By Kenneth Richard on 11. October 2018
“Extreme sea level rise warnings based on predictions by never validated models, or speculations, that are defocusing coastal management from every other relevant situation, should be discharged.” — Parker, 2018
Sea level oscillations in Japan and China since the start of
the 20th century and consequences for coastal management
“Regionally, the sea levels in the PRD [Pearl River Delta, China] region and Japan show no significant acceleration from 1900 to present, but only oscillations. This result is consistent with the other coastal area of the world where long-term tide gauges are located. Policy making, and management, should therefore focus on adaptive measures linked to the monitoring by tide gauges and Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) of relative sea level rise and land subsidence. Extreme sea level rise warnings based on predictions by never validated models, or speculations, that are defocusing coastal management from every other relevant situation, should be discharged.”
“[T]he long-term tide gauges of the world show no significant sign of sea level acceleration since the start of the 20th century.”
“Ocean and coastal management in the area should be based on the accurate monitoring of the relative sea level rise and the subsidence of the land by coupled tide gauge and Global Navigation Satellite System measurements, rather than models’ predictions and speculations defocusing coastal management from more relevant situations than the non-existent threat of extreme sea level rise.”
Posted in Alarmism, Sea Levels |
I do like the quote “…should be discharged.”
Each subject area has its diction but I think
this line sounds like the discharging of effluent.
Seems so appropriate.
IPCC SR15 chapter 3.4.4.8:
And in regards to the future from the summary:
The paper is paywalled and I can’t find it anywhere else so no chance to actually read the paper, but:
So the author is saying that the current acceleration or rise in sea level is no different than at the start of the 20th century, right?
Hmm: https://imgur.com/a/yySyvp2
And http://www.climatedata.info/impacts/sea-levels/
Well, it is. He should have used the short 1940 or 1950s periods as a comparison. Current rise rate seems to be similar to those times, but not the start of the 20th century.
Hmm? The graph you linked to starts in 1958. Why do you believe 1958 is “the start of the 20th century”? Sea level rise rates were equal or greater than recent decades during the 1920-1950 period…which is not included in that graph that starts in 1958.
In fact, measurements show that sea level rise rates decelerated in the second half of the 20th century compared to the first half:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006GL028492/abstract
“The rate of sea level change was found to be larger in the early part of last century (2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr 1904–1953), in comparison with the latter part (1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr 1954–2003).”
Further, the graph you linked to comes from Frederiske et al., 2018, which indicates that sea level rise and the sum of its contributors averaged just 1.4 mm/yr during 1958-2014, with a total meltwater contribution from Antarctica and Greenland combined a whopping 1.52 cm. Do you think the 1.52 cm additional meltwater equivalent is alarming, SebastianH?
Considering you believe we’ll get more than a meter of sea level rise by 2100, at what point do you think the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheet melt will contribute to sea level rise at a rate consistent with that trajectory? The ~3 centimeters per century rate contribution just isn’t going to get us there. So when does the catastrophic melt start?
You need to stop doing this, Kenneth. You’ve probably clicked on the first link and that thought that you must reply in outrage and completely ignore the second link and what else I wrote. Why?
Yeah, look at the graphs in the second link in my comment and wonder why selecting those timeframes gives that result.
And he switches the topic. Let me switch it too … Frederiske also writes: “Over the same period [1958-2014], the reconstruction shows a positive acceleration of 0.07 ± 0.02 mm/yr²” … feel free to map that out in Excel or your favorite spreadsheet software (make it so the average is 1.5 mm).
I don’t, where is this coming from? Is this some “you believe a certain scientist who said this would happen in a very specific scenario” thing again? In the future, just assume that I find the range given by the IPCC very plausible: 0.26 to 0.77 m rise compared to 2000 levels at a 1.5°C warming and 0.1 m more for a 2°C warming.
Have you done that Excel thing with the acceleration yet? Extrapolate from 2014 to 2100 and see what sea level you get. I’ll prepare a spreadsheet for you if you ask nicely … to further the discussion of science and math instead of you trying to accuse me of random stuff and changing the topic to something where you can blast me with quotes you think support your view 😉
Again, do that Excel thing. Plot out an acceleration of 0.07 mm/yr² starting at a 3 cm per century rate today and look where you get to in 2100 sea level wise. That’s a crude projection, but should give you an idea how exponential growth works and might open up your mind a bit.
Correct. When one chooses 1958 as the starting point — when sea level rise was flat to slight — an acceleration is discernible. If one were to choose 1930 as the starting point, the acceleration disappears and/or a deceleration occurs.
Considering you believe we’ll get more than a meter of sea level rise by 2100
Uh, from your own words. You said that the IPCC prediction of 0.74 m by 2100 “might be a bit on the low side”, as you proceeded to link to two articles that said we’d get more like 1 meter or more, as the IPCC estimate is too conservative…
——————————————
https://notrickszone.com/2018/07/10/sea-ice-model-projections-in-a-death-spiral-arctic-ice-volume-holds-steady-for-a-decade/comment-page-1/#comment-1267935
Do you know what the IPCC actually predicted? Did you know that their prediction might be a bit on the low side?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/dec/04/experts-ipcc-underestimated-sea-level-rise
“According to the more likely higher emission scenario, the results are 0.7–1.2 meters (2.3–3.9 feet) by 2100”
or more recent:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2018/06/15/is-the-ipcc-wrong-about-sea-level-rise/#5608ed7d3ba0
[This graph shows sea level rise exceeding 1 meter by 2100 for the most likely emissions scenarios]
———————
Or did you write that the IPCC estimate of 0.74 m by 2100 was too low, and link to two articles that show 1 meter or more is more likely, because you did not agree with these conclusions that sea level rise will be greater than the IPCC estimates?
SebastianH, considering sea level rise rates are oscillatory rather than linear, and that sea level rise flatlined from the 1950s to 1970s (before the data was changed), it cannot be assumed that an acceleration rate that is arbitrarily dependent on the selected year (1958) in an oscillatory pattern (i.e., start in a slow-rising year leads to a high acceleration, but start in a fast-rising year like 1930 and we get a low acceleration or deceleration), it is not possible to calculate with any precision what the sea level rise rate will be 80-some years from now. I know you think it’s a matter of just inputting numbers, but you obviously don’t understand that acceleration is an arbitrary conditional variable that changes depending on the year selected as the starting point.
If we begin in the year 1901, the acceleration is a “not significant” 0.0042 mm/yr, which is quite a bit different than 0.07 mm/yr when we start in 1958.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0964569112003304
“A proper coastal management requires an accurate estimation of sea level trends locally and globally. It is claimed that the sea levels are rising following an exponential growth since the 1990s, and because of that coastal communities are facing huge challenges. … It is shown here that the exponential growth claim is not supported by any measurement of enough length and quality when properly analysed. The tide gauge results do not support the exponential growth theory.”
