Global warming in the pipeline | Oxford Open Climate Change | Oxford Academic
H simmens
 | |
 | |
Author of A Climate Vocabulary of the Future
@herbsimmens
HerbSimmens.com
H simmens
Author of A Climate Vocabulary of the Future
@herbsimmens
HerbSimmens.com
On Nov 2, 2023, at 8:31 AM, H simmens <hsim...@gmail.com> wrote:
H simmens
Author of A Climate Vocabulary of the Future
@herbsimmens
HerbSimmens.com
On Nov 2, 2023, at 8:47 AM, H simmens <hsim...@gmail.com> wrote:
Douglas Grandt
injection of massive amounts of sulphate aerosol into the stratosphere (euphamistically called "solar radiation management"). And this desparate action is motivated by what I consider to be a fallacy
7. Finally, I'm deeply troubled by this throwaway line in the paper:
Temporary solar radiation management (SRM) will probably be needed
This is policy advocacy, and misguided policy advocacy in my view.
But in terms of what we can expect in the decades ahead, there is no reason, based on the collective evidence from the paleoclimate record, to expect a climate trajectory substantially different from what current generation (i.e. IPCC) models predict. And there is no reason that we can't prevent dangerous levels of warming through concerted efforts to decarbonize the global economy. The obstacles, at least at present, are political, not physical or even technological.
I feel that this latest contribution from Jim and his co-authors is at best unconvincing. I don’t think they have made the case for their main claims, i.e. that warming is accelerating, that the planetary heat imbalance is increasing, that aerosols are playing some outsized role, or that climate models are getting all of this wrong. And I certainly don't think that they've made the case for engaging in potentially disastrous planetary-scale geoengineering projects.
On Nov 2, 2023, at 10:14 AM, H simmens <hsim...@gmail.com> wrote:
Here’s a response/rebuttal from Michael Mann to Hansen. The game is now on between the two most prominent US climate scientists. Let’s see if the mainstream media pick up on it
https://michaelmann.net/content/comments-new-article-james-hansenLet’s hope that Michael is correct with regard to the science and not Jim’s SRM advocacy which he labels a ‘gambit’.Herb
Herb Simmens
Author of A Climate Vocabulary of the Future“A SciencePoem and an Inspiration.” Kim Stanley Robinson
@herbsimmens
HerbSimmens.comOn Nov 2, 2023, at 8:47 AM, H simmens <hsim...@gmail.com> wrote:
The key language on cooling in the paper:Third, we must take action to reduce and reverse Earth’s energy imbalance. Highest priority is to phase down emissions, but it is no longer feasible to rapidly restore energy balance via only GHG emission reductions. Additional action is almost surely needed to prevent grievous escalation of climate impacts including lock-in of sea level rise that could destroy coastal cities world-wide. At least several years will be needed to define and gain acceptance of an approach for climate restoration. This effort should not deter action on mitigation of emissions; on the contrary, the concept of human intervention in climate is distasteful to many people, so support for GHG emission reductions will likely increase. Temporary solar radiation management (SRM) will probably be needed, e.g. via purposeful injection of atmospheric aerosols. Risks of such intervention must be defined, as well as risks of no intervention; thus, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences recommends research on SRM [212]. The Mt. Pinatubo eruption of 1991 is a natural experiment [213, 214] with a forcing that reached [30] –3 W/m2. Pinatubo deserves a coordinated study with current models. The most innocuous aerosols may be fine salty droplets extracted from the ocean and sprayed into the air by autonomous sailboats [215]. This approach has been discussed for potential use on a global scale [216], but it needs research into potential unintended effects [217].This decade may be our last chance to develop the knowledge, technical capability, and political will for actions needed to save global coastal regions from long-term inundation. (My bolding)Herb Simmens
Author of A Climate Vocabulary of the Future“A SciencePoem and an Inspiration.” Kim Stanley Robinson
@herbsimmens
HerbSimmens.comOn Nov 2, 2023, at 8:31 AM, H simmens <hsim...@gmail.com> wrote:
This appears to be the real thing. The long awaited paper by James Hansen and colleagues:
Author of A Climate Vocabulary of the Future“A SciencePoem and an Inspiration.” Kim Stanley Robinson
@herbsimmens
HerbSimmens.com
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/3FA7B1DB-CF55-42CC-ABF5-B86C4E9271AC%40gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
robert...@gmail.com
Game on! It'll be interesting to see how
Hansen responds, if indeed he does. For us lesser mortals, it
seems quite important that these titans sort this out because
such critical differences at this level can only undermine
policy progress in whatever direction it should be taken.
