anthropogenic warming trend in combination with an El Nino nearly as strong as that of 1997-98. Unfortunately, it appears to be continuing in 2017, as global temperatures have remained quite warm even after the El Nino ended.

The world has lost roughly half its coral reefs in the last 30 years. Scientists are now scrambling to ensure that at least a fraction of these unique ecosystems survives beyond the next three decades. The health of the planet depends on it: Coral reefs support a quarter of all marine species, as well as half a billion people around the world.

"This isn't something that's going to happen 100 years from now. We're losing them right now," said marine biologist Julia Baum of Canada's University of Victoria. "We're losing them really quickly, much more quickly than I think any of us ever could have imagined."

Even if the world could halt global warming now, scientists still expect that more than 90 per cent of corals will die by 2050. Without drastic intervention, we risk losing them all.


Item Description
Points
Comments
US heat weaves, 2010-2019
3
Rating reduced due to definitional questions.
UK 2014 temperature
2
Underpredicted; technically weather, not climate
US Wildfire
4
 
US water shortages
2
Poor information on outcomes
Lake Mead water levels
3
$1.4 billion spent on remediation
Hoover Dam hydro generation
1
 
Global water stress
4
Definitive numbers not yet available
Agricultural irrigation at risk
4
 
Snows of Kilimanjaro
1
Human response to trend altered outcome
Louis Fortier over predicts ice-free Arctic
1
Mainstream climate science would do much better than Fortier
Lagos at risk for sea level rise
3
Large expenditures on mitigation of risk
Palmer Station Adelies extinct
3
 
Antarctic ozone hole extent
4
Model predictions appear to be accurate
Coral bleaching costs
4
Economic costs hard to document, but extent of coral loss is clear
Total points
39/56
 

How do you interpret those numbers? In school, that would likely be a D, or perhaps a C-; a pass, to be sure, but nothing to brag about.

But those numbers aren't grades. Consider that:

  • The most frequent rating was 4, the highest possible;
  • The least frequent rating was 0, which was never awarded;
  • The highest rating was given the same number of times (5) as the two lowest ratings combined.

Jack picked his predictions on this basis:

Doc, you missed my point about the far reaching projections of this site. The point is they are meant to scare and not based on anything real.

I think this exercise shows that however they may have been meant, they are indeed based on reality.

Rating
Times awarded
Points resulting
4
5
20
3
4
12
2
2
4
1
3
3
0
0
0
Totals
14
39

Jack's "Big Three" Predictions

I'm going to take the privilege of the tardy--for Jack published his Hub roughly six weeks before I wrote these words--and comment briefly on the three predictions that he addresses there.

1. Temperature increase. In part, I've already addressed this issue above when I cited the various model-observation comparisons that have been made. But let's get to the nitty-gritty.

Jack quotes Jim Hansen (not Michael Mann and Jim Hansen; in 1988, the former was still a humble physics undergrad at Yale):

If the current pace of the buildup of these gases continues, the effect is likely to be a warming of 3 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit from the year 2025 to 2050, according to these projections. This rise in temperature is not expected to be uniform around the globe but to be greater in the higher latitudes, reaching as much as 20 degrees, and lower at the Equator.

How does this stack up against reality? Jack doesn't really examine that, citing only a Daily Caller report on a single study which concluded that observed warming so far did not exceed natural variability over the last 8,000 years. But that says nothing about the prediction that was made.

But it's not a difficult question to answer: since 1988, the GISTEMP temperature record shows a total warming of 0.45 degrees Celsius, according to a standard 'least-squares' regression, or about 0.16 degrees C per decade. If we presume that warming continues at that same rate until 2025, then we would see 0.56 C; for 2050, that would be 0.96 C. What's that in Fahrenheit? Well, rounding up to 1 C for simplicity, that would be 1.67 degrees F, or a little more than half the 1988 estimate.

But before we conclude that climate science and global warming are nothing but bunk, perhaps we should look at what more recent science has to say? After all, 1988 was a long time ago in terms of scientific progress. And what more recent work has to say, too, is not difficult to answer, for the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) put forward estimates of future warming in each of its Assessment Reports to date.

The first came in 1990, and in line with the 1988 quote estimated a warming rate of 0.25 C per decade. Multiplying by the six decades to 2050, one reaches 1.5 C total warming, or 2.7 F, reasonably close to Hansen's lower bound. But by the Second AR, in 1995, new work had reduced that number to just 0.14 degrees per decade. Since that is 2.7 decades, we'd expect to see roughly 0.38 C--quite close to the 0.45 we've actually observed. By the time of TAR (2000) the warming rate had crept up to 0.16 C, and by AR4 in 2007, the best estimate had become 0.18 C. Clearly, work that is no more than 2 decades old is pretty close to reality in estimating global mean surface temperature.

GISTEMP record with trend.  Graph by author, using Woodfortrees.org online tool.
GISTEMP record with trend. Graph by author, using Woodfortrees.org online tool.

Update

2015, powered by a strong El Nino, continues to set temperature records. With October data now in for several of the major datasets, the year is almost certain to set new records for warmest on record. As the Washington Post reports:

Earlier this month, Britain’s weather service, the Met Office, and NASA both stated that the Earth’s average temperature is likely to rise 1 degree Celsius above pre-industrial levels for the first time by the end of this year. This milestone is significant since it marks the halfway point to two degrees Celsius, the internationally accepted limit for avoiding the worst consequences of climate change.

More specifically, GISTEMP reported an October anomaly value of 1.04 C, the warmest monthly anomaly in their record, and the first to exceed a degree Celsius. (HADCRUT4 has not yet released their October value; September clocked in at 1.03 C, though their baseline is slightly different from GISTEMP and thus the numbers are not directly comparable.) The Japanese Met Office also reported a record-warm October. Even the UAH satellite record reported their warmest October ever, as reported by the 'skeptic' website Watt's Up With That.

Though there was never any statistical evidence that a true 'pause' in warming was taking place, the slowdown in warming rate seen through much of the 00s has definitively come to an end.

2. Sea Level Rise (SLR). Jack quotes a 1988 report from the World Conservation Union, which states:

With the B-a-U [Business as Usual] Scenario, the best-estimate is that MSL [Mean Sea Level] will be 18 cm higher than today by the year 2030, with an uncertainty of 8-29 cm.

Jack doesn't examine that prediction, instead offering a graph showing SLR to date, together with the IPCC prediction with 3 unattributed 'expert' opinions. The IPCC prediction is for 12 inches of SLR, while the extrapolated present-day trend gives an estimate of 10.5 inches at that time. That's actually a pretty good fit; there is some suggestion of an acceleration in the record, though it is not statistically conclusive, and it wouldn't take much acceleration of SLR to reach the IPCC estimate. The other opinions are much higher--suspiciously located at 2 feet, 3 feet, and 4 feet, respectively.

One could look at the record to try and decipher who predicted what, and what the assumptions and margins of error associated with those projections might have been. However, I promised to be brief, so I'll simply compare the prediction quoted above with the record since 1988. And, as is turns out, SLR during the satellite period (1993-present) amounts to about 8 centimeters. Allowing for the 5 years previous to 1993 and the 15 years until 2030, that trend, extrapolated, would give approximately 16 cm of SLR--in good agreement with the 18 cm in the Conservation Union estimate.

U. of Colorado Sea Level Rise satellite data time series.
U. of Colorado Sea Level Rise satellite data time series. | Source

3. Hurricane frequency & intensity. Jack doesn't cite a specific source here, simply asserting that:

Another projection is that global warming will lead to drastic increases in the frequency and intensity of hurricanes.

Against this, he poses a reality in which:

1) "In the last 10 years, there has not been a category 3 or greater hurricane making land fall in the US", and

2) 'Category 5 storms happened in 1938 and 1960, before any global warming awareness.' (The latter is paraphrased, not an exact quote. Compare Jack's Hub.)

As it turns out, he is half right--cyclone intensity is expected to increase. The IPCC says almost nothing substantive about hurricanes until AR4 in 2007. Prior to that, the Third Assessment Report just says that one study:

…suggested that only small changes in the tropical cyclone frequencies would occur...

It goes on to offer estimates of a 10% increase for the Northern Hemisphere, and a 5% decrease in the Southern Hemisphere.

AR4, however, had much more to say, due to the improvement of numerical modeling capabilities:

...for a future warmer climate, coarse-resolution models show few consistent changes in tropical cyclones, with results dependent on the model, although those models do show a consistent increase in precipitation intensity in future storms. Higher-resolution models that more credibly simulate tropical cyclones project some consistent increase in peak wind intensities, but a more consistent projected increase in mean and peak precipitation intensities in future tropical cyclones. There is also a less certain possibility of a decrease in the number of relatively weak tropical cyclones, increased numbers of intense tropical cyclones and a global decrease in total numbers of tropical cyclones. [Emphasis mine.]

Yes, you read that right. Insofar as Jack's reality tests mean anything at all, they agree with the AR4 projection of fewer cyclones overall. Cyclone intensity will increase, according to climate projections, but frequency will probably decrease.

It's pretty doubtful that Jack's tests do mean much, though; why compare the category of 'global hurricanes/typhoons/cyclones' to 'Category 3 storms making US landfall?' Most cyclones do not make landfall, even in the Atlantic basin, where storm tracks make landfall more likely than in the Pacific or Indian basins. Obviously, there will be far, far fewer Cat 3 storms making US landfalls, rendering statistical comparisons meaningless. And the projections are mostly referenced to 2100, meaning that changes up to 2015 are unlikely to be noticeable, anyway. We wouldn't expect to see much, if any, difference just yet.

So, let's sum up.

1) Regarding Jack's 'big three':

  • Observed temperature rises are in good agreement with models, and there is no evidence for the supposed 'pause' because its timespan is such that one would not expect to see statistically significant warming anyway.
  • Sea level rise is quite in line with the prediction Jack offered.
  • Jack was mistaken about what the IPCC actually predicted about tropical cyclones, leading his only evidence 'disproving' the IPCC claim actually to support it!

2) Regarding the more granular predictions Jack linked from the climate predictions site, they proved a more mixed bag. But as my detailed examination above shows, they are much more right than wrong overall.

3) Regarding Barton Paul Levenson's successful model predictions, the seventeen instances he cites and documents on his site stand unchallenged.

But the biggest picture 'prediction' remains that implicitly made by Roger Revelle and Hans Suess in 1957:

Where do you stand on the evidence about successful climate change predictions?

