Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Vox has just demonstrated their intolerance for any but the most extreme climate views – even positions which are within the bounds of official IPCC climate science.
Don’t expect climate action from Rex Tillerson. He’s a lukewarmer.
Updated by David Roberts @drvox david@vox.com Feb 2, 2017, 9:15am EST
The Secretary of State doesn’t seem to think the US should lead on climate change.
Rex Tillerson, until very recently the CEO of the world’s largest private oil company and a close chum of Russian President Vladimir Putin, is now the US secretary of state. This is not some ham-handed satire or lurid dystopian novel. It’s real life.
This makes Tillerson’s views on climate change a matter of great interest. Most countries in the world send their minister of the environment (the equivalent of our EPA administrator) to represent them at international climate talks. The US is different — we send our minister of international affairs, i.e., our secretary of state.
…
What does Tillerson think about climate change?
Judging from what we learned at his confirmation hearing on January 11, Tillerson is a “lukewarmer,” someone who acknowledges that the climate is changing, but doesn’t think it will be that bad and doesn’t think we know enough to take serious action anyway.
Functionally, a lukewarmer isn’t much different than an outright denier — they do not support serious policy. But politically, lukewarmism is a much smarter, more soothing stance, because it dodges the uncomfortable “denier” label.
At his hearing, Tillerson tried to get away with lukewarmism. Usually it works; very few US politicians scratch more than an inch deep on climate change, and lukewarmism has very nice-sounding inch-deep answers.
…
Read more: http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/2/2/14478566/tillerson-climate-lukewarmer
The IPCC admits climate sensitivity, the amount of warming to be expected if CO2 is doubled, might be as low as 1.5C. For the sake of argument, lets assume a climate sensitivity of 1.5C / doubling – the minimum sensitivity estimate which the IPCC considers to be acceptable.
NOAA estimates atmospheric CO2 is rising at around 3ppm / year. Assuming this rate of growth continues until the end of the century, by 2100 CO2 levels will peak at around 680ppm – around 2.5x pre-industrial CO2 levels of 260ppm – 280ppm.
At 1.5C / doubling;
calibrate: 1.5C = factor x log(2) ← the impact of CO2 climate forcing is logarithmic
factor = 1.5C / log(2) = 4.9
Warming from a 2.5x increase in CO2 (climate sensitivity = 1.5C / doubling)
= factor x log(2.5)
= 4.9 x log(2.5)
= 1.9C
We’ve already had around 1C of global warming since pre-industrial times, give or take, without any noticeable climate “disasters”. An extra 0.9C on top of current global temperatures doesn’t seem such a big deal.
Of course, the 1.5C / doubling is equilibrium climate sensitivity. If the Earth takes several centuries to achieve equilibrium, and equilibrium climate sensitivity is 1.5C / doubling, we won’t even see an additional 0.9C by the year 2100.
As for what happens after the year 2100 – does anyone seriously believe fossil fuels will be as significant a component of the energy mix in the year 2100, as they are in today’s world?
My point is, being a lukewarmer like Tillerson is completely within the bounds of IPCC science.
Yet Vox have treated Tillerson’s lukewarmer views as if they are utterly unacceptable. In rejecting the legitimacy of being a Lukewarmer, Vox are as out of step with IPCC science as any climate skeptic.
It should be made clear that not only is carbon dioxide already an all-natural compound not a pollutant, but that there is no solid evidence that it warms the Earth or causes any natural temperature variations.
CO2 always follows temperature variations historically.
The IPCC CO2 theory calls for much more warming than what has naturally occurred. CO2 models fail.
The IPCC CO2 theory calls for more extreme events to occur as both CO2 and temperatures increase, but such events, tornadoes and hurricanes, were at low to lower levels overall during the past decade even as temps rose. Reality was completely opposite to IPCC CO2 theory wrt to extreme events. Fail.
The IPCC CO2 theory cannot predict ENSO events using CO2. Fail.
The warmists are in denial of the fact that their CO2 theory is a failure.
The present politics of this predicament are owed to the ‘artist formerly known as Barry’, who with his Sec of States went around the world telling every single foreign government leadership that humans were responsible for warming the earth and causing extreme events, that the West was at fault, that their countries would suffer because of us and our energy use, so we in the West would have to pay them climate reparations via the Paris agreement. Those lies were a travesty – a real stain on the US govt credibility, scientifically and politically.
The Trump administration needs to stand firm and disavow those lies by repudiating the Paris agreement.
Tillerson should be reminded that scientists from leading countries, the Chinese, the Brits, the Rooskies, the Norwegians, and so on all have solar scientists who have recently published peer-reviewed papers describing the effect of solar warming and cooling on the oceans, atmosphere, and cryosphere.
The message ought to be that the climate varies naturally as always, that ideas of carbon dioxide pollution and footprints are unfounded illusions, that carbon based financial control systems are therefore illogical and immoral constructs, and the US is no longer playing those games in internal or foreign policy.
The US ought to be the leader in recognizing and preparing for the effects on food and energy production and prices, at least short-term, from low solar activity through Trump’s first term.