Robert
Here’s a response/rebuttal from Michael Mann to Hansen. The game is now on between the two most prominent US climate scientists. Let’s see if the mainstream media pick up on it
H simmens
Author of A Climate Vocabulary of the Future
@herbsimmens
HerbSimmens.com
On Nov 2, 2023, at 11:34 AM, robert...@gmail.com wrote:
H simmens
Author of A Climate Vocabulary of the Future
@herbsimmens
HerbSimmens.com
On Nov 2, 2023, at 11:47 AM, H simmens <hsim...@gmail.com> wrote:
The only direct interaction between Mann and Hansen I’ve been able to find is this brief exchange in July (Mann’s tweet is at the top)
Ye Tao
Mann might be out of his mind to quote the toy model output from
the 2018 special report 15 as his first major point. I hope he
simply never looked into that model and had no hand in making
those graphs. I hope he is simply being busy and overwhelm to
have a moment to think for himself.
I did an analysis and critique of
that toy model and "data massaging" to get the <1.5C
output by 1) choosing the wrong input (low end of distribution)
for the magnitude aerosol forcing and 2) shifting of baselines.
Time mark 10:00-10:40
Ye
Here’s a response/rebuttal from Michael Mann to Hansen. The game is now on between the two most prominent US climate scientists. Let’s see if the mainstream media pick up on it
Ye Tao
This post by Mann demonstrates that he lacks an understanding of time-dependent dynamics: things like impulse and step response function. Or maybe he does, but is playing into the general ignorance of the public regarding such things.
Not sure which one is worse and what that says about how we
choose academic leaders.
Ye
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/B89F6094-A5E2-44AC-B3EF-C5EF41B7FCAC%40gmail.com.
Peter Eisenberger
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/ad704f8f-d8a0-477f-95c4-1d3b548e3b7a%40rowland.harvard.edu.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Ye Tao
Hi Peter,
Thank you for trying to create consensus, in spite of the the
disagreement resulting from a key visible person, for one reason
or another, deciding to sacrifice logic and reason for ideology
and abhorrence for the fossil fuel industry.
On a side note about you statement that: "We certainly are facing a great threat but there is no science basis for arguing that the alternative paths are not adequate." Whether or not your statement holds depends on how one defines "adequate". Let us define "adequate" =: avoiding global average temperatures surpassing 2C by2060. For this definition, we have ample scientific and engineering knowledge to definitively show that 1) 100% rebuildable energies, 2) a global campaign for one trillion trees, 3) a global wartime mobilization towards direct air capture of CO2, and 4) ocean based carbon capture schemes, are NOT "adequate" either in isolation or in any linear combination constrained by global available resources and energy flux.
Ye
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CANx_M7SwuwsTTjNQ2UK1QpXP1__DswzCMXxtc1wxL_AHNYuCaw%40mail.gmail.com.
Robert Chris
Hansen et al’s long awaited paper Warming in the Pipeline was finally published on 2 November after several revisions following its prepublication appearance towards the end of last year. This allowed Professor Michael Mann to get his rebuttal in a day early. With Hansen challenging the ‘orthodox mainstream’ view that rapid cuts in carbon emissions are no longer a sufficient policy response, with Mann claiming they are, the stage is now set for a mighty battle between these two titans of the science of climate change. I am a mere spectator in this. I’m not qualified to be in the ring, but I am qualified to judge the fight.
Mann’s rebuttal wins him few points in this opening round. Rather than critique Hansen et al’s work, he sets out his own opinions and supports them with many references (of varying quality) to what he refers to as the orthodox and mainstream position and several straw man arguments. This amounts to little more than a claim that his facts are bigger and better than Hansen’s. Much like an old fashioned pissing contest. This is a level of argumentation that does no justice to the gravity of the issues at stake. Until their differences are resolved, policymakers will understandably sit on their hands genuinely not knowing what to do in the best interests of humanity and the rest of life with whom we share this planet. It is critical that that resolution be achieved without undue delay because if Hansen is right, it will be vital to lose as little time as possible in coming to terms with the policy implications.
Hansen et al’s paper, like most such academic works, consists of an argument in the form of a series of premises linked together by logical reasoning to reach a set of conclusions. To rebut the argument and demonstrate that the conclusions are unsound, it is necessary to show either (or both) that one or more of the premises is untrue, or the reasoning is invalid. Mann does neither.
Restating his own argument, however well referenced, is not a rebuttal of Hansen’s because it does not allow for the possibility that there are problems with the premises and reasoning of his own case. He ignores the possibility of systemic bias and groupthink that often characterises such orthodox and mainstream positions before they crumble in the wake of paradigm shifts. The history of knowledge is replete with such instances. Indeed, were that not so, we’d still be living in caves.
