Guest “Should I stay or should I go now?” by David Middleton
I have been a member of the Society of Exploration Geophysicists (SEG) since the summer of 1981… I haven’t renewed my membership this year, largely because of the last issue of The Leading Edge I received…
The full text of this article is available to the public. It’s about “mapping geophysics” to these goals…
WTF does any of this have to do with geophysics? The best way geophysicists can continue to support SDG’s 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11 would be to keep finding lots of economically recoverable oil & gas.
While I found this article very annoying, it didn’t push me to the brink of ending my membership. Since my membership is currently lapsed, I haven’t been keeping up with SEG activities lately. The other day, a friend of mine texted me a link to the SEG’s new climate change statement. One passage enraged me (to the extent I ever get enraged) that I am considering leaving the SEG.
Since the climate change statement appears to be publicly accessible, I’ll quote it in its entirety.
Begin Quote:
SEG Position on Climate Change
The Society of Exploration Geophysicists (SEG) is the premier global professional society representing the science of applied geophysics and, therefore, has an important role to play in the exploration, site characterization, and time-lapse monitoring of the Earth in order to better understand and mitigate climate change.
The Earth is continuously undergoing climate change, but the current rate of increase of both temperature (Diffenbaugh and Field, 2016) and atmospheric CO2 levels (Zeebe et al., 2016) may be unprecedented in the past 66 million years, per currently available data. Since the mid-1800s, it has been understood that small changes in atmospheric gases, including CO2, can alter the Earth’s climate. (For a good historical summary, see Ortiz and Jackson, 2020; for two of the seminal papers, see Foote, 1856, and Arrhenius, 1896). Currently, we rely on global climate models, modern data collection, and research advances to predict future changes and to understand the details of the rapid changes that have been observed over the past 150 years. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has concluded that anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are extremely likely to be the dominant cause of observed climate warming since 1950 (IPCC, 2014). The IPCC goes on to conclude that impacts on natural and human systems will be significant and include risks to “health, livelihoods, food security, water supply, human security, and economic growth” (IPCC, 2018).
SEG joins nearly 200 other scientific societies worldwide and the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in agreement with the IPCC that significant action should be taken as soon as possible to begin reducing GHG emissions. SEG supports our stakeholders in academia, government, and industry who seek to achieve net zero CO2 emissions through efforts such as the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative, and the Towards Sustainable Mining initiative. Further, among the 17 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals are affordable and clean energy for all (SDG 7) and the need for climate action (SDG 13). These two goals are deeply intertwined, and solutions will require the contributions of applied geophysicists.
Achieving the goals for global climate action is a major challenge, and applied geophysicists can contribute in many consequential ways that include:
- The U.S. National Academy of Engineering has identified developing Carbon Sequestration Methods as one of the Grand Challenges for the 21st century, and the International Energy Agency recently noted that achieving net zero is not likely possible without carbon capture, utilization, and storage (IEA, 2020). Geophysical tools are crucial for effective exploration, site characterization, and monitoring of geologic reservoirs for CO2 sequestration.
- The Earth’s large ice masses are rapidly changing in response to the warming climate. Geophysical methods play a vital role in monitoring and understanding dynamics of the Earth’s cryosphere (glaciers, ice sheets, permafrost sea ice, and snow).
- It is well understood that a major shift to sources and storage of renewable energy (wind, solar, etc.) will result in a dramatic increase in demand for a broad suite of critical minerals and metals. Geophysics is essential for exploring, targeting, and characterizing the strategic ore deposits required to meet this growing demand.
- Geothermal energy is available in many parts of the world and will play an increasingly important role in meeting the growing demand. Geophysics is needed to identify and develop subsurface geothermal reservoirs.
- Continued warming of the climate coupled with an increasing global population is anticipated to adversely impact the availability of fresh water supplies over large regions. Hydrogeophysics is needed to identify new sources of groundwater and effectively manage existing water resources.
Given the anticipated impact on humanity and the associated disruption of the global energy economy, it is imperative that geophysicists rise to meet the challenges posed by climate change. SEG will support its members who are engaged in geophysical research, publication, and open dialog on climate change and its impacts.
References
Arrhenius, S., 1896, XXXI. On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground: The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, 41, no. 251, 237–276, doi: 10.1080/14786449608620846.