See results

Appendix

Solar power: In 2008 Rhone Resch, of the Solar Energy Industries Association, predicted that "... by 2016, we expect solar energy to be the least expensive source of electricity for consumers." It hasn't, quite, but has come much closer than most people realize. Solar energy is now about 70% cheaper than at the time of the prediction, and is roughly 1% of what it was in the 1970s. Around the world, solar energy projects are being bid in at prices comparable to fossil fuel generation such as coal and gas. For instance, in the summer of 2015, Nevada Power sought approval for two new solar parks. If approved,

The utility will be paying USD 46.00 per MWh for the output of SunPower’s Boulder Solar park and just USD 38.70/MWh for power from First Solar Inc’s Playa Solar 2 farm.

That's compared with average US residential electricity prices of 121/MWh.

Wind is already cheaper on average than new coal generation capacity, and like solar does not impose external costs associated with air pollution. These costs come in the form of increased incidences of respiratory diseases, including asthma, bringing economic losses for medical treatment and lost productivity.

Concerns expressed by Jack and others about 'expensive' renewable energy are quite simply outdated.

Chinese coal: In 1995, China's coal consumption was projected to reach 2.3 billion tons by 2015. By 2010, that projection had increased to 3.6 billion tons. The reality?

The 1995 projection missed badly, and even the 2010 projection was on the low side: actual consumption in 2014 was given as 3.87 billion tons--and at that, the number was down 2.5% from 2013. And more recently, it has been shown that those numbers were too low; as reported by the New York Times, the actual number for 2013 was 4.2 billion tons.

The good news, however, is that China has committed to ending the growth of carbon emissions, and has already taken dramatic steps to do so, from building the world's foremost solar manufacturing capability, and the world's largest renewable energy capacity, to creating a national carbon market to appropriately price the true costs of carbon emissions.

One is reminded of the meme--correct or not, I do not know--that the Chinese character for 'crisis' combines the characters 'danger' and 'opportunity.'

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • Doc Snow profile image
      Author

      Doc Snow 28 hours ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      Putting a cost on externalities is not easy, but it is not impossible, and can certainly be done in an empirical fashion, as much engineering of various sorts has been done historically.

      Here's one approach (interestingly, by a team of Texan researchers):

      https://news.utexas.edu/2016/12/08/natural-gas-and...

      Since you are a fan of nuclear, note that they found a few places--400 US counties or so--where nuclear power worked out to be the cheapest of the options.

    • Doc Snow profile image
      Author

      Doc Snow 28 hours ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      Thanks, Jack, I'm glad you enjoyed the discussion.

      Forgive me my frankness here, but when you say that "The rest will take care of themselves over time," that seems to me to be a pure statement of faith--and faith that is flying in the face of many facts which we can see around us right now. (For instance, the externalities we've been discussing, which have now persisted for many decades, and nascent solutions for which have involved public-private partnerships and/or regulation.)

      The problem in a nutshell is the 'tragedy of the commons,' the essence of which is that the rational incentives for individual economic actors inherently lead to sub-optimal outcomes, if they are not balanced by concern for the community, recognition of the long-term value to the individual of preserving the resource, or both.

      There are historical examples of communities both succeeding and failing to meet the management challenge. I refer you to this discussion (it may be best to scan the beginning of the overall article; I'm not sure how familiar you are with the overall concept, and you may want to consider it at more depth than I've given it above):

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commo...

      The economic models of folks like Milton Friedman tend toward assumptions that don't go well with communal/cooperative management. And there is no way that anyone can own the atmosphere (nor do I think many of us would like it if it *were* somehow possible.)

      Kim Stanley Robinson, the science-fiction author, put it provocatively: "When it comes to the environment, the invisible hand never picks up the check."

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 44 hours ago from Yorktown NY

      Very interesting discussion.

      Thanks for the link.

      I am in agreement with the following -

      "it is to Nobel laureate Ronald Coase that we owe the most influential argument for letting externalities solve themselves. In “The Problem of Social Cost” (1960), Coase bypasses the earlier view that it is literally impossible to charge for some benefits."

      This is what I was referring to earlier with how deep are we to go with this?

      Not everything in life can be or should be assessed by value or detriment...

      The hidden hand of the free market as explained by Milton Friedman will take care of kost things. The rest will take of themselves over time.

    • Doc Snow profile image
      Author

      Doc Snow 2 days ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      No, this is not carbon credits. Fee-and-dividend sets a price on emission-producing activities, which is collected upfront and then rebated to the population in general. In British Columbia, it is done via an income tax credit; in the GOP proposal I mentioned, it would be done via direct rebate check to all taxpayers.

      "The free market will take care of this."

      The free market cannot 'take care' of problems outside its purview; that's the whole point of 'externalities' such as pollution (be it the traditional 'toxic' variety, or climatic in nature.)

      Certainly, technological change may 'take care' of a given problem, as the dominance of the internal combustion engine took care of the problem of horse droppings in city streets (albeit at the cost of creating smog, particulate pollution, social disruption and climate change.) But that is incidental, and there is no inherent limit to the damage that may be done first.

      That is why economists generally view 'externalities' as market failures, and view measures such as the fee-and-dividend as improving the functioning of the free market.

      Here's a discussion, from a conservative economist's perspective:

      http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Externalities.h...

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 3 days ago from Yorktown NY

      If you are talking about carbon credits, I am against it. I don't think "paying indulgence" is the way to go. It is just another way for one group to use the law to impose their will on another group using money as the medium.

      My proposal is very simple. The free market will take care of this. It is the most efficient of all. When a new energy source is cheap enough and competitive, it will be adopted over time and the world will be better off. Just as we switched from whale oil to fossil fuel in the 19 th century... we will switch away from fossil fuel to something else - when the time is ripe.

    • Doc Snow profile image
      Author

      Doc Snow 3 days ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      "What mechanism do you propose that will make this equitable?"

      A revenue-neutral carbon fee. Such a mechanism has been working well in British Columbia, where it has been in effect since 2008. FWIW, it's worth noting that it was brought in by the conservative party (confusingly, in British Columbia as in Australia, they are called the "Liberals.")

      https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/02/business/does-a...

      A specifically American version of this was proposed by a group of Republican grandees last year:

      https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/science/a-conse...

      It's also a focus of the non-partisan group Citizen's Climate Lobby. They have studied the impact on American households. (There is a lot about the approach elsewhere on their site as well.)

      https://citizensclimatelobby.org/household-impact-...

      Note that the proposed fee amounts are quite modest in all three cases. It's fairly simple administratively, does seem to work to restrain emissions, and does not do economic harm. Much better, IMO, than ignoring the issue.

      "...there are some risks that comes with being alive and living on our planet."

      Indeed there are. But there are some that only come with burning fossil fuels.

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 4 days ago from Yorktown NY

      I am not defining the problem away. It is just too hard to track. What mechanism do you propose that will make this equitable? Health insurance in our country is based on actuary tables. Risks and life expectancy is what determines premiums... Besides, not every harmful substance in our environment is attributed to something. There are things like radiation which leads to skin cancer... for example. Who are we to blame for that?

      What I am suggesting is that there are some risks that comes with being alive and living on our planet. The trade off is do we want progress which fossil fuel give us, and live with some side effects? Alternative is to keep our progress in check.

    • Doc Snow profile image
      Author

      Doc Snow 4 days ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      So your answer, then, is that you would define the problem away by labeling it 'secondary'?

      I don't think the families of the dead see it that way.

      Nor do I see why a tangible, measurable outcome--pollutants in the atmosphere, water, or soil--should be considered in any way as less fundamental than tax revenue for selling the products in question.

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 4 days ago from Yorktown NY

      Doc, that is a good question. I will try to explain this complex interactions between business and general welfare. Let's use gasoline as one example. The oil company has spent very heavy investments to explore and drill and extract crude oil. They created refineries to convert the crude to gasoline to power all our vehicles and all kinds of other uses derived from fossil fuel. Our mobile public and economy is driven by gasoline and diesel fuel in case of trucks. They are the life blood of our economy, shipping products across our nation. Our government, place a heavy tax on gasoline so that they can build and maintain the highways... and they institute exhaust emission laws to protect our environment so we are not burdened with smog... These are primary effects of a society run on fossil fuel, like it or not. The point is, we need it for human progress at this time.

      The secondary effects you mentioned as far as health related diseases that come about from breathing in these chemicals are surely there. However, they cannot be accounted in any way or should be. Otherwise, where does it end? How many levels can you take this?

      Again, I have no problem with our government through the NSF make grants to help develop some new technology that seem promising. I stop at that stage. The government should not provide additional subsidies to corporations or individuals in trying to push a certain technology such as solar or wind power. The reason is simple. They have no good track record in picking winners and losers. This should be done at the hands of venture capitalists. They are the ones that should take on risks and receive rewards or failures depending on which ones eventually makes it to market. I hope this is clear. Yes to basic science research funding, no to issuing tax credits or goverment loans to private corporations. That is free enterprise doing its work.

    • Doc Snow profile image
      Author

      Doc Snow 5 days ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      I understand, but new technologies often require support in order to become established--and the more so today, when the sheer sophistication of the technologies involved often makes up-front capital costs extremely high. As I've shown in several previous comments, wind and solar today are increasingly the cheaper option, compared with new conventional generation capacity and thus enormous economies of scale. So when I say that I expect increasing deployments of both, it is based upon the same faith in the marketplace that you evince.

      But we couldn't have got to this point without the Europeans (principally) artificially creating demand, or without the Chinese manufacturing 'machine' taking up these technologies and achieving global dominance. Both were 'political decisions'--or at least, policy decisions--based on the 'good' that was expected. My point being that the market works--but not in a policy vacuum. (It puts me in mind of all sorts of complex systems, which can have multiple quasi-stable states, but which require an energy input to shift from one to another.)

      Just some thoughts--but let me end with a question. What do you think the response should be to market distortions? Pollution has been such a distortion, in that it imposes costs upon people which are not accounted for by the system. (The thousands of people whose deaths are accounted for in the study I posted below are one example, as are the various economic losses associated.) These costs are real, but unaccounted for in the system--that is, there is no linkage between the costs paid, and the profits made. Thus, fossil fuel usage has effectively been subsidized all the way along, not via cutting them checks (though you can find many examples of that, too, from American 'exploration credits' to Indonesian gasoline subsidies), but through failing to charge them for the full costs of their business model.

      So, what would you advocate as a solution or approach to this problem?

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 8 days ago from Yorktown NY

      My disagreement with renewable energy was never about the goodness it can bring... it was based on cost. If it can be cost effective, the natural business cycle of supply and demand and market efficiency will take care of it on its own without government subsidies and picking winners and losers.

    • Doc Snow profile image
      Author

      Doc Snow 8 days ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      Nice to agree for a change, then!

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 8 days ago from Yorktown NY

      Very interesting. I have no problem with this study.

