The solar energy field now produces the larest share of jobs in US Power generation. There are 374,000 jobs i Solar right now, compared to fewer than 190,00 in coal, gas, and oil.
This corresponds to shifts in the amount of electricity produced by these various sources, as indicated in the Department of Energy graph shown above.
The biggest states for this job growth are California followed distantly by Massachusetts, Nevada, New York, New Jersey, Texas, Arizona, Florida, and North Carolina.
Given current trends inside the beltway, I expect the Department of Energy to make this report disappear so 2017 US Energy and Jobs Report_0.
Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:
In Search of Sungudogo by Greg Laden, now in Kindle
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
A majority of US citizens want more alternative fuels and less fossil:
https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/17/01/23/232240/two-thirds-of-americans-give-priority-to-developing-alternative-energy-over-fossil-fuels
Well, two thirds of Americans are out of luck, because that is not going to happen. At least not for a few years.
America, n
A country where a majority of sheep are ruled by a minority of wolves.
You guys get that all the jobs required to produce the little bit of renewable compared to the much greater amount of energy provided by fossil fuels with far fewer jobs makes renewable less efficient – right?
Jobs are good – but we want efficiency.
Not people digging holes and other people filling them in.
Why does it take almost twice as many workers to produce such a tiny amount of energy?
Because solar is at the build-out phase. It is nascent, not a mature industry.
* * *
? = dT/dF
#dishonestlittleshit
So jobs wanted, but not if they’re in industries dick doesn’t like.
Dick, you fuckbubble, you need those jobs to BUILD THE STUFF. Guess what you need if you want to build nukes or mine coal again? MORE NEW JOBS.
And those jobs are currently in China where they’re employing people to do the work.
And when it comes to “efficiency”, how frigging efficient is the DoD? How efficient was it when trump gave taxpayer handouts worth millions to one company to “save” 700 jobs for a few years?
You want jobs but NOT if they’re in things that the hippies and lefties are calling for, because your libertarianism is just a smokescreen for your political bigotry.
And what the hell is it with goaposts and you, dick? KEEP THEM WHERE THEY ARE YOU MORON.
“Oh, we need a cheaper supply, though”
“Uh, I meant it had to be up all the time!”
“Uh, no, I mean that it has to be available everywhere!”
“Uh, no, it has to be job efficient, fewer jobs!”
Why? Because Trump’s cabinet and backers want to wring every cent from their oil stocks. Nothing more complex than that.
That jobs thing? Pfft.
RickA is doing the same thing. He has plenty of oil stocks himself, and will sell his mother down the river to protect their worth. It’s a matter of efficiency, you know.
Brainstorms #9:
I do own RDS.B, which pays a 6.43% dividend.
You buy what you want, and I will buy what I want.
That is the libertarian way.
Your ignorance and dishonesty are bad enough rickA, but your libertarian bullshit is disgusting. You destroyed any credibility you may have had on that when you crap out of one side of your mouth about the.mythical free market working wonders and them state that laws designed to mto alternative energies more difficult — government interference in your market — are perfectly fine.
It seems that there is no issue too small for you to lie and be massively hypocritical about.
? = dT/dF
#dishonestlittleshit
So, you finally confess to having a vested interest in the matter of carbon emissions reduction. If you were a potential juror you would be disqualified, and yet you presume to assess the science of climate change and claim knowledge superior that to whole disciplines of professional researchers. And worse, you ply your lawyer experience to attempt to manipulate the evidence to favour your personal interests over the truth.
If this is a reflection of your own professional ethic more generally, you’re a disgrace. Your endless and endlessly-refuted proclamations are terminally compromised by your pecuniary interest in maintaining the staus quo. And it’s despicable that profit motivates you to act over the welfare of those less privileged than yourself, or of the rest of life on the planet.
There are plenty of terms that describe such as you, but to use them in this case would be an offence to unicellular organisms, bioflims, larval stages of insects, and genitalia. On the other hand, if the comparison was to spilled heavy crude polluting a coastline, I could live with that.
Bernard #13:
Everybody is biased.
I am biased and have never said I wasn’t.
Everybody who buys electricity from a utility which uses fossil fuels has a vested interested in fossil fuels.
Everybody who drives a vehicle which uses fossil fuel has a vested interest in fossil fuels.
You are biased – I am biased – we are all biased.
Advocate scientists are biased also.
So what else is new?
I find it amusing that you think a person who owns a stock in a fossil fuel company isn’t allowed to have an opinion on climate change.
You might want to check your own portfolio.
Be sure to check the holdings of any mutual funds you own.
You may be a hypocrite and not even know it.
By the way – if you are worried about my professional ethics don’t hire me.
I could care less.
Bernard, don’t be concerned with ricka’s ethics: he got rid of them when he became a libertarian.
To be fair, it wasn’t a huge loss for him.
And you are also a dishonest little shit.
? = dT/dF
There are serious problems with Curry and Lewis and Lindzen and Spencer, I agree.
BBD #17:
Not only should you take everything from Curry, Lewis, Lindzen and Spencer with a grain of salt – but I would add all the advocate scientist lead authors of the IPCC – such as Dr. Mann.
We will have to wait to see what TCR and ECS turn out to be – but I still bet ECS will turn out to be 2.0C or less.
We will know more when we hit 560 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere and can measure TCR, and then use that to get a firmer estimate of ECS.
Until then I just hope we utilize nuclear to the fullest possible extent.
I would also like to see some Federal research money directed to generating energy which is cheaper than fossil fuel, and which doesn’t emit carbon.
I wonder if it would ever be feasible to build very small self-contained fission reactors which were small enough to bury in your back yard and would provide power for 30 years. A company could just swap them out every 30 years and recycle the waste. Maybe thorium based?
As long as it was safe, what would be wrong with that?
Why? Mann’s results are in line with the rest of the millennial reconstruction field.
Curry, Lewis, Lindzen and Spencer’s work is not.
And you have been shown why this is vanishingly unlikely, so you are peddling lies again.
“advocate”? Doesn’t he know what that means? Maybe he doesn’t know what scientists do. Probably he doesn’t care OR know.