Diffenbaugh, N. S. and C. B. Field, 2013, Changes in ecologically critical terrestrial climate conditions: Science, 341, no. 6145, 486–492, doi: 10.1126/science.1237123.
Foote, E., 1856, Circumstances affecting the heat of the sun’s rays: The American Journal of Science and Arts, 2nd Series, 22, no. 66, 382–383, https://ia800802.us.archive.org/4/items/mobot31753002152491/mobot31753002152491.pdf, accessed 3 February 2021.
IEA, 2020: Energy Technology Perspectives 2020. Special Report on Carbon Capture Utilisation and Storage: CCUS in clean energy transitions, https://www.iea.org/reports/ccus-in-clean-energy-transitions, accessed 3 February 2021.
IPCC, 2018: Summary for Policymakers. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty, https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/, accessed 3 February 2021.
IPCC, 2014: IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers, https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf, accessed 3 February 2021.
Ortiz, J. D. and R. Jackson, 2020, Understanding Eunice Foote’s 1856 experiments: Heat absorption by atmospheric gases: The Royal Society Journal of the History of Science, doi: 10.1098/rsnr.2020.0031.
Zeebe, R. E., A. Ridgwell, and J. C. Zachos, 2016, Anthropogenic carbon release rate unprecedented during the past 66 million years: Nature Geoscience, 9, 325–329, doi: 10.1038/ngeo2681.
End Quote
https://seg.org/About-SEG/Climate-Change
My Reaction to the SEG Statement
The statement is mostly innocuous. However, this passage is flat out wrong and has no place in an SEG publication:
The Earth is continuously undergoing climate change, but the current rate of increase of both temperature (Diffenbaugh and Field, 2016) and atmospheric CO2 levels (Zeebe et al., 2016) may be unprecedented in the past 66 million years, per currently available data. Since the mid-1800s, it has been understood that small changes in atmospheric gases, including CO2, can alter the Earth’s climate.
https://seg.org/About-SEG/Climate-Change
The current rate of increase temperature unprecedented in the past 66 million years
Really?
If the models are reasonably accurate, the early 20th century warming can be entirely explained by natural forcing mechanisms. Whereas, some or all of the warming since about 1975 cannot be explained by natural forcing mechanisms alone. That said, the models only incorporate known, reasonably well-understood, forcing mechanisms. Judith Curry illustrated this concept quite well…
Setting aside the unknown and/or poorly understood natural forcing mechanisms, not incorporated in the model, we have two very similar warming episodes, one explained by natural factors and one requiring human input.
- 1904-1945 Slope = 0.013 °C per year… 1.3 °C per century
- 1975-2020 Slope = 0.018 °C per year… 1.8 °C per century
A slightly steeper slope than the only other significant warming trend in the instrumental record is hardly unprecedented in the past 166 years, much less 66 million years. Geological proxies lack the temporal resolution for direct comparison to modern instrumental records… The SEG should be aware of it. Most of what I know about integrating data sets of differing resolution, I learned from SEG and AAPG publications.
Let’s assume arguendo that all of the warming since 1975 is due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. What would this mean?
It would mean that the rise in atmospheric CO2 from ~280 to ~400 ppm caused 0.8 °C of warming. Recent instrumental observation-derived climate sensitivity estimates indicate an equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) of about 2.3 °C per doubling of atmospheric CO2, equating to a transient climate response (TCR) of about 1.6 °C per doubling of atmospheric CO2. Oddly enough, with a TCR of 1.6 °C, we would expect to see 0.8 °C of warming at 400 ppm CO2.
It’s also important to note that the 0.8 °C of allegedly anthropogenic warming started here:
Atmospheric CO2 levels unprecedented in the past 66 million years
One of the key principles in applied geophysics is the concept of resolution. While it is true that the rate of of increase atmospheric CO2 *may* be unprecedented in the Cenozoic Era. This is only due to the low resolution of past CO2 estimates. The only pre-instrumental era record with sufficient resolution is from the ice cores of Law Dome, Antarctica, and these only get us back to 2,000 years ago.
The Mauna Loa CO2 record doesn’t even break out of the Cenozoic “noise level” (a concept the SEG should be familiar with)…
For a more detailed discussion of resolution and geological context, see: May/Middleton: Rebuttal to Geological Society of London Scientific Statement on Climate Change.