    • Doc Snow profile image
      Author

      Doc Snow 8 days ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      A new study finds very considerable benefits to the increased deployment of wind and solar in the US. Such studies are always going to be subject to methodological controversy. But we shouldn't ignore a sincere attempt to quantify benefits--particularly in view of frequent emphasis on the more obvious costs.

      https://www.nature.com/articles/nenergy2017134.epd...

      "We find cumulative wind and solar air-quality benefits of 2015 US$29.7–112.8 billion mostly from 3,000 to 12,700 avoided premature mortalities, and cumulative climate benefits of 2015 US$5.3–106.8 billion. The ranges span results across a suite of air-quality and health impact models and social cost of carbon estimates. We find that binding cap-and-trade pollutant markets may reduce these cumulative benefits by up to 16%. In 2015, based on central estimates, combined marginal benefits equal 7.3¢/¢ kWh−1 (wind) and 4.0¢/kWh−1 (solar)."

    • Doc Snow profile image
      Author

      Doc Snow 2 weeks ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      Yes, that conclusion is consistent with the IPCC's AR5 verdict, at least as I remember it, and is pretty much what I've said previously in our conversation. Similar numbers of storms, but stronger on average--and since the data are very noisy, trends are not likely to be statistically detectable for quite some time.

      That does not mean, however, that climate change is not affecting hurricane intensity now. As I've also said, the physical mechanisms for hurricanes are known to be related to temperature and to water vapor in the atmosphere. That's a reality independent of what we can discern from statistical study.

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 2 weeks ago from Yorktown NY

      Thanks Doc, I will look into this...

      Here is a summary from NOAA study -

      https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurri...

      I quote the summary here:

      "In summary, neither our model projections for the 21st century nor our analyses of trends in Atlantic hurricane and tropical storm counts over the past 120+ yr support the notion that greenhouse gas-induced warming leads to large increases in either tropical storm or overall hurricane numbers in the Atlantic. One modeling study projects a large (~100%) increase in Atlantic category 4-5 hurricanes over the 21st century, but we estimate that this increase may not be detectable until the latter half of the century."

    • Doc Snow profile image
      Author

      Doc Snow 2 weeks ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      In the wake of Hurricane Harvey, there has been considerable discussion of the role that climate change may have played in the devastation that has rocked Texas. Here's a useful discussion of the wider question of extreme weather and climate change generally:

      http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017...

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 3 months ago from Yorktown NY

      Doc, my latest hub on climate change.

      https://hubpages.com/politics/Why-Climate-Change-i...

      Obviously you disagree.

      I would be interested in your defense.

    • Doc Snow profile image
      Author

      Doc Snow 3 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      "You have no answers."

      Oh, yes, I do... ;-)

      "Doc, how is 200 years of weather extreme records by the Farmer's almanac anecdotal?"

      It is neither quantified nor comprehensive, which means it can't be used to construct a model that would allow you to test a hypothesis such as "storms are increasing".

      "How about this -

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/15/standard-de...

      Ball isn't a 'climatologist', contrary to his claim, and real climatologist do, in fact, interact with statisticians all the time, again contrary to his claim. That's how the original 'hockey stick' papers came about, actually.

      "How about retired IPCC official who makes the same claim..."

      Who? And what claim do you mean?

      "You are not allowing reality to check your bias."

      That's your opinion. My opinion is that you are not looking at reality squarely.

      "Why is the last 10 years so quiet ?

      We have not had a category 3 storm or higher in 10 years?

      How is this possible in light of record warming?"

      Easy. Hurricane activity is highly variable, both geographically and temporally. It is not unusual in the record to see a relatively quiet period of several years--and especially when only one basin is considered. That is true whether or not mean conditions are slowly changing.

      However, even in terms of the North Atlantic basin, which has had a quiet patch recently, we had Dean in 2007 (a Cat 5) and Igor in 2010 (a Cat 4). You also ignore Sandy, which although its sustained winds were relatively low, nevertheless did enormous damage by virtue of its storm surge and precipitation, not to mention its enormous size. Also, we can't forget Matthew (Cat 5), due to which people in this state are still living in shelters and trying to find ways to fix their homes.

      Elsewhere, the eastern Pacific had Patricia, the second-strongest cyclone ever recorded, in 2015; the western Pacific (more storm-prone) has had 8 cyclones with winds above 200 km/h since 2010; the Northern Indian Ocean has had 7 such cyclones in the last 11 years; the southern Indian Ocean has had 7 such, including the record-tying Fantala just last year; and the South Pacific has had three exceptionally strong storms in recent years, including Pam from 2015, which by some criteria is the strongest ever observed in the Southern Hemisphere.

      As I've said many times before, the consensus projection for hurricanes is "fewer, but stronger on average"--and the timeline for that is "over the present century." So you really can't hope to draw conclusions on whether or not that is playing out over a decade--especially when you only look at a small subcategory, such as "major hurricanes making landfall in the USA".

      And for that matter, what are we only looking at hurricanes in this comment? As I noted above, other things are showing more robust trends--notably, extreme precipitation events and heatwaves.

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 3 months ago from Yorktown NY

      Doc, checkout this video from ABC 2008 -

      http://710wor.iheart.com/onair/mark-simone-52176/h...

      Just wondering your reaction...

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 3 months ago from Yorktown NY

      Doc, how is 200 years of weather extreme records by the Farmer's almanac anecdotal?

      How about this -

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/15/standard-de...

      How about retired IPCC official who makes the same claim...

      You are not allowing reality to check your bias.

      Why is the last 10 years so quiet ?

      We have not had a category 3 storm or higher in 10 years?

      How is this possible in light of record warming?

      You have no answers.

    • Doc Snow profile image
      Author

      Doc Snow 3 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      Jack, forgive me if I missed an update, but barring that, we've already been around the track once before on your Hub on past weather extremes. My reaction is unchanged: you haven't presented anything there that goes beyond the anecdotal, and it's impossible to determine anything based on the basis of anecdote.

      Yes, greater exposure to risk due to greater population, et cetera, is certainly a factor complicating the analysis of rising damage costs. That it a known fact. However, you'll note that there are not more extensive coral reefs to be bleached, nor more ice to be melted. The increase in extreme precipitation events I referred to is measured not in terms of the damage done, but in terms of the rain and snow that fell. Similarly for the heatwaves.

      "Statistically speaking, our climate has not deviated much over the last 300 years."

      I think you may not be saying quite what you mean here, as the climate has certainly "deviated" very dramatically during that time, and especially since 1970.

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 3 months ago from Yorktown NY

      Doc, you hit the nail on the head. Are recent climate related disasters due to AGW? Or part of our normal variations in weather? I can only point you to our historical records. Please see the following and tell me what we experience in the 21 century is worst than the 19th or 20th century...?

      https://hubpages.com/education/Extreme-Weather-fro...

      Also, some of the cost of modern storms is due to our growing population... the same size storm in 2017 will cost more damage than 1900 because there are more people living in these coastal regions.

      Statistically speaking, our climate has not deviated much over the last 300 years. If anything, the last 10 years have been unusually calm in light of record temperature claims by the NOAA.

    • Doc Snow profile image
      Author

      Doc Snow 3 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      "Doc, there is a huge differnce between a skeptic and a denier. The denier claim the whole global warming is a hoax. A skeptic like me, believes in the greenhouse effect but question the extent of the influence on the total climate."

      I tend to use the term 'denial' and its nominative form, 'denier', in the psychological sense, not as a term of ideological art. In that perspective, it can apply equally well to those who fail to take notice of evidence at either the level of existence of greenhouse warming, or of its quantitative effect.

      But you'll notice that I didn't use the term at all in my previous comment.

      "The amount and effect on our climate is what is being discussed or debated. If the effect is dire and will appear in a short time in the future, the response will be accordingly."

      That's the point. Effects are being felt *now*: we are now seeing increased heat waves; increased extreme precipitation events (clear in North America, where data is the strongest and longest, but certainly happening elsewhere even though the statistical case can't be made yet); Arctic sea ice decline; persistent near-global coral bleaching; and more.

      Those effects have certainly killed more than 100,000 people (and indeed one estimate, from 2012, estimates that premature deaths due to climate change may number as many as 400,000 annually.) These effects have certainly cost hundreds of billions of dollars. There is every reason to expect that cost in lives and treasure to continue to rise over time.

      "However, if the effect is slow and long range and may not be as dire, then a different solution may be more appropriate."

      Well, it is 'slow' and 'long range', too, because it will not stop happening until we stabilize atmospheric concentrations. That's what the evidence says. And there is very little uncertainty about that fact.

      "Real people are being affected by these policy differences. For example, coal miners who lost their livelihood due to the shutting down of coal mines as a direct result of EPA rulings and regulations."

      Real people died in Katrina, and Sandy, and in the European and Russian heatwaves, and in the Pakistani floods, and in many other disasters which climate change caused, exacerbated, or contributed to. At least those coal miners are still alive (mostly). While I'm on the topic, I must say that I find it a matter of very bad faith that those who moan about lost coal jobs now, when a couple of tens of thousands have been lost to some combination of policy initiative (BAD!) and cheap natgas (GOOD!), never uttered a compassionate peep decades ago when the move to mountain top removal as the dominant paradigm for Eastern coal mining was eliminating jobs by the hundreds of thousands. That was just considered the march of progress.

      And while you are reckoning the lost coal jobs, how about acknowledging the more numerous, well-paid jobs installing and servicing wind turbines and solar panels? They outnumber the coal jobs by a pretty hefty margin, as I recall.

      It's all very well to try to reckon profit and loss, and laudable no doubt to remember that 'real people' are affected. But we need to look at both sides of the ledger, not just the one that lets us bash the political opposition.

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 3 months ago from Yorktown NY

      Doc, there is a huge differnce between a skeptic and a denier. The denier claim the whole global warming is a hoax. A skeptic like me, believes in the greenhouse effect but question the extent of the influence on the total climate. The amount and effect on our climate is what is being discussed or debated. If the effect is dire and will appear in a short time in the future, the response will be accordingly. However, if the effect is slow and long range and may not be as dire, then a different solution may be more appropriate. Real people are being affected by these policy differences. For example, coal miners who lost their livelihood due to the shutting down of coal mines as a direct result of EPA rulings and regulations.

    • Doc Snow profile image
      Author

      Doc Snow 3 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      Speaking of creating jobs while cutting emissions, here's another renewables milestone:

      https://cleantechnica.com/2017/06/09/germany-denma...

      That's 5x the existing *global* offshore capacity, mind you!

    • Doc Snow profile image
      Author

      Doc Snow 3 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      Well, Jack, that is sort of logical, since "skeptics" has become code for "those who refuse, come what may, to recognize the existence of anthropogenic climate change."