And we already know that TCS is above 2C, and ECS is above that
“And you have been shown why this is vanishingly unlikely, so you are peddling lies again.”
No, it’s impossible. When you’ve poured out a pint from an opaque barrel, it’s not possible that there was less than a pint in the barrel when you started.
“You are biased – I am biased – we are all biased.”
Some of us (not you) are biased to reality.
Wow #21:
Your definition of reality is very different than mine.
You actually think we have already seen a TCR above 2C, when total warming from pre-industrial is only about 1C.
You think you know the future.
That is pretty unreal (if you ask me)..
Never mind wow. I showed you what you needed to know in order to relegate ECS of 2C to the Bin of Improbable Things.
But still you push the lie.
#dishonestlittleshit.
? = dT/dF
BBD #23:
We won’t know what CS is until some point in the future.
Stop pretending you know what the answer will be.
You don’t.
Nobody does.
I reject your claim that science has no predictive power.
It is self-evidently bullshit.
Either you are a fuckwit or a liar.
BBD #25:
Science does have predictive power.
The prediction is ECS will be 3C plus or minus 1.5C.
However, any guess within the range is possible (i.e. cannot be ruled out).
2.0C is within the range.
It cannot be ruled out.
It is possible it could turn out to be 2.0 or less.
You actually cannot say (with a straight face) that it is not possible.
But I am not going to call you any names – as that is rude (and beneath me).
RickA a can perfectly be both a fuckwit and a liar simultaneously.
Calling names is beneath RickA??
But condemning people to loss of life & property is NOT beneath RickA?
Add “craven” to your list…
Brainstorms #28:
It is the carbon tax folks who are condemning people to loss of life and property.
Making everything more expensive will kill people.
No, that is obsolete. It is 3C +/- 1C but you have to have a *reason* for picking the bottom of the range and there isn’t a single one. All the evidence – and I do mean all of it, including observations – points to a value close to 3C, not 2C.
All you are doing is making a dishonest pitch for a low sensitivity because the truth is, oh, inconvenient.
There is nothing I could call you that would do you justice, so #dishonestlittleshit is just a placeholder, really.
No, lying about climate sensitivity and peddling the status quo will kill people, which is why it is unforgivable and should not be tolerated.
Idiot! It already is more expensive. Attempts to improperly externalize part of the true costs is what is killing people. Stopping the externalization does NOT increase the costs; it likely reduces them overall.
Stop advocating for evil. Worship it privately instead why don’t you.
rickA will never stop lying – he clearly enjoys it, it hides the fact that he isn’t capable of understanding the topic, and it seems to have been bred into him.
As long as government keeps out of the market, except when he wants it to interfere, he’ll be happy.
A different question: given Trump’s apparent hard-on for pushing through oil pipelines, we have to wonder when, or if, he’ll turn his attention back to the coal industry to make it “huge” once again, as he promised during his campaign.
Bad for everyone if he does, clearly. You have to wonder what the response will be if he tries to ignore it – how pissed will the people to whom that is a huge issue be?
BBD #30:
Obsolete?
Cite please.
AR5 says (https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WGIAR5_SPM_brochure_en.pdf) says at page 14:
• The equilibrium climate sensitivity quantifies the response of the climate system to constant radiative forcing on multicentury time scales. It is defined as the change in global mean surface temperature at equilibrium that is caused by a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence)16.
Show me the support for this new range you assert.
” The prediction is ECS will be 3C plus or minus 1.5C.”
THE PREDICTION for what retard?
The models.
Ooh, look, you can claim the models wrong! It’s actually HIGHER than their models thought was possible!
” Making everything more expensive will kill people.”
where did you read that? What science paper says that?
“Your definition of reality is very different than mine.”
Yeah, we went over that before, ask BBD, your definition is wrong.
“You actually think we have already seen a TCR above 2C, when total warming from pre-industrial is only about 1C.”
Yup. Half a doubling of CO2, +1.2C change, that means 2.4Cper doubling
2,4 is bigger than 2.
It’s called maths. Scientists use it. Patent attorneys don’t.
“We won’t know what CS is until some point in the future.”
No,we know it now.
Just like you don’t need a full inch square to measure the pressure of your car tyre when it’s measured in pounds per square inch,
“Obsolete?
Cite please.”
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2017/01/24/why-is-the-us-government-turning-back-to-petroleum-when-clean-energy-means-jobs-jobs-jobs/#comment-642467
“Science does have predictive power.
The prediction is ECS will be 3C plus or minus 1.5C.”
And TCS=2.4 means that ECS is also in that range.
Correct.
“2.0C is within the range.
It cannot be ruled out.”
It can. see #37
Wow at #37:
I recently discussed this in an exchange with Gallopingcamel and Tom Fuller at Eli’s. If one applies a logarimthic regression to the data, using Berkeley Earth’s analysis that shows 1.2 °C warming since the start of the Industrial Revolution around 1750, the transient climate response as it manifests from then to now is 2.33 °C.
However this does not take into account the underlying downward trajectory of the last millenium. I’ll nut out an actual regression for this later but an eyeballing of the data suggests about 0.2 °C over 600 years to AD 1600. Rounding to a value of 0.1 °C since the advent of the Industrial Revolution and adding to the Berkeley Earth value for warming gives a transient climate response as it manifests from then to now is 2.53 °C. Given that there’s probably a bit of rounding up in the estimation for the pre-Industrial downward trend, we can probably for now just call it a neat 2.5 °C
Hergel & Knutti (2008) estimate TCR as 60% ECS, which would give an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 4.2°C. If we say that some of the equilibrium response has already been manifested because there has been a time lag since some of the emission of extra atmospheric CO₂, we might like to be conservative and say that the ECS will be somewhat less than 4.2 °C. Being quite aggressive in revising the ECS and simply splitting the difference between the TCR and ECS values gives an adjusted ECS of 3.4 °C. Coincidentally this is the same as the value of 3.4 ±, 0.2 °C that I estimated about four years ago when Tamino invited* people’s guesses for climate sensitivity.