Since the mid-1800s, it has been understood that small changes in atmospheric gases, including CO2, can alter the Earth’s climate.
Utter nonsense. The notion that even large “changes in atmospheric gases, including CO2, can alter the Earth’s climate” was controversial (at best) before the late 1980’s.
This passage from Evolution of the Earth (1976) is just as true today as when I was a geology student way back in the Pleistocene…
Suggestion that changing carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere could be a major factor in climate change dates from 1861, when it was proposed by British physicist John Tyndall.
[…]
Unfortunately we cannot estimate accurately changes of past CO2 content of either atmosphere or oceans, nor is there any firm quantitative basis for estimating the magnitude of drop in carbon dioxide content necessary to trigger glaciation. Moreover the entire concept of an atmospheric greenhouse effect is controversial, for the rate of ocean-atmosphere equalization is uncertain.
Dott & Batten, 1976
While methods of estimating past atmospheric CO2 concentrations have improved since the 1970’s, we can’t even be certain that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 during the much warmer Mid-Miocene Climatic Optimum (MMCO) was significantly elevated relative to the extremely low values of the Quaternary Period. We can see that estimates for MMCO range from 250 to 500 ppm, rendering any efforts to draw conclusions about the Columbia River Basalt Group (CRBG), CO2, and MMCO totally pointless.
According to Pagani et al, 1999:
There is no evidence for either high pCO2 during the late early Miocene climatic optimum or a sharp pCO2 decreases associated with EAIS growth.
Pagani et al., 1999
EAIS = East Antarctic Ice Sheet. Pagani et al., suggest that changes in oceanic circulation driven by plate tectonics (opening of the Drake Passage) and the presence (or lack thereof) of a large polar ice sheet were the primary drivers of Miocene climate change. And this takes us to another of my 1970’s textbooks:
The atmosphere’s blanketing effect over the earth’s surface has been compared to the functioning of a greenhouse. Short-wave sunlight passes as easily through the glass of the greenhouse as through the atmosphere. Because glass is opaque to the long-wave radiation from the warm interior of the greenhouse, it hinders the escape of energy.
As a planet, the earth is not warming or cooling appreciably on the average, because it loses as much radiant energy as it gains.
Kolenkow et al., 1974
We’ve known since the mid-1800’s that CO2 was a so-called greenhouse gas… However, as of the late 1970’s there wasn’t much evidence that small, or even large, changes in atmospheric CO2 could alter the Earth’s climate in any significant fashion. Efforts to link CO2 to the Eocene and Miocene climate optima have pretty well fallen flat on their faces. Even with the allegedly unprecedented rise in atmospheric CO2 since the mid-1800’s, there has been “no fundamental change in the late Cenozoic climate trend”…
FORECASTING THE FUTURE. We can now try to decide if we are now in an interglacial stage, with other glacials to follow, or if the world has finally emerged from the Cenozoic Ice Age. According to the Milankovitch theory, fluctuations of radiation of the type shown in Fig. 16-18 must continue and therefore future glacial stages will continue. According to the theory just described, as long as the North and South Poles retain their present thermally isolated locations, the polar latitudes will be frigid; and as the Arctic Ocean keeps oscillating between ice-free and ice-covered states, glacial-interglacial climates will continue.
Finally, regardless of which theory one subscribes to, as long as we see no fundamental change in the late Cenozoic climate trend, and the presence of ice on Greenland and Antarctica indicates that no change has occurred, we can expect that the fluctuations of the past million years will continue.
Donn, William L. Meteorology. 4th Edition. McGraw-Hill 1975. pp 463-464
Same as it ever was… (H/T David Byrne and The Talking Heads).
“Should I stay, or should I go now?”
While I do think that humans have had some effect on climate change over the past 150 years, CO2 has never been demonstrated to be more than an ancillary driver. Characterizations of this as a “crisis” or “emergency” are nonsense… as are claims of this being unprecedented in the past 66 million years.
However, fossil fuel emissions do have a cumulative effect on the atmosphere, so I don’t object to economically viable efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and I do believe that geoscientists can play key roles in these efforts. The SEG statement goes on to list the areas in which geophysicists can contribute to the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change:
- Carbon capture utilization & storage (CCS/CCUS).