“The projections by the relevant state bodies should therefore be revised by considering the measurements and not the models to compute the future sea level rises for the next 30 years following the same trend experienced over the last 30 years.”
I thought you wrote the 1950 to 1970 increase was made up?
https://notrickszone.com/2018/10/11/new-paper-extreme-sea-level-rise-is-a-non-existent-threat-based-on-never-validated-models/comment-page-1/#comment-1275830
At what point will you not try to argue against the sea level rise increasing/accelerating anymore? When it reaches 5 mm/yr? 6 mm/yr?
Afaik the IPCC projection so far is too conservative. Sea level rose faster than predicted in the models.
Also i don’t know if the English meaning of “might be” is different than in German. Is it? And even if that doesn’t mean the same thing, how does pointing to other predictions make me “believe in more than a meter rise”?
Now this is getting really weird now. Do you think the acceleration is based on the unchanged data or the data you perceive as fake?
Isn’t the cycle supposed to be a 60 year one? 1958 is 60 years in the past. Of course it would be better to have more cycles, so let’s start 120 years in the past. Around 1900 when rates actually were flat too. So two cycles and yet the sea level increased by around 20 cm and the rate is now higher than at the start of those two cycles. Or are you waiting for the next flat period? When do you think it will arrive?
Sure … just take a look at your graph: https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Sea-Level-Rise-Rates-1700-2003-Jevrejeva-2008.jpg
Do you not notice the general trend?
Imagine a sine curve. Now add a linear increase to it. I suppose even you can see that it’s not oscillating around zero anymore at the end, right? No instead of a linear increase, add an accelerating increase to the sine curve/wave. Do you think that component is now not measureable because of the oscillations from the sine curve/wave? And do you think you can’t extrapolate that component into the future as a crude way to “predict” what’s going to happen even without any knowledge of physical mechanisms?
Why not start in 50000 BC? You just discovered that accelerations can increase too, bravo.
That is not what the real projections are based on. Again, extrapolating the current trend and acceleration gives you a crude estimate. It has nothing to do with physics in a warming world.
What 60-year period (sea level change durations can only be calculated on longer-term scales due to the natural oscillations) do you believe we will reach that rate considering the 1958-2014 trend has only been 1.4 mm/yr? Why did the 1950s-present rate decelerate from the higher rate during the first half of the 20th century?
So the models predicted lower sea level rise than 1.4 mm/yr?
Yes, we’ve established that 0.7 meter of sea level rise by 2100 is too conservative in your opinion. So what is your projection if it’s not more than a meter by 2100?
The current rate approaches 3 to 4 mm/yr and is accelerating. Did you understand the sine wave thing or did you completely ignore it?
What? http://www.climatedata.info/impacts/sea-levels/files/stacks-image-4fdf1c4.gif
You have fun repeating already answered questions and misunderstanding what people write in an attempt to drive them nuts? 😉 Does the term “so far” not mean the same thing in English as what it means in German? Did the IPCC project 0.7 meter for 2018? *sigh*
I am not projecting anything. This thread started with you ignoring half of what I wrote and a weird question about being alarmed of something. And then you came up with oscillations trying to express that this is why one would not be able to see an acceleration even though that task is not that different from seeing an overall increase in sea levels.
You also seem to not understand, that predictions on this matter are not just crude extrapolations of the past, but are based on physical models.
And at last you want to make it about what I would project with another misinterpretation because those are fun, right?
No, the “current” rate is 1.4 mm/yr during 1958-2014. Because of the rate oscillations, cherry-picking a short-term anomaly rather than a full, 60-70 year trend is not acceptable. I know 3 to 4 mm/yr is attractive to you due to your beliefs, but we also achieved 3 to 4 mm/yr during the short-term 1920-1950 period, and then it flattened out afterwards, reducing the overall 60-70 year oscillation to about 2 mm/yr when including the entire long-term trend.
Klige, 1990
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-009-0701-0_10#page-1
“During the recent century the rate of sea-level rise has reached 1.5 mm per year. The most intensive rise at a rate of more than 3 mm per year occurred from 1924 to 1948 (Fig. 2). Now the sea level is falling at a rate of more than 2 mm per year on 4.7% of the world shoreline and up to 2 mm per year on 7.9%. It is relatively stable at 24% of stations and is rising on 48.2% at a rate of less than 2 mm per year. On 14.3% of the world shoreline it is rising at a rate of more than 2 mm per year.”
Did you understand that if we choose a different year than 1958 (the 1930s, for example) then the acceleration becomes a deceleration? Cherry-picking a period (the 1950s) when sea level rise rates were the lowest of the last 100 years will definitely yield a high acceleration. But that’s all it is: cherry-picking.
We can even get a deceleration if we cherry pick 1993-2003 to 2004 to 2012, for example:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113002397
“It is found that the GMSL [Global Mean Sea Level] rises with the rate of 3.2 ± 0.4 mm/yr during 1993–2003 and started decelerating since 2004 to a rate of 1.8 ± 0.9 mm/yr in 2012.”
Why did the 1950s-present rate decelerate from the higher rate during the first half of the 20th century?
How many times must we explain this to you?
Again, the 1958-2014 rate trend reached 1.4 mm/yr (Frederiske et al., 2018), which is similar to the 1.45 mm/yr rate for 1954-2003.
The rate of rise for 1904-1953 was over 2 mm/yr.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006GL028492/abstract
“The rate of sea level change was found to be larger in the early part of last century (2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr 1904–1953), in comparison with the latter part (1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr 1954–2003).”
This means that there has been a deceleration in SLR rates from the 1950s to present (2003/2014) compared to the 1904-1953 period.
No. For 2100. The IPCC AR5 prediction looks like this for 2100 (the middle ground is about 0.7 m):
http://www.realclimate.org/images//IPCC_AR5_13.27.png
Yes, models. Do you think the IPCC’s estimates of about 0.7 m by 2100 are “about right” or too conservative?
Timo, yes, it’s a lovely understated phrase that lends itself to sweet interpretations. For me, it summoned visions of the discharging of the corrupt ones who knowingly support such effluent.
Ahh, one can dream.
I suppose if people are going to quote IPCC as an authority one might indicate at least one of the reasons for its lack of credibility:
Bernie Lewin has written SEARCHING FOR THE CATASTROPHE SIGNAL: the early history of the IPCC. It has largely been forgotten how great was the scientific furore against the greenhouse gas warming theory at IPCC’s inception.
