Dear Friends: Time For Climate Action

What do you think? Do you agree or disagree? And what do you think should be done today? Do you have an organization that you feel is helpful in addressing the climate crisis?

Thanks for commenting. I'm in agreement with a lot of of your criticisms.

That said, I personally would like to see more fact, less use of name-calling which may make us feel good but doesn't illuminate, and less use of caps. I know it's meant to emphasize, but it makes me as a reader skip over the very points you want to most stress. Just a suggestion...

Alternative, I would not dream of censoring you (and as far as I know, you are free to repost your own comment regardless of what I do.) Just offering some feedback.

Jack, you appear to me to be completely out of touch on this issue. The "American people" have consistently said that they are concerned about climate change and would like to see effective action to address it. The election of Mr. Trump isn't a refutation of that, given that he lost the popular vote by a margin of nearly 3 million, and that climate change wasn't a major campaign issue (though IMO it certainly should have been.) Climate change was, however, a significant component in bringing millions to the streets yesterday.

Second, it is not climate change activists who have 'politicized' the issue. The Framework Convention was negotiated under Bush senior (whom I wish a speedy recovery in his current struggle with respiratory illness), and sustained throughout his son's administration. Climate science has been recognized by GOP figures from John Huntsman and Lindsay Graham to Olympia Snow and Bob Inglis. No, the politicization has arisen from vested interests such as ExxonMobil who have chosen to become "merchants of doubt" in defense of their unsustainable business model.

As to the "millions who will suffer," it isn't clean energy that will cause that, it is climate change. Take, for instance, the case of Narendra Modi, a conservative politician who has presided over a major deployment of renewable energy during his two years in office. The result so far has been economic growth in the 7% range (outpacing China) and an 80+% favorability poll. If that's "suffering", then I guess it "hurts so good."

Finally, I must flatly disagree with your last statement: not just just "limiting", but actually *eliminating* net carbon emissions is not only "the answer", it's the *only* answer. That follows from physical fundamentals. We may not like that answer, but our preferences don't drive how reality is structured.

Uh, Jack, what your link says on its face is that 52% of registered voters thought that the environment was "very important" to their vote in 2016. Not sure how you think that that disagrees with what I said.

You might also consider this more recent poll from Pew:

http://www.people-press.org/2017/01/12/the-world-f...

I probably don't need to elaborate on that one.

In general, when the public is polled on climate change, more than 60% say that it's a problem and they want action. That's been true for many years, and continues to be true. For instance, in 2016 Pew broke down climate change concern by party. But note that the very first question shows a plurality of 38% of all registered voters expressing "a great deal" of concern over the issue, and a further 35% expressing "some concern."

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/10/cl...

For a longitudinal view, here is the Gallup view from over the years:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/190010/concern-global-w...

You'll note that the numbers are moving my way, not yours.

Thanks to all for their comments!

Jack: "...climate change did not even make it to the top 10. What does that tell you?"

What does it tell you that it made the top 12? The question asked wasn't whether the respondent was for or against the environment. The question was, how worried were they about climate change. The numbers support what I said in the first place.

Lee: "The world is moving on to an alternative energy future so it's up to us to decide to lead the world or follow China."

Yes, as the world moves on the Paris targets, risks arise for the US, both in economic and diplomatic terms.

Jay: "I think what is important is to act for ourselves and understand that our government is not really within the control of the common man."

You aren't kidding. The government has been completely highjacked on this issue. But it can be reclaimed if we want it badly enough--meaning, want it badly enough to actually work and sacrifice to get there.

Jack (2): "Renewable energy... will be adopted in mass when the cost is competitive with oil, gas and coal...."

And that time is here already in some jurisdictions, and will be arriving soon in many others. Here's a summary on that topic, dealing with the situation in 2015. (Haven't seen an update for 2016 yet, but the cost trends on renewables did continue, both for wind and solar, so the picture will be better for renewables in 2016 than it was in 2015.)

https://about.bnef.com/blog/wind-solar-boost-cost-...