- Monitoring the state of the cryosphere.
- Exploration for strategic ores and minerals.
- Exploitation of geothermal resources.
- Near surface geophysics related to hydrogeology.
All of these are worthwhile areas of expertise and I agree with SEG’s goal to “support its members who are engaged in geophysical research, publication, and open dialog on climate change and its impacts”… But they need to realize that its members involved in oil & gas exploration probably pay most of the dues.
As I conclude this post, I am still unsure if I should stay or go…
Should I stay or should I go now?
Should I stay or should I go now?
If I go there will be trouble
And if I stay it will be double
So come on and let me know
The Clash, 1981
References
Watts Up With That? Posts
Middleton, David H. “Middle Miocene Volcanism, Carbon Dioxide and Climate Change”. WUWT. 3 June 2019.
Middleton, David H. “A Clean Kill of the Carbon Dioxide-Driven Climate Change Hypothesis?” WUWT. 25 September 2019.
Middleton, David H. “Eocene Climatic Optima: Another Clean Kill of Carbon Dioxide-Driven Climate Change Hypothesis?”. WUWT. 30 September 2019.
Middleton, David H. and Andy May. “May/Middleton: Rebuttal to Geological Society of London Scientific Statement on Climate Change”. WUWT. 13 January 2021.
Other References
Capello, Maria A., Anna Shaughnessy, and Emer Caslin. The Geophysical Sustainability Atlas: Mapping geophysics to the UN Sustainable Development Goals. The Leading Edge 2021. 40:1, 10-24
Donn, William L. Meteorology. 4th Edition. McGraw-Hill 1975. pp 463-464
Dott, Robert H. & Roger L. Batten. Evolution of the Earth. McGraw-Hill, Inc. Second Edition 1976. p. 441.
Kolenkow, Robert J., Reid A. Bryson, Douglas B. Carter, R. Keith Julian, Robert A. Muller, Theodore M. Oberlander, Robert P. Sharp & M. Gordon Wolman. Physical geography today : a portrait of a planet. Del Mar, Calif. : CRM Books, [1974]. p. 64.
Pagani, Mark, Michael Arthur & Katherine Freeman. (1999). “Miocene evolution of atmospheric carbon dioxide”. Paleoceanography. 14. 273-292. 10.1029/1999PA900006.
Royer, et al., 2001. Paleobotanical Evidence for Near Present-Day Levels of Atmospheric CO2 During Part of the Tertiary. Science 22 June 2001: 2310-2313. DOI:10.112
Steinthorsdottir, M., Vajda, V., Pole, M., and Holdgate, G., 2019, “Moderate levels of Eocene pCO2 indicated by Southern Hemisphere fossil plant stomata”: Geology, v. 47, p. 914–918, https://doi.org/10.1130/G46274.1
Terando, A., Reidmiller, D., Hostetler, S.W., Littell, J.S., Beard, T.D., Jr., Weiskopf, S.R., Belnap, J., and Plumlee, G.S., 2020, Using information from global climate models to inform policymaking—The role of the U.S. Geological Survey: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2020–1058, 25 p.,
https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20201058.
Tripati, A.K., C.D. Roberts, and R.A. Eagle. 2009. “Coupling of CO2 and Ice Sheet Stability Over Major Climate Transitions of the Last 20 Million Years”. Science, Vol. 326, pp. 1394 1397, 4 December 2009. DOI: 10.1126/science.1178296
Never go full AGU!
Professional association statements like these are typically drafted by organization administrative staff, not by the working membership. The verbiage is seldom if ever put to a vote.
And “the working membership” who do run for societal offices tend to be inherently political.
True. Boards of directors might buy off on their staff’s ideological flights of fantasy.
Especially as virtue signaling might spare you an attack by the woke mob.
No point complaining about academia having a left-wing bias if you run away from it because it’s too left-wing.
But that ship sailed long ago.
Start leaving industry societies and then the same will happen.
The ship is at the harbour gate. Stay onboard or…
I’m leaning toward making it double.
Yup, I’d suggest stay and send a strongly worded letter to the association magazine editor. At least demand a proper survey of the rank and file on any public position statements. Maybe get someone to nominate you for a seat on the board.