      After all, if you don't think there is a problem to be addressed, then any cost (or even potential cost) whatever is too much.

      Unfortunately, there is no evidentiary support worthy of the name for this point of view, and mountains of evidence on the other side.

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 3 months ago from Yorktown NY

      Doc, To the skeptics, what Trump did was courageous. He went against the rest of the world and tells them to take a pause and offered to renegotiate a better and more equitable deal for America. Meanwhile, we are not punishing american tax payers and energy producers and in fact creating jobs with building the pipeline...

    • Doc Snow profile image
      Author

      Doc Snow 3 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      Jack, I think that it remains to be seen what the effects are. America's failure to act on climate change during the Trump presidency is a tragedy. America is recklessly endangering herself, and everybody else by failing to do her part (or, more precisely, by reducing her efforts just when she should be redoubling them.)

      The worst case scenario, though, would be if American dereliction were to prove contagious, in which case global action would be endangered. Luckily, it doesn't seem likely at this point that that is what will happen. It seems that other nations are reacting with increased determination, if anything. (Of course, the verbal is one thing; action is what really matters. Still, India and China are definitely taking some good actions, and so are some others.)

      You have expressed the opinion before that the lack of an enforcement mechanism makes Paris "weak". In that regard I've argued that since the consequences of failure to address climate change effectively are 1) more inevitable than any arbitrary sanction that might be imposed; and 2) more severe than any such sanction as well, then it makes little sense to work out a pointless sanction regime. The nations are acting in large part because they recognize the need; they do not need additional coercion to buy in. (Mutual accountability and transparency remain important, however, and are part of the accord.) I haven't changed my mind in that regard, so if that is your point, then I still disagree with you.

      On the other hand, it is objectively true that the pledged contributions are insufficient to meet the Accord's goals. (One of the few things that the President said in his speech announcing the pullout that was actually correct.) That's referred to as the "ambition gap", and IMO, that is a significant weakness in the Accord, and one that *must* be addressed over time--and not too much time, either.

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 3 months ago from Yorktown NY

      Doc, now that Trump has pulled out of the Paris accord, what do you think is the effect?

      In my mind, not much. It was such a weak agreement to begin with, I don't think it was a big deal.

      I actually found a silver lining in this. Bloomberg has decided to put up $15 million of his own money to support this...

      https://hubpages.com/politics/The-Bloomberg-Plan-t...

      Where are the rest of the climate change supporters?

    • Doc Snow profile image
      Author

      Doc Snow 3 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      Concerns, certainly. Yet the state of the art is light-years past where it was, as you are also aware.

      Given the seriousness, I certainly hope that some of the engineers working on these projects share your skepticism, and keep asking the hard questions and issuing the toughest possible tests for the systems. They need people trying their hardest to 'bust' them. That is how you get to 'ro*bust*', after all!

      Yet, while there will undoubtedly be systems failures of some sort or another, and very likely indeed including some fatal outcomes, it must also be admitted that the record of humanity in this regard is not very good. Just in the US, tens of thousands die every year in human-caused accidents. (Used to be ~50,000 a year, but I believe that tech and education have reduced it significantly--yes, the 2016 number was about 40,000.)

      Suppose those system errors caused 1,000 deaths a year--probably much higher than will occur. If it cuts out the human-caused ones, we'd obviously save 39,000 lives annually. How do you think society would feel about that? I grant you that the scenario of abrupt failure, with you being helpless in your AEV to respond in any reasonable way, is scary. But it's not different in essence than riding on subway, train, or bus. Or plane, for that matter. And people manage their fears without much trouble, for the most part.

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 3 months ago from Yorktown NY

      Two other points with self driving cars. The technology can be hacked by terrorists and the system is complex enough to be prone to system crash. In both cases, I am not willing, at this point or the near future, to put my life in the hands of these automated systems. We have been here before. In the 1980s, Airbus designed their planes to be auto pilot without any human control. After a catastrophic crash, they decided to put the human conteols back for just in case... I worked in the computer field and I am also a programmer. I know how these systems are put together. Can you imaging driving at 60 mph and a "blue screen" happens like on your Windows PC? Haha

    • Doc Snow profile image
      Author

      Doc Snow 3 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      "doc, self driving cars does not have to be electric first of all. They are two different technologies."

      Of course. But both technologies are necessary for the TaaS paradigm, presuming the analysis is correct. By the time AVs are on the roads, the cost per mile will be very seriously tipped in favor of the EVs. Particularly since the TaaS model is very high utilization (mileage.) In that regard the intrinsic reliability of EVs shines.

      http://www.monroenews.com/business/20170521/driver...

      The linked story really doesn't say what you do. You say "There are all these problems, therefore it will never work." The story says "There are all these problems, and most experts expect them to be solved."

      "With regard to reducing CO2 emissions, that would only come true if power plants also reduces their fossil fuel usage."

      No. The intrinsic inefficiencies in the current model are much greater than you think--from the inefficiency of the ICE engine itself, to the inefficiencies of pumping, refining, transporting and marketing the fuel. This is partially visible in the modeled increase in electric demand, which is only 18%--and which, because the TaaS vehicle fleet would also inherently provide a large energy storage capacity, would require no additions of actual capacity. (Again, presuming the analysis is correct.) (However, on current trends, electrical grids reducing their fossil fuel usage anyway.)

      "In large cities like Beijing, it would help with their air pollution problem."

      Also, anywhere near a petroleum refinery or similar infrastructure!

      "As I wrote in my "trip to China" hub, self driving cars will have to pass the road test on the streets of Beijing before I am convinced it will work."

      Well, they aren't in Beijing yet, at least not on a regular basis. But what about Wuzhen?

      https://techcrunch.com/2016/11/17/baidus-self-driv...

      Or Zhangzhou?

      http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/business/motoring/201...

      It might also be worth mentioning in the context of the 'human factor' that one prediction in the analysis is that there will be support for 'human-driver-free' zones where *only* autonomous vehicles will be allowed. Much safer... both from accidents and from terrorists. (Though, vis a vis the latter, it just shifts the problem from driver to hacker. Better make those OSs very, very secure...)

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 3 months ago from Yorktown NY

      doc, self driving cars does not have to be electric first of all. They are two different technologies. It so happened they are being pushed by Elon Musk of Tesla and the other companies are following in his lead. As time will tell with every new test, there are more problems to be uncovered. http://www.monroenews.com/business/20170521/driver...

      That is why I coin the term "phantom solution."

      With regard to reducing CO2 emissions, that would only come true if power plants also reduces their fossil fuel usage. By converting cars from gas to electric, you are just shifting the power source from gasoline to natural gas and coal power plants. The net difference would only be moderate. In large cities like Beijing, it would help with their air pollution problem.

      As I wrote in my "trip to China" hub, self driving cars will have to pass the road test on the streets of Beijing before I am convinced it will work.

    • Doc Snow profile image
      Author

      Doc Snow 3 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      Just to add a quick explanation as to why this autonomous vehicle thing is not as off-topic as you might think. If you check out the report, you will find that the modeling done shows a massive effect by their "TaaS" paradigm shift on not only the auto industry, but on the entire oil industry as well, since by far the largest use of oil is for transportation. Accordingly, if they are correct in their analysis, we will see a massive drop in transportation-related emissions over the next 15 years or so.

      If it is correct--about which I am still reserving judgment--then it is your dream scenario: free market forces driving massive emissions drops, and saving households large amounts of money, which can then be spent in more productive ways. Essentially, it would be a massive efficiency boost for the entire economy.

      As I say, I don't know if the analysis is correct, but we should both be hoping so.

    • Doc Snow profile image
      Author

      Doc Snow 3 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      Well, I knew already that you were a skeptic (he said, smilingly) on autonomous vehicles, as well as climate change. I'm intrigued about the testing that you mention, because that isn't in line with what I've been hearing. I've been seeing stories more like these:

      http://www.autonews.com/article/20170310/MOBILITY/...

      "California, the largest U.S. car market, plans to allow testing on public roads of self-driving vehicles without human backup drivers by the end of the year, state officials said Friday... A number of automakers have said they plan to begin deploying self-driving vehicles, some of them in commercial fleets, by 2020-21."

      https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/14/gm-plans-to-depl...

      http://fortune.com/2017/02/02/self-driving-car-tes...

      "Waymo vehicles drove nearly 636,000 miles on public roads in 2016, a 49% increase from the previous year. And yet, the number of "disengagements" fell nearly 64% from 341 in 2015 to 124 last year.

      "In all, the total rate of disengagements per 1,000 miles driven fell from 0.80 to 0.20 over that one year time period, according to the report. It's also notable that Waymo tests in more complex urban and suburban environments, and not highways where there are fewer variables such as children, cyclists, and traffic infrastructure."

      Incomplete data, to be sure, but it looks as though there are an awful lot of smart people, with an awful lot of money to spend, who think the problems will be solved, and sooner rather than later. I'd certainly be interested in contrary views and data.

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 4 months ago from Yorktown NY

      Doc, This is a little off topic but with regard to autonomous vehicles, I would not count on it. They are doing testing right now and many of the problems I predicted are coming true...

      I wrote a hub a while back and I call this self driving cars a "phantom solution." A word I coined. What it means is that in order to achieve this technology, they needed to solve a very difficult intermediate problem and that of sharing the road with human drivers. It is a phantom solution because there is no solution that will allow self driving cars to share with humans. Too many variabilities...

      https://hubpages.com/autos/Holy-Grail-of-Self-Driv...

    • Doc Snow profile image
      Author

      Doc Snow 4 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      This aggressive prediction of the end of the conventional auto industry has been getting some notice. I don't pretend to know how much credence one should give it, but it certainly would be a radical reshaping of our world.

      https://static1.squarespace.com/static/585c3439be6...

      "We are on the cusp of one of the fastest, deepest, most consequential

      disruptions of transportation in history. By 2030, within 10 years of

      regulatory approval of autonomous vehicles (AVs), 95% of U.S. passenger

      miles traveled will be served by on-demand autonomous electric vehicles

      owned by fleets, not individuals, in a new business model we call “transport-

      as-a-service” (TaaS)...

      "The disruption will be driven by economics. Using TaaS, the average

      American family will save more than $5,600 per year in transportation costs,

      equivalent to a wage raise of 10%. This will keep an additional $1 trillion

      per year in Americans’ pockets by 2030, potentially generating the largest

      infusion of consumer spending in history."

    • Doc Snow profile image
      Author

      Doc Snow 4 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      Another renewables milestone worth noting: in the market in Victoria, Australia, the cheapest form of peaking capacity is now renewable energy plus battery storage--and that is *without* subsidy, or carbon price.

      https://cleantechnica.com/2017/05/02/victorian-gov...

