A example of climate activists at work that shows why they lost

Summary: Here is a first-person account of a small but telling incident in the climate policy wars, showing how the methods used by climate activists won battles, but lost the war. Their political power could destroy opponents, but doing so did not convince a majority of the US public. Now Republican gains have closed the door for action by the Federal government and most states, at least for the foreseeable future. The effects could be unfortunate.

“Sooner or later, everyone sits down to a banquet of consequences.”
— Attributed to Robert Louis Stevenson.

An Inside Look at the Politics of Climate Science

By Professor Roger Pielke, Jr.
Presented at the University of Florida, 17 March 2017.
Posted with his generous permission.

 

Read more

Advertisements

An eminent climate scientist describes the frontiers of climate science

Summary: Here is a status report on climate science by an eminent climate scientists, helping us see its frontiers and so better cope with one of the major challenges of the 21st century. (Second of two posts today.)

A new paradigm for assessing the role of humanity
in the climate system — and in climate change

By Roger Pielke, Sr.
Posted with his generous permission.

A note about progress in science

Geological ages ago at Cornell, I learned that science usually takes place on the frontiers of observation. That’s the important insight Thomas Kuhn overlooked in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Freeman Dyson described this hole as “tool- or instrument-driven revolutions.” These are as or more common than paradigm-driven revolutions. Galileo looks through his telescope at the moons of Jupiter and our view of the universe changes. Watson and Crick looked at an X-ray diffraction image of DNA and saw its structure; four years later Watson formulated the “central dogma of molecular biology” and began a revolution still in its early stage.

My guess (guess) is that new observational tools, not just new theories, will end the climate wars. If not, then eventually the changing climate will tell us which side was correct.

Read more

Surprising news about trend of America’s temperature and precipitation

Summary: News stories, in both local and national media, tend to describe climate change as a simple and omnipresent phenomenon. It’s not. Here we look at the surprising trends in US temperature and precipitation, and northern hemisphere snowfall.

Global Warming

There has been global warming during the past two centuries. But activists tend to attribute everything, anywhere, to warming. That’s not accurate. Warming is a complex phenomenon, not an omnipresent force.

Look at the history of the continental US, with one of the longest and most accurate records in the world. It has warmed during the era of human-dominated warming (“more than half of the observed increase in {temperature} from 1951 to 2010 is very likely due to the observed anthropogenic increase in {greenhouse gases}”, per the IPCC’s AR5) at a rate of 0.30°F per decade (0.17°C) — oddly similar to the 0.33°F per decade (0.18°C) since the record began in 1895. But it has not done so smoothly, as activists often imply.

See this is graph of February temperatures, with the blue line showing flattish trend during the 25 years from 1983 to last month

Read more

A GOP carbon tax plan would tempt Democrats to betray America’s workers

Summary: Some prominent conservatives have proposed a bipartisan compromise to break the gridlock on public policies to fight climate change. While unlikely to gain Republicans’ support in its present form, a small change would make it attractive: use the new funds to cut taxes for the rich. It would be a win-win for Republicans, and offer Democrats a harsh choice — gain their most-sought policy goal by betrayal of their party’s core beliefs.

Carbon tax

Contents

  1. Proposing the Great Swap.
  2. Origin and reactions.
  3. A Great Betrayal?
  4. For More Information.

 

(1)  Proposing the Great Swap

A new phase in the climate wars began with “A Conservative Answer to Climate Change“, an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on 7 February 2017, George P. Schultz and JAMES A. BAKER III (both former Secretaries of State) proposed a Federal carbon tax of $40 per ton, with the proceeds distributed back to Americans — combined with loosening of pollution regulations and “adjustments” for the carbon content of imports and exports.

On February 8 the Climate Leadership Council released “The Conservative Case for Carbon Dividends”. Members of the CLC met with Gary Cohen (Director of the National Economic Council) to discuss their proposal. George P. Schultz and Ted Halstead elaborated on it in an article at the National Review on 28 February 2017 — “Enacting a carbon tax would free up private firms to find the most efficient ways to cut emissions.” From that article…

“According to the Treasury Department and several independent studies, the bottom 70% of Americans would come out ahead if our plan were enacted, meaning that they would receive more in dividends than they would pay in increased energy costs. …our program might be so popular with working-class Americans that it would lead them to support continued increases in the carbon tax to increase their dividends, in addition to promoting the clean-energy alternatives that the vast majority of voters, including Republicans, clearly favor.”

Read more

We’ve become a low testosterone America. Pussycats? More research needed, stat!

Summary: There are many threats revealed by science. We obsess about some, such as climate change. Others we ignore, such as falling testosterone levels in men. This loss of our manliness might explain many things. America’s falling crime rates? The increased frequency of women filing for divorce (why hang around with a low-T beta?). Perhaps even our defeats in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the contempt of migrants for our borders.