Most professional societies I’ve been involved with are over represented on their boards and committees by academics – looks good on their resumes and universities will pay their dues and travel costs. I quit ASCE when their academic dominated board started advocating for Masters or Ph. D. credentials for Profession Engineer licensing. Apparently they didn’t see the educational value of working under PEs in the private or public sectors for 4 or more years. I personally learned far more working in the field than I did in school.
I suggest staying and sending a mildly worded letter calmly refuting what is false and vain.
It is much more difficult to dismiss a calm and polite letter than one filled with rage and emotion, even where the balance of the text is factually correct.
Stick to the principles that have clearly been at least temporarily lost.
Maybe you can file a class action civil suit against the SEG for defamation, David.
After all you make your living as an exploration geologist. Who will hire you if the SEG convinces potential clients that the membership is incompetent?
You could show injury by the SEG’s destruction of your paying career. Maybe you can recruit enough of the membership to constitute a class.
That’s what I say every time there’s a story of someone leaving some organization because they don’t like the politics. Which means eventually then org can honestly say “All our members agree…”
Complaining and leaving does nothing.
It does if everyone leaves. Then they’re left with maybe two or three guys who “have a pen and a phone,” but no brains.
didn’t know you were a Clash fan! Best band ever!
(‘London Calling’ is my favourite track, I think…)
My 70’s Ice Age Cometh posts usually include a reference to London Calling. I think my favorite Clash song is Rock the Casbah
I think one of the last places I visited in London before the pandemic was an exhibition on the Clash at the Museum of London… the museum attendant took one look at the people outside and said ‘you lot are for the Clash, aren’t you?’
+42×1042
We went to the UK once, back in 2006. We didn’t get to the Museum of London, but we did hit the Natural History Museum and IWM Duxford… One of the coolest things I’ve ever seen was the American Air Wing. It’s still hard to believe that they were able to land that B-52 at Duxford.
I’m not a huge fan of punk(ish) rock, but I do like The Clash and The Ramones.
Yes, if you have the constitution, it is best to stand your ground, and work with allies to stem or steer the evolution.
Is there a place to sign the terms of surrender? That would be better than misrepresenting science along with the political capitulation.
Don’t worry David. I have the same issue regarding my Fellowship of the British Royal Geographical Society. The monthly magazine is full of alarmist twaddle that has me choking over my muesli. However, there are still sufficient geographically interesting articles that make it worth reading. I come back to WUWT, NALOPKT and the GWPF for a bit of sanity…
ATB & KBO
John
Yep… I’ve been tempted to join AGU a few times because they do still publish a lot of very good science.
When dealing with food pyramid designer mentality, you must go down to their level to respond with pictures.
Stay if you think you can make a difference.
Otherwise it is best to remove your support.
The problem with all such societies is that they are run by politicians. Even if they once had a professional degree, the minute they decided to concentrate on politics instead of science, they became politicians.
Politicians are interested in one thing only. Increasing their own power and wealth. In today’s world, the easiest way to do that is by latching onto the global warming band wagon.
A single resignation letter wouldn’t mean much. If you can organize a mass exodus with a joint signed letter, then you could have an impact.
If 4000 of the 14,000 members resigned en masse, you might get the institutional powers that be to pay attention and consider valid science.
“If 4000 of the 14,000 members resigned en masse, you might get the institutional powers that be to pay attention and consider valid science.”
No,
They’ll wave you goodbye & shout from the rooftops that their 10,000 members are in 99% agreement with CAGW ! The other 4,000 will be seen as individual conspiracy theorists to be lampooned & ignored.
If you can organize a mass joint signed letter of no confidence, then you could have an impact.
Who has more influence on a game, a player on the field or a disgruntled fan in the back row of the stadium ??
OK, then 8000.
The new (mental) food pyramid is out. It’s official.
They are simply ensuring the future of their members. It takes a HUMUNGOUS amount of everything to get useful energy out of weather dependent generators. Meanwhile there is only a slight reduction in fossil fuel consumption.
The big miners are in raptures over the insatiable requirement for steel, copper, aluminium and other materials to build all the monuments to climate. They will get a big slice of the green new deal as jurisdictions strive for the impossible and consume resources as never before.
What professional society would not want this world for their paying members. They would fail their members if they did not join the chorus cheering it all on.