Judith Curry here writes an overly-long & detailed book report https://judithcurry.com/2018/01/03/manufacturing-consensus-the-early-history-of-the-ipcc/
Among much other she quotes Frederick Seitz WSJ editorial of June 12, 1996:
“This IPCC report, like all others, is held in such high regard largely because it has been peer-reviewed. That is, it has been read, discussed, modified and approved by an international body of experts. These scientists have laid their reputations on the line. But this report is not what it appears to be—it is not the version that was approved by the contributing scientists listed on the title page. In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community, including service as president of both the NAS and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.”
Seitz goes on to cite statements sceptical of any human attribution which were changed or deleted. A few of his examples of the deleted passages:
‘None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.’
‘No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [manmade] causes.’
‘Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.’
Looks like the author is cognizant of the fact that we should not divert our precious limited resources to dealing with imaginary problems conjured up in the demented greenie imagination, thereby preventing real problems from being solved.
It’s the same strategy the Democrats are using, demanding investigations into the imaginary crimes of their opponents, thereby preventing their own very real crimes from being investigated and ultimately punished.
CASE IN POINT
“Only government intervention in the free market will enable Britain to meet its carbon emissions reductions obligations”
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2018/10/11/delingpole-meet-the-green-wonk-who-is-ready-to-ruin-britain/
Putting a contrived obligation to meet an imaginary threat ahead of reality is the real threat to freedom and prosperity.
Nope, that is the difference between European thinking and US thinking. We try to prevent stuff from happening by doing the shit-preventing stuff before we do something. The US has a different principle, you guys let people do all kinds of things and once shit happens they have to be ready to clean up after them …
Those not living in your bubble are not ready to let shit hit the fan on the off chance that it might slip through the blades unharmed because we were completely wrong about the physics of everything and should have listened to blog experts before implementing such “costly” countermeasures and changes to our power supply.
So Energiewende is preventing what from happening? What’s been accomplished?
Why are the EU’s emissions rates increasing as US emissions rates are declining?
https://capitalresearch.org/app/uploads/AEI-Chart-with-2017-CO2-Emissions.png
Hundreds of TWh of electricity weren’t produced by burning dinosaurs. Transition to a more sustainable energy supply accelerated. Showing the world how reliable such a transition can be (less blackout time per customer than France, Belgium and of course the US, where those times are measured in hours instead of minutes). And so on.
What?
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?locations=US-EU-1W
The US is not even close to the rest of the world emission-wise. Great, the overweight kid lost a few pounds. There is a long way to go and just changing the diet from coal to gas isn’t going to get the US even anywhere close to EU levels.
P.S.: Only 33% of the reduction in the US can be attributed to the switch to natural gas. So that’s a good sign that the hopefully continued reduction won’t stall once everything got switched over.
And that’s an accomplishment why?
Fossil fuel resources are found routinely and are thus quite sustainable. Wind and solar are intermittently available and thus they are not readily available when needed, rendering them less “sustainable” than fossil fuels (or nuclear). For that matter, clearing forests and destroying habitats is required to meet demands for more and more wind energy. Furthermore, wind energy is contributing to bat habitat destruction and is threatening some species with extinction. That’s not “sustainable” either.
So wind and solar are reliable?
Schäfer et al., 2018
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-017-0058-z
“Multiple types of fluctuations impact the collective dynamics of power grids and thus challenge their robust operation.”
(press release)
http://www.powerengineeringint.com/articles/2018/01/more-renewables-mean-less-stable-grids-researchers-find.html
“More renewables mean less stable grids, researchers find … [I]ntegrating growing numbers of renewable power installations and microgrids onto the grid can result in larger-than-expected fluctuations in grid frequency.”
—
Blazquez et al., 2018
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032117312546
“However, promoting renewables –in liberalized power markets– creates a paradox in that successful penetration of renewables could fall victim to its own success. With the current market architecture, future deployment of renewable energy will necessarily be more costly and less scalable. Moreover, transition towards a full 100% renewable electricity sector is unattainable. Paradoxically, in order for renewable technologies to continue growing their market share, they need to co-exist with fossil fuel technologies.”
—
Marques et al., 2018
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421518300983
“The installed capacity of wind power preserves fossil fuel dependency. … Electricity consumption intensity and its peaks have been satisfied by burning fossil fuels. … [A]s RES [renewable energy sources] increases, the expected decreasing tendency in the installed capacity of electricity generation from fossil fuels, has not been found.”
—
(press release) https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612238/wide-scale-us-wind-power-could-cause-significant-warming/
“A new study by a pair of Harvard researchers finds that a high amount of wind power could mean more climate warming, at least regionally and in the immediate decades ahead. The paper raises serious questions about just how much the United States or other nations should look to wind power to clean up electricity systems. … The study, published in the journal Joule, found that if wind power supplied all US electricity demands, it would warm the surface of the continental United States by 0.24˚C. That could significantly exceed the reduction in US warming achieved by decarbonizing the nation’s electricity sector this century, which would be around 0.1˚C.”
—
Why is it not an accomplishment? Because saved CO2 emissions aren’t worth anything because others are still emitting? Or because CO2 does nothing in your mind?
It’s not sustainable not matter what mental gymnastics you try to tell yourself this.
I see, you and I have different definitions of what sustainable means. Since when is it a problem that supply and demand aren’t able to match? Can baseload power plants supply the daily change of demand? How would you power a community with a peak power usage of 1000 MW with a 1000 MW nuclear power plant?
It is not possible to have this lifestyle and leave no impact. But if you believe conventional power plant don’t impact anything, well … ignorance is bliss they say.
They are quite predictable and Germany has only a quarter of the blackout time per customer than France and you really don’t want to discuss the massive blackout times US customers have to endure, do you?
And that’s an accomplishment why?
What, exactly, has been accomplished in the real world by mitigating emissions? What did we get? Why was it of benefit? What was the benefit?
When temperatures are freezing and heating homes is desperately needed to curtail cold-related deaths…but the wind turbines are not running and the sun isn’t shining. Why is this not a problem?
So wind and solar are reliable?
Yes, they’re predictably intermittent and thus unreliable to meet demands.
All these question seem to be coming from a core belief of yours that more CO2 is beneficial instead of harmful.
Up until now not many emissions have been mitigated. We are just at the beginning of the curve with still rapidly falling prices. Making the prices fall faster has been achieved. The benefit will ultimately be a faster transition towards a more sustainable power generation and ultimately economy.
Are you imagining a world without storage? Germany has 200 TWh of natural gas storage to get over the winter. The pipelines coming in would be in no way able to supply on demand, thus the large buffer.
Same would be necessary for longterm seasonal storage as well and – surprise – is already in place (the mentioned 200 TWh gas storage).