3.4 °C ECS is Bad. 4.2 °C is probably incompatible with any scenario for continued human civilisation beyond the 21st century, barring a sudden global pandemic that decimated in particular the industrial populations of the planet.
Heck, even just 3.0 °C would be bad. Unfortunately the empirical data suggest that even this relatively low value, as extrapolated from the data to date, is an impossibly optimistic expectation of what will eventually manifest. Jokers like RickA who still plumb for 2.0 °C ECS are ignoring the simple fact that the warming realised to date shows that even the TCR is well past this for a doubling of CO₂ over pre-Industrial levels. The only way that such values could be realised would be if all the known laws of radiation physics suddenly broke down beyond the current concentration of atmospheric CO₂, and that’s about as likely to happen as someone falling from the 20th floor of a building and sailing past the 10th claiming that acceleration due to gravity is going to cease and indeed reverse, and that he’ll land with a gentle bump.
It might feel good to wish such fancies, but it isn’t going to happen.
[*I cannot find the thread where Tamino asked for people’s climate sensitivity estimates – if anyone knows where it is I’d be most appreciative!)
Wow at #37:
I recently discussed this in an exchange with Gallopingcamel and Tom Fuller at Eli’s. If one applies a logarimthic regression to the data, using Berkeley Earth’s analysis that shows 1.2 °C warming since the start of the Industrial Revolution around 1750, the transient climate response as it manifests from then to now is 2.33 °C.
However this does not take into account the underlying downward trajectory of the last millenium. I’ll nut out an actual regression for this later but an eyeballing of the data suggests about 0.2 °C over 600 years to AD 1600. Rounding to a value of 0.1 °C since the advent of the Industrial Revolution and adding to the Berkeley Earth value for warming gives a transient climate response as it manifests from then to now is 2.53 °C. Given that there’s probably a bit of rounding up in the estimation for the pre-Industrial downward trend, we can probably for now just call it a neat 2.5 °C
Hergel & Knutti (2008) estimate TCR as 60% ECS, which would give an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 4.2°C. If we say that some of the equilibrium response has already been manifested because there has been a time lag since some of the emission of extra atmospheric CO₂, we might like to be conservative and say that the ECS will be somewhat less than 4.2 °C. Being quite aggressive in revising the ECS and simply splitting the difference between the TCR and ECS values gives an adjusted ECS of 3.4 °C. Coincidentally this is the same as the value of 3.4 ±, 0.2 °C that I estimated about four years ago when Tamino invited* people’s guesses for climate sensitivity.
3.4 °C ECS is Bad. 4.2 °C is probably incompatible with any scenario for continued human civilisation beyond the 21st century, barring a sudden global pandemic that decimated in particular the industrial populations of the planet.
Heck, even just 3.0 °C would be bad. Unfortunately the empirical data suggest that even this relatively low value, as extrapolated from the data to date, is an impossibly optimistic expectation of what will eventually manifest. Jokers like RickA who still plumb for 2.0 °C ECS are ignoring the simple fact that the warming realised to date shows that even the TCR is well past this for a doubling of CO₂ over pre-Industrial levels. The only way that such values could be realised would be if all the known laws of radiation physics suddenly broke down beyond the current concentration of atmospheric CO₂, and that’s about as likely to happen as someone falling from the 20th floor of a building and sailing past the 10th claiming that acceleration due to gravity is going to cease and indeed reverse, and that he’ll land with a gentle bump.
It might feel good to wish such fancies, but it isn’t going to happen.
[*I cannot find the thread where Tamino asked for people’s climate sensitivity estimates – if anyone knows where it is I’d be most appreciative!)
Things have moved on since AR5. In respect of the 1.5C lower bound for ECS, it is obsolete. See:
Richardson et al. (2016) Reconciled climate response estimates from climate models and the energy budget of Earth
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3066.html
Johnson et al. (2016) Improving estimates of Earth’s energy imbalance
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n7/full/nclimate3043.html
Marvel et al. (2015) Implications for climate sensitivity from the response to individual forcings
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ma06110m.html
Knutti & Rugenstein (2015) Feedbacks, climate sensitivity and the limits of linear models
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/373/2054/20150146
Shindell (2014) Inhomogeneous forcing and transient climate sensitivity
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2888
Too many links. This is a repeat of my previous comment, split into two:
Things have moved on since AR5. In respect of the 1.5C lower bound for ECS, it is obsolete. See:
Richardson et al. (2016) Reconciled climate response estimates from climate models and the energy budget of Earth
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3066.html
Johnson et al. (2016) Improving estimates of Earth’s energy imbalance
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n7/full/nclimate3043.html
Marvel et al. (2015) Implications for climate sensitivity from the response to individual forcings
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ma06110m.html
(cont:)
Knutti & Rugenstein (2015) Feedbacks, climate sensitivity and the limits of linear models
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/373/2054/20150146
Shindell (2014) Inhomogeneous forcing and transient climate sensitivity
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2888
Wow at #37:
I recently discussed this in an exchange with Gallopingcamel and Tom Fuller at Eli’s. If one applies a logarithmic regression to the data, using Berkeley Earth’s analysis that shows 1.2 °C warming since the start of the Industrial Revolution around 1750, the transient climate response as it manifests from then to now is 2.33 °C.
However this does not take into account the underlying downward trajectory of the last millenium. I’ll nut out an actual regression for this later but an eyeballing of the data suggests about 0.2 °C over 600 years to AD 1600. Rounding to a value of 0.1 °C since the advent of the Industrial Revolution and adding to the Berkeley Earth value for warming gives a transient climate response as it manifests from then to now is 2.53 °C. Given that there’s probably a bit of rounding up in the estimation for the pre-Industrial downward trend, we can probably for now just call it a neat 2.5 °C
Hergel & Knutti (2008) estimate TCR as 60% ECS, which would give an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 4.2 °C. If we say that some of the equilibrium response has already been manifested because there has been a time lag since some of the emission of extra atmospheric CO₂, we might like to be conservative and say that the ECS will be somewhat less than 4.2 °C. Being quite aggressive in revising the ECS and simply splitting the difference between the TCR and ECS values gives an adjusted ECS of 3.4 °C. Coincidentally this is the same as the value of 3.4 ±, 0.2 °C that I estimated about four years ago when Tamino invited* people’s guesses for climate sensitivity.