Two critical factors that will need addressing are risk and uncertainty both of which contribute to our sense of urgency. Both Mann and Hansen agree that rapid deep cuts in emissions are essential and not yet happening at anything like the necessary pace. But what Mann does not make clear is the nature and extent of the risk of that continuing not to happen at sufficient pace, and how that impacts urgency. If the risks of under-reacting are not too great, then we have the luxury of waiting to see how things unfold. However, if the risks of under-reacting are severe, even existential, there is considerable urgency, and prudence dictates that we should overreact. A proper risk analysis of our situation and options is essential if policymakers are to act in our best interests.
It is to be hoped that either directly or through their champions and proxies, Mann and Hansen will sort this out in the very near future so that the rest of us know what best to do.
In the following paragraphs I give a brief
review of Mann’s
rebuttal in terms of the quality of his argumentation. This is not about which of
Hansen and Mann has
a better grasp of the climate science, but solely whether Mann’s
rebuttal of
Hansen’s position is presented in a convincing manner. I hope that Prof Mann will read
this and take
the opportunity to produce a more robust critique of Warming
in the Pipeline
that in turn will provoke a resolution of these two currently
conflicting
positions. It is vital
that these issues
are resolved at the earliest opportunity.
Mann gives seven ways in which he considers Hansen et al to have failed by ‘a longshot’ to have met the necessary standards to challenge ‘the prevailing scientific understanding’. Let’s have a quick look at Mann’s arguments.
1. No warming is in the pipeline – Mann argues that the zero emissions commitment (ZEC) clearly shows that on achieving net zero emissions, surface temperatures stop rising. He therefore claims that there would be no warming in the pipeline once we get to net zero. Whatever one’s view of ZEC being at or close to 0oC, Hansen et al do not discuss it other than briefly to dismiss net zero as likely to be achieved any time soon. It seems perverse to criticise their paper on these grounds since they are clear that their case is built on constant atmospheric GHG concentrations. As Mann acknowledges, in that scenario there would be considerable warming in the pipeline. A more coherent criticism might have been to argue for the unsoundness of the premises that net zero emissions would not be achieved sufficiently soon or that atmospheric concentrations would not remain at their current level. Mann doesn’t do that. This is a straw man argument.
2. EEI is not increasing – Mann refutes Hansen et al’s claim by citing a competing source of which he was a co-author. He does not explain what is wrong with the sources on which Hansen et al base their claim that EEI has doubled since 2000, one of which is titled ‘Satellite and ocean data reveal marked increase in Earth’s heating rate’. There is no examination of why his source is better than Hansen’s.
3. Surface warming is not accelerating – Mann goes to great lengths to show that there is no evidence of surface warming accelerating due to the recent changes in aerosol emissions. This rebuttal was unnecessary because Hansen et al did not claim that there had been. They explicitly refer to ‘predicted’ warming as being an inevitable consequence of these aerosol changes. Another straw man argument from Mann.
4. IPCC models not under-predicting human caused warming – here Mann’s refutation implies that Hansen et al wrongly claim that that models have under-predicted the warming. Again, they make no such claim about past warming. Their claim in this regard concerns future warming, which self-evidently is not yet evident. Another straw man argument from Mann.
5. No evidence that recent reductions in ship aerosol emissions ‘have played any substantial role at all in recent warming trends’ – Mann cites two sources to support his rebuttal of Hansen et al’s predictions in this regard. Mann’s first authority is a paper published in 2009, before the recent changes in shipping emissions. His second authority is a 2023 Tweet from Hausfather that just refers back to the same 2009 paper. It is difficult to see how research undertaken before the aerosol emissions were reduced could show evidence of what had not yet happened. Mann needs to provide a more convincing rebuttal than this.
6. Paleoclimate records have climate sensitivity about right – Mann supports his rebuttal of Hansen et al’s interpretation of paleoclimate evidence in assessing equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) by citing his own non-peer reviewed article in New Scientist. He then asserts that ‘there is no reason, based on the collective evidence from the paleoclimate record, to expect a climate trajectory substantially different from what current generation (i.e. IPCC) models predict’. If there is one thing that Hansen et al do do, it is to explore in considerable detail the implications of new evidence from the paleo record. Mann makes no attempt to engage with this material, seemingly summarily dismissing it as valueless. This is not a worthy response from someone of Mann’s standing..
7. Solar radiation management is potentially dangerous and a need for it is ‘motivated by what [Mann] consider[s] to be a fallacy, advanced by the article, that large-scale warming will be substantially greater than current-generation models project’. Mann’s views here reflect the difference at the heart of this debate, namely, how much risk is associated with the predictions of those models. Risk is generally understood to be the product of the probability of a peril occurring and the costs (monetary and otherwise) arising from that peril. For Mann’s critique to have any purchase, he needs to flesh out the detail in this regard. This will require a broadly based investigation of the various possible perils from different plausible climate change scenarios and their cost. Mann has to do more than just assert his own opinion on these questions.