You really are imagining a future without any storage, are you?
So has this benefit been already realized somewhere? Or is this an “ultimate”, someday benefit?
Correct. Fossil fuel energies are needed in perpetuity because wind and solar can’t meet demands due to their unreliability and intermittent availability.
I thought I was clear that we are at the beginning of the curve.
The benefit of a faster transition has been realized, yes. We would not be at this point in the price curves if there would not have been early subsidies. Just like with any other technology that didn’t just arrive in its final state at “for everyone” prices out of nowhere. “Ultimately” those few early adopters buying big, expensive TVs made it possible that everyone can now bug a fairly large TV for the living room.
Considering Germans do not pay any less for energy now than they did before Energiewende was instituted (and, in fact, they pay far more), in what way has the benefit already been realized for German citizens? How are Germans better off today than they were in say, 2008, as a consequence of Energiewende?
Sometimes I think I am speaking Chinese the way you reply …
Is my English really this bad? Driving down the price for e.g. wind turbines or solar panels doesn’t mean that the price for electricity becomes smaller as more and more wind and solar gets installed, especially when subsidies for past installations are included in that price. The actual price for generating 1 kWh of electricity from wind or solar has come down dramatically though. Do I need to visualize this for you in a spreadsheet?
Less fossil fuel emissions, cheaper wind/solar installations.
And it has proven that a 40% renewables power grid is more stable than France’s nuclear driven grid and many times more stable than what US customers experience.
So there really is no net benefit to the average German citizen. They pay more for energy, more citizens live in energy poverty, the pristine landscapes are pocked with cement-and-steel behemoths, forests are cleared for wind turbines, natural habitats are destroyed, the average citizen’s well being is increasingly compromised the closer one gets to a wind farm…all for what? Nothing. There is no obvious net benefit for the German citizen for Energiewende. What a deal.
How are Germans better off today than they were in say, 2008, as a consequence of Energiewende?
Fossil fuel emissions have not lessened in the last 9 years. So what if the wind/solar installations are cheaper if the average German citizen has to pay more of her or his income to pay for energy? That’s like saying it takes less money to produce a Volkswagon today than 9 years ago because of cheaper steel prices. If the average consumer cost for a vehicle is 20% greater today, there is no net benefit to the average German citizen who wants to purchase a VW.
Biomass burning, which increases CO2 emissions, supplies a significant portion of the electricity generation from “renewables” in Germany.
If Germany’s 2/3rds fossil fuels-supplied power grid is stable, it’s not primarily caused by the fractional amount of the grid’s electricity that comes from wind and solar. As scientists tell us, the more wind and solar are used, the more unstable the grids are.
http://www.powerengineeringint.com/articles/2018/01/more-renewables-mean-less-stable-grids-researchers-find.html
“More renewables mean less stable grids, researchers find … [I]ntegrating growing numbers of renewable power installations and microgrids onto the grid can result in larger-than-expected fluctuations in grid frequency.”
Not really.
https://www.tdworld.com/generation-and-renewables/myth-german-renewable-energy-miracle
“The German portion of the grid is supported by extensive hydroelectric resources in Denmark and coal resources in Poland. The interconnected grid as a whole does not have anywhere the same level of renewable penetration as is found in the German portion. The 2016 statistics show that 75% of the generation within the European interconnected grid in 2016 was conventional thermal and nuclear. Renewables in the entire European interconnected grid were 12% hydroelectric, 10% wind, and 4% other. [5] Thus, Germany relies on (or “leans on”) the conventional rotating machinery in neighboring counties in order to ensure continuous, reliable operation.”
“Data used to showcase the German grid as more reliable than the grid in the U.S. generally use SAIDI (System Average Interruption Duration Index) and SAIFI (System Average Interruption Frequency Index) statistics, which are data on the distribution system. These statistics measure interruptions at the end-use customer. The reliability concerns around renewable resources, however, occur at the bulk system level. Thus, these statistics do not demonstrate that the “German” bulk grid is more reliable as they do not measure bulk system reliability. At present, tools are not available to quantify bulk system reliability. Thus, comparing the reliability of bulk systems of particular countries or across a continent is not feasible.”
“SAIDI is calculated in various ways by differing utilities such that comparisons are challenging and specific benchmark studies must be done to get reasonable comparisons. However, it is clear that Germany does have significantly lower outage rates than are found in the US. What is also clear is that Germany spends considerably more per kWh or load (kW) served on the transmission and distribution systems. German consumers pay about 7 cents per kWh exclusive of energy for just the grid while in the U.S. the number is half that. “
So there really is no net benefit to the average German citizen.
You are doing this on purpose, aren’t you?
A pretty disturbing few on the state of renewables. Would you say you are biased in some fashion? Do you hate renewables and wind turbines in particular? Why?
We pay more because of subsidies. The price per kWh has come down significantly because countries like Germany subsidized renewables. How hard to understand is that simply fact?
The effects wind turbines have on people is also called “wind turbine syndrome”. Google it! And it’s rather surprising to me that you seem to ignore the impact fossil fuel power plants are having the way you rant about the impact of wind turbines.
For nothing? You are neither listen nor are you trying to understand what I wrote. This is ridiculous.
And on the topic of energy poverty, please compare offical number to the ones in your country before you express concern that the German numbers would be outrageously high. Put stuff in context for once …
Excuse me? Renewables have driven down the gCO2 per kWh significantly. Hundreds of TWh of fuel wasn’t burned to meat the electricity demand.
You really need that spreadsheet to understand what is included in the price the customer pays.
No, it’s like the first 5% of Volkswagen cars produced being expensive, but due to scale the price comes down pretty quick so the final 90% of vehicles sold are cheap enough for everyone. Without the subsidies that helped the first 5% to sell it would have taken ages for the price to come down enough to see mass adoption of the product.
That’S the benefit of the subsidies. Electricity is still ridiculously cheap. I still don’t know what you are paying per month for energy, Kenneth. Is it less than the average German household?
It doesn’t increase CO2 emissions unless you think everyone is just burning wood without new plants growing. I thought the world was greening? More plant leaf area and so on? Is that a myth and we are in fact burning down all the plants faster than they can regrow?
Nobody is saying wind and solar don’t have their challenges, but apparently other countries with less penetration have bigger problems. So those doomsday alarmist claims of the coming super blackout from the skeptic side are just nonsense. That might happens in countries where power outtages occur just because someone looked wrong at a cable … don’t you worry about Germany.
Yeah right, the author can’t imagine that grid inertia can come from anything else put spinning mass … what an expert. Because inverters can’t provide a stable frequency, right?
Way to go on moving the goal posts. So the reliability at the customer doesn’t matter? Who is using the electricity then and depends on it?