3.4 °C ECS is Bad. 4.2 °C is probably incompatible with any scenario for continued human civilisation beyond the 21st century, barring a sudden global pandemic that decimated in particular the industrial populations of the planet.
Heck, even just 3.0 °C would be bad. Unfortunately the empirical data suggest that even this relatively low value, as extrapolated from the data to date, is an impossibly optimistic expectation of what will eventually manifest. Jokers like RickA who still plumb for 2.0 °C ECS are ignoring the simple fact that the warming realised to date shows that even the TCR is well past this for a doubling of CO₂ over pre-Industrial levels. The only way that such values could be realised would be if all the known laws of radiation physics suddenly broke down beyond the current concentration of atmospheric CO₂, and that’s about as likely to happen as someone falling from the 20th floor of a building and sailing past the 10th claiming that acceleration due to gravity is going to cease and indeed reverse, and that he’ll land with a gentle bump.
It might feel good to wish such fancies, but it isn’t going to happen.
[*I cannot find the thread where Tamino asked for people’s climate sensitivity estimates – if anyone knows where it is I’d be most appreciative!)
And the fact that observations have obsoleted the lower than 2C option.
2.4C for TCS. ECS is either quick to arise or notably bigger than 3C per doubling.
And this isn’t using models. It’s using real observational data.
Odd that the denier dick insists on models when he’s so set against them being any useful tool, always wrong, and fiddled for “proving” AGW.
[Wow at #44. I initially tried to post this immediately after your post at #41, but depsite several attempts it didn’t materialise. It only had two links, but I’ll remove the one that references your orginal post to which I responded, and hope that it will be visible…]
Wow at #37:
I recently discussed this in an exchange with Gallopingcamel and Tom Fuller at Eli’s. If one applies a logarithmic regression to the data, using Berkeley Earth’s analysis that shows 1.2 °C warming since the start of the Industrial Revolution around 1750, the transient climate response as it manifests from then to now is 2.33 °C.
However this does not take into account the underlying downward trajectory of the last millenium. I’ll nut out an actual regression for this later but an eyeballing of the data suggests about 0.2 °C over 600 years to AD 1600. Rounding to a value of 0.1 °C since the advent of the Industrial Revolution and adding to the Berkeley Earth value for warming gives a transient climate response as it manifests from then to now is 2.53 °C. Given that there’s probably a bit of rounding up in the estimation for the pre-Industrial downward trend, we can probably for now just call it a neat 2.5 °C
Hergel & Knutti (2008) estimate TCR as 60% ECS, which would give an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 4.2 °C. If we say that some of the equilibrium response has already been manifested because there has been a time lag since some of the emission of extra atmospheric CO₂, we might like to be conservative and say that the ECS will be somewhat less than 4.2 °C. Being quite aggressive in revising the ECS and simply splitting the difference between the TCR and ECS values gives an adjusted ECS of 3.4 °C. Coincidentally this is the same as the value of 3.4 ±, 0.2 °C that I estimated about four years ago when Tamino invited* people’s guesses for climate sensitivity.
3.4 °C ECS is Bad. 4.2 °C is probably incompatible with any scenario for continued human civilisation beyond the 21st century, barring a sudden global pandemic that decimated in particular the industrial populations of the planet.
Heck, even just 3.0 °C would be bad. Unfortunately the empirical data suggest that even this relatively low value, as extrapolated from the data to date, is an impossibly optimistic expectation of what will eventually manifest. Jokers like RickA who still plumb for 2.0 °C ECS are ignoring the simple fact that the warming realised to date shows that even the TCR is well past this for a doubling of CO₂ over pre-Industrial levels. The only way that such values could be realised would be if all the known laws of radiation physics suddenly broke down beyond the current concentration of atmospheric CO₂, and that’s about as likely to happen as someone falling from the 20th floor of a building and sailing past the 10th claiming that acceleration due to gravity is going to cease and indeed reverse, and that he’ll land with a gentle bump.
It might feel good to wish such fancies, but it isn’t going to happen.
[*I cannot find the thread where Tamino asked for people’s climate sensitivity estimates – if anyone knows where it is I’d be most appreciative!)
I
[Wow at #44. I initially tried to post this immediately after your post at #41, but despite several attempts it didn’t materialise. I’ve finally twigged to the fact that it might be due to my use of a term that describes a pla@ying c@rd so I’ll replace the term with “ignorants”, and hope that this time it will be visible…]
Wow at #37:
I recently discussed this in an exchange with Gallopingcamel and Tom Fuller at Eli’s. If one applies a logarithmic regression to the data, using Berkeley Earth’s analysis that shows 1.2 °C warming since the start of the Industrial Revolution around 1750, the transient climate response as it manifests from then to now is 2.33 °C.
However this does not take into account the underlying downward trajectory of the last millenium. I’ll nut out an actual regression for this later but an eyeballing of the data suggests about 0.2 °C over 600 years to AD 1600. Rounding to a value of 0.1 °C since the advent of the Industrial Revolution and adding to the Berkeley Earth value for warming gives a transient climate response as it manifests from then to now is 2.53 °C. Given that there’s probably a bit of rounding up in the estimation for the pre-Industrial downward trend, we can probably for now just call it a neat 2.5 °C
Hergel & Knutti (2008) estimate TCR as 60% ECS, which would give an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 4.2 °C. If we say that some of the equilibrium response has already been manifested because there has been a time lag since some of the emission of extra atmospheric CO₂, we might like to be conservative and say that the ECS will be somewhat less than 4.2 °C. Being quite aggressive in revising the ECS and simply splitting the difference between the TCR and ECS values gives an adjusted ECS of 3.4 °C. Coincidentally this is the same as the value of 3.4 ± 0.2 °C that I estimated about four years ago when Tamino invited* people’s guesses for climate sensitivity.
3.4 °C ECS is Bad. 4.2 °C is probably incompatible with any scenario for continued human civilisation beyond the 21st century, barring a sudden global pandemic that decimated in particular the industrial populations of the planet.