I close with a comment on Peter Eisenberger’s contribution below in which he says:
We certainly are facing a great threat but there is no science basis for arguing that [emissions reductions and removals alone (ERA)] are not adequate.
We all need to ponder the full implications of this statement. First we must note that there being no science basis to argue that emissions reductions and removals alone are not adequate is the complement of there being no science basis that they are. If you don’t know it’s inadequate, you can’t know that it's adequate . Conversely, if you know it’s adequate, then you also know it’s not inadequate. The sum of the probabilities of it being one or the other will always be 1 – it is logically certain that ERA will be either adequate or not. Peter’s statement can thus be rewritten as:
We certainly are facing a great threat but there is no science basis for arguing that [emissions reductions and removals alone] are adequate.
Given Peter’s claim that we don’t have a science basis for arguing that ERA is adequate, should we not be looking for something else to create a portfolio of responses that in aggregate would have a science basis to support their adequacy?
There are many good reasons, from basic physics
to the
analogue of volcanic eruptions, to know with certainty that there
are ways to directly cool the climate to reduce the risk of
excessive global warming. The
issue is whether this can be done in
ways that reduce that risk while not creating unacceptable risks
elsewhere. The question
that Prof Mann and Peter might
want to reflect on is, given that we don’t know whether ERA is
sufficient, and
moreover, that there are some good reasons to believe that it
might be
insufficient, albeit that these reasons might not be conclusive,
why would we
not want to begin the process in earnest of developing and
deploying direct climate cooling in a controlled and responsible
manner such that it can
be terminated if it emerges that its beneficial potential cannot
be realised
without overwhelming offsetting negative effects? How does that
make scientific sense?
Robert Chris
alb...@thefarm.org
On 11/3/23 4:17 PM, Robert Chris wrote:
given that we don’t know whether ERA is sufficient, and moreover, that there are some good reasons to believe that it might be insufficient....
This precisely pinpoints the main flaw I found in the Mann rebuttal. He opened and closed by restating, without support (even from IPCC), that ERA will be sufficient and therefore no CDR or SRM should be necessary.
But see:
Randers, Jorgen, and Ulrich Goluke. "An earth system model shows self-sustained thawing of permafrost even if all man-made GHG emissions stop in 2020." Scientific Reports 10.1 (2020): 18456.
(appended)
According to Randers and Goluke, we need at least 33 GtCO2e CDR per year. "In other words, building 33,000 big CCS plants and keep them running forever."
We should also be thinking about slowing permafrost melt.
See also:
Lenton, T. M., Rockström, J., Gaffney, O., Rahmstorf, S., Richardson, K., Steffen, W., & Schellnhuber, H. J. (2019). Climate tipping points—too risky to bet against. Nature, 575(7784), 592-595.
-Albert Bates
Global Village Institute / GVIx.org
HQ at The Farm
184 Schoolhouse Rd / POB 90
Summertown TN 38483 USA
+01-931-279-9761 office
+01-615-586-0234 mobile
Cool Lab Project Offices
Gonzalo Guerrero 5, Holbox, Q Roo, México
Maya Mountain Research Farm, San Pedro Columbia, Toledo, Belize
El Valle Lodge, Samana, Dominican Republic
52-998-116-5532
alb...@thefarm.org
albertbates.cool
Please read from Albert Bates and Kathleen Draper: BURN: Igniting a New Carbon Economy to Reverse Climate Change at your favorite local bookstore and now in German as Cool Down Mit Pflanzenkohle die Klimakrise Loesen
Douglas Grandt
On Nov 3, 2023, at 7:28 PM, James Hansen <jimeh...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Peter,I'm not leaving CDR out, I'm just pointing out that it's cost is still high. Keep up your efforts to bring the cost down and it may play a significant role. It will all come out in the wash, if and when we get a rising price on carbon. Without that, CDR, at least direct air capture, will continue to be a rather small contributor in the big picture.Best, Jim
On Fri, Nov 3, 2023 at 3:12 AM Peter Eisenberger <peter.ei...@gmail.com> wrote:
Most importantly we are in fact all on the same team and we all agree time is running out.Mann and Hansen are each acting in the best tradition of scientific disagreement.From my perspective they both seem to fail to take CDR into account into their scenarioseven though the majority of the scientific community including the IPCC has acknowledged it needs tobe part of the solution. Net emissions -amount removed from the atmosphere minus the amount emittedis the critical variable and this is critical because the poor on this planet need to have their basic needs met. Zero emissions means to them a reduced rate of eliminating poverty . One is left to speculate whether the people focussed on eliminating fossil fuels is a result of their long and important battle with the energy industry in the past. The energy industry has recognized climate change and they are acting to address it which was not the case even five years ago. They still remain critical to economic prosperity in the global south. In my opinion it is time to move on beyond demonizing the energy industry. To be clear I greatly respect the efforts of Mann and Hansen both scientifically and because being a whistle blower is never easy - in fact it is always hard and gets personal.My concern about the response of the SAI community is that it does seem to depend on arguing we are facing a doomsday futureand the inadequacy of alternative paths. We certainly are facing a great threat but there is no science basis for arguing that the alternative paths are not adequate. At its core it depends on creating fear about the future. We know the fight or flight response to fear and that fear has caused many conflicts. I am certainly not suggesting that advocates for SAI do not believe what they are saying.My view for what it is worth is that we all have to come together in the spirit of Manns response to JIm and togetherdetermine the best path forward based on the knowledge we have. We need to make the hard choices about the best path forward. We need to agree to focus our talents and energy on the path selected. In this sense the real limitation is not what distortions the external world has that prevents acting but it us for our failure to make the hard choices and provide them to the decision makers.Let me end as I b egan -Most importantly we are in fact all on the same team and we all agree time is running out. .Peter
On Thu, Nov 2, 2023 at 2:33 PM Ye Tao <t...@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote:
This post by Mann demonstrates that he lacks an understanding of time-dependent dynamics: things like impulse and step response function. Or maybe he does, but is playing into the general ignorance of the public regarding such things.