No doubt… The “to do list” was all win-win.
Yep. Laughing all the way to the bank as they run their operations and camps on oceans of diesel and other oils.
Miners, steel makers, and concrete producers in Africa, Russia, South America, Indonesia, China, India, and in other parts of Asia will make a lot of money from the green new deal.
But miners, steel makers, and concrete producers in America?
Those that still remain after three decades of offshoring our industrial base will make comparatively little money from the GND.
Respectfully, please check your year/century conversion factor.
The standard error of the trend for the first period, is ~0.00507 deg/year. The standard error of the trend for the second period is ~0.000419 deg/year. OTOH, the difference between the trends is ~0.00510 deg/year. So, the good news for you is that the SEG MIGHT be wrong. But the bad news for you is the fact that the chance of that is ~ 0.00000000000046%.
Bigger pic, it’s a sunset profession w.r.t. oil and gas. At least in our lifetimes. You will still get most of what they have to offer whether you pay their dues or not….
Typo… Fixed.
The claim that it’s unprecedented in 66 million years isn’t even wrong.
If I decide to pay my dues, it will because I’ve been a member for almost 40 years and I think it’s a worthwhile organization. And because of The Clash song…
It was more than a typo. It was YOUR only relevant example refuting SEG claims.
I was an SPE member for even longer. I quit ~2 years ago, and get virtually everything I got before, except the directory. BFD – I can find anyone I want in a minute…
How about this for a pic, Bigoilbob?
Thanks for the great picture. Would you have a reference for the publication it’s from?
If you have access, take a look here:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/003358947190069X
Great article, Danny.
Alastair, sorry. The only citations I have are in the credits below the picture. It was sent to me by a former geology professor who has passed away.
“the current rate of increase of both temperature (Diffenbaugh and Field, 2016) and atmospheric CO2 levels (Zeebe et al., 2016) may be unprecedented in the past 66 million years”
How in the blue hell could this organization spout this nonsense when it has been proven many times over that it has been much warmer in the recent, not so recent, and distant past?
David,
When they can’t make a claim that is meaningful (i.e. that temperatures are higher than any time in the past 66 million years), then they have to come up with a possibly true, probably not, certainly misleading claim about the RATE of change.
If a proxy measurement can’t give any better resolution than, say, an average value every 100 years, all rates of change are smoothed. (Is it 80, 100, 300 years? That doesn’t change my argument).
Imagine a period in the past that can only be estimated now by a proxy that has a resolution of 100 years. For the first 30 years, temperature declined at -0.8K/century, then for the next 30 years it rose abruptly at +10.4K/century. For the last 40 years it declined at -1.2K/century. The net change in the period as detected by the proxy would be +2.4K/century, far less than, less than a quarter of the highest rate of change during the period covered by the proxy sample.
On the basis of this, we say that a +2.6K/century rate of increase over 30 years is UNPRECEDENTED, even though there was a 30-year period with a rate of increase four times larger during the proxy period.
We can’t know if that scenario happened because the proxy can’t provide resolution down to a 30-year period. We can’t KNOW, but if we have seen a 0.8K/century increase during the couple of centuries of the instrumental period, and it is admitted to be due to natural causes, how totally unbelievable would it be to say that no greater rate of increase was ever seen in the prior 66 million years, undetectable by proxy measurements?
Which should we be more concerned about, by the way? A blip of a +2.6K/century rate of increase over a short 30-year period (+0.8K change), or a steady gentle -0.25K/century decline over 5 millennia (-12.5K change)?
Stay for the science and ignore the ancillary BS. People laughed and called Agenda 21 a “conspiracy theory” when it was introduced. The goal was to push Marxism into every nook and cranny of our lives with a One World Government headed by the UN and with a complicit (if not outright bought) MSM you can’t escape it today.
JontheTechnologist still asking: Perhaps you can ask for me
February 11, 2021 at 4:21 PM
I have never received an answer to these questions from any Climate Scare Warrior: What should the earth’s perfect temperature be and has it ever been and for how long; and what should the correct level of CO2 be and do you believe like some that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant. And most important who amongst us should be forced to hold our breath to stop CO2 from getting into the atmosphere???
Last but not least, is there a published or otherwise empirical paper or experiment linking CO2 to the Earth’s temperature? I think
NOT.