Testosterone formula on the chalkboard

CNN reports the news, with mockery: “Modern life rough on men“, 18 August 2011 — Opening…

“Didn’t men use to be more masculine? They were more ready to fight back, right? They walked with more swagger, and just did more things their way. Researchers can’t measure swagger – but they can measure testosterone, the male sex hormone most responsible for masculine behaviors – and studies show that testosterone levels in men have been on the decline for decades.

Two major studies have confirmed the phenomenon, one in U.S. men and another in Danish men. In the U.S. study, the total testosterone levels measured in men’s blood dropped approximately 22% between 1987 and 2004.

Of course testosterone levels drop as men get older, but what makes the study shocking is that men today actually have less testosterone than men used to have at the same age. The challenges to men’s health may not be limited to testosterone levels. The amount of sperm in ejaculated semen may be falling too. …”

There are other dimensions to the problem: “Why are men’s sperm rates falling?” by Dr. Phil Hammond in The Telegraph, 17 March 2014 — “Men’s sperm production is decreasing rapidly and the scientific community is struggling to find an explanation.”

Something is happening. Thousands of papers in the past few years examine the dynamics and effects of this powerful hormone. It responds to changes in a person’s social and physical environment. It influences men’s health and behavior in many ways.

Below the fold are summaries of eight papers, among the few that examine the changes during the past few decades in testosterone levels and male fertility. These longitudinal studies are of great value — but complex and expensive — and hence rare. They have been ignored by policy makers, but deserve attention. Lead poisoning helped bring down the Roman Empire. It was one of many factors in its decline, but one that they were unable to see (they knew about the danger of lead pipes, but not other sources of lead poisoning).

Read more

A look at the future of global warming. Our political response depends on its trend.

Summary: The degree of global warming during the next few years might have large political effects, as the public policy debate appears to be at a critical point in its 29th year (from Hansen’s Senate testimony). Will the pause resume, or will we get rapid warming? Close examination of the monthly data will give us clues about this important question.

Global Warming

How can we see the short-term temperature trend?

There is no one true way to show trends in global temperature. Here are three different perspectives; all give roughly similar results. First, let’s look at a graph by NOAA of the global average surface temperature (their excellent interactive website shows data since the reliable instrument era began in 1880). The time period selected depends on what we are looking for. The following graph shows January’s. It minimizes the overall warming trend, which is concentrated in the months of May, June, & July. Click to enlarge.

The warming since 1950 — the period in which over half of the warming comes from anthropogenic causes — occurred almost entirely in two steps: 1981-83 (near the 1979-83 El Niño period) and 1998-99 (near the 1997-98 El Niño).  Since then climate scientists have shown that the two century-long temperature rise has “paused” (aka the “hiatus”). There are various theories about the cause. Then came the spike of the 2015-2016 El Niño. The peak to peak rise, 1998 to 2016, was only 0.4°F.

What happens next? The El Niño might have been just a spike, after which temperatures will fall back to the 1998-2014 average — and the “pause” continues.  If temperatures don’t fall back to their previous levels, then we begin a new watch. Will the 2015-16 El Niño start another stair step, with temperatures flat at a new high level? Or will temperatures begin a steady rise? The one month anomalies provide an easy if rough way to see which of these three scenarios unfolds, each having different political implications. Unfortunately, climate models cannot yet make reliable predictions for five to ten years horizons

Read more

A climate scientist assesses the threat of climate change

Summary: Eminent climate scientist Judith Curry gives a brief assessment of the threat of climate change, starting from first principles — such as the definition of “risk”. It is a timely reminder, as the debate about the public policy response to climate change moves into hysteria.

“US politics could be focused on preventing climate change from destroying all life on Earth. Instead, it’s focused on Vlad Putin & Nordstrom.”

— David Sirota on Twitter (74 thousand followers). He is a radio host based in Denver, nationally syndicated columnist, and Democratic political spokesperson. He says this often, ignoring those pointing out that the IPCC’s Working Group I’s reports say nothing remotely like that. See his Wikipedia entry.

Global Warming

 

The ‘threat’ of climate change

By Judith Curry,
Posted at Climate Etc, 29 January 2017.

Posted under a Creative Commons License

 

A major disconnect in the discourse surrounding climate change is interpretation of the ‘threat’ of climate change.

Last week I attended the annual meeting of the American Meteorological Society in Seattle.  It was a very good meeting …One of the best things about such conferences is the opportunity for extended face to face discussions with other scientists.  I had one such discussion that triggered the theme for this post.  This scientist (who will remain unnamed) does not disagree with me about climate change science in any significant way, although he has more confidence in climate models than I do.  In particular, he has publicly discussed the uncertainty issue.

He doesn’t take the ‘heat’ that I do largely because, in spite of these substantial uncertainties, he makes statements about the ‘serious threat’ of climate change, substantial risk of dangerous or even calamitous impacts,  reducing this risk requires a reduction of carbon emissions.

We both agree that there is the ‘possibility’ of extreme impacts if the warming is on the high end of the model projections.  We agree that we can’t quantify the probability of such impacts; it is best to regard them as ‘possibilities.’

So, what is the differences in reasoning that lead us to different conclusions regarding policy responses?

Read more