Climate science was wrong!

[naitche]

On 11/21/2019 at 6:06 PM, Eise said:

 

In this sense, I am afraid I am also a kind of 'bad guy'. I go to work with my car (a small car, not using much gas, but I can't deny it uses gas...), live my life as nearly anybody else. No, in this respect I am not proud of myself. It's a kind of herd behaviour, I am afraid: I do not want to live a life that is much more difficult than that of my friends and colleagues. So it is my conviction that only collective action works: on basis of voluntariness nothing substantial will happen.

A s a person who does not live as nearly as anybody else, I see that making changes where you can, does not have to make life much more difficult. It gives control of the burden you are able to shoulder. Where carbon taxes etc may be seen to distribute the burden equally, I don't believe it does. The cost of is often greatest to those who can least afford it and may interfere greatly with their ability to make  changes and improvements to facilitate diversity and mitigation at a local level. Where the benefits of doing so are most often positive, making life in the longer term less difficult.

I see making personal changes as setting up the environmental expectation that its needed. That climate change is accepted as as a condition.A demonstration of alternative response to environmental needs.

'Acceptance'  implies personal responsibility, not environmental responsibility. Carbon taxes and similar 'solutions'  I think are imposing costs on the environment for our own responses to its condition. The block a direction, but don't provide one, where personal responsibility can demonstrate potential of others.

I don't see that the meaning of responsibility in our human identity  differs from the biologically accepted interpretation.

Quote

 

 The whole economy was transformed into a 'war economy'. And I am convinced that only a 'climate economy' possibly could save us.

Thereby I am afraid we are already too late:

I agree. So I don't see the benefits of climate protests while protesters are still supporting the industries they blame in their consumer choices.The industries have the power and money to influence they do because we support them. I don't see that minds will be changed, or that we can influence alternate directions until we accept new ones. Personally. Growth and consumerist messages are unchanged until we follow and promote or demonstrate others.

5 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

 

 I don't think we should be shouting down scientific skepticism we don't agree with. Make a counter argument rather than hit the demerit button. Attack the argument not the poster

 

 

To do other wise seems to feed the idea of corporate or elitist conspiracy, re-enforcing the idea.

We don't even have to insist people 'believe' in climate change. Its easier to show that the human footprint is dangerously huge, and needs to be reined in multiple areas that also impact on climate change.

Edited November 23, 2019 by naitche

[swansont]

19 hours ago, CharonY said:

I'd argue the opposite. "No change" is not a baseline or default.

There are two ways to get a "no change" model. One is that nothing has an effect, and the other is that at least one effect has the opposite sign of other effects. The former is the baseline — nothing has an effect. You have to show that there is a basis for having one. But we're well past that point in making the models.

 

 

[Ken Fabian]

I don't think personal emissions purity is even possible as a viable lifestyle choice within the societies and economies we are part of; zero emissions cannot be achieved and still be a functional member of society. It will take economy wide change for that to be a genuine option and it needs to be attractive enough to become the default choice. I know that personal choices - even if I were not the type susceptible to knowing better but doing things anyway - are insufficient; we use regulation because, given a choice humans so often will choose immediate gratification over thoughtful, ethical choices.

No-one should have their personal lifestyle examined and judged to have the right to call on governments to take climate change seriously - governments that have stacks of reports and studies telling them about the climate problem and already know how serious it is. In any "knowing better but doing it anyway" competition, those holding positions of high trust and responsibility who ignore all the expert reports and studies on this are grand champions; climate activists can't compare.

Refusing to listen because climate activists drive cars or fly would be like in the face of an invasion, the government insisting they will only listen to your calls for a national response if you are on the front line, making personal sacrifices. But in this case they still deny it even when you are and you do ... and further, call you a danger to the nation, even a traitor for alarming people as well. Any surprise I see the problem as one of poor governance and of governments failing to apply guiding principles like ethics and integrity, responsibility and accountability? I think it is a profound test of the moral fundamentals of our systems of governance as much as a test of our technical abilities and efficient management, more a test of collective, institutional ethics than as a test of individual morals and commitment. The religious might see that as a test set by God; the scale is certainly Biblical but I see it as an inevitable consequence of living within a finite world and coming up against it's limits. Either way those guiding principles ought to be something we can agree on.