Also worth considering is this report. It's more 'partisan' but also quite up-to-date. And it is based on a reliable 3rd party analysis (Lazard).

https://cleantechnica.com/2016/12/25/cost-of-solar...

"...that last link you provided is totally biased and false."

Based on what? How do you assess that? And which part of the presentation, because there are several pieces to it?

Here is what Lazard is:

https://www.lazard.com/our-firm/

They are a consulting business, and a highly-established and successful one--not an advocacy group.

"[Climate change science has] misled the people on the dangers and have profited."

You've presented exactly zero evidence that that is true. I would argue--and with abundant evidence--that the only forces misleading anyone on climate are the fossil fuel interests behind WUWT, GWPF and similar groups.

"It is time for some accountability..."

Indeed it is. The government has been highjacked. The people's justified concern on climate change (and other issues, but that's not the topic here) needs to be respected.

"...climate change science is about to get a huge "audit"."

I bet nothing of the sort is even attempted by the government. An 'audit' would require looking at the data and methods, and that would end up just confirming results that have already been confirmed over and over again. I dare say many of the politicians involved know or suspect that.

What they may--I would actually say "will probably"--do is to just defund the science altogether. They won't look because they don't want to see, and they are more than ready to make sure that no-one else can look either. Here's the nominee for OMB on a parallel topic:

http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2016/12/21/1...

"Doc, I don't think you realized what happened this election of Trump. There will be no business as usual..."

Jack, that was the whole point of this Hub. The highjacking of the Federal government by fossil fuel interests is a tragedy not only for the US but for the world.

When I told you that I expect the government not to 'audit' climate science, but rather to seek to suppress it as completely as they can, I rather thought that was pretty exceptional--very far from "business as usual."

Jack, I'm flabbergasted.

Of course the Earth is finite, and it is limited in significant ways. That's just physical reality. Insolation, fresh water, forests, key nutrients, and more--all finite.

blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/the-limits-of-the-earth-part-1-problems/

Jack, I tried to respond to your comments a couple of days ago, but apparently that comment didn't go through. Connectivity isn't great in the Sonora desert.

Anyway, Gavin Schmidt at RC has a sensible post on this topic. It hyperlinks many of the many stories and comments on this topic, and is worthwhile for that alone.

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

To keep it brief:

Paris wasn't passed because of Karl et al. Paris was the culmination of a process going on since the 2009 Copenhagen COP. The primary scientific references remain the Assessment Reports. David Rose, who 'broke' this 'story', framed the latest, AR5, as a "blockbuster" because it discussed the so-called 'pause', but completely mischaracterized it.

In AR5, the 'pause' discussion was a short sidebar item. It was made abundantly clear that the long-term prognosis was not significantly affected.

Why did Mr. Rose do this? The only reason I can propose is that by doing so, he can promote the false idea that Naive Liberals have been sold Paris on demonstrably false basis by his imagined cabal of Evil Scientists. In that way, he builds political capital for dismantling of Paris. He's obviously been followed in that by a myriad of Rush wannabees.

In an earlier comment, you suggested that I missed the departure from BAU implied by the election. I think you still fail to recognize it's magnitude. There will be no 'audit' of climate science. But there will be a neutering, gutting, or even complete destruction of it in the US, if the current government is allowed its head.

They don't give a damn about science. They just want to keep those campaign donations flowing, be it Exxon, Shell, or whomever.

Jack, the WUWT 'graphs' piece is overtly propaganda--or, if you want to be kinder, rhetoric.

Graphs 1 & 3 are actually pretty pointless--yes, climate changes without human inputs; climate science started with that realization, back in the late 18th century, even if folks like Mr. White write as though it's a new revelation. And yes, it's possible to construct graphs to minimize the appearance of change. That is usually called "bad practice."

Graph 4 is, IMO, something of an 'own goal.' All other criticisms aside, if the magnitude of change over 140 years is one-third of that experienced over 10,000 years, that demonstrates a high rate of change ocurring. (However, I do have another criticism, which is that the GISP2 core is *not* a "reliable proxy" for NH temperature--it is a *local* record.)