Indeed … around 10 to 15 minutes per customer per year compared to hours per customer per year in the US.
Well then … about time to increase the spending on your grid if it is that unreliable. Look at what a few cents extra can accomplish.
That was a real good one. It’s you guys who make up dealing with climate change the center of your attention ignoring all the other problems. You imagine up that those who you argue against are out to de-industrialize the world and send us back to live in huts. One world government level of craziness. And that the precious power grid in Germany would get destroyed by all the unreliable renewables (ignoring that France experiences blackouts 4 times as long as Germany per customer and you don’t even want to get started about the US, where blackouts get actually measured in hours). And so on …
If you just would focus on the real problems. Like healtcare, enough care workers (is that the right word?), preventing poverty in retirement, a good education for everyone and so on. But no, climate change policies by foreign countries freak you out enough to make it the center of your attention 😉
Is that a reference to the Nancy Pelosi video spike55 posted a while ago? Still think she was talking about what she does herself? *sigh*
You seem to be a black and white thinking Republican then. Is that correct?
And why do you mention crimes? Do you think climate scientists are criminal and need to go to jail or punished otherwise? For what? I am asking rethorically, you probably think everyone needs to be punished for the scam/hoax they are in on, right? If so, why are you simultanously posting podcasts about totalitarian science? You are trying to suppress everything that doesn’t conform to your weird opinion. Have you ever entertained the thought that you could be wrong? And then what? Do we need to punish you too for all the stuff you expressed to be real but aren’t?
You are really weird, Yonason.
Whole lotta projection goin’ on here, methinks.
Sea level also has a clear signal due to the ~60 year cycle.
This graph of the AMO and PDO shows where we are in the cycle and what to expect in the near future. I’ve scaled the PDO data to be on a similar basis to the AMO – they use different metrics for their indices.
As you can see the PDO is not quite in synch with the AMO cycle, but has started to turn down. The AMO is still at its plateaux. When they both are in their down cycles I expect sea level rise will stop and quite possibly reverse.
So, CO2 is what’s causing the AMO? Who knew! //SARC//
You expect this to change into a downward slope?
http://www.climatedata.info/impacts/sea-levels/files/stacks-image-4fdf1c4.gif
Even though thermal expansion due to rising temperatures and heat content is clearly not a cyclical thing?
But ok, we’ll see I guess. In what timeframe do you expect us seeing sea level to stop rising? 10 year? 20 years? 30 years? Willing to do a longbet on this prediction?
Sea level rise rates aren’t oscillatory?
Jevrejeva et al., 2008
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-013-1771-3
“Finally, a global reconstruction of sea level (Jevrejeva et al. in Geophys Res Lett 35:L08715, 2008) and a reconstruction of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) index (Luterbacher et al. in Geophys Res Lett 26:2745–2748, 1999) are analyzed and compared: both sequences cover about three centuries from 1700 to 2000. The proposed methodology quickly highlights oscillations and teleconnections among the records at the decadal and multidecadal scales. At the secular time scales tide gauge records present relatively small (positive or negative) accelerations, as found in other studies (Houston and Dean in J Coast Res 27:409–417, 2011). On the contrary, from the decadal to the secular scales (up to 110-year intervals) the tide gauge accelerations oscillate significantly from positive to negative values mostly following the PDO, AMO and NAO oscillations. In particular, the influence of a large quasi 60–70 year natural oscillation is clearly demonstrated in these records. The multiscale dynamical evolutions of the rate and of the amplitude of the annual seasonal cycle of the chosen six tide gauge records are also studied.”
Glacier melt contribution to sea level rise isn’t oscillatory? Why was the contribution higher during 1920-1950 period than in the decades after?
Gregory et al., 2013
Before Jim Hanson decided to change the data in the late 1980s, global sea level rise flat-lined or even fell slightly during the 1950s to 1970s, as shown in Gornitz et al., 1982:
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Global-Sea-Level-Rise-NASA-1982-Gornitz.jpg
Since a lack of sea level rise wasn’t convenient to the cause, the data were changed and the 1950s to 1970s now shows a continued rise during that period.
It’s as oscillatory as the CO2 level rise or the temperature rise from winter to summer with its daily oscillations.
As a matter of fact your life is oscillatory too … sleep, wake, sleep and so on, but you wouldn’t say you are not aging, right?
Sea level rise rates aren’t oscillatory?
No, sea level rise rates are oscillatory on a decadal scale:
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Sea-Level-Rise-Rates-1700-2003-Jevrejeva-2008.jpg
Glacier melt contributions to sea level rise are also oscillating on a multi-decadal scale:
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Holocene-Cooling-Glacier-Melt-Contribution-Sea-Level-Gregory-2013.jpg
Interestingly, CO2 emissions are not oscillatory on a multi-decadal scale…even though the Arctic’s air temperatures are. Why?
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/CO2-Emissions-and-Arctic-Air.jpg
Reply to this one vanished?
Let me get this straight. You are saying the sea level didn’t rise as much between the 1950s to the 1970s as the current tide gauge data suggests? That the rise was faked in there?
So the period with the comparable to today rise is not real? (see second graph here: http://www.climatedata.info/impacts/sea-levels/) … then the author of the paper you wrote is completely wrong. Not even in the middle of the 20th century did the sea level rise approach today’s levels in your version of the data …
It was commonly shown that sea level rise stalled or even stopped during the 1950s to 1970s…
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/SLR-No-Sea-Level-Rise-In-40-Years.jpg
Pirazzoli, 1990: “During the past 40 years there has probably been no global sea level rise at all”
Here’s the difference between NASA’s graph of global sea level rise in 1982 versus 2016:
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Screen-Shot-2016-10-03-at-11.25.43-PM.gif
Similarly, it was commonly shown that the globe warmed by 0.5 C between 1880 and 1950 as of 1987. That’s disappeared now too:
I’m not really sure what’s “real” and what isn’t considering the data are changed so readily.
Just within the last few years NASA added 0.24 C to the 1910 to 2000 global temperature trend:
https://notrickszone.com/2018/03/19/since-2008-0-24c-of-extra-warming-has-curiously-been-added-to-nasas-1910-2000-global-temperatures/
That warming was apparently in hiding…and then it was “discovered” by GISS in gradual steps since 2008.
Why do you think there are so many changes to the data?
Lots of things seem to be “commonly shown” (or known) in the skeptics scene. One would think there is a perfectly good explanation for the adjustment that is visible in your second graph composite.
Ah, that one. Haven’t we had this discussion many times now? You still think the 1950 temperatures got adjusted upwards instead of the 1880 temperatures downward?