Not sure which one is worse and what that says about how we choose academic leaders.
Ye
On 11/2/2023 11:46 AM, H simmens wrote:
The only direct interaction between Mann and Hansen I’ve been able to find is this brief exchange in July (Mann’s tweet is at the top)
<image.png>
A description of the paper in Phys.org:
----Columbia University Earth InstituteJim Hansen, DirectorClimate Science, Awareness and Solutions Program
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Planetary Restoration" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to planetary-restor...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/CAEL%2B3vNHtgjtwSFUiE3Q%2BG%2B4HAnY6zLCQNLXY0FakyPN9ccm_g%40mail.gmail.com.
Douglas Grandt
On Nov 4, 2023, at 12:08 AM, Douglas Grandt <answer...@mac.com> wrote:
Jim,Glad to hear “1.5 is deader than a door nail” officially this morning!Pursuant to my 1/17/2023 email re: [CDR] Excess warming linked to reduced sulphur emissions from ships, please comment whether or not the trajectory of the dark brown curve [$] reflects Pipeline’s 50% greater rate of temperature rise if we adjust it from 0.36°C/decade (double the recent rate suggested in your newsletter a year ago) to 0.27°C/decade [^] and resize the rectangular “slope” box accordingly.Such adjustment would shift the dark brown curve down to approximately coincide with the light brown curve.Presumably the light brown curve would also shift downward a bit.The overall message of this diagram is that cooling and drawdown are both required, with the expectation that cooling and refreezing the Arctic is a logical starting point.Best,Doug Grandt
Clive Elsworth
On 04/11/2023 05:29 GMT Dan Miller <d...@rodagroup.com> wrote:Hi Robert:I’ll weigh in here. I agree with your analysis showing that Mann did not provide a cogent rebuttal to Hansen’s paper.A few other points:1. First, I summarized Hansen’s paper “for the masses” in a tweet that some might find useful:
Hansen: "These considerations raise the question of whether 2 ◦C, or even 1.5 ◦C, is an appropriate target to protect the well-being of young people and future generations. Indeed, Hansen et al. (2008) concluded that “if humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, . . . CO2 will need to be re- duced . . . to at most 350 ppm, but likely less than that”, and further “if the present overshoot of the target CO2 is not brief, there is a possibility of seeding irreversible catastrophic effects.
A danger of 1.5 or 2 ◦C targets is that they are far above the Holocene temperature range. If such temperature levels are allowed to long exist they will spur “slow” amplifying feed- backs (Hansen et al., 2013b; Rohling et al., 2013; Masson- Delmotte et al., 2013), which have potential to run out of hu- manity’s control. The most threatening slow feedback likely is ice sheet melt and consequent significant sea level rise, as occurred in the Eemian, but there are other risks in pushing the climate system far out of its Holocene range. Methane release from thawing permafrost and methane hydrates is an- other potential feedback, for example, but the magnitude and timescale of this is unclear (O’Connor et al., 2010; Quiquet et al., 2015)."
6. On top of other risks that Mann ignores, we now know from Hansen and Danish researchers, that an AMOC collapse is expected around mid-century. This is the mother of all near-term tipping points. Since it is caused by fresh water inflow into the North Atlantic from a melting Greenland, it is clear that ERA will not stop a collapse. If we are lucky, Sunlight Reflection Methods (SRM) may prevent it.7. Regarding who we should believe:Imagine you are about to put your children on an airplane. But Mechanic Hansen says there is a problem with the engines & Mechanic Mann says everything is fine. Do you allow your children to take the flight?