Heck, even just 3.0 °C would be bad. Unfortunately the empirical data suggest that even this relatively low value, as extrapolated from the data to date, is an impossibly optimistic expectation of what will eventually manifest. Ignorants like RickA who still plumb for 2.0 °C ECS are ignoring the simple fact that the warming realised to date shows that even the TCR is well past this for a doubling of CO₂ over pre-Industrial levels. The only way that such values could be realised would be if all the known laws of radiation physics suddenly broke down beyond the current concentration of atmospheric CO₂, and that’s about as likely to happen as someone falling from the 20th floor of a building and sailing past the 10th claiming that acceleration due to gravity is going to cease and indeed reverse, and that he’ll land with a gentle bump.
It might feel good to wish such fancies, but it isn’t going to happen.
[*I cannot find the thread where Tamino asked for people’s climate sensitivity estimates – if anyone knows where it is I’d be most appreciative!)
Aw come on Greg! I’ve tried every trick I can’t think of to get my post up but it keeps disappearing when I refresh! Am I blacklisted?!
…can…
But at least I know that I can have posts appear – I can’t fathom though why my earlier one is unpalatable to scienceblogs…
Wow, I’ve circumvented whatever issue is sending my post into the æther by putting it up at HotWhopper.
Apologies to Greg for whatever mess might be hiding in the background of this thread, but there’s something in the text of that post that scienceblogs simply doesn’t like.
Bernard
Touching on our previous discussion at Eli’s, you may find this interesting. Sizzling hot from the press, we now have Hawkins et al. (2017) which addresses this very problem in unprecedented detail:
0.9C does indeed look a bit obsolete, these days.
BBD, it’s late here now so I won’t try to digest it tonight, but it will be interesting to see their approach. Mine was very simplistic: take the average Berkeley Earth temperature in the period 1751-1760 and assume a CO₂ concentration of 280 ppm, take the average Berkeley Earth temperature in the period 2007-2016 and assume a CO₂ concentration of 400* ppm, and let the arithmetic do the walking.
I’ll be curious indeed to see what Hawkins et al get for the pre-Industrial temperature value…
Oh, and apologies for the mess above – Greg obviously flicked something and all my efforts apparated at once. 🙁
(*it would actually be a little less, but conservatism ruled – the actual average CO₂ concentration for 2007-2016 would give a slightly higher value for TCR…
Bernard
In future I’ll be using ~1C rather than 0.9C as the approximate forced response, not least because of the point you raised at Eli’s: anthropogenic aerosol negative forcing (the ‘devil’s umbrella’).
“If one applies a logarithmic regression to the data, using Berkeley Earth’s analysis that shows 1.2 °C warming since the start of the Industrial Revolution around 1750, the transient climate response as it manifests from then to now is 2.33 °C.”
Aye, but I wasn’t using a calculator. Close enough.
And we should have been cooling by the natural processes, so the warming over where we should have been at this point is higher than that.
well grammar aside , in the business world “money now is better than money later , go from there IDK do not really give a care , for one reason give enough rope a person will hang themself, i figure there is never going to be a perfect utopia until we are all dead so. have fun disagreeing about anything and everything looks fun
No, it’s not “fun”, and given the likelihood that you will live to experience some of the consequences of our collective cupidity+stupidity, you will find out first-hand how very un-fun is going to be.
Carlton, just because you’re a self-centred and self-absorbed, ignorant, semi-literate, unethical nihilist doesn’t mean that contemporary global society shouldn’t do its best to stop from committing collective suicide and global ecocide.
Repeatedly unable to post. This is a test.
@ Bernard
For some mad reason I cannot post a link to Climate Lab Book but if you go over there you will find a discussion by Ed Hawkins of his new study. Hopefully this comment will appear…
Just wondering, could trump’s tax returns be FOIAd? They’re now documents about a government official….
Also wondering if the problems on this blog which don’t appear to be system wide could be someone with service access is interfering. You know, hackers or the like. Maybe RT. It’s been rather anti-trump and making claims about a putin puppet. But then again, maybe not…
Wow #63:
No – you cannot FOIA tax returns.
Yes you can. These are the tax returns that belong to the president. They cannot be considered to be a priori private matters since there is overwhhelming public interest (even the majority of Trump supporters,about 60% IIRC) think he should. And he can’t expect privacy there either, since every other president who had tax returns to report has submitted them to scrutiny outside of the IRS.
Both of those pierce the privacy protections that stop them being valid government documents open to discovery by the people with FOIA.
I would have thoght YOU, dick, would have been on board this after all the FOIA demands for all private emails by government officials who outrageously tell people they have shown AGW is real or that the warming is unprecedented and higher than any other time in the last thousand years.
If the AGW scientists only produce their facts from fabrication because the politicians want them to fabricate the story of AGW’s evidence, how come Canada, Australia and now Trump have to gag those scientists???
If they only get it for the government grants, how come the government of Canada, Australia and the USA are still giving them grants, even under Bush, Reagan and at the moment Trump? And if Trump cuts science funding, does that mean Bush and Reagan were both watermelons looking for a hidden way to get republicans to support the creation of the illuminati NWP by the Soros group???
that should have been “NWO”.
Ok Wow.
Go ahead and file a FOIA for Trumps tax returns.
Prove me wrong.
Speaking of which, when are you going to admit that you were wrong about the definition of climate sensitivity?
#dishonestlittleshit.
? = dT/dF
And you were wrong about climate sensitivity and natural variability. And about observations supporting and ECS of 2C as opposed to making it incredibly unlikely.
When are you going to revise your views in the face of the overwhelming evidence?
“Prove me wrong.”
Prove me wrong. Argue why the request would fail. I gave you why it would succeed. That you haven’t shown why they are wrong indicates that you think they’re valid.
“When are you going to revise your views in the face of the overwhelming evidence?”
Never, which is why “go and get a FOIA on it” is bullshit: eve if I posted the details of success, the moron would insist that somehow this wasn’t proof that it was because of FOIA but that, for example, trump decided to hand it over like he promised to do (and failed each deadline so far).