Data quality issues. Unfortunately there weren’t large datacenters and precision instruments with (non-changing) standards on how to measure and record data available for most of the past. Locations varied a lot as well.
Therefore adjustments are required.
Huh? When did I write that I think that?
The other way around, sorry. Should be rather obvious though in a reply to you claiming that NASA removed warming.
I was referring to graphs like this one:
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/NASA-Global-Surface-Temps-1987-1880-1950-0.5C-768×514.jpg
You join those two lines at the beginning indicating you temperatures at the end got adjusted and not the temperatures at the beginning of that timespan.
I notized similar problems when you post woodfortree graphs without adjusting the baselines correctly.
Keith,
You should be nominated for sainthood.
Your friend Seb gave up a promising career in dancing – specialty: the sidestep.
Big picture: there exists no detectable ‘human signal’ in the sea level rise rate.
Exhortations of an ever-increasing sea level rise rate (the definition of sustained acceleration) do not help it materialize. Data (and only data) should be consulted to determine whether what Climate Scientists have been predicting for the past three decades is actually transpiring.
Funny thing: the data have failed to cooperate.
This, Seb, is why rational individuals (with a modicum of scientific acumen, but without a vested interest in the climate scare) doubt the dire IPCC SPM proclamations as well as the proscribed recipe for freeing ourselves from Climate Armageddon: the droning drumbeat about our need to “decarbonize”.
It is a reality-challenged religion. And you appear to be not only a “Believer”, but more importantly, a “missionary”.
One day, hopefully, you will realize that you have been duped. For your sake, I do hope this comes before your 40th birthday.
“Funny thing: the data have failed to cooperate.” – Kurt in Switzerland
Very simply explained, Kurt. Reality is not supported by the “data” (adjusted, model generated, cherry picked, etc).
How old are you Kurt? Can we meet up in 30 years and laugh about past times and how silly those skeptic bubble websites were who believed in strange things without a scientific basis for the sake of being against the establishment or something like that?
The next decades will hopefully finally put an end to the so called skeptic thing. They’ll pivot to something else, but at some point, even you guys can not explain away what is happening. Waiting for that moment seems to be the only way to “convince” you.
So when the catastrophic climate predictions aren’t realized (just as they haven’t been for the last several decades despite many prognostications of doom), will this lead to a reconsideration of CO2 as the dominant cause of climate change, sea level rise, glacier melt…?
You bet it will. With new data the models can get refined and theories get adjusted. That is the beauty of science.
Skeptics however remain stubborn no matter what happens. Remember 2007/2008? I’ve read up on those crazy times where skeptics predicted the coming ice age and said it would cool because of this and that. Numerous bets were made (one running on this very blog). All have lost as climate turned out to follow what actual scientists predicted.
But did this inform the skeptics to do better next time? Nope. We see the same kind of predictions today. Now I am not saying the situation is the same, but one would think people would learn from their mistakes, right?
So allow me to ask you if you’ll change your mind when skeptics remain wrong on everything for another decade? Or will you continue to be skeptical about all this climate change stuff being real and what bloggers and some fringe scientists are telling you to be more likely the truth?
Scientists have recently predicted the solar minima and concomitant cooling trend would begin in the 2020s to 2040s. I don’t know of any that have predicted a full-blown glacial, or that the interglacial will officially end. More like another Little Ice Age.
Catastrophic climate change, whether cooling or warming, has been predicted by scientists for decades. The same caliber of scientists predicting catastrophic warming today were saying the 1940s-1970s cooling trend was an indication another ice age was imminent in the 1970s. Perhaps this is why people like us are skeptical, and people like you are not.
Stewart and Glantz, 1985 (full paper) “The conclusions of the NDU study might have been predicted from a knowledge of the prevailing ‘spirit of the times’ (i.e., the prevailing mood in the science community) when the first part was conducted. This was an interesting time in recent history of climate studies. One could effectively argue that in the early 1970s the prevailing view was that the earth was moving toward a new ice age. Many articles appeared in the scientific literature as well as in the popular press speculating about the impact on agriculture of a 1-2°C cooling. By the late 1970s that prevailing view had seemingly shifted 180 degrees to the belief that the earth’s atmosphere was being warmed as a result of an increasing CO2 loading of the atmosphere.”
—
Flohn, 1974 “Since about 1945 [to 1974], global cooling, on a scale of -0.01°C/yr [-0.3°C total], has reversed the warming trend of the first decades of our century. The bulk of these changes is probably not man-made, but of natural origin. … A large majority of the participants of the symposium concluded that the present warm epoch has reached its final phase, and that—disregarding possible man-made variations are comparable in scale with the effects–the natural end of this interglacial epoch is ‘undoubtedly near’.”
—
Kukla, 1972 “A new glacial insolation regime, expected to last 8000 years, began just recently. Mean global temperatures may eventually drop about 1°C in the next hundred years.”
—
Ellsaesser, 1974 “The 1968 AAAS Symposium on Global Effects of Environmental Pollution initiated a flood of papers supporting monotonically if not exponentially increasing pollution. The particulate increases were usually cited as at least contributing to the post 1940 cooling and possibly capable of bringing on another ice age. Since 1945 there has been a cooling trend and we are now nearly back down to the averages of the early 19th century. None of the calculations of which I am aware found that the man augmented CO2 could have contributed more than a small fraction of the warming up to 1940.”
—
Cimorelli and House, 1974 “Between 1880 and 1940 a net warming of about 0.6°C occurred, and from 1940 to the present our globe experienced a net cooling of 0.3°C. …[I]t has since been found that the rate of temperature increase decreases with increasing CO2 and increases with increasing particulates. Therefore, global particulate loading is of foremost concern. … Sellers (1973) has developed a climate model which quantitatively relates particulate loading to surface temperature. He has shown that an increase in man-made global particulates by a factor of 4.0 will initiate an ice-age. In order that we safeguard ourselves and future generations from a self-imposed ice-age it is necessary that we effectively monitor global concentrations of particulate matter.”
—
Benton, 1970 “Climate is variable. In historical times, many significant fluctuations in temperature and precipitation have been identified. In the period from 1880 to 1940, the mean temperature of the earth increased about 0.6°C; from 1940 to 1970, it decreased by 0.3-0.4°C.”
—
National Academy of Sciences, 1975 “Since the 1940’s, mean temperatures have declined and are now nearly halfway back to the 1880 levels. … There seems little doubt that the present period of unusual warmth will eventually give way to a time of colder climate, but there is no consensus with regard to either the magnitude or rapidity of the transition. The onset of this climatic decline could be several thousand years in the future, although there is a finite probability that a serious worldwide cooling could befall the earth within the next hundred years. … If the end of the interglacial is episodic in character, we are moving toward a rather sudden climatic change of unknown timing, although as each 100 years passes, we have perhaps a 5 percent greater chance of encountering its [the next glacial’s] onset.”
