When there is agreement as massive as the consensus that human action is the major cause of our warming planet, that is significant.
Reassessing the RCPs Posted on January 28, 2019 by curryja | 34 Comments by Kevin Murphy A response to: “Is RCP8.5 an impossible scenario?”. This post demonstrates that RCP8.5 is so highly improbable that it should be dismissed from consideration, and thereby draws into question the validity of RCP8.5-based assertions such as those made in the Fourth National Climate Assessment from the U.S. Global Change Research Program. Analyses of future climate change since the IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report (AR5) have been based on representative concentration pathways (RCPs) that detail how a range of future climate forcings might evolve. Several years ago, a set of RCPs were requested by the climate modeling research community to span the range of net forcing from 2.6 W/m2 to 8.5 W/m2 (in year 2100 relative to 1750) so that physics within the models could be fully exercised. Four of them were developed and designated as RCP2.6, RCP4.5, RCP6.0 and RCP8.5. They have been used in ongoing research and as the basis for impact analyses and future climate projections. AR5 does not provide probability assignments for any of the RCPs, and yet many impact assessments utilize RCP8.5 to declare consequences of inaction. For example, while RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 are utilized for the Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4), the majority of its assertions are based in RCP8.5. The NCA4 states, “RCP8.5 implies a future with continued high emissions growth, whereas the other RCPs represent different pathways of mitigating emissions.” (Executive Summary, p.7). The reader is left with the impression that, although “high” is not defined, it is the present state of things and RCP8.5 delineates how it will grow higher. Further, the statement portrays the other RCPs as mitigation scenarios that are not being acted upon. Therefore, RCP8.5 has been portrayed as the “business as usual” scenario, and impact assessments continue to spread this falsehood. https://judithcurry.com/2019/01/28/reassessing-the-rcps/#more-24696
Someone did not deeply study Algae as I proved easily by using the Book Energy for Future Presidents.
Hearing – Climate Change: The Impacts and the Need to Act Posted on February 6, 2019 by curryja | 100 Comments by Judith Curry The House Natural Resources Committee Hearing on Climate Change will be livestreamed on their Facebook page. Here is the link to the Hearing page [link], I have no idea if they will post the other written testimonies. My written testimony is posted at [Curry Testimony House Natural Resources]. Below is text of my verbal comments: I thank the Chairman, the Ranking Member and the Committee for the opportunity to offer testimony today. Climate scientists have made a forceful argument for a future threat from manmade climate change. Manmade climate change is a theory whose basic mechanism is well understood, but the potential magnitude is highly uncertain. If climate change was a simple, tame problem, everyone would agree on the solution. Because of the complexities of the climate system and its societal impacts, solutions may have surprising unintended consequences that generate new vulnerabilities. In short, the cure could be worse than the disease. Given these complexities, there is plenty of scope for reasonable and intelligent people to disagree. Based on current assessments of the science, manmade climate change is not an existential threat on the time scale of the 21st century, even in its most alarming incarnation. However, the perception of a near-term apocalypse and alignment with range of other social objectives has narrowed the policy options that we’re willing to consider. In evaluating the urgency of emissions reductions, we need to be realistic about what this will actually accomplish. Global CO2 concentrations will not be reduced if emissions in China and India continue to increase. If we believe the climate models, any changes in extreme weather events would not be evident until late in the 21st century. And the greatest impacts will be felt in the 22nd century and beyond. People prefer ‘clean’ over ‘dirty’ energy – provided that the energy source is reliable, secure and economical. However, it’s misguided to assume that current wind and solar technologies are adequate for powering an advanced economy. The recent record-breaking cold outbreak in the Midwest is a stark reminder of the challenges of providing a reliable power supply in the face of extreme weather events. With regards to energy policy and its role in reducing emissions – there are currently two options in play: Option # 1: Do nothing, continue with the status quo Option #2: Rapidly deploy wind and solar power plants, with the goal of eliminating fossil fuels in 1-2 decades Apart from the gridlock engendered by considering only these two options, in my opinion, neither option gets us to where we want to go. A third option is to re-imagine the 21st century electric power systems, with new technologies that improve energy security, reliability and cost while at the same time minimizing environmental impacts. However, this strategy requires substantial research, development and experimentation. Acting urgently on emissions reduction by deploying 20th century technologies could turn out to be the enemy of a better long-term solution. Given that reducing emissions is not expected to change the climate in a meaningful way until late in the 21st century, adaptation strategies are receiving increasing attention. The extreme damages from recent hurricanes plus the billion dollar losses from floods, droughts and wildfires, emphasize the vulnerability of the U.S. to extreme events. It’s easy to forget that U.S. extreme weather events were actually worse in the 1930’s and 1950’s. Regions that find solutions to current impacts of extreme weather and climate events will be better prepared to cope with any additional stresses from climate change, and to address near-term social justice objectives. The industry leaders that I engage with seem hungry for a bipartisan, pragmatic approach to climate policy. I see a window of opportunity to change the framework for how we approach this. Bipartisan support seems feasible for pragmatic efforts to accelerate energy innovation, build resilience to extreme weather events, and pursue no regrets pollution reduction measures. Each of these three efforts has justifications independent of their benefits for climate mitigation and adaptation. These three efforts provide the basis of a climate policy that addresses both near-term economic and social justice concerns, and also the longer-term goals of mitigation. This ends my testimony.