Even overwhelming evidence, even if I copied out an email (OK, it’d have to be a twitter PM) from the trumper saying otherwise, he’d insist that it was wrong or faked or that he was gypped by activist liberal judges or some shit.
So I ask him to prove I’m wrong. Give argument why my case doesn’t apply, he’s supposed to be playing the lawyer here, after all. But I suspect he doesn’t want to say anything in case he jeopardises his internet crusade against Michael Mann and the “CAGW Cabal”.
BBD #70:
I will change my views when they are shown to be wrong.
I need a measurement of TCR.
When we get that I will evaluate it against Lewis and Curry and the other studies with a higher TCR/ECS and I will decide if I am right or wrong.
Until we have a measurement of TCR it is all just guessing and speculation.
I certainly will not change my mind because you (or anybody else) think I am wrong.
I expect you will behave the same.
Currently I believe Lewis and Curry have it right – as their results are consistent with the evidence.
I do not believe that all of the warming from pre-industrial is caused by the increase in CO2.
I do not believe that all of the warming from 1950 is caused by the increase in CO2.
I do not believe that all of the warming in 2015-2016 is caused by the increase in CO2.
If you don’t like what I believe – tough.
You believe what you want to believe and I will believe what I want to believe.
Time will tell which one of us is right.
They have been.
You are simply peddling lies now.
The lies are:
1/ ‘I wasn’t wrong about the definition of climate sensitivity’
Yes you were.
2/ Observations support an ECS of 2C
No they don’t.
3/ You can have low CS and high natural variability at the same time
It is physically impossible.
Wow #71:
Here – read these:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/6103
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/irs_foia_guide.pdf
No they aren’t.
Why don’t you read the references you asked for, eh?
Instead of dishonestly claiming that the observations are consistent with an ECS of 2C when in fact they are not?
As even a simple example demonstrates.
An example to which you have yet to make any kind of coherent response. But then, there isn’t one, so you resort to blanking it and peddling lies instead.
#dishonestlittleshit
“I will change my views when they are shown to be wrong.
I need a measurement of TCR.”
You didn’t change your view, though:
Prove you wrong? Done.
Didn’t change a thing.
You’re a fraud.
“I will change my views when they are shown to be wrong.
I need a measurement of TCR.”
You didn’t change your view, though:
Prove you wrong? Done.
Didn’t change a thing.
You’re a fraud.
My views always modify according to the evidence.
Yours do not.
You are a dishonest little shit.
I am not.
“I will change my views when they are shown to be wrong.
I need a measurement of TCR.”
You didn’t change your view, though:
“”Half a doubling of CO2, +1.2C change, that means 2.4Cper doubling”
I recently discussed this in an exchange with Gallopingcamel and Tom Fuller at Eli’s. If one applies a logarithmic regression to the data, using Berkeley Earth’s analysis that shows 1.2 °C warming since the start of the Industrial Revolution around 1750, the transient climate response as it manifests from then to now is 2.33 °C.
However this does not take into account the underlying downward trajectory of the last millenium. I’ll nut out an actual regression for this later but an eyeballing of the data suggests about 0.2 °C over 600 years to AD 1600. Rounding to a value of 0.1 °C since the advent of the Industrial Revolution and adding to the Berkeley Earth value for warming gives a transient climate response as it manifests from then to now is 2.53 °C. Given that there’s probably a bit of rounding up in the estimation for the pre-Industrial downward trend, we can probably for now just call it a neat 2.5 °C
Hergel & Knutti (2008) estimate TCR as 60% ECS, which would give an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 4.2 °C. If we say that some of the equilibrium response has already been manifested because there has been a time lag since some of the emission of extra atmospheric CO?, we might like to be conservative and say that the ECS will be somewhat less than 4.2 °C. Being quite aggressive in revising the ECS and simply splitting the difference between the TCR and ECS values gives an adjusted ECS of 3.4 °C. Coincidentally this is the same as the value of 3.4 ± 0.2 °C that I estimated about four years ago when Tamino invited* people’s guesses for climate sensitivity.”
Prove you wrong? Done.
Didn’t change a thing.
You’re a fraud.
(NOTE: Three attempts to post this, all getting “awaiting moderation”. Someone with moderation access delaying posters?)
BBD:
I quoted you the IPCC for my support of the definition of CS.
I also admitted that dF is in the denominator – but told you that dF is always defined as a doubling of CO2.
Observations support an ECS of anywhere from 1.5C to 4.5C.
See the IPCC reports.
It is not physically impossible to have low CS and high natural variability – since temperatures can vary for non-CO2 reasons.
Again – I am waiting until the data are in.
We should know a lot more when we hit 560 ppm.
Then we can measure TCR and estimate ECS, based on actual observations and not computer models which have been shown to be wrong time after time.
But I am not asking you to believe what I believe.
Believe what you want.
Calling someone a liar and telling them they are wrong isn’t going to change minds – it doesn’t change mine.
But go ahead and keep advocating for your position.
It isn’t working so far – but maybe if you keep at it you will achieve some success.
I intend to simply wait and see what the data are.
But you cannot back this up. You just assert it. Worse – much worse for you – it is flatly contradicted by the totality of the scientific evidence.
Therefore the parsimonious explanation is that you are wrong.
So why do you refuse to modify your views?
Because you are a dishonest little shit.
QED
“Here – read these:”
Did.
What proves me wrong?
“I will change my views when they are shown to be wrong.
I need a measurement of TCR.”
You didn’t change your view, though:
“”Half a doubling of CO2, +1.2C change, that means 2.4Cper doubling”
I recently discussed this in an exchange with Gallopingcamel and Tom Fuller at Eli’s. If one applies a logarithmic regression to the data, using Berkeley Earth’s analysis that shows 1.2 °C warming since the start of the Industrial Revolution around 1750, the transient climate response as it manifests from then to now is 2.33 °C.