—
NOAA, 1974 “Many climatologists have associated this drought and other recent weather anomalies with a global cooling trend and changes in atmospheric circulation which, if prolonged, pose serious threats to major food-producing regions of the world. … Annual average temperatures over the Northern Hemisphere increased rather dramatically from about 1890 through 1940, but have been falling ever since. The total change has averaged about one-half degree Centigrade, with the greatest cooling in higher latitudes. A drop of only one or two degrees Centigrade in the annual average temperature at higher latitudes can shorten the growing season so that some crops have to be abandoned. … [T]he average growing season in England is already two weeks shorter than it was before 1950. Since the late 1950’s, Iceland’s hay crop yield has dropped about 25 percent, while pack ice in waters around Iceland and Greenland ports is becoming the hazard to navigation it was during the 17th and 18th centuries. … Some climatologists think that if the current cooling trend continues, drought will occur more frequently in India—indeed, through much of Asia, the world’s hungriest continent. … Some climatologists think that the present cooling trend may be the start of a slide into another period of major glaciation, popularly called an ‘ice age.’“
—
U.S. Central Intelligence Agency,1974 (1) “According to Dr. Hubert Lamb–an outstanding British climatologist–22 out of 27 forecasting methods he examined predicted a cooling trend through the remainder of this century. A change of 2°-3° F. in average temperature would have an enormous impact. [pg. 28, bottom footnote] … A number of meteorological experts are thinking in terms of a return to a climate like that of the 19th century. This would mean that within a relatively few years (probably less than two decades, assuming the cooling trend began in the 1960’s) there would be brought belts of excess and deficit rainfall in the middle-latitudes; more frequent failure of the monsoons that dominate the Indian sub-continent, south China and western Africa; shorter growing seasons for Canada, northern Russia and north China. Europe could expect to be cooler and wetter. … [I]n periods when climate change [cooling] is underway, violent weather — unseasonal frosts, warm spells, large storms, floods, etc.–is thought to be more common.”
—
Gribbin, 1975 “A recent flurry of papers has provided further evidence for the belief that the Earth is cooling. There now seems to be little doubt that changes over the past few years are more than a minor statistical fluctuation. … On page 45 of this issue of Nature, Wahl and Bryson compare recent sea surface temperature patterns with those of cooler regimes in the past, and conclude that over the period from 1951 to 1972 there was a decline corresponding “to a return of about one-sixth of the way to full ice age.” … The observed cooling corresponds to a re-establishment of the ‘Little Ice Age’ which persisted for several hundred years up to the end of the nineteenth century; it may be that all that has happened since 1950 is that the unusually mild spell of the first part of this century has ended.”
—
Schneider, 1974 “In the last century it is possible to document an increase of about 0.6°C in the mean global temperature between 1880 and 1940 and a subsequent fall of temperature by about 0.3°C since 1940. In the polar regions north of 70° latitude the decrease in temperature in the past decade alone has been about 1°C, several times larger than the global average decrease (see Fig. 3.8 in the SMIC Report). Up till now, past climatic changes (except possibly those of the last few decades [of cooling temperatures]) could hardly have been caused by man’s activities.”
—
Collis, 1975 “It is not clear how such favorable and relatively consistent conditions are related to the higher temperatures in this century or the peaking of temperatures around 1940. The reversal of this warming trend, however, could mark the beginning of a new ice age as some climatologists have indicated.”
—
Kukla and Kukla, 1972 “It is observed that the positive insolation regime designated as PIR 110, which started at 11,000 YBP, has ended recently. The new negative insolation regime, NIR 0/ + 8, will last for the next 8000 yr. Inasmuch within the last radiometrically dated 150,000 yr no NIR is known to correlate with generally warm interval, the prognosis is for a long-lasting global cooling more severe than any experienced hitherto by civilized mankind.”
—
Ellsaesser, 1975 “In recent years there have appeared a rash of papers claiming an upward trend in airborne particulates, which is presumed to have already reversed the alleged CO2 induced heating of the atmosphere observed between the 1880’s and 1940’s and to pose the further threat of inducing another ice age. Allusions to the trend have become so common that many authors now cite it as an accepted reality requiring neither qualification nor attribution by reference.”
—
Newell, 1974 “Changes in the poleward energy flux by the atmosphere and ocean as a possible cause for ice ages … At present the ocean carries an appreciable fraction of the transport, for example about three-eighths at 30°N. In the cold mode it is suggested that the ocean carries less, and the atmosphere more, than at present. The between the modes is seen as a natural imbalance in the atmosphere-ocean energy budget with a gradual warming of the ocean during an Ice Age eventually cluminating in its termination. At the present the imbalance is thought to correspond to a natural cooling of the ocean, which will lead to the next Ice Age.”
Great, so we have something to look forward to. But note, that is just another change of the forcings. It doesn’t mean that in case this manages to compensate for the human made warming, anthropogenic warming and/or the increased GHE would not exist. I am already imagining you guys running around complaining about climate science saying that without AGW the cooling would have been much worse. So I don’t know if that would be capable to settle this for either side.
Maybe we can focus on sea level rise. When is the decrease of the rate expected according to your curve fitting science?
I mean a LIA type “ice age”. Even though a -2.x degrees anonaly sounds almost like the beginning of a full blown ice age to me.
I don’t agree. This myth keeps coming up. I am sure some scientists (you quoted some) claimed those things, but then again some scientists write equally strange things that you are able to find and quote here to support your cause. One can find publications on the internet to support any fringe opinion these days.
Anyway, here is a scientific paper about the Myth of the 1970s global cooling scientific consensus:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
I assure you, I get very skeptical when myths like the one you support here are getting posted. But you believe in the myth, sooo … does this support you claim that you are skeptical? I don’t think so. You are skeptical only towards things you dislike to be true.
P.S.: I find it refreshing that a certain comment author doesn’t interfere with his trollish comments anymore that make threads like these unreadable. The tone definetely become more civil.
The same caliber of scientists predicting catastrophic warming today were saying the 1940s-1970s cooling trend was an indication another ice age was imminent in the 1970s.
Of course you don’t agree. Even when there’s one single paper that says…
Stewart and Glantz, 1985 (full paper) “The conclusions of the NDU study might have been predicted from a knowledge of the prevailing ‘spirit of the times’ (i.e., the prevailing mood in the science community) when the first part was conducted. This was an interesting time in recent history of climate studies. One could effectively argue that in the early 1970s the prevailing view was that the earth was moving toward a new ice age. Many articles appeared in the scientific literature as well as in the popular press speculating about the impact on agriculture of a 1-2°C cooling. By the late 1970s that prevailing view had seemingly shifted 180 degrees to the belief that the earth’s atmosphere was being warmed as a result of an increasing CO2 loading of the atmosphere.”