      Of course, fracking means cheaper gas here in the US, but this is still a good straw in the wind, as gas prices have been inching up, and storage costs have been coming down, and rather more briskly.

    • Doc Snow profile image
      Author

      Doc Snow 4 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      Jack, I rather agree with you about the folly of subsidizing folks to build in places we know to be dangerous, and also that there is some level of personal responsibility involved. (You better believe that our new home will not be in any realistic danger of flooding, no matter how extreme climate change becomes.)

      However, while like you I feel bad for the folks who find themselves in such a ruinous situation, I think that the issues can't be confined to just those individuals. There seems little realistic doubt that this problem will continue to worsen over the coming decades, even if we do take more decisive action with regard to mitigating our carbon emissions.

      If so, then a coastal real estate crash is not a question of if, just a question of when. The economic repercussions will likely be felt on a national level: assets amounting to at least a trillion dollars of equity cannot evaporate without a big fuss, and nor can thousands of middle-class Americans endure financial ruin without political repercussions. Few governments are really facing the issue honestly, and that just means the cost will be all the greater in the end.

      http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report...

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 4 months ago from Yorktown NY

      Doc, here is the problem. If your career and job and funding depends on toeing the line of AGW, how many brave souls would come forward. I am sure if you ask some scientists off the record, they will have more doubts...

    • Doc Snow profile image
      Author

      Doc Snow 4 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      Well, some few of them may be scientists. Even fewer, though, appear to have any relevant expertise. Here's what John Abrams found when he looked at the letter:

      https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-co...

      Even if they were all legit--clearly not the case--they'd be a tiny minority of scientific opinion. IMO, it's pretty telling that folks with such weak credentials are allowed to sign, since if the organizer(s) could get real expertise they presumably would not want to dilute it with general practitioners and materials science entrepreneurs, let alone folks with no stated credentials whatever.

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 4 months ago from Yorktown NY

      But then, here are other scientists...

      http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/23/hu...

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 4 months ago from Yorktown NY

      Doc,

      With reguard to coastal flooding, I feel bad for those who live in these areas but some of the problems are their own doing. It is the love affair of some with the beach and ocean views... there is no good reason for people to build homes so near the water especially when we know there are hurricanes that will devestate these areas every few years. Climate change may exasberate these problems but they are a problem regardless. The solution is for future homes to move in land. If the government would get out of flood insurance business, we would have less issues. IMHO.

    • Doc Snow profile image
      Author

      Doc Snow 4 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      Yes, Jack, every day should be Earth Day. Unfortunately, every day in the US is now "Assault On Earth Day."

      You rightly suggest that people should listen to scientists. The March on Science came about because the Administration does not want to follow your sage advice, and because scientists--a strong core of whom *were* the marchers last Saturday, at least in Columbia, SC, where I participated, decline to be silenced.

      When the Trump administration came in, you commented that 'the science would be audited.' I demurred, predicting instead that science would be eviscerated to whatever degree the budget authorities were allowed to get away with.

      I regard that, unhappily, as a prediction amply fulfilled so far. We have discussed the case of the EPA some, and of course NASA and NOAA are equally in the cross-hairs. None of that is surprising. But I'm pretty amazed that NIH is supposed to be cut by about 18%.

      Finally, let me respond to your sunny comment that, if people listened to scientists 'instead of hype', they would 'feel better.' In a word, I highly doubt it. Most scientists have been saying for a long time that things are much worse than most reports make clear.

      For just one example:

      http://kevinanderson.info/blog/category/quick-comm...

    • Doc Snow profile image
      Author

      Doc Snow 4 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      No, the link is bad for some reason. Here's some related stuff, including the original, if I can find it.

      Related:

      https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/the-nig...

      Original story:

      https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/when-ri...

      And, as I say, I don't think this is the worst threat over decadal time scales, though it is a nightmare for coastal homeowners and realtors, and the communities and even states affected.

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 5 months ago from Yorktown NY

      Doc,

      Is this the article you are linking on earth day march?

      https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/the-march-for-sc...

      My comment is, shouldn't everyday be earth day?

      Why only have one day to pay attention?

      I would prefer people instead of marching, take some time to learn about the science and speak or dialog with scientists...

      Find out what is the reality of the threat and not the hype.

      Perhaps people will feel a bit better about the whole thing.

    • Doc Snow profile image
      Author

      Doc Snow 5 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      Here's the human faces of the sea level rise issue as it affects Americans today:

      https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/#tevt=click_nonnav

      Is there a 'noninsurance' tipping point?

    • Doc Snow profile image
      Author

      Doc Snow 8 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      The ones in pilot projects have worked very well. That's why King County now has the confidence to proceed with wider deployment. And in terms of hybrids versus pure electrics, the latter have an edge over the former, and even over ICE technologies, because the part counts are significantly lower. Of course that's not the only factor at play, but it is a real one.

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 8 months ago from Yorktown NY

      Doc, I hope these buses will work better than the ones NYC got years ago. I remember they got a fleet of hybrid buses and after a few years of use, they were costing more to service and were abandoned. Another failed experiment...on the road to climate change.

    • Doc Snow profile image
      Author

      Doc Snow 8 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      A nice fleet-size electric bus order in the US--a welcome milestone as electric transportation continues to make progress.

      https://cleantechnica.com/2017/01/16/king-county-m...

    • Doc Snow profile image
      Author

      Doc Snow 8 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      Thank you, we have been having one, and wish you the same!

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 8 months ago from Yorktown NY

      Doc, just want to wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

    • Doc Snow profile image
      Author

      Doc Snow 9 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      …And another wind power milestone, this one from the heartland of the good 'ol USA:

      https://cleantechnica.com/2016/12/21/wind-energy-b...

    • Doc Snow profile image
      Author

      Doc Snow 9 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      A really interesting video on sea level rise in Maryland. I think you may enjoy it; there's a wide-ranging discussion of the natural and human-induced effects driving SLR there. IMO, this is the sort of effort we should see in more jurisdictions. What's the good of having science if you don't use it?

      https://youtu.be/RCc3C89qxOM

    • Doc Snow profile image
      Author

      Doc Snow 9 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      Jack, it remains to be seen how long the Powerwall will last in practice, since it is still a new product, but Tesla warranties it for 10 years.

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 9 months ago from Yorktown NY

      doc, I have no poblem with renewable energy as long as it is unsubsidized by tax payers. When the cost come down enough to be competitive, I will buy into it. For ceretain applications and regions, solar and wind is perfectly fine. It is not going to be effective for all energy replacements. That is why I predict fossil fuel will be around a very long time.

    • Doc Snow profile image
      Author

      Doc Snow 9 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      And globally, renewable energy continues to push down costs, increase deployments, and generally become more competitive with conventional generation. A nuanced report:

      https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-...

      https://www.lazard.com/media/438037/lazard-lcoe-10...

      Bloomberg's take on the Lazard report:

      https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-17...

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 9 months ago from Yorktown NY

      Very interesting. According to the announcement, it cost $3800 for the homeowner to buy these battery units. Do you think this is economically viable? How often will they need to be replaced? In my car, a battery only last 5 years or so...

    • Doc Snow profile image
      Author

      Doc Snow 9 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      South Australia is taking a step forward into distributed, responsive energy storage--well, two, actually:

      https://cleantechnica.com/2016/12/17/worlds-larges...

    • Doc Snow profile image
      Author

      Doc Snow 9 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      Yes, time scale is vitally important.

      "Why are they not focusing on this?"

      There's been a lot of focus on this, IMO. Each and every IPCC Assessment Report, for example, projects impacts over defined time scales, as best as can be done. It's particularly critical with biological impacts, where it's virtually a cliche that the observed speed of warming is very challenging for organisms and ecosystems to adapt to.

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 9 months ago from Yorktown NY

      So the argument is really with the time scale... If scientists can determine how fast or slow ice melts on a global scale, then we will have a better handle of how best to mitigate it. For example, if it is decades, we may need to act with urgency, if it is on the order of 100 years, we have time to relocated or better technology...if however, it is on the order of 1000 years, then my inclination is that there is little we can do that will make any dent. Don't you agree on this point? A lot can happen in 1000 years...just look back 1000 years in 1916 what have we done...

      The number one issue for climate scientists right now should be to determine the rate of change or in math term, the slope. If it is steep like Al Gore belief in his documentary, then we are screwed. If it is a slow incline, it is not a big deal.

      Why are they not focusing on this? I'll let you figure that out. $$$$

    • Doc Snow profile image
      Author

      Doc Snow 9 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      Interesting, and a new result which "contrasts sharply with the prevailing one." So you can't take it as the last word.

      But it doesn't matter; for practical purposes it doesn't contradict my point in the slightest. You can form lots of new topsoil over say, ten thousand years. But that is of no practical help to farmers in the interim.

      In the long run, the planet will be just fine, even if we do our worst. Biodiversity will eventually regenerate, just as it did after past extinctions. (Though 'eventually' sometimes meant as much as a couple of million years. But humans may not be, and that goes double (or more) for our cultural heritage.

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 9 months ago from Yorktown NY

      Doc, you realize why they named Greenland. It used to be green and fertile.

      In the past, when the earth was warmer...

      "Scientists who probed 2 km (1.2 mi) through a Greenland glacier to recover the oldest plant DNA on record said that the planet was far warmer hundreds of thousands of years ago than is generally believed. DNA of trees, plants, and insects including butterflies and spiders from beneath the southern Greenland glacier was estimated to date to 450,000 to 900,000 years ago, according to the remnants retrieved from this long-vanished boreal forest. That view contrasts sharply with the prevailing one that a lush forest of this kind could not have existed in Greenland any later than 2.4 million years ago. These DNA samples suggest that the temperature probably reached 10 °C (50 °F) in the summer and −17 °C (1.4 °F) in the winter. They also indicate that during the last interglacial period, 130,000–116,000 years ago, when local temperatures were on average 5 °C (9 °F) higher than now, the glaciers on Greenland did not completely melt away."

    • Doc Snow profile image
      Author

      Doc Snow 9 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      Why don't you research whether they hold up? That will be much more convincing than if I just feed you my POV.

      Short version, though: some have some validity, some are pretty much bogus--notably the idea that there will be more land available for agriculture. (The growing season in poleward areas isn't the biggest bar to agriculture; the lack of arable soil due to glaciation is a much more serious constraint.)

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 9 months ago from Yorktown NY

    • Doc Snow profile image
      Author

      Doc Snow 9 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      No, feel free. I may do something on my side with this, too, but we'll see.

      "The climate change and global warming has always been one sided. They fail to mention some people around the world will actually benefit from a warming climate especially those in the colder regions."