It so happens that I want my cake and I want to eat it too; I support chasing technology based prosperity with zero emissions through a technology transition, not enforced technological poverty. I'm not convinced it is helpful to promote personal emissions choices as the principle response; it reinforces the "take the world back to the stone age" outcomes the stereotyped climate activist are alleged by opponents of action to be seeking. Those who don't care feel no obligation, no matter they are as responsible for their emissions as any climate activist is. I don't even have a serious issue with the outspoken wealthy having high personal emissions if their business and investment decisions support emissions reductions; those are much more significant in the greater scheme of things and can advance the economy wide changes that make everyone's choices low emissions ones in ways their sacrificing personal jet travel cannot.

The limits I want placed on our extravagant wastefulness are not arbitrary or ideological except in the sense that long running principles around accountability and responsibility impose are ideological; including the full costs, including the externalities we currently don't pay (ie cheat on) in the prices we pay is not socialism and dodging them is not capitalism. I don't even want to stop people from choosing to engage in high emissions activities - so long as equivalent negative emissions are part of the costing of them. If high octane motorsport is your thing, go ahead, but you pay for negative emissions to compensate for the emissions you are responsible for.

I can be a techno-optimist who thinks we have all we need to take emissions down a lot and with a reserve of improvements still in the pipeline - when I am not despairing for the enduring failures of governance. For all the reasons I have to feel pessimistic I think that a political tipping point is possible, where Doubt, Denial and Delay becomes untenable, the Conservative-Right Wall of Denial comes down and those on the mainstream Right apply themselves to solutions instead of preventing them. The lengths opponents of strong climate action have gone to to mislead and confuse the public says to me they know that they can lose this fight and effective policies are possible through democratic processes and applications of the rule of law, all supporting responsible free enterprise to make and profit from low emissions technologies.

Edited November 24, 2019 by Ken Fabian
clarity

[naitche]

@Ken Fabian

I don't think personal emissions purity is possible either., given the societies and economies we are part of.

I do think altering those will be result of personal choice though, to support alternatives.

We are not emission free. I would not claim that. But still carbon neutral. Maybe even sequestering more than emitted.

If those choices were taking us back to the dark ages, It would be because we rejected the technology you mention instead of promoting it..

Judgement  is not needed and is counter productive from all sides. Demonstration of advantages is far more effective. Nice for us when the lights of the city go out with power outage, and we demonstrate a beacon of light on our mountain top.

Or the drought devastates the country side, and this bit of land resists the dessication longer, and recovers faster with better soil health and diversity. Soil that is better able to take up carbon each year.

Carbon tax makes this work more expensive. Credits for sequestration - where are they spent and to what end?

Not everyone is in a position to do what we have/do. But there are changes they could make, or promote in their local communities that take advantage of new technologies and this action assists govts to understand better where they can facilitate the changes people are willing and able to make. Where Govt. action will be supported. A cumulative effect would alter societies and economies where it counts. In targeting local environments with positive change, not negative punishment.

I  believe adopting and promoting specific projects would achieve far more than protest and fear. More  empowering. Fear of doomsday and helplessness seems more counter productive. If Govt. won't step up under this scenario,  where environment is held to be 'responsible', what does it matter what individuals do now?

 

Edited November 25, 2019 by naitche

[Ken Fabian]

2 hours ago, naitche said:

Carbon tax makes this work more expensive.