…it’s wrong. Those authors were perpetuating a myth in 1985.
There are over 300 papers (like this) that document the prominence of the global cooling scare of the 1960s-1970s. But since you have one single paper written by William Connolley (the guy who deleted inconvenient science and re-wrote Wikipedia articles to suit the AGW agenda) that says there were only 7 (!) cooling papers published in the 1970s, you believe it. You’re not even the least bit skeptical that the PCF08 paper might be egregiously flawed. Why? Because you agree that Connolley was right about there being only 7 cooling papers published during that period (1965-’79). You don’t agree that there were over 300 (even though we can facilely link to them)…because that wouldn’t support your beliefs. Over 300 global cooling papers? A myth!
Massive Cover-up Exposed: 285 Papers From 1960s-’80s Reveal Robust Global Cooling Scientific ‘Consensus’
The primary theme of PCF08 can be summarized in 4 succinctly quoted sentences from the paper:
“[T]he following pervasive myth arose [among skeptics]: there was a consensus among climate scientists of the 1970s that either global cooling or a full-fledged ice age was imminent. A review of the climate science literature from 1965 to 1979 shows this myth to be false. … During the period from 1965 through 1979, our literature survey found 7 cooling, 20 neutral, and 44 warming papers. … There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then.”
William Connolley and colleagues claimed that the determination of scientific “consensus” regarding global cooling and the influence of CO2 on climate during the 1970s could be divined by counting scientific publications that fell into arbitrarily-defined categories which allowed them to intentionally exclude hundreds of papers that would undermine the alleged myth-slaying purpose of the paper.
The PCF08 authors decided that when “quantifying the consensus” (by counting publications), a scientific paper could only be classified as a “cooling” paper if it projected that future temperatures would (continue to) decline, or that a “full-fledged ice age was imminent.” Papers published during the arbitrarily chosen 1965-’79 era that affirmed the climate had already been cooling for decades, that this cooling wasn’t a positive development, and/or that the effects of CO2 on climate were questionable or superseded by other more influential climate change mechanisms … were not considered worthy of classification as a “cooling” paper, or as a paper that disagreed with the claimed “consensus” that said the current (1960s-’70s) global cooling will someday be replaced by CO2-induced global warming.
Of course, the global cooling scare during the 1970s was not narrowly or exclusively focused upon what the temperatures might look like in the future, or whether or not an ice age was “imminent”. It was primarily about the ongoing cooling that had been taking place for decades, the negative impacts this cooling had already exerted (on extreme weather patterns, on food production, etc.), and uncertainties associated with the causes of climatic changes.
By tendentiously excluding 1960s and 1970s publications that documented global cooling had been ongoing and a concern, as well as purposely excluding papers that suggested the climate’s sensitivity to CO2 forcing is weak or questionable relative to other mechanisms, the authors could brazenly claim that there were only 7 papers published in the scientific literature between 1965 and 1979 that disagreed with the “consensus” opinion that global warming would occur at some point in the future (due to CO2 increases). According to PCF08, there were 44 papers that fell into the latter warming-is-imminent-due-to-CO2 category from 1965-’79, ostensibly entitling them to claim that dangerous anthropogenic global warming projections “dominated” the scientific literature even then.
An 83% Global Cooling/Weak CO2 Influence Scientific ‘Consensus’ During 1960s, ’70s
As will be shown here, the claim that there were only 7 publications from that era disagreeing with the presupposed CO2-warming “consensus” is preposterous. Because when including the papers from the 1960s and 1970s that indicated the globe had cooled (by -0.3° C between the 1940s and ’70s), that this cooling was concerning (leading to extreme weather, drought, depressed crop yields, etc.), and/or that CO2’s climate influence was questionable to negligible, a conservative estimate for the number of scientific publications that did not agree with the alleged CO2-warming “consensus” was 220 papers for the 1965-’79 period, not 7. If including papers published between 1960 and 1989, the “non-consensus” or “cooling” papers reaches 285.
Again, these estimates should be viewed as conservative. There are likely many dozen more scientific papers from the 1960s-’70s cooling scare era that would probably fall into the category of a “cooling” paper, but have not yet been made available to view in full online.
But let us say that the PCF08 claim is true, and that there were indeed only 44 papers published between 1965-’79 that endorsed the position that the Earth’s climate is predominately shaped by CO2 concentrations, and thus the Earth would someday start warming as the models had suggested. Interestingly, if we were to employ the hopelessly flawed methodology of divining the relative degree of scientific “consensus” by counting the number of papers that agree with one position or another (just as blogger John Cook and colleagues did with their 2013 paper “Quantifying the Consensus…” that yielded a predetermined result of 97% via categorical manipulation), the 220 “cooling” papers published between 1965-’79 could represent an 83.3% global cooling consensus for the era (220/264 papers), versus only a 16.7% consensus for anthropogenic global warming (44/264 papers).
We should all try never to lose our skepticism.
That should include you SebH, you who are claiming that your are the true skeptic here. But you are asking to lose the skeptic thing!
Is that your true color?
Why would we give up the basis of scientific endeavor and in favor of what? Scientific baloney of the willingly uneducated?
Never!
I am not advocating that anyone should do that. Since you guys want to be called skeptics, I am calling you guys skeptics even though I know that your skepticism is very one-sided and based on falsehoods or misunderstandings. Thus “put an end to the so called skeptic thing” doesn’t mean one should stop being skeptical.
The rest of your comment is based on that misunderstanding, so I won’t reply to that.
SebH,
so let me get this straight, you know most here are wrong and hence their skepticism is not a “true” one, but one-sided and not based on facts?
Would this mean you are in a position to judge wrong from right then? You know the only truth and can make decisions of what is wrong?
Would you agree that the skepticism should start with ones own ability? And would you not better start with some self-reflection of your own abilities?
In the wide fields of climate science, physics, mathematics, statistic, energy industry, energy markets, sustainability and environmental questions would you:
a) think there is someone with the ability to be an expert in all these at the same time
b) think you are an expert in and have the necessary knowledge and qualifications to have something more than just your personal opinion?
It looks like at least we agree that one should stay skeptical.
And my personal opinion is that there is not enough evidence out there, that humans have a vast impact on the Earth climata, nor any telling signs that CO2 is a main driver for climate changes.
[…] https://notrickszone.com/2018/10/11/new-paper-extreme-sea-level-rise-is-a-non-existent-threat-based-o… […]