      I'd disagree. Right through to Callendar (1938), it was completely assumed that warming would, if anything, be good. And since the dangers began to be recognized, there has been recognition that there would be benefits for some, especially in the early stages of things. I'm really busy right now, or I'd quote you some IPCC on that, but look for yourself if you like.

      "There will be a shift in agriculture as it has been in the distant past as it will in the future."

      All I can say there is, "shift" doesn't begin to cover it!

      Hope you enjoy the holidays.

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 9 months ago from Yorktown NY

      Doc, that is good. I hope you wouldn't mind if I add your predictions to my hub just for contrast.

      The climate change and global warming has always been one sided. They fail to mention some people around the world will actually benefit from a warming climate especially those in the colder regions. There will be a shift in agriculture as it has been in the distant past as it will in the future. That is the nature of climate...

    • Doc Snow profile image
      Author

      Doc Snow 9 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      I didn't say you were desperate, Jack; I said those are who have seized on a fairly normal US cold snap--one not even qualifying, from what I've seen so far, as 'extreme'--after ignoring much more remarkable immediate weather history seem pretty desperate to try to make a case that is really not viable.

      On the 'immediate history,' by the way, I've been looking at the wildfire outbreak here in the Southeast; I may do a Hub about it. A lot of people have remarked on how unusual it is: the air quality impacts in Atlanta, which I experienced directly, the acreage burnt and money spent in a normally pretty wet part of the country, and above all the terrible losses in Gatlinburg. As usual in the real world, a lot of factors came into play, but this is definitely one of them--the warmest US autumn on record:

      http://www.noaa.gov/news/us-had-its-warmest-autumn...

      "The people desperate are the climate alarmist and the people in government agencies such as the EPA and Nasa and NOAA."

      Yes, probably. They should be; the President-elect's nominations and appointments signal that he will be putting the foxes, the shills and tools of fossil fuel interests, in charge of policy. And of course there will be massive budget cuts, because the Republican party collectively wants to shove all of our heads deep into the sand on this issue. They don't want to know, and they don't want the country to know.

      And yes, I am desperate on this. It's reckless endangerment, pure and simple. You and I will probably escape through natural deaths before things get really, really, bad, but this election has been a horrible disaster for our children, grandchildren and generations to come. Just when there was some hope of adequate climate action, a minority of US voters brought in a climate denialist's dream.

      You may call us 'alarmists.' But we have reason for our alarm, good reason. And, since you've been making predictions for the next ten years, let me make a few.

      --There will be very serious political instability during the Trump administration. Far from uniting the country, as he promised, Mr. Trump will exacerbate American divisions.

      --America will be more isolated and less respected on the world stage. China will increasingly be seen as the global leader. (This may not apply to the whole ten year period.)

      --The next ten years will be comfortably--and I use that term with double meaning and deliberate irony--warmer than the previous ten.

      --In three years, we'll be able to say definitively that the 10s were 'comfortably warmer' than the 00s, despite solar cycles or putative 'slowdowns' in warming.

      --The next ten years will also see at least one new low record minimum for Arctic sea ice, quite likely before 2020.

      --Extreme precipitation events and flash flooding will continue the observed increase.

      --Climate refugee numbers will continue to increase, though often the proximate cause will be, as in the Syrian case, war or political instability.

      --Global costs of climate-related disaster will continue to climb.

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 9 months ago from Yorktown NY

      I am just pointing out the obvious. People seems to have a short memory. We've always had extreme weather one way or another. The problem with exaggerating your case is that when it doesn't happen as projected, you loose your audience and your credibility.

      I am not desperate in any shape or form. The people desperate are the climate alarmist and the people in government agencies such as the EPA and Nasa and NOAA. The election of Trump have driven them over the wall. They can't comprehend how a climate skeptic could be elected President. Perhaps, it is because of President Obama, who claimed climate change is the biggest threat...

    • Doc Snow profile image
      Author

      Doc Snow 9 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      "Unlike Al Gore, who is not a scientist, but claims with certainty that the debate of global warming is settled…"

      Different levels of discourse. Detailed, quantitative studies of something very granular subjects (biomass burning) are one thing. The 'big picture' conceptual frame (observed warming trend is due to human actions) is quite another.

      The latter may sound harder to figure out, when you phrase it like that, but the 'big picture' on climate change now is formed by intersecting lines of evidence from many different disciplines. Consequently, overturning it wholesale would require revolutions in many or even most of them. While possible in principle, that's highly unlikely in reality. It's in that perspective that the 'science is settled' meme needs to be understood.

      Well, that and the fact that Mr. Gore is trying to bring about social change within the political process. Hence he must use messaging styles appropriate to that milieu, not scientific language appropriate to scientific journals (or even press releases.)

      "We've had extreme weather since the 1960s, growing up in NYC. Both hot and cold…"

      Of course, and we'll continue to do so. But it's rather telling that the current rather unexceptional cold snap is being talked up by contrarians who completely ignored the last 3 years, or downplayed them. Almost as if they were feeling a little desperate...

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 9 months ago from Yorktown NY

      Intersting, I will look into it. Another piece I learned at this talk is - uncertainty. She has stated from the outset that the effects from biomass burning are long reaching and they are still in the very early stages. The uncertainty is part of it. It is refreshing to hear one scintist who shows some humility. Unlike Al Gore, who is not a scientist, but claims with certainty that the debate of global warming is settled...

      While we are discissing this, it is ironic that the whole country is experiencing a deep freeze at the moment due to polar vortex...whatever that is... To me, it is just weather which has been happening for as long as I can remember. We've had extreme weather since the 1960s, growing up in NYC. Both hot and cold...

    • Doc Snow profile image
      Author

      Doc Snow 9 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      "It appears Al Gore is making a follow up to his documentary in 2017. It would be interesting to see what new predictions he will make and for what time frame."

      It will also be interesting to see what he has to say about past projections and how they have turned out. CO2 has kept rising, temperature has kept rising, and, according to the reinsurance industry, weather-related disaster costs have kept rising. The Arctic sea ice has certainly kept shrinking--shockingly so, in fact--as have glaciers on a world-wide scale (though yes, there are a minority that are growing, generally due to increased local precipitation.) And speaking of precipitation, there's been an observed trend of increased extremes, particularly in North America, where the early data is the best, allowing for sufficiently long records to be able to detect trends. Shouldn't forget those long-predicted regional droughts in the American Southwest and the Middle East. I could go on, but fear to become tedious.

      "I attended another talk yesterday at Lamont. The speaker was focusing on the impact on air quality and climate of burning of biomass around the globe."

      I envy you the opportunity to do that. It's great that you take advantage.

      "What caught my attention is that CO2 gas is NOT classified as a pollutant…"

      By whom? It certainly is by current US law, and meets many dictionary definitions. I'm not disputing that whether someone so classed it for their particular purpose, but I would question the apparent assumption here that their choice is somehow definitive.

      BLOCKQUOTE:

      Pollutant: A substance or condition that contaminates air, water, or soil. Pollutants can be artificial substances, such as pesticides and PCBs, or naturally occurring substances, such as oil or carbon dioxide, that occur in harmful concentrations in a given environment. Heat transmitted to natural waterways through warm-water discharge from power plants and uncontained radioactivity from nuclear wastes are also considered pollutants.

      The American Heritage® Science Dictionary

      Copyright © 2002. Published by Houghton Mifflin. All rights reserved.

      (END BLOCKQUOTE)

      I'd also note that nitrogen, which is no more toxic than CO2--I say that without checking at which exact levels and conditions each can kill you, as in both cases the conditions are blessedly unusual--and which makes up nearly 80% of the atmosphere by mass, can be a pollutant when it over-fertilizes certain ecosystems, particularly bodies of water. It, too, is regulated as such in many countries.

      "...and the fact that despite the health hazzards of burning biomass, one effect on climate is that it contributes to some cooling of ambient temperatures."

      Yes, aerosols are a pretty big deal in climate studies, and not just ones from biomass burning--fossil fuel burning creates them, too. And the effects can be opposite--sulfuric acid aerosols are well-accepted as having been a principal cause of the 1960s cooling which kicked off the media 'cooling flap' some folks like to cite as evidence of scientific changeability, but 'black carbon' can and does warm, notably when deposited on snow or ice and exposed to the sun. (I expect you heard something about that in the talk?) It depends upon the size and composition of the emitted particles, I gather.

      You may be interested in the what AR5 has to say about clouds and aerosols in Chapter 7 of the Working Group I Report. (WG 1 is the primary report, with WGs 2 & 3 reporting on impacts and potential adaptive and mitigative responses, respectively.) As you will see if you pursue the link, there are still a lot of, as you put it in an earlier comment, 'tough questions' being asked and answered in the research with regard to clouds and aerosols--bluntly, there's still a lot of uncertainty, still a lot of scientific work to do, though progress has been and continues to be made.

      https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/...

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 9 months ago from Yorktown NY

      It appears Al Gore is making a follow up to his documentary in 2017. It would be interesting to see what new predictions he will make and for what time frame.

      I attended another talk yesterday at Lamont. The speaker was focusing on the impact on air quality and climate of burning of biomass around the globe. What caught my attention is that CO2 gas is NOT classified as a pollutant and the fact that despite the health hazzards of burning biomass, one effect on climate is that it contributes to some cooling of ambient temperatures.

    • Doc Snow profile image
      Author

      Doc Snow 9 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      Yes, I understand the Electoral College, but when a candidate loses the popular vote, he didn't win "by a landslide".

      WRT your next paragraph, I would say, "No, " "No, per the NAS," and "Educated, not indoctrinated." (And CC *is* the most serious threat facing us, so that educative effort is a damn good thing.)

      As to the investments in carbon credits, I'd be very interested to see an unbiased and scholarly look at their effects if any. It's often imagined by some that they 'must' be a scam, but it would, I think, be interesting to see just what projets were in fact carried out, and what the net effect was calculated to be.

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 9 months ago from Yorktown NY

      Doc, I don't want to digress but winning the popular vote is not how our election works. Do you know the reason for the electoral college? It was setup specifically to avoid popularism taking over our country. Please look it up and see the genius of this.

      With regard to Gore, he has exagerated the threat of climate change. His documentary "an inconvenient truth" has been discredited on many occasions. He has been responsible for the mass indictrination of a generation of students who believes that climate change is the biggest threat to our world.

      His carbon credits to fight climate change is a scam. It has made him lot of money but has done little to affect climate change.

    • Doc Snow profile image
      Author

      Doc Snow 9 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      "Experts predicted peak oil and prices skyrocketing... Oil is at $49 per bbl."

      As you say, which experts?