Carbon pricing will change the investments choices energy producing and energy using companies make - those behavioral choices are more critical in this than what end consumers choose. In many ways those will define what end consumers choose. Where the money goes is less important than the value of that price signal, which favours investment in low emissions options over high. In a lot of places the cost difference is not that large or can already tilt towards firmed wind and solar. My own view is that taxation should, like expenditure, be public knowledge and subject to ongoing oversight. I have no special problem with taxes on emissions going into general government revenue - and considered as one element amongst many. Whether it goes to assisting the poor with power costs or aids more R&D or just reduces tax burdens elsewhere, a carbon tax revenue is not anything that is so special that it cannot be managed - and when it works the revenue stream should diminish, as companies choose the low emissions options in order to not have to pay. Proposals to tie carbon tax revenues to specific uses are more about marketing, to make it appear more palatable.

Ideally carbon pricing should reflect the best estimates of the cumulative costs of emissions - but accurate estimates are probably going to elude us; I will settle for carbon pricing sufficient to favour specific low emissions projects over high emisions ones. Fortunately those look both easier to quantify and are probably much less than the costs will turn out being; we will endure significant climate costs, like it or not.

 

2 hours ago, naitche said:

Fear of doomsday and helplessness seems more counter productive.

I don't think we can skip the doomsaying - to fail to make clear how deathly serious the consequences are (the top level expert reports and studies, note, not activist interpretations) is to allow complacency to persist. Complacency may be a bigger impediment in this than all the denial and opposition obstruction added together. Making clear how serious is not the same as promoting helplessness; I see that latter more often as part of obstructionist activism, ie that taking action is pointless or counterproductive. We are better placed now to deal with this than every before; even 1 decade ago who would believe we would be adding more new solar capacity than new coal and gas and nuclear combined, because that is cheaper? The doomsaying we need most to be countering is that shifting to low emissions will destroy prosperity.

Edited November 25, 2019 by Ken Fabian

[mistermack]

Just to add a bit of history to the issue, I saw this representation the other day, of what the climate looked like 20,000 years ago, and I think it's a bit mind-blowing. That's the only real reason I'm posting it, it's so graphic it's worth sharing. It just shows the depths of ice at the named locations :

 

[Strange]

14 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Just to add a bit of history to the issue, I saw this representation the other day, of what the climate looked like 20,000 years ago, and I think it's a bit mind-blowing. That's the only real reason I'm posting it, it's so graphic it's worth sharing. It just shows the depths of ice at the named locations :

 

Nce. (Source: https://xkcd.com/1225/)

Randall also did this:

"[After setting your car on fire] Listen, your car's temperature has changed before."

[mistermack]

13 hours ago, Strange said:

"[After setting your car on fire] Listen, your car's temperature has changed before."

"I say old chap, I've just made a model on my computer, and it says your car will be uncomfortably warm in 80 years time, and most of my friends agree."        😭

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, mistermack said:

"I say old chap, I've just made a model on my computer, and it says your car will be uncomfortably warm in 80 years time, and most of my friends agree."        😭

That's funny, but I guess its hard to see a joke with your head up your arse.

[mistermack]

21 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

That's funny, but I guess its hard to see a joke with your head up your arse.

Keep looking. Don't give up now.

[dimreepr]

5 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Keep looking. Don't give up now.

never a truer word spoken in jest...

[studiot]

On 11/18/2019 at 10:40 AM, Eise said:

... the earth is heating faster. than anyone expected in the past.

The New York Times

 

 

On 11/18/2019 at 11:11 AM, swansont said:

Such predictions as the one in the quote were dismissed as alarmist.

Blaming the scientists is misguided, at best. Political inaction happened despite the predictions, not because of them.  

The article also points to the problem of using "wrong" as attached to scientific results or predictions, as if this is a binary condition. Most of the time it isn't. Science tends to quantify things, so that one can see how close results are to predictions. 

 

Sadly the scientists are amongst those generating the noise that is drowning out sensible discussion on the subject.

In particular climate change is not the worst or most imminent disaster we are facing.