Why do we treat the Earth, with all our children on it, differently?
Dan
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/99e7527f-e4e8-446f-82ce-15b28e4878f3%40gmail.com.--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Climate Alliance" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-climate-al...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-climate-alliance/1142CFE6-6F4A-4E26-85C5-E3441A8AE47F%40rodagroup.com.
Tom Goreau
Lord Rayleigh is supposed to have said that if he ever did an experiment that required statistics to interpret the result he would throw away the data.
From:
planetary-...@googlegroups.com <planetary-...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of James Hansen <jimeh...@gmail.com>
Date: Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 8:42 AM
To: Dana Woods <oceans...@gmail.com>
Cc: healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>, Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>, Ye Tao <t...@rowland.harvard.edu>, Ye Tao <yetaoch...@gmail.com>, Stephen Salter <S.Sa...@ed.ac.uk>,
Douglas MacMartin <dgm...@cornell.edu>
Subject: Re: [prag] RE: Global warming in the pipeline | Oxford Open Climate Change | Oxford Academic
Does anyone remember the exact quote and the famous physicist (it was not Einstein) who said, about a century ago:
"If you need statistics, you should have done a better experiment."
or something close to that.
It was taped on one of my bookshelves in NY for years.
The point of the figure with a yellow area is that within several years, no statistics will be needed.
That time scale is the appropriate one because it will be at least several years before it is possible to take global scale purposeful actions.
By putting that figure out before we have reached that point may help with education and help show that we know what we are talking about.
It must first be clear that "a miracle will occur" is not a good prescription and is not going to occur, in order for people to be ready.
Besides, who knows for sure? We are all searching for a miracle.
Jim
On Fri, Nov 3, 2023 at 10:48 PM Dana Woods <oceans...@gmail.com> wrote:
Ye said
"This post by Mann demonstrates that he lacks an understanding of time-dependent dynamics: things like impulse and step response function. Or maybe he does, but is playing into the general ignorance of the public regarding such things.
Not sure which one is worse and what that says about how we choose academic leaders"
Talk about moral hazard !!
I was going to quote Robert (Tulip) though now can't find his comment regarding how the US media would be covering Dr Hansen's paper (and the disagreement between him and Micheal Mann) and I just wanted to
say that I STILL haven't had the time or taken the time) to read the paper . With a google search I see it's thankfully being covered by A LOT of print media. Id+'d also like to see it covered by MSNBC (who
CONSTANTLY has Micheal Mann on the show and CNN to cover it (especially since so many Americns don't actually read news) I suggest that some of you who have read it get in touch with MSNBC and/or
specifically Chris Hayes (who we could ask to interview him !!) and CNN and ask them to please fing cover thi s !! I can do so but, as I said, I haven;t read the paper yetIt's good to see you participating here Dr Hansen. . Are you now a member of one of these groups and/or should I add your name to emails?
Regards, Dana
On Fri, Nov 3, 2023 at 7:29 PM Bruce Parker <br...@chesdata.com> wrote:
Michael Mann’s rebuttal (see below) to Hansen’s contention that “surface warming is currently accelerating” is simply based on his (Mann’s) (1) definition of over what time period “currently accelerating” is most important (2) definition of what “statistically-supportable evidence” means, and (3) which dataset is used for the analysis. I analyzed the data that Mann said he used (https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/ann/12/1880-2023 - see actual data below), using Excel’s “Slope function” to determine the slope of the temperature change between two specific years. I found the following:
Data set
Start Year
Middle Year
End Year
Slope from Start Year to Middle Year
Slope from Middle Year to End Year
Change in Slope
Change/ decade
Percent Change
NOAA
1970
2008
2022
0.0171
0.0283
0.0112
0.112
66
NOAA
1970
2010
2022
0.0172
0.0261
0.0089
0.089
52
NOAA
1970
2012
2022
0.0167
0.0242
0.0075
0.075
45
NOAA
1993
2008
2022
0.0218
0.0283
0.0065
0.065
30
Mann's
1993
2008
2022
0.0230
0.0280
0.0050
0.050
22
I reached the following conclusions:
1. The decadal average temperature increase from the period 1970 to 2022 changed significantly around 2010 (from around 0.17°C to about 0.26°C per decade) and was most significant (a 66% increase) if 2008 is used as the “inflection point”
2. The decadal average temperature increase from the period 1993-2008 to the period 2008-2022 was about 0.065°C/decade, an increase of about 30%
I compared the data that Mann recommended to his chart and found serious discrepancies
The NOAA data shows a larger increase than Mann found (0.0065 vs 0.0050)
Even the change that Mann reported (0.0230 to 0.0280) looks significant to me – why does Mann conclude that it is not?