      "Consensus is Hillary will win the 2016 election. She lost by landslide..."

      In what world is that true? She won the popular vote by about 2%, or 2.6 million votes--which is pretty close to the poll average just prior to the vote:

      https://www.google.com/amp/www.ibtimes.com/latest-...

      "He needs to apologize for his transgressions, instead he seems to be doubling down."

      What 'transgressions?' AIT has been shown to be largely accurate. Mr. Gore's statements are generally thoughtful and well-researched.

      That's in stark contrast to the views of the President-elect and his EPA head, who is owned by the fossil-fuel lobby, heart, soul and gonads.

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 9 months ago from Yorktown NY

      Doc, I have a problem when the two words are put together - experts and consensus. What experts? and what consensus?

      Experts predicted peak oil and prices skyrocketing... Oil is at $49 per bbl.

      Consensus is Hillary will win the 2016 election. She lost by landslide...

      Climate change is complicated. We need to address it carefully and deliberately and responsibly. Creating panic and scaring people will not work in the long run. Al Gore should learn a lesson by now. He needs to apologize for his transgressions, instead he seems to be doubling down.

    • Doc Snow profile image
      Author

      Doc Snow 9 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      An interesting survey, looking at economist's views on climate change. A plurality (42%) thinks economic damage is already being done, a majority thinks it will be by 2025, and nearly everybody (89%) think it will by mid-century. 56% think 'drastic action' is warranted.

      http://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/Expe...

    • Doc Snow profile image
      Author

      Doc Snow 10 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      Thanks for your responses, Jack. For some reason I didn't see a notification on them, so I apologize for a slow response.

      I won't comment on everything you said, as my responses already tend to be too long! However, I will respond to this paragraph:

      "The establishment already made up their minds about this a long time ago. All studies since have been placed on the emphasis of validating that theory rather than looking in all areas for answers. Thus, they missed some other explanation and moreover, rejects any disenting opinion and prevent them from publishing. The peer reviews are a joke. Thus, it has become a club of like minded people and consenses rather than true science."

      That's an accusation that you hear frequently enough from the contrarian side. However, there's certainly countervailing evidence to set against that accusation. I can think of at least 3 big instances off the top of my head, and there are probably many more less-prominent examples.

      1) The 'hurricane' debate--there was much back-and-forth about hurricane trends, with some like Kerry Emmanuel seeing more dramatic increases in frequency and strength in the data he studied, and others, like Chris Landsea saying, "Not so fast! What about global trends?" It got a bit nasty there for a while, as I recall at least, but things settled out in the middle, with Dr. Emmanuel's North Atlantic trends looking solid, but considered regional and not necessarily global in import, and the projection agreed that in the future we will probably see less frequent but more intense hurricanes as the century progresses.

      2) The drought controversy: in AR4, there was a projection of global increases in drought. But newer work focussed on the conflicting definitions and metrics used to define drought (for instance, it is differently defined in the contexts of meteorology, agriculture and hydrology). The result was that AR5 walked the conclusions back a bit, calling the relevant points in AR4 'probably overstated'.

      3) The current kerfuffle over the existence or not of a 'pause' in warming. IMO, it's mostly a question of definition, and a lot of the debate is fairly futile because its terms aren't consistently defined between the debaters. But it certainly shows that there isn't a 'team playbook', as some allege.

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 10 months ago from Yorktown NY

      Doc, by the way, there is one more analogy to this election I should point out. It is directly related to how we got started on this debate. The results...

      If the results of the last 8 years of progressive policies had worked, the election of Hillary would have been a landslide. Don't you agree? She ran on being the third term of Obama...

      The actual results have been stagnant economy, high youth unemployment, record food stamp recipients, and record national debt and ISIS...

      The same goes with climate change. If the actual climate have been what they predicted, I would have no debate. Why there are still skeptics like me? You have to deal with that and ask your scientific community what went wrong? Introspection is good after an election loss of this magnitude, and the same should go with climate scientists.

      The big difference is a failed election is only temporary of 4 years. A failed climate change policy can cause damage for generations and affect millions of people around the world.

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 10 months ago from Yorktown NY

      Doc, I hear you and I'll take your advice going forward. From my perspective, I have lost faith in our scientific community. They have lost me in their blind pursuit of this agenda. It is hard for one person to chase down real data and reach un-tainted pre-conclusion.

      I will use the present election process as an analogy.

      The news media and political pundits and pollsters for the most part believed that Hillary was going to be elected the next President of the US. As it turned out, they were wrong. Why you asked? The after analysis showed that these people who should know better did not look at a large segment of th population (middle america). They were living in their bubble of elite thinking. They knew better...and look down on the will of the people. The common sense things that most people hold dear, patriotism, individual freedom, security, sovereignty, free enterprise and fair play...

      The analogy if you will, between this and the science of climate change is this. The establishment already made up their minds about this a long time ago. All studies since have been placed on the emphasis of validating that theory rather than looking in all areas for answers. Thus, they missed some other explanation and moreover, rejects any disenting opinion and prevent them from publishing. The peer reviews are a joke. Thus, it has become a club of like minded people and consenses rather than true science.

      You are right, I have not been forth coming with counter actions to your detailed studies.

      It is not up to me to challenge them. No more that I to challenge the pollsters that Hillary is ahead of Trump...After all, they did the work. The problem is how they conducted the polls that are suspect. We all know public opinion can be skewed.

      I just hope the people doing the work knows what they are doing and not be swayed by the current mind set and the pursuit of public funding.

      In my many attendences of talks, I find it disturbing when these scientists fail to ask the basic question of even their own data results. It's almost like they have a blind spot. Anyway, it is just one lone voice in the wilderness.

    • Doc Snow profile image
      Author

      Doc Snow 10 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      "Every item needed to create a Mars station will have some carbon foot print."

      Not if we have created a sustainable energy economy. However large the putative Martian effort, it will by basic logic be a relatively small subset of the world economy, which the objective is to decarbonize.

      "I guess we will have to disagree on the size of the Earth and the time scale needed to make the drastic changes we are discussing here."

      Well, I can't force you to think this or that. However, I would point out that at the outset of this process you made a commitment:

      "I will make a pledge to you.

      You ask me what it would take to be convinced.

      If the items in the forecast for 2015 and 2020 comes true as they projected, I will be convinced."

      Prior to that, you had stated:

      "...the one evidence I need is for the various climate models to agree with reality. There projections has consistently over estimated the temperature rise."

      I've shown that many of the projections have "come true" in whole or in part, and that yes, temperature observations are in very reasonable agreement with model predictions. (Of course, this installment of comments between us was sparked by an update displaying such an agreement.) And you haven't addressed any of the substantive points I just made at all. At what point does refusal to consider the evidence become a violation of your promise to me?

      "I prefer to think if climate change is going to be an impact, we have the time and the resources to deal with it. No need to scare kids into thinking the world will end."

      It's not about scaring the kids, or even us. It's about looking at reality honestly, and making choices that are best for us and especially for them. The world won't end; paleoclimate studies show that even the most deadly episodes of warming did not end life, though they impoverished it for millions of years:

      http://phys.org/news/2015-09-siberian-culprit-end-...

      But, please, please, please note that the laws of physics, meteorology and biology don't give a tinker's damn about what you, or I, "prefer to think." I'd "prefer to think" that we have nothing to worry about, too. But that is not what an honest look at our situation shows.

      I will not disengage from this process. I like you on a personal basis, and think that the ongoing conversation has merit. But I must confess to real disappointment with the tenor of your responses of late. More and more, they have tended to the 'agree to disagree' line you adopted above. Certainly in this life, we must all do just that from time to time. But if that's all there ever is, then there is no real engagement, no real responsibility to the truth, no accountability and no real learning. No real relationship, either.

      I hope you will consider this earnestly and in the spirit that I write it. It's not just an intellectual game. It's a matter of survival, as I think I've demonstrated time and again. You say you disagree--but 'prefer to think' is not an argument, nor evidence toward one.

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 10 months ago from Yorktown NY

      Doc, I create a hub recently. You might find it nostalgic.

      https://hubpages.com/technology/Transient-Technolo...

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 10 months ago from Yorktown NY

      Colonizing Mars will take tremendous efforts and resources. I was not referring only to the rocket fuel... Every item needed to create a Mars station will have some carbon foot print. Keeping the international space staion online requires tremendous efforts...

      Think about all the items, food, oxygen, water... all needs fossil fuel at some time to create and prep and ship and that's only to orbit. Imagine the efforts to send to Mars with supplies for perhaps years...

      I am not against these efforts but I am just pointing out the choices some people are willing to make.

      I guess we will have to disagree on the size of the Earth and the time scale needed to make the drastic changes we are discussing here. 100 years can be a blip in cosmic time or it can be a long time for humans to plan and adapt. I prefer to think if climate change is going to be an impact, we have the time and the resources to deal with it. No need to scare kids into thinking the world will end.

    • Doc Snow profile image
      Author

      Doc Snow 10 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      Terraforming Mars, if it ever happens, won't be done with fossil fuel, it'll be done with solar power. ('Cause there is no fossil fuel on Mars, but there is solar power.) As to rocket fuel, it need not be carbon-based; several current systems use LOX and hydrogen:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_propellant#Cu...

      "I am talking about the physics of very large masses. Even if you could generate a large amount of heat, it will take centuries to melt all the ice in Antarctica. "

      Again, that's irrelevant. The greenhouse effect doesn't work by 'generating heat'; it works by slowing cooling, thus allowing the VERY large amount of heat continuously produced by solar radiation to exceed that cooling rate.

      And it's ludicrous to make the final melting of all Antarctic ice your milestone; yes, that will take centuries, but in the meantime (presuming that is the kind of temperature trajectory we realize) agriculture will have been made very much less productive and consistent; some areas of the planet will be periodically too hot for humans to survive outside for periods of a few hours or more; sea level rise will have obliterated all our coastal cities; the seas will have become significantly more acidic, adding a further deadly challenge to the human impacts of over-fishing, toxic and plastic pollution, and warming; ecosystems will have been disrupted on a global scale, inducing a crippling cascade of species extinctions; and millions of humans will be displaced, with the entirely predictable consequence of military conflict. (Cf., Syria today; that conflict was kicked off in part by just the sort of drought long predicted for the Middle East by climate modeling.)

      http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/a-major-c...

      These are effects that do not take centuries; at the rate of warming we see now, some take just decades. And we're already decades into the process--which is why the 'score' of predictions to date was as high as it was in this Hub.

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 10 months ago from Yorktown NY

      I was hinting at Neil deGrasse Tyson and his support for terra farming of Mars as a long term mitigation of climate change on Earth. The effort and resources needed to pull that off will require a large amount of fossil fuel. However it happened, we were give these rich resources of energy to be used for our progress and development. Would you deny them to people in the third world? Who need them to survive?