From the side of Natural forces, the Earth's rapidly declining magnetic field is more worryring and may be impossible (for us) to fix.

From the side of own goals (self inflicted disasters) the destruction of arable land is also more imminent and harder to fix.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Sadly the scientists are amongst those generating the noise that is drowning out sensible discussion on the subject.

What's the evidence of this?

[studiot]

9 minutes ago, swansont said:

What's the evidence of this?

The deluge of papers on Climate Change v the trickle of papers on the issues I mentioned.

For instance whoever supplied the information to the publication in the OP.

Upon reflection, I should have said some scientists or all too many scientists, as clearly we have the hard scientific measurements obtained from the for example the SWARM satellites and the discovery of the South Atlantic Anomaly and this has taken properly focused scientists to measure and report.

Sorry for the loose wording.

[dimreepr]

21 hours ago, studiot said:

Sadly the scientists are amongst those generating the noise that is drowning out sensible discussion on the subject.

In particular climate change is not the worst or most imminent disaster we are facing.

From the side of Natural forces, the Earth's rapidly declining magnetic field is more worryring and may be impossible (for us) to fix.

From the side of own goals (self inflicted disasters) the destruction of arable land is also more imminent and harder to fix.

Indeed but we can only change what we can fix, we do that and hope tomorrow is a better day.

 

[studiot]

14 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed but we can only change what we can fix, we do that and hope tomorrow is a better day.

 

Well I would hope for more.

We can't fix the results of being struck by lightning, but we would also be foolish not to take shelter from a thunderstorm.

We can't stop geomagnetic reversals but we can take cognisance of the real and present danger to our whole society the scientific measurements suggest, and start to build in safeguards and contingency plans.

[dimreepr]

15 minutes ago, studiot said:

Well I would hope for more.

We can't fix the results of being struck by lightning, but we would also be foolish not to take shelter from a thunderstorm.

We can't stop geomagnetic reversals but we can take cognisance of the real and present danger to our whole society the scientific measurements suggest, and start to build in safeguards and contingency plans.

We could get life insurance, but Im not sure what that would fix.

Edited November 27, 2019 by dimreepr

[swansont]

22 hours ago, studiot said:

The deluge of papers on Climate Change v the trickle of papers on the issues I mentioned.

For instance whoever supplied the information to the publication in the OP.

Upon reflection, I should have said some scientists or all too many scientists, as clearly we have the hard scientific measurements obtained from the for example the SWARM satellites and the discovery of the South Atlantic Anomaly and this has taken properly focused scientists to measure and report.

Sorry for the loose wording.

This seems to me to be a problem with reporting, and possibly funding, than with scientists.

[Ken Fabian]

On 11/27/2019 at 3:18 AM, studiot said:

In particular climate change is not the worst or most imminent disaster we are facing.

From the side of Natural forces, the Earth's rapidly declining magnetic field is more worryring and may be impossible (for us) to fix.

From the side of own goals (self inflicted disasters) the destruction of arable land is also more imminent and harder to fix.

Studiot - Climate change is what we facing right now - an ongoing, cumulative and irreversible change to the global environment we depend on, with serious consequences for people now living. Geomagnetic pole reversal - if increased movement of the pole is in fact a precursor to pole reversal - does not present a clear and immediate danger. If I understand correctly, these reversals take thousands, if not tens of thousands of years. If our economy and environment are messed up from climate change we will be less capable of coping with other things; it is quite reasonable - imperative - that we take climate very seriously and give it priority.

As for destruction of arable land, it is quite closely linked to climate change, both causative and as a consequence as well as being significant in direct, economic and environmental terms; rather than being something that is neglected because of the focus on climate change I think it reinforces the overarching significance of climate change.

Seeking a better understanding and modelling of our planet's internal workings to should continue but I see no equivalency or even real relevance to efforts to better understand and address the climate problem

 

[studiot]

4 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

If I understand correctly, these reversals take thousands, if not tens of thousands of years.