However this does not take into account the underlying downward trajectory of the last millenium. I’ll nut out an actual regression for this later but an eyeballing of the data suggests about 0.2 °C over 600 years to AD 1600. Rounding to a value of 0.1 °C since the advent of the Industrial Revolution and adding to the Berkeley Earth value for warming gives a transient climate response as it manifests from then to now is 2.53 °C. Given that there’s probably a bit of rounding up in the estimation for the pre-Industrial downward trend, we can probably for now just call it a neat 2.5 °C
Hergel & Knutti (2008) estimate TCR as 60% ECS, which would give an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 4.2 °C. If we say that some of the equilibrium response has already been manifested because there has been a time lag since some of the emission of extra atmospheric CO?, we might like to be conservative and say that the ECS will be somewhat less than 4.2 °C. Being quite aggressive in revising the ECS and simply splitting the difference between the TCR and ECS values gives an adjusted ECS of 3.4 °C. Coincidentally this is the same as the value of 3.4 ± 0.2 °C that I estimated about four years ago when Tamino invited* people’s guesses for climate sensitivity.”
Prove you wrong? Done.
Didn’t change a thing.
You’re a fraud.
(NOTE: FOUR attempts to post this, all getting “awaiting moderation”. Someone with moderation access delaying posters?)
Four attempts, all “awaiting moderation”. Someone with moderation access delaying posters?
See #37 until then.
BBD #77:
Well – you are entitled to your opinion.
As am I.
“I do not believe that all of the warming from pre-industrial is caused by the increase in CO2.”
Prove me wrong.
“I do not believe that all of the warming from 1950 is caused by the increase in CO2.”
Prove me wrong.
And I explained that the IPCC is a specific that does not disprove the generality, which is that the cause of the forcing change is unspecified in the formal definition. We have been through this and you are simply being a dishonest little shit.
You were wrong.
A flat-out lie exacerbated by the fact that I gave examples of sensitivity being defined as purely a radiative term without CO2 as a specific.
You are lying.
Never claim on this blog that you aren’t a liar ever again.
You are.
“Well – you are entitled to your opinion.”
What about facts?
Your opinion is pointless. What are your facts.
Prove us wrong.
“I quoted you the IPCC for my support of the definition of CS.”
They don’t support your definition of CS.
Go ask them. Prove us wrong.
“but told you that dF is always defined as a doubling of CO2.”
But that’s a lie. Wrong. A fabrication. Incorrect.
Not true.
But not to your own facts. And interestingly, I read an article by a professor (I can’t reference it) who says that if your opinion is contradicted by hard evidence (and, RickA, your opinions ARE contradicted by the evidence) then you are not entitled to them.
“Never claim on this blog that you aren’t a liar ever again. ”
I think that if this isn’t enough for Greg to decide that RickA isn’t here for anything other than contrarianism and obstinate bullshitting, and 100% careless of the truth or reality, either he gets banned or his blog has no point and this should be abandoned entirely.
A flat-out lie exacerbated by the fact that I gave examples of sensitivity being defined as purely a radiative term without CO2 as a specific.
You are lying.
Never claim on this blog that you aren’t a liar ever again.
You are.
Wow #80:
I cannot help you any further.
Please feel free to try your FOIA for Trumps tax records and you will see from the response how to read the documents I cited for you.
Good luck in your future endeavors.
“I cannot help you any further.”
So they don’t prove me wrong, then. Fair enough, thanks for your eventual admission.
So my claim stands. FOIA the shit out of Trump’s last 5 years of taxes.
Yes BBD.
I admitted dF is dF.
But I told you I have never seen dF used as anything other than a doubling of CO2. Your own quote says “The latter implies a warming of 2.2–4.8?K per doubling of atmospheric CO2, which agrees with IPCC estimates.”
That is the dF they are using.
Wow #89:
Of course Greg can ban me.
It is his blog and he can do whatever he wants with it.
“Yes BBD.
I admitted dF is dF.”
So you agree that you lied, as BBD showed.
“But I told you I have never seen dF used as anything other than a doubling of CO2”
But that is no longer true, therefore you are lying, as BBD said.
“That is the dF they are using.”
Yup.
And that’s 2.4C per doubling for TCR. Proving ECS is above 2C. It’s above 2.4C per doubling. It is probably (by the models’ determination of the difference between ECS and TCR), 4.2C per doubling.
Proving you wrong. And your insistence that it’s possibly 2C a lie.
Like BBD said.
“Of course Greg can ban me.”
I know.
And he should. You’re 100% divorced from any meaning in any discussion. Your presence anywhere in a blog discussion is a waste of existence.
Julian Frost #88:
There are no facts for TCR or ECS.
Only estimates.
We have no measurement yet.
When we have measured TCR than there will be a fact.
This whole debate is nothing but differing opinions until we measure TCR.
Check back when we hit 560 ppm and we will have a fact then.
“There are no facts for TCR or ECS.”
Lie.
“Only estimates.”
Lie
“We have no measurement yet.”
Lie.
“When we have measured TCR than there will be a fact.”
We already have it
“This whole debate is nothing but differing opinions until we measure TCR.”
Lie, because we already have the measure.
“Check back when we hit 560 ppm and we will have a fact then.”
We don’t have to: we have the facts now.
“Check back when we hit 560 ppm ”
And when you measure your car tyre pressure, did you wait until they designed a pressure gauge with a square inch wide nozzle to measure pressure which you’ve always heard referred to as pounds per square inch?
How about when I ask you how come you never went to school to learn about Pascals, which is in units per square meter? What will you say then? That there can be no such thing as pressure in a tyre? That it only existed before the metric system and is now gone?
Give me patience.
As I explained at the time:
Argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy. That gets rid of the ‘I have never seen’ shite.
Yet, incredibly, you double-down and regurgitate your original logical fallacy in a pathetic attempt to avoid admitting error.
#dishonestlittleshit
Then you dig even deeper into the cesspool.
The example I provided starts with a radiative-terms-only calculation of sensitivity (formally correct, just as I have said from the outset) and then moves on to assigning the radiative forcing change to CO2. That’s the second stage – the bit you actually had the fucking gall to quote back at me.
It illustrates my point and demonstrates your error simultaneously and yet you still pretend that you weren’t wrong.
Well you were and it is proven beyond doubt to everybody watching. It is also proven that you will resort to any mendacity, however idiotic, rather than admit error.