Crop losses from snow, ice and cold ramped up in 2016, and will continue through Trump’s first term.
Energy usage in the NH will be at record levels and increasing every year through Trump’s first term.
Every country is faced with this – it’s the new reality, thanks to the sun. No amount of emissions policy will change the weather or climate.
It would be insane to restrict the energy needed to survive the upcoming harsher winters.
Bob, you say: “CO2 always follows temperature variations historically.” So how do you explain the PAUSE in the past three decades when temperature has been flat and CO2 has risen?
Too easy, it follows 800 years later.
The problem Michael Moon is that you don’t see a spike in temperature in the ice core record or any other proxy from 800 years ago of a magnitude that would explain 400 ppm.
In fact Michael Moon, the ice core record does not show 400 ppm of CO2 in the past 800,000 years, so how can you say that CO2 lags temp by 800 years?
Well maybe:
http://ncwatch.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451e28a69e20133eca9b27e970b-pi
In Greenland, the MWP, which extended into the 14th century, was warmer than today. For all we know that might have been the position almost right across the Northern Hemisphere, and possibly even the Southern Hemisphere (since we have all but no data on the Southern Hemisphere).
Whilst I am not saying that it is the reason, it is conceivable that the warmth of the MWP is one of the reasons why CO2 is at the levels we see today.
This was not the chart that I posted, but here goes with another chart that shows the Greenland ice core data and the warmth of the MWP.
richard verney, do you have global data instead of a single geographical data point ? Radiocarbon dating of tree stumps uncovered by melting glaciers do not show it being warmer in the Minoan, Roman or Medieval times. In fact you need to go back more than 5000 years to find warmer times than now.
Martin, how does one determine the segment of time represented by tree stumps that have been recently uncovered by melting glaciers?
Having studied glaciers, I can testify that all glaciers move, and the force is enough to deeply scour bedrock so I can’t see how any tree stumps would be spared–they’d easily be uprooted and carried away.
If they’re just part of the glacial detritus, where did they come from and how long have they been dead? And wouldn’t constant saturation with water (the very glacial stuff you maintain is inferior to these stumps when it comes to temperature estimation) sufficiently change the chemistry of the wood to alter any dating and render it useless?
CO2 follows temperature with the peaks and troughs shown below in the graph. This occurs in short time scales and much longer time scales.
http://i772.photobucket.com/albums/yy8/SciMattG/Derivative%20RSSvCO2_zps6tiwpduo.png
Temperatures have been flat with tiny increases or decreases in CO2 because as shown, it only follows overall changes mainly ocean ENSO related and therefore theses are the cause. The tiny change in adding CO2 ppm has no influence on the global temperature trend.
Hence, temperatures only respond to causes not effects that the latter CO2 gases are shown to be.
Therefore rising CO2 that follows temperature didn’t increase global temperature because the effect has no affect on the cause. Whereas the cause has an influence on the effect shown in the graph at short time scales.
Matt G your graph of CO2 is bogus. This is how it should look: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/plot/esrl-co2/trend
.
.
If you think you can post a graph that shows CO2 being “flat” from 1979 until today, you need to have your head examined. It was 330 ppm in 1979, and it’s 400 ppm now.
richard verney, your graph of the GISP2 ice core data does not include data from about 1850 until today. Besides the missing data, trying to use a single geographical data point to infer global temps is bogus
RockyRoad, the tree stumps are at the edge of the glaciers. Obviously they were not removed by the advancing glaciers. Secondly, there are more than one tree stump, and radiocarbon dating place all of them in the same time frame.
Matt G your graph of CO2 is bogus. This is how it should look:
It is not bogus because it is comparing monthly changes in CO2 against monthly change in temperature. They are not values of actual monthly CO2 levels or temperatures.
Martin Clark on February 4, 2017 at 6:37 pm in reply to Matt G on February 4, 2017 at 6:21 pm
The graph as such is correct:
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170207/ongxla2j.png
Bogus is imho rather the idea of choosing such a short period to determine which one preceeds the other. We know nothing about CO2’s inerty, nore even about where its emissions are stored in the atmosphere.
I remember to have read last year an interesting paper about the satellite-based detection of high CO2 transfers from the tropspheric levels in the Tropics toward stratospheric levels in the Antarctic regions.
Bindidon and Matt G, yes your graphics are “bogus” because they are not showing CO2 levels. They are showing “changes” (the derivative) and we all know that taking the derivative removes the trend. This shows you the difference: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/offset:-300/plot/esrl-co2/derivative
.
.
So when you argue that “CO2 follows temperature” you cannot use the derivative. Matt G, your comparison chart is comparing the derivative of CO2 with absolute temp (via anomalies) . Anomalies are not “changes” they are deviations from the average, hence you are doing the apples to oranges thing.
“Anomalies are not “changes” they are deviations from the average, hence you are doing the apples to oranges thing.”
Not true, these are the changes in the anomalies.
When you are looking for sensitivity in a direct relationship the trend is irrelevant.
The graph clearly shows how the change in one influences the change in the other and is very good tool for confirming CO2 has had no influence during this period regarding it being a cause.