Do you have references for this?

Apparently we have assumed this since the first measurements a couple of hundred years ago.
But the latest figures show that full reversal could occur in less than 100 years.
The short answer is - we just don't know.
But we do know that the magnetic field is currently declining rapidly.

 

Reead this book, just published.

The Spinning Magnet

Alanna Mitchell.

It's not perfect but she has done a lot of work researching the history of human research into the Earth's field and has lots of references at the end.

 

[StringJunky]

30 minutes ago, studiot said:

Do you have references for this?

Apparently we have assumed this since the first measurements a couple of hundred years ago.
But the latest figures show that full reversal could occur in less than 100 years.
The short answer is - we just don't know.
But we do know that the magnetic field is currently declining rapidly.

 

Reead this book, just published.

The Spinning Magnet

Alanna Mitchell.

It's not perfect but she has done a lot of work researching the history of human research into the Earth's field and has lots of references at the end.

 

 

Quote

Other sources estimate that the time that it takes for a reversal to complete is on average around 7000 years for the four most recent reversals.[2] Clement (2004)[2] suggests that this duration is dependent on latitude, with shorter durations at low latitudes, and longer durations at mid and high latitudes. Although variable, the duration of a full reversal is typically between 2000 and 12000 years, which is one to two orders of magnitude less than the duration of magnetic chrons.[3]

<snip>

 Even if the internal magnetic field did disappear, the solar wind can induce a magnetic field in the Earth's ionosphere sufficient to shield the surface from energetic particles.[53]

<snip>

Statistical analysis shows no evidence for a correlation between reversals and extinctions.[56][44]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal#cite_note-3

I've never really thought about this subject. Looks interesting.

 

Edited November 27, 2019 by StringJunky

[CharonY]

12 hours ago, swansont said:

This seems to me to be a problem with reporting, and possibly funding, than with scientists.

Indeed. Also, it is a matter of specialization, climate change impacts a variety of disciplines ranging from physics to ecology. Other questions have a narrower range of disciplines with applicable research interests and expertise. Criticizing scientists for working within their field of expertise seems misplaced. In addition, there are many more challenges which some may find more urgent (I worry a lot about non-treatable infections, for example), but I personally would not go around and dismiss other urgent issues as noise.

[Ken Fabian]

8 hours ago, studiot said:

Do you have references for this?

Apparently we have assumed this since the first measurements a couple of hundred years ago.
But the latest figures show that full reversal could occur in less than 100 years.
The short answer is - we just don't know.
But we do know that the magnetic field is currently declining rapidly.

I was mostly going by a Space.com and a PhysicsWorld article, the latter featuring Brad Singer discussing the recent Singer et al paper "Synchronizing volcanic, sedimentary, and ice core records of Earth’s last magnetic polarity reversal" (2019). A 5% or 7% per century decline in magnetic field strength is mentioned, is significant and might be indicative of impending pole flip. Or it might not.

From Physics World  -

Quote

"Singer and colleagues found that the final reversal was relatively rapid by geological standards, taking less than 4000 years. However, it was preceded by two individual excursions within a period of instability lasting 18,000 years – more than twice as long as recent research had suggested reversals should take. "

I interpreted this as 2,000 years for the actual reversal and that is considered rapid - whilst the period of instability is considered long. The Space article suggests any flip of polarity would be thousands of years away according to Monika Korte, head of GFZ Potsdam's working group on geomagnetic field evolution in Germany and -

Quote

"Regarding increased radiation, that would go along with decreased shielding, [but] it seems that the atmosphere would still provide sufficient shielding at Earth's surface that humans and animals would not be significantly affected," she told Space.com in an email. 

"However, all the effects we currently only see during strong solar/geomagnetic storms would likely increase and occur ... during moderate solar activity," she added. "This includes satellite outages or damage to satellites, increased radiation doses on long-distance aircraft and the ISS [International Space Station], [and] distortions of telecommunication and GPS signals."