As for the remaining graph, Gavin Schmidt critiques it in much more depth than I ever could:

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

NB--I think this is the same one, but am not completely sure as the RC graphic doesn't display well on my phone. So it may be that it's a different iteration of Christy graphing. Still, the points should still apply. And note the alternate graphs of the same data on p. 5.

Finally, note that focusing on tropical tropospheric trends, as Christy does, is a bit of a cherry pick in that there is good agreement between modeled and observed *surface* temps. It's fine, of course, to point out the weakest point in the simulated record, but less so to 'forget' that that is only part of the picture.

It's been some time since I predicted that the new political Establishment would simply defund climate science, and somewhat less since I identified the attempt to generate a new 'Climategate' moment over the so-called "Pausebuster" paper, Karl et al 2015, as a propaganda salvo preparing that effort.

Here's the payoff:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/white-hous...

Jack, the only 'evidence' that NOAA is 'politicized' is that people like Breitbart say so. And Breitbart is overtly political, and not known for accuracy.

What happened to your "the science will be audited?" This is pure suppression.

And as for the EPA, can you explain how they are supposed to carry out effective enforcement to defend the "clean air and clean water" the President says he wants when the budget is to be cut by 24% and personnel by 20?

Jack, I challenge you to support the suggestion that cutting a quarter of the EPA budget and a fifth of their personnel would leave sufficient resources for enforcement of non-climate pollution rules. What evidence suggests this?

I'd also note that climate pollution IS part of the EPA mandate--not because of some political decision, but because (IRC) there was a formal science-based endangerment finding. That finding was the basis of the court ruling that the EPA not only had jurisdiction to address such pollution, but a duty to do so.

Jack, you are getting farther and farther out there.

With regard to your question about budget, I don't know why you would think that a large budget automatically means an adequate budget, which seems to be the logic you are using. Just because the EPA gets about 8 billion currently doesn't mean that the tasks they are assigned to carry out require a small fraction of that.

I looked at an EPA budget summary document. You can find it here:

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-02...

According to it, goal #1 of 5 agency goals is to mitigate carbon, particulate and toxic emissions affecting air quality. In other words, both the 'climate' and 'non-climate' aspects of air pollution. That goal accounts for less than 14% of the total agency budget. So no, cutting all regulation of carbon pollution (a dangerous and irresponsible step anyway) would not afford 'lots' of budget for other activities that you approve of more.

For the record, the other 4 goals are:

--Protecting America's waters (45%)

--Cleaning up communities and advancing sustainable development (23%, more than half of which is 'superfund' type cleanup)

--Ensuring the safety of chemicals and preventing pollution (percentage not given)

--Law enforcement and compliance (percentage not given)

Re your second comment:

"The chart of projected temperature as the Mann hockey stick is going to be the death of climate change. "

You've said that before, and I've replied before. I don't know whether you saw that response or not; certainly you haven't absorbed it. But please listen:

*There is no such 'chart.'* It simply doesn't exist. Mann, Bradley, and Hughes created the 'hockey stick graph' in 1999; it summarized the results of their study of paleotemperatures as determined by proxy measurements of various types. It showed a dramatic increase in contemporary global mean surface temperature.

BUT IT DID NOT INCLUDE ANY PROJECTED TEMPERATURES.

You can verify that for yourself by looking at the actual paper, here:

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shar...

The 'hockey stick' graph is figure 3, and it is clearly stated that the 'raw data' (ie., temps) are for the period 1902-1998.

Now, perhaps you are going to say that you mean some *other* "chart of of projected temperature" and it doesn't matter that you got the wrong name. Certainly charts of projected temperature do exist--for example, in the various Assessment Reports. But details matter, and if we can't tell what you are talking about, then how can we respond with any precision?

So, if we talk, for argument's sake, about the projections in AR5, we get an upper bound of 5.4 C in 2100 for the worst emission scenario, RCP 8.5. That's in the summary, here:

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

Can you cite one 'real scientist' who has anywhere claimed that that is energetically impossible? I really, really doubt it, because according to reconstructions of deep geologic history, Earth has been much warmer than that several times in the very deep past. (AKA, 'hothouse Earth' episodes.)