      Where does one draw the line. Ok to use fossil fuel to expand our interstellar expansion, not ok to burn coal to heat homes and generate cheap electricity...

      In macro economics, you need to weight these competing goals and see what makes the most sense. Your analogy of virus does not fit the discussion when it comes to our Earth. I am talking about the physics of very large masses. Even if you could generate a large amount of heat, it will take centuries to melt all the ice in Antarctica. That is one example. I can cite many. The reason it takes 100 thousand years for glaciers to form and dissipate is the same principle. It is like moving the titanic... it cannot turn on a dime.

    • Doc Snow profile image
      Author

      Doc Snow 10 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      "I say scientists are conflicted because they want to stop human contribution to global warming, and yet are perfectly fine with allowing the earth to enter ice ages as a normal cycle."

      Jack, are you not aware of the characteristic time scales involved? In the case of climate change, we are going to be suffering serious damage by mid-century, and if we don't get our act together and mitigate emissions in just a few short years, we'll be on the road to something altogether too much like hell on earth for anyone's comfort. In the case of natural glacial cycles, glacial onset can take tens of thousands of years--lots of time for us to take action, after just the sort of deliberative process you advocate in the case of anthropogenic warming.

      In short, scientists are worried about global warming because it is an immediate threat, and not worried about the next glaciation because it isn't.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacial_period#Quate...

      "I come back to my main argument of scale. The earth is huge. We are tiny in comparison. It was estimated by scientists a while back that all man made creations can be fitted into a cube of 300 miles on each side. Compare that to the size of the earth."

      I don't mean to be snarky, but that isn't even an argument. Granted that "all man made creations" are much less massive than the earth, so what? A fatal botulism attack produces toxins far less massive than your body, too. Ditto the venom of any number of snakes, plutonium, or even an air bubble in your bloodstream. Relative mass is totally meaningless.

      "...what if our use of fossil fuel is part of the "grand design""

      What if the "grand design" calls for us to consciously decide when we've burnt enough of it?

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 10 months ago from Yorktown NY

      Doc, what if our use of fossil fuel is part of the "grand design"... who is to say it was our destiny to harness the earth's natural resources to improve our circumstance and bridge to the next frontier? If you look at history on a grand scale, at every point of planetary evolution, things happened that lead us to this point. The dying of the dinasaurs... the rise of mammals, the invention of electricity and nuclear power...

      I come back to my main argument of scale. The earth is huge. We are tiny in comparison. It was estimated by scientists a while back that all man made creations can be fitted into a cube of 300 miles on each side. Compare that to the size of the earth.

      I say scientists are conflicted because they want to stop human contribution to global warming, and yet are perfectly fine with allowing the earth to enter ice ages as a normal cycle. The damage to humanity would be many magnitudes if the next ice age comes and we are unprepared to deal with them. The question is still what is the scale? Both in term of magnitude and time frame. What if, in the future, we are able to construct a global bubble and create an artificial environment where we have absolute control over temperature and conditions? Is it even a plausible viability? Interesting exercise in thinking out of the box...

    • Doc Snow profile image
      Author

      Doc Snow 10 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      "On one hand, they claim we are changing our envionmemt in a big way with climate change. On the other, they say the earth has a natural cycle of warming and ice ages."

      There's nothing contradictory about these ideas. And in fact, both are true, according to the best information science has to offer.

      Let's consider a medical analogy. There is a daily cycle in human body temperature:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_body_temperatu...

      However, that does not mean that various interventions cannot affect temperature:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_body_temperatu...

      The article doesn't mention it, but some medications and recreational drugs can and do affect body temperature, even to the point of inducing death:

      https://www.promises.com/articles/abused-drugs/sti...

      Similarly, the Earth can and does experience glacial cycling while still being affected by artificially increased CO2 levels. (And in fact, CO2 greenhouse warming/cooling is believed to be a necessary component of the glacial cycling over the Quarternary.)

      "It is arrogance that man thinks he has control over his destiny when in reality, we are just here in an instance by the grace of God."

      That's a strawman argument, because to say that 'man has control over his destiny' is not at all an equivalent statement to 'man can create serious adverse effects in the global environment.' I don't believe the first statement, but the second is at present a matter of record. It can't be rationally disputed:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_impact_on_the_...

      Climate change is a salient example, but very far from the only one.

      I'd only add that, far from those who point out human impacts on the environment being guilty of 'arrogance', those who deny them are guilty of pernicious false humility--and (pretty much by definition) irresponsibility.

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 10 months ago from Yorktown NY

      Doc, thanks for the reference. I will check it out.

      I have noticed a strange dichotomy in the scientific community. On one hand, they claim we are changing our envionmemt in a big way with climate change. On the other, they say the earth has a natural cycle of warming and ice ages...

      In recent times, they are proposing terra farming of Mars... to make it hospitable to life.

      So what is it that they really belief? Should man do nothing to our earth and allow the natural cycles to take place? Or should we be proactive and change our environent and habitat for the better? Including colonizing other planets?

      It is a philosophic question? What is the role of man when it comes to our global environment?

      Here is where I come down. I believe we can't affect things in a global way for the time being. And perhaps never. I am talking about the really big changes such as continental drift and super volcanos and giant asteriods...and yes even global warming. It is arrogance that man thinks he has control over his destiny when in reality, we are just here in an instance by the grace of God.

    • Doc Snow profile image
      Author

      Doc Snow 10 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      Jack, I thought you would be interested in this article because you have an ongoing interest in natural variability, and particularly the solar cycle. It also goes into a prominent instance of a (failed) prediction based on solar trends.

      http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016...

      Also note the last graph: it goes directly to the question at the beginning of this article.

    • Doc Snow profile image
      Author

      Doc Snow 11 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      Looking at the recent 'supermoon' one night, it occurred it me that that meant a King Tide. How would seaboard cities, especially the Miami area, fare? This kind of sums it up, I think:

      http://www.citylab.com/weather/2016/10/sea-level-r...

    • Doc Snow profile image
      Author

      Doc Snow 11 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      "What makes man think that we can affect it one way or another to the great extent of overiding the natiral cycle."

      Well, the fact that we *should* be in a 'cooling' part of the cycle--and were, until the Industrial Revolution kicked in--but instead are experiencing highly unusual rates of warming, for one.

      And for two, the fact that this was predicted by well-understood physical theory.

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 11 months ago from Yorktown NY

      Doc,

      You are making my point. Natural effects of climate change is there ever present. It has caused vast variations of our climate in the past and will in the future. What makes man think that we can affect it one way or another to the great extent of overiding the natiral cycle. If we have a better understanding of the total combined effects of all factors, perhaps we can deal with the specifics of target adjustments and mitigation by adapting as our ancestors have done.

    • Doc Snow profile image
      Author

      Doc Snow 11 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      Thanks for the brief report, Jack.

      But I think that your comment that "they miss the bigger question that they should be answering…" is itself a miss, for a couple of reasons. One is that the science is necessarily pretty granular. One needs to focus in pretty closely to even get a project like this one done at all given the volume of work to be done, and one also needs that close focus to be able to master all the knowledge that you need to even have the appropriate context for such a study. Second, it's through *many* such research projects that people will be able to get at 'the big picture.'

      On another facet, if you are thinking that the danger we face is that of a 'runaway greenhouse effect', then you are mistaking what the science has been saying. There is virtually no danger of a 'runaway':

      "On the Earth, the IPCC states that "a 'runaway greenhouse effect'—analogous to [that of] Venus—appears to have virtually no chance of being induced by anthropogenic activities.""

      That is because:

      "Positive feedbacks do not have to lead to a runaway effect, as the gain is not always sufficient. A strong negative feedback always exists (radiation from a planet increases in proportion to the fourth power of temperature, in accordance with the Stefan-Boltzmann law) so the positive feedback effect has to be very strong to cause a runaway effect (see gain). An increase in temperature from greenhouse gases leading to increased water vapor (which is itself a greenhouse gas) causing further warming is a positive feedback, but not a runaway effect, on Earth. Positive feedback effects are common (e.g. ice-albedo feedback) but runaway effects do not necessarily emerge from their presence."

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_greenhouse_e...

      So, the fact that there wasn't a runaway greenhouse then is no surprise.

      However, the fact that greenhouse gas burdens will decline again, eventually, does not mean that we have nothing to worry about. In past (natural) warming events, we can see massive extinctions in the fossil record, including long-lived biological impoverishment. That is why many folks say that avoiding the worst climate change isn't about 'saving the planet', because the planet (including the biosphere writ large) will ultimately be just fine.

      However, human society is much, much more vulnerable.

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 11 months ago from Yorktown NY

      Doc, It was a very interesting talk. I made a request for his slides. If I get it, I will send it to you.

      To summarize, his study was on a specific period of 100000 years about 23 million years ago. From the fossil records taken from a specific spot in New Zealand. His focus was to study the correlation between increased CO2 activity as it relates to ice accumulation in glaciers. By studying the leaves of the deposits, he could determine the CO2 levels over that period. The surprise finding is that CO2 went from 450ppm to 1150ppm and then fell back to 510ppm over that 100000 years. This seems odd in the long history of our planet... When I asked if he had any insight as to what caused the sudden increase and later the fall of co2 concentration, he did not seem to know but attributed it to changes in the ocean...but agreed it was a natural event. I was amazed at the fact that this took place millions of years ago due to natural causes and yet we did not have a runaway greenhouse effect. Anyway, it goes to confirm my theory that these climate scientists gets funded to study these very minutia details and try to demonstrate a correlation with what is going on today. Yet, they miss the bigger question that they should be answering...

    • Doc Snow profile image
      Author

      Doc Snow 11 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      "I would ask you to go back 100 years and look at our historical records. The extreme weather we experience today is no more or less than what happened all through history."

      In some cases--such as tornados--that is true, or probably so. In others--such as extreme precipitation and heatwave frequency and intensity--it is clearly not. And in a third group of instances--hurricanes come to mind here--the information we have is inconclusive.

      Enjoy the talk. I hope it's illuminating.

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 11 months ago from Yorktown NY

      Doc, I am going to attend a talk at the Lamont Dougherty Observatory this afternnon. Here is the speaker and topic.

      http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/u...

      I'll let you know how it goes. It should be interesting to hear from a climate scientist.

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 11 months ago from Yorktown NY

      Thanks for the long response. It will take me some time to digest. With regard to extreme weather, I would ask you to go back 100 years and look at our historical records. The extreme weather we experience today is no more or less than what happened all through history. We are just better at predicting and reporting on them...