 

On that basis I think ongoing study is indicated but I see no cause for alarm.

Whereas for climate change, the US National Academy of Sciences is saying -

Quote

Climate change is happening today. Scientists have known for some time, from multiple lines of evidence, that humans are changing Earth’s climate, primarily through greenhouse gas emissions.

The evidence is clear and compelling. Earth’s atmosphere and oceans are warming, the magnitude and frequency of extreme climate and weather events are increasing, and sea level is rising along our coasts.

Climate change is increasingly affecting people’s lives. It is having significant effects on infrastructure, agriculture, fisheries, public health, and the ecosystems that support society. It is also changing the environment in ways that affect the distribution, diversity, and long-term survival of species of plants, animals, and other forms of life on Earth.

 

Edited November 28, 2019 by Ken Fabian

[studiot]

10 hours ago, StringJunky said:

I've never really thought about this subject. Looks interesting.

 

10 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Even if the internal magnetic field did disappear, the solar wind can induce a magnetic field in the Earth's ionosphere sufficient to shield the surface from energetic particles.[53]

Thank you for your interest.

Really ?

look here for the first fully documented event in 1859 when the 'shield' was up Mr Sulu

https://www.google.co.uk/search?source=hp&ei=B5ffXaGJJMXTkwXb86fABQ&q=the+carrington+event+1859&oq=The+carrington+event&gs_l=psy-ab.1.2.0l10.2088.5776..9326...0.0..0.630.3502.3j4j1j2j1j2......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i131.VF7aCOQuJXI

 

And the recent near miss in 2012

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=solar+storm+of+2012&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjU7K-3z4zmAhWPTsAKHWBbCW4Q1QIoB3oECBIQCA&biw=1366&bih=646

 

 

Perhaps discussion of the Earth's magnetic field is taking the thread off topic.

If so my apologies to the moderators, perhaps they might consider splitting the thread ?

 

Meanwhile to answer the title statement in this thread.

Yes any climate model that omits (serious) consideration of magnetic effects on climate will be in error possibly serious error.

The electric storm of 1852 (reported by Sir Edward Sabine)

The Carrington event 1859

The Quebec storm 1989

The Halloween event 2003

The 2012 event

 

 

[LaurieAG]

As somebody who has worked extensively with internal and external auditors in a technical capacity, intimate knowledge of the whole process being undertaken is essential to prevent quality assurance lapses that can have large impacts on data quality. Here are a couple of concerns re Australian Climate data collection.

https://jennifermarohasy.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Marohasy-to-Finkel-20180504.pdf

Indeed, it could be concluded that the current system is likely to generate new record hot days for the same weather –because of the increased sensitivity of the measuring equipment and the absence of any averaging/smoothing. To be clear, the highest one-second spot reading is now recorded as the maximum temperature for that day at the 563 automatic weather stations across Australia that are measuring surface air temperatures.

https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/38584/1/38584 Parker 2015.pdf

Abstract
We previously discussed as the warming of Australia evidenced by the Australian Climate Observations Reference Network (ACORN) data set is artificially created by the arbitrary correction of the truly measured temperatures making cooler the  temperatures of the past [1-4]. Gillham [5] has freshly brought to the attention of the scientific community two old data sets that further support our claim, proving once more how the ACORN corrections are wrongly set up to magnify the warming  trend where actually they should rather cancel the urban heat island effect reducing the trend.

I have actually read a report that audits and compares the Australian ACORN 1 and 2 data sets and comes out with similar results to A. Parker above (not by a scientist). It stated that 12 data locations were removed from ACORN 2, due to them being 'heat islands', although the rising trend in ACORN 2 is severely reduced when the data from those 12 locations is included in the data set.

I think science has become too politicized to be able to provide the correct results without adequate quality assurance procedures or regular auditing by technical people who know what they are doing.