This is fundamentally why the Left eventually even “eats it own.”
Even the climate change adherent pseudo scientist who attempts the slightest wavering from the Dogma of alarmist prophesies of doom will be slapped.
Ultimately, the Left and their climate religion will collapse from within.
From the article: “Judging from what we learned at his confirmation hearing on January 11, Tillerson is a “lukewarmer,” someone who acknowledges that the climate is changing,”
Is there anyone who claims the climate is *not* changing? Noone I know, since everyone knows the climate has been changing since the beginning of time. So I guess that would make everyone a lukewarmer, according to the “logic” above.
From the article: ” But politically, lukewarmism is a much smarter, more soothing stance, because it dodges the uncomfortable “denier” label.”
Funny, “denier” doesn’t make me uncomfortable at all. If it means I’m hanging on to the truth, it doesn’t bother me a bit.
I deny that there has been any proof presented that humans are causing any changes in how the atmosphere behaves, and would defy anyone to provide such evidence. I think I can say, without fear of contradiction, that no evidence will be produced in response, because there is no evidence. Someone is in denial, but it’s not me.
They can’t stand the fact that maybe some degree of “lukewarmism” is the most accurate stance–far more accurate than their running-through-the-weeds screaming-the-sky-is-falling predictions that only gets worse by ignoring the lack of mathematical precision inherent in their models.
When mathematical variability is an order of magnitude higher than natural variation there’s only one thing to say: Ha! What a con!
“This makes Tillerson’s views on climate change a matter of great interest. Most countries in the world send their minister of the environment (the equivalent of our EPA administrator) to represent them at international climate talks. The US is different — we send our minister of international affairs, i.e., our secretary of state.”
Two things that strike me:
A) Why is the leftist not screaming for us to be just like the rest of the world and send the EPA head to these talks?
B) Does he really think that going to these international climate parties is the best use of the Secretary of State’s time? Or my tax dollars?
No, they’re still in complete denial.
OK Eric but what’s the use here?
American presidency supports a homepage.
Wrong Adress, at least.
As a card carrying member of the Denialati I object to being lumped with Lukewarmers.
We believe the sun is the main driver of earthly weather and they believe CO2 causes a little warming, which of course total bosh.
“Seven years of [becoming a lukewarmer] down the drain. Might as well join the [fracking deniers].”
My apologies to John Belushi, Harold Ramis, Chris Miller, Doug Kenney and John Landis…
It should be said that the headlined chart comparing the model runs to satellite and balloon datasets was included in a Climate, Etc. post by Pat Michaels and Chip Knappenburger. It’s not Judith Curry’s chart and I don’t know to what extent she would agree with it. But it seems well-conceived, and compares apples to apples. These guys are pretty responsible with their materials.
Kip Hansen’s comment applies. We should be careful with attribution comments.
BTW, I’m curious about balloon datasets and how representative they might be. I understand they use similar instrumentation and that procedures are standardized. What about geographical coverage? Would someone knowledgeable about this subject explain this.
If Tillerson is a lukewarmer, he has plenty of company among the 195 nations that signed the Paris climate deal because it’s strictly voluntary. This means that they don’t consider whatever climate change that’s occurring to be particularly threatening; therefore, they won’t take any drastic measures to combat it. And this attitude is prevalent worldwide. Sure, a majority of people may concede the climate is changing, but how many of them will make serious lifestyle changes to do their part to bring it under control? So there is likely to be a solid majority of lukewarmers out there, and critics of them need to recognize the fact.
Motte and Baily argument.
The Bailey, the desired but indefensible position, is that we are all doomed unless gigantic human sacrifices are made, and the high priests of Gaia get to choose who to sacrifice. Standard Aztec type demon worship..
The Motte, the defensible position, is that human activity might cause temperatures to rise by an amount so small as to be difficult to notice.
When the Bailey comes under attack, climate priests retreat to the Motte and glare at the enemy until the enemy goes away, and then they reoccupy the Bailey.
In general:
A warmunist is a believer in CO2 causing warming, and water vapor doubling or tripling that warming … until there is a climate catastrophe.
A lukewarmer is usually a believer in CO2 causing warming, but doubts (or doesn’t believe) any additional positive feedback warming from water vapor, so if there was a climate catastrophe, it would be far in the future.
Both warmunists and lukewarmers are stupid people because they are both unable to admit “I don’t know what the future climate will be” (which is the most accurate summary of climate science, as of 2016).
The warmunists are deliberately stupid about science, but with their goal of gaining more political power, perhaps they are politically smart (not honest, but there can be financial gains for them — ask Al Bore).
.
The lukewarmers are inadvertently stupid, because in the absence of scientific knowledge about what causes climate change, they also refuse to say “I don’t know what the future climate will be”.
With only extremely rough knowledge of what causes climate change, 40 years of wrong computer game predictions, and ice cores showing temperature leads CO2 levels, the lukewarmers still believe CO2 is a ‘climate controller’ … with no historical evidence or scientific proof (outside of a laboratory experiment) their belief is true.
Climate blog for non-scientists
Leftists should stay away
http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com