You are a dishonest little shit. And we are not going to let you forget it.
Ever.
Come on BBD, there’s an old saying rickA buys into — it goes like this.
He relies on that constantly.
Why do I even bother?
“Give me patience. ”
“Why do I even bother?”
Well, the reasonn why you have to is because dick is allowed to continue to post even when they’re blatant in their lies and professions of fake ignorance.
…continued…
Greg was fast to warn me (very vaguely) with a banhammer when I rebuked Wes slightly, and used Tf’s use of “Feminists” to rebuke HIM, possibly banhammer
…cont…
But Dick, stays.
And YOU have to deal with it, requiring you to ask those questions.
Length of messages getting shorter and shorter, beyond which they don’t go in and no longer even give “awaiting moderation”.
Server owner killing this blog?
Or Greg?
“” Argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy. ”
Come on BBD, there’s an old saying rickA buys into ”
He’s not ignorant, he’s been told. Still claims ignorance.
Wow and BBD:
You guys are making this to complicated.
You think you know what TCR is (and ECS).
I don’t think we know what TCR is (and ECS).
We disagree about this.
That is all.
“You guys are making this to complicated.”
Nope.
“You think you know what TCR is (and ECS).”
We know.
“I don’t think we know what TCR is (and ECS).”
You’re lying.
“We disagree about this.”
Yes.
No, RickA. No.
You are *denying* the actual state of scientific knowledge, which is that ECS is about 3C. That really is what we know now.
Your pretense to the contrary is dishonest. It is a lie.
Longer posts work on other scienceblogs sections, and the limit here seems to be somewhere around 3-5 lines of text.
BBD #115:
I know that 3C is the middle of the PDF.
I know that lots of science conflicts on what ECS is.
I know that lots of models conflict on what ECS is.
I know we do not actually know what ECS is.
I really truly believe we will have a better handle on ECS when we actually measure TCR when we have doubled CO2 and can measure the delta T.
I am not going to prejudge what the answer will be when we measure delta T whenever we hit 560 ppm.
My guess (pure speculation) is that ECS will turn out to be 2.0C or lower.
But as you know, I am not a climate scientist.
I just read and think for myself.
And based on what I read and what I think, the value of ECS has been dropping for years and looks to be about 1.8C ish.
But if you want to believe, based on your own reading and thinking that ECS is 3.0C – that is ok with me.
The point is that nobody knows the answer yet.
We will have to wait to see what the answer turns out to be.
“I know we do not actually know what ECS is.”
We KNOW it’s over 2C/doubling.
“I just read and think for myself.”
No you read and then lie for consumption
“I really truly believe we will have a better handle on ECS when we actually measure TCR when we have doubled CO2 and can measure the delta T.”
No you truly do not. You know we know now, but you hold to lukewarmer so you can insist we don’t have to do anything about it. You’re reading and then lying for consumption.
“And based on what I read and what I think, the value of ECS has been dropping for years and looks to be about 1.8C ish.”
Lie, you do not know that you know it’s well above that.
“The point is that nobody knows the answer yet.”
Lie. We all know your prediction is wrong, it’s above 2.4C/doubling.
“We will have to wait to see what the answer turns out to be.”
No we don’t any more than we need to wait for a car tyre valve one inch in area to measure the pressore inside the tyre.
But you’re still lying for consumption.
Longer replies working again now.
“I am not going to prejudge what the answer will be when we measure delta T whenever we hit 560 ppm.”
We know it now.
Over 2.4C per doubling.
Greg, if you don’t tell the stupid son of a bitch to cut it out and admit his claim is bollocks there, you’re just making this blog a worthless screed of lies being ignored and people getting pissed off at the fuckwit.
But it doesn’t. That is a false claim. There is a solid consensus that ECS is about 3C. Sure there are outliers, but they are outliers.
Your opinion is irrelevant. This is a scientific issue. Why you cannot grasp this simple *fact* is a mystery to me. Unless of course it is the dishonest foundation for your very presence here – year after year – peddling misinformation.
Anyway, shall we canvass the expert view of pre-eminent climate scientists with specific domain expertise? Let’s do that.
They don’t agree with you.
BBD #122:
I know.
They also don’t agree with Lewis and Curry or Otto or a few other scientists.
I am looking forward to finding out who is right.
What a pity that we don’t know the answer yet.
Oh well – we will have to wait and see.
If you bothered to read the references I provided upthread, you would know that Otto and L&C’s methodology has been shown to be biased low. You would understand that we already know that ECS is (as long suspected) close to 3C.
You can pretend otherwise, but not honestly.
“They also don’t agree with Lewis and Curry or Otto or a few other scientists.”
So they are wrong.
“I am looking forward to finding out who is right.”
We already know.
“What a pity that we don’t know the answer yet.”
What a pity you’re lying. We already know.
“Oh well – we will have to wait and see.”
Oh, no, we can see now.
It’s at least 2.4C per doubling.
I can see you don’t really fear Greg at all, do you, dick. No worries about him at all.
And if it’s TCR, it’s 2.4C per doubling, we KNOW that at the moment.
ECS we won’t know until we’ve held CO2 levels stable for probably 50-100 years
“you would know that Otto and L&C’s methodology”
They used a computer model?!?!?!
When did deniers start saying computer models proved reality? They used to say only measurements proved reality.
Measurements say that TCR is 2.4C per doubling. Right now we have the data for that. dT & dF both known. 1.2 and 0.5. 1.2/0.5=2.4
Simple maths dick can, and has, done, but he’s lying for consumption.
“They used a computer model?!?!?!”
Wow, that’s one of the new lines used by denialists in a few areas: “alternative medicine” quacks are pushing their bad studies as being “analyzed by computer”, and so are anti-vaccination groups.
Computer use is bad when scientists do it, good when the quacks do it. As rickA demonstrates here.
Hey there fantastic blog! Does running a blog similar to this
require a reat deal of work? I have very little understanding off coding but I had been hoping to start my ownn blog in the near
future. Anyhow, should you have any suggestions or tip forr new blog owners please share.
I understand this is off subject but I just hhad to ask.
Kudos!