I see two basic problems with this. First, almost everyone with legitimate claims to being a climate scientist DOES agree. Second, the fear that a cure might be worse than the disease is NOT an excuse for ignoring the fact of the disease. This seems to fully ignore the fact that progress against climate change will take long periods of time. Curry may be right that she and others have already demanded significant delays through their denialism, such that remediation is less possible for this century. But, ignoring the impact that further denial will have on the next century is exactly what prevented us from progress we now can't have for this century. So no, using the long lead time as a justification for denialism is absolutely NOT acceptable. I am not sure why someone who has spent her career advocating that we ignore climate change would now continue to say what she has sad above and THEN propose that one of the only two possible solutions is to eliminate fossil fuel usage - a direction so severe as to appear impossible. Surely, she is just using the magnitude of this "solution" as a justification for her career of proposing that solutions are impossible as well as her above comment that they may be worse than the disease. At best, her response hits me as an attempt to excuse herself for the positions she has taken over the last few decades. However, we may at least hope that the denier community will trot her out as theiir champion less frequently.
Curry the scientist seems to continue to befuddle the believers. A long time back, children read in books that the native tribes danced for rain when they desired more rain. Did it work? I see no way that dancing causes rain yet humans believed that and perhaps some continue in this belief. For we who do not believe it, we are called skeptics. So let me hand you something brand new. This may cause you to rethink your own "natives dance to cause rain pet theory."
An internet video?? And, then you call yourself a "skeptic"?? Skeptics do NOT suck up videos from the internet. The question remains: Why should I believe your internet video instead of the vast majority of scientists from government institutions in all countries (such as NASA and NOAA from the US), from universities around the world, and from private institutions - who are held to standards of review? You have work to do here to try to give this internet video ANY kind of scientific credibility.
The appeal to authority fallacy. The problem is, which scientists do you believe, the ones you agree with or the ones you don't?
Oh, yes it does. It adds that the very idea of being a skeptic and believing internet videos such as this one are simply incompatible. And, it identifies what work needs to be done by you to move this beyond that ludicrously low bar of an idea achieving presence in the internet video sphere.
- real scientists have their work reviewed by experts before it is published. Cranks don't bother. - real scientists publish in journals, where significant work is put into verification. Publishing on the internet is - a joke. Period. - real scientists working in climatology have a degree in a related science from an accredited institution. Evans is an engineer with a bachelor of ARTS degree in electrical engineering.
You apparently have no clue about the problems in peer review and it has been citizen scientists that have pointed out some of the glaring errors in published papers. Thinking outside of the bubble often leads to the largest discoveries.
I agree (outside of your ad hom!). The thing is, the review process is how the results of science become more reliable - they get tested and reviewed both before AND after they are published. In fact, scientists who manage to publish content that is subsequently falsified take a serious career hit. The internet doesn't have that. ANYTHING can get "published" to the internet and NOBODY in their right mind cares. And, whoever publishes lies on the internet can continue to get funding. Ask Manafort! Ask "cigarette lawyers" and the "science" they disseminated.
He is a skeptic is all. And complaining about other skeptics. Even admits the video was authored by an engineer.
Yes - it was not authored by a scientist, it was not reviewed by scientists, and we don't know who paid for it, And, I stated clear reasons for not accepting this or other equally unsupported internet videos as scientific support for anything at all. This guy talks about "government scientists" when the scientific community is far larger than our government - it includes universities both public and private, as well as independent institutions, and it covers the globe, NOT just the US. He uses "government" as an implication of abuse and of negative association. But, he does not support that implication of a global conspiracy with any data. In other words, it's pure innuendo, which should be enough to cause total rejection of the video in the first place. Innuendo is not a legitimate argument form in science. This guy talks about scientists not admitting that there is an amplification effect. But, that is ABSOLUTELY false. This guy's comments about warming from CO2 increasing warming due to water vapor is well known and documented. But, his own handling of the issue of water vapor is only part of the story, as he only mentions the reflection of light by clouds, NOT the whole story on water vapor and HEAT. Sorry, I'm not further wasting my time on the content of this internet video. There is NO basis for accepting internet garbage like this video.
Seeing how few papers ever stand the test of time it is only a cursory review, often by scientists that are not in the field. Scientists often are required to publish so publish they do if they want to hold onto their seat. It often doesn't matter that the paper is really poor, just that it is published. Another factor in publishing is being referred to in other papers and you will often see scientists referring to their own previous papers. Since there was a group that started publishing nonsense to peer review and getting it passed, anything can pass peer review, well, that is, if you are not considered an enemy of the dogma.
A well presented video beats the words of a malcontent. The above post is just done by a malcontent,. We know nothing at all why he is to be believed. Oh, because he says so. Curry also catches the wrath of the above so for him to try to ruin the other mans video is no shock. Many many excellent scientists do study the reports and do call out the flaws. So why don't you address those flaws?
No, reputable journals (of which there are many) do not publish simply because some scientist feels the need to publish. That need is irrelevant to the journal. And, journals are not perfect at excluding results that are later proven false. But, that's not the full point. Published science is available for meaningful review. That is why people address that science. Internet videos are of NO interest in terms of scientific review. As far as the scientific community is concerned, they are irrelevant by not having passed even cursory review. There is no credit to be gained by comment on them. There is no process for marking the ideas as having been proven false. There is no detrimental effect on persons who publish garbage on the internet (like there IS for those who publish material in reviewed journals). Your final paragraph is absolutely NOT the case.
One study i read was about peer review. It is used as a slogan by the alarmists. But it costs a lot of money. The paper to be peer reviewed is not reviewed for free. Men earn a good living doing peer review. So what is a peer review. The name actually explains part of it. It is a person reading the paper and making comments. That party is assumed to truly know his or her stuff. But do they? If they write the way my objector writes, it is simply opinion. My detractor offers nothing but opinion. Which to me is just fine. As long as he climbs back down from his high horse and stops presuming he is vastly superior to me, you and researchers and other trained competent people i get sick of his badgering Curry over her papers.