The NOAA data shows that the surface warming has increased by about 30% in the past few decades (from 0.218°C/decade for 1993-2008 to 0.283°C/decade for 2008-2022) –How does he conclude that the warming rate has been remarkably constant for the past few decades? What does Mann mean by “remarkably constant”?
3. We know that the decadal average temperature increase has risen significantly since the period 1970 to 2010 (likely by 50-60%). Given the unprecedented temperature increase this year, I would think that discussing whether not the temperature increase is currently accelerating is a distraction from a much more important discussion - what is the current rate of warming and when will the temperature increase likely reach 1.5°C.
Bruce Parker
==========================================================================================================================
NOAS temperature data
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
0.27
0.32
0.48
0.35
0.5
0.63
0.42
0.43
0.55
0.62
0.63
0.55
0.7
0.66
0.66
0.55
0.66
0.73
0.63
0.66
0.68
0.77
0.91
1.03
0.95
0.86
0.98
1.01
0.86
0.91
==========================================================================================================================
Michael Mann’s rebuttal:
3. There is, furthermore, no statistical support for the climate that surface warming is currently accelerating. It is certainly true that the rate has increased since the 1970s, but that's related to changes in aerosol forcing at that time that are not relevant to the warming of the past few decades. Over the past few decades, there is no statistically-supportable evidence of an increase in the rate of surface warming. Surface warming has continued at a remarkably constant rate for the past few decades, as I recently showed in this thread on twitter (see plot below). The warming of the planet (and all of the worsening impacts associated with it including extreme weather events and intensified hurricanes) will continue until we bring carbon emissions to zero. The truth, once again, is bad enough.
Mann’s “tread on twitter” responds to an opinion piece by Zeke Hausfather in the New York Times which argues for an acceleration of recent surface warming: https://nytimes.com/2023/10/13/opinion/climate-change-excessive-heat-2023.html . Mann starts off by CONFIRMING the recent acceleration (Mann used the data at https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/ann/12/1880-2023 )
I not only reproduced Zeke's result, but found an even bigger effect, with the trend from 2008-2023 a whopping 70% greater than the trend from 1970-2008 (the difference in trend is statistically significant at the p=0.01 i.e. 99% level)
Mann continued:
In fact, why not compare trend over must recent 15 year period with the preceding 15 year period? That's what I did here. In this case, the increase in warming rate is only 28% (and the difference in trend is not statistically significant)
Surely if there is truly acceleration of warming in recent decades, it shouldn't only be evidence over the past 9 months. So I repeated the preceding analysis, but I eliminated the year 2023 data from the regression analysis
And this is what I now get. The rate for the recent period ~20% larger than that for prior period & the difference in trend is statistically insignificant. In other words, there's no statistical support here for the claim of a recent acceleration in the rate of global warming
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NOAC Meetings" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to noac-meeting...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/3FA7B1DB-CF55-42CC-ABF5-B86C4E9271AC%40gmail.com.--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Planetary Restoration" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to planetary-restor...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/002801da0e7c%247999b120%246ccd1360%24%40chesdata.com.
--
Jim Hansen, Director
Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions Program
Columbia University Earth Institute
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Planetary Restoration" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
planetary-restor...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/CAEL%2B3vNPdpuJuzEzoFe39CxVnx0S%2BhMTgvvY%3D1djVRUzm4TwLg%40mail.gmail.com.
Tom Goreau
The quote is from Rutherford, but Rayleigh said it more pithily!
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/BY3PR13MB4994971AD9C403548B6499AADDA4A%40BY3PR13MB4994.namprd13.prod.outlook.com.
Peter Eisenberger
Michael MacCracken
Peter--I'm rather astounded at your paragraph:
Peter E and all,
On justice, equity and further warming... Thanks for bringing this up Peter E. There is a mistaken philosophy that further warming to 1.5 C reduces climate change-caused injustice and inequity. Austin adopted what their Climate Program labelled a Climate Equity Plan in 2020. I was one of 120 volunteers who helped the Climate Program put together this 5-year revision to Austin's first climate plan. It is a 1.5 C, net zero 2040 plan with 30 percent offsets and about 6 percent of net zero needs met by natural systems. It also conflates 1.5 C with net zero, and offers no path to 1.5 C, only a path to net zero that includes those 30 percent offsets because there is no other path to reach net zero otherwise. Like all large efforts like this it was a compromise between many shared thoughts and that 1.5 C was the standard, and restoration was being done by nobody and could not be considered.
The team realized that inequity and injustice were already bad from warming, and nowhere in the Plan suggested that they will become not just more extreme, but nonlinearly more extreme with further warming because they are tied directly to effects that increase nonlinearly with warming.
This is one of the pivotal arguments we should be making to progressives or anyone who value such things. Further warming to the accepted 1.5 C target increases injustice and inequity nonlinearly above today's already strong levels, and requiring the elimination by the poor and underprivileged of the simplest, most portable and most widespread energy source ever, is grossly unjust and inequitable via the simple concept of "we got ours, but you can't have yours."
Steep trails,
B
Bruce Melton PE
Director, Climate Change Now Initiative, 501c3
President, Melton Engineering Services Austin
8103 Kirkham Drive
Austin, Texas 78736
(512)799-7998
ClimateDiscovery.org
ClimateChangePhoto.org
MeltonEngineering.com
Face...@Bruce.Melton.395
Inst...@Bruce.C.Melton
The Band Climate Change
Twitter - BruceCMelton1
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Planetary Restoration" group.--
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to planetary-restor...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/CANx_M7SwuwsTTjNQ2UK1QpXP1__DswzCMXxtc1wxL_AHNYuCaw%40mail.gmail.com.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Climate Alliance" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-climate-al...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-climate-alliance/5ec2fb2e-39d7-4d16-a42b-e53ae0744e80%40earthlink.net.
Peter Eisenberger
Ye Tao
I apologize to most people on these lists who have already
received, multiple times, these slides demonstrating the energy
infeasibility of DAC (by 2 orders of magnitude).
Ye
Michael MacCracken
Hi Peter--I think I'd say that, now 30+ years since the UNFCCC and with emissions still going up, it is time to admit that the present set of approaches has failed (or is at least sure to fail given how long it will take to get emissions to zero, or near there). What we ask of others is how long it will take for others to admit this--how much more damage and irreversible change must the world go through until it is agreed that mitigation alone is not occurring anywhere near fast enough to ensure a safe climate. While we are all for CDR, in the interim until it can take over, SAI can prevent rates of damage going even higher (and maybe lower them a bit) while mitigation and CDR are built up to get things under control so that SAI can be phased out.
Best, Mike
John Nissen
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/3b65f875-3143-4b26-bfe1-73c35de4b9d4%40comcast.net.
Tom Goreau
Exponential increases in high-temperature extremes in North America
Scientific Reports volume 13, Article number: 19177 (2023) Cite this article
- 15 Altmetric
Abstract
Global warming in the 21st century will alter the frequency of extreme climatic events, such as high-temperature anomalies and “heat waves”. Observations of extreme high temperatures during recent decades have detected upward trends in their frequency of occurrence, and recent state-of-the-art Global Climate Models (GCMs), e.g., Climate Model Intercomparison Projects (CMIPs), notably CMIP5 and CMIP6, have predicted acceleration of temperature trends and high-temperature events by 2100 under projected greenhouse-gas emission scenarios. Hence, the 21st century is expected to experience substantial shifts in the occurrence of extreme events, where present-day, extreme-but-rare high-temperature events will become common during the summer months. The increasing frequency of extreme heat may affect the health and resiliency of social, biological, and infrastructure systems in many regions worldwide, underscoring the need for accurate and reliable long-term assessments of climatic change across global and regional scales. So far, many investigations of high-temperature extremes have been carried out under end-point scenarios, e.g., by comparing GCM-projected changes in the frequency of high-temperature extremes expected in the late 21st century to the late 20th century. In this study, we use extreme value theory and decades of observations of high-temperature extremes at thousands of meteorological stations across North America to investigate continuous shifts in the frequency of extreme high-temperature events due to projected local warming trends. We find that the odds of exceedance of 50-year extreme high-temperature events increases exponentially with increases in mean local temperature. At a majority of the stations studied here, a local mean temperature increase of 0.5–1 ∘C can double the odds of exceedance of 50-year extreme high-temperature events. Based on time-dependent temperature projections, the odds of exceedance of 50-year extreme high-temperature events doubles approximately every 20 years (or sooner) for ∼ 96% of the stations. Moreover, we find that, for ∼ 80% of the stations in North America, investigated here, the 50-year extreme high-temperature events will be exceeded annually before 2100.
From:
James Hansen <jimeh...@gmail.com>
Date: Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 11:15 AM
To: Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>
Cc: Dana Woods <oceans...@gmail.com>, healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>, Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>, Ye Tao <t...@rowland.harvard.edu>, Ye Tao <yetaoch...@gmail.com>,
Stephen Salter <S.Sa...@ed.ac.uk>, Douglas MacMartin <dgm...@cornell.edu>
Subject: Re: [prag] RE: Global warming in the pipeline | Oxford Open Climate Change | Oxford Academic
Found it:
- "If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment." Lord Ernest Rutherford
On Sat, Nov 4, 2023 at 10:58 AM James Hansen <jimeh...@gmail.com> wrote:
That's interesting, especially to a person who cut his scientific teeth on light scattering, but the quote I'm searching for was from a more recent scientific giant, ony a century or so ago.
Jim
Error! Filename not specified.