You are stuck with the current temperature give or take a degree till the next glacial period.
Average surface temperature is simply the mean of the two sea surface extremes 30C in the tropics and -2C at the poles. These are fixed by powerful feedbacks that are mostly a function of the properties of water.
Average Surface Temperature = [30 + (-2)]/2 = 14C or 57F as John Kerry has told us all.
You can look at this link any day of any year and you will find max 30C and minimum -2C. Will always be thus. The Atlantic does not make 30C during glaciation.
Pleistocene Earth has three steady states, ie interglacial, glacial and glacial maximum. During the latter, Heinrich Events lead to a North Atlantic comparable to the Arctic Ocean during interglacials. In winter, the North Atlantic freezes over, but of course with leads, polynyas, etc. in the transatlantic sea ice.
The Holocene being just another Pleistocene interglacial.
“Should I stay or should I go now?”. That’s a very tricky question. Your real problem is that the organisation has succumbed to the Iron Law of Bureaucracy.
https://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/iron.html
The climate statement is just a symptom. If you stay, your continued membership will be used to justify their position. If you leave, your absence will help them to continue being voted into office. My suggestion is that you should protest loudly within the organisation, and if that hits a brick wall then you should leave, taking as many with you as you can. If you remain without protest, you will always be vulnerable to the argument that you disagreed and did nothing. If you leave, you are not responsible for anything that goes on in the organisation.
Go!
The only way these profesional organizations can correct is if the membership craters. Don’t fool youself into thinking that “If I stay, then I can apply pressure for the inside.” That part of self-regulation and self-correction in the top ranks has already failed, else you wouldn’t be at this juncture now.
Greta is furious that it’s listed as #13. When your house is
6 tenths of a degree warmer than usualon fire you don’t list 16 other priorities!12?
Greta dropped out of school 🙂
It’s the “new” math silly.
Dave, feel your present pain times 2.
Left the ABA after being so involved that Justice Clarence Thomas awarded me a set of 18c gold SCOTUS cufflinks at a ceremonial dinner in the SCOTUS Great Hall. Why? Because ABA bought into CAGW, and supported the Lawfare suits against the likes of Exxon dreamed up by Naomi Oreskes.
Used to be a big financial and recruiting supporter of my university (three degrees, BA, MBA, JD). Completely stopped after they hired Naomi Oreskes. Explained to their alumni gifts people (two of the three schools made annual pilgrimages for years to solicit me as a potential big donor) that they should stop until after Oreskes was gone. Same year I stopped doing alumni interviews with college applicants, and any other college recruiting activities.
Actions have consequences. I voted with my feet and checkbook despite a heavy heart.
Regards
You could kill them with kindness by offering them $1,000,000 (say) for hosting a series of televised climate change debates. Insist that Orestes be part of it. You could sweeten the deal by allowing them to carve out 50% for overhead expenses, the way they do with investigatory grants from the government.
Ahhhhhh, Naomi Oreskes… the gorilla my dreams!
The SEG article ends with ‘…and open dialog on climate change and its impacts.’.
I have been a member of the SPE (a sister org to the SEG) for about 40 years. I believe the SPE and SEG scientific discussions are important and help the members form solid opinions. These members impact many others.
Your article here is a good summary of why society should not be spending $T on reducing CO2, thinking it is the “knob” to turn to “save the planet”. My question is have you posted this article in the SEG discussion groups or in the Leading Edge?
“Carbon [dioxide] sequestration” will indeed be a great challenge, if anyone has the money to undertake it.
Separation of carbon dioxide from other flue gases (mostly nitrogen and steam) is relatively easy, using either chemical absorption solutions such as ethanolamines or membrane separators.
However, the physical properties of CO2 make it extremely difficult to “store” underground. The critical temperature of CO2 (above which it cannot be liquefied) is 304.2 K, or about 87.9 F. Near the critical temperature and pressure, substances tend to expand rapidly (possibly explosively) if heated.
So, if liquid CO2 was injected into some underground cavity, and external (geothermal?) heat caused its temperature to rise above 88 F, the rapid expansion could cause a man-made earthquake.
This expansion effect is lessened if the CO2 is stored as a “supercritical fluid” above its critical pressure of 73.82 bar (1,070 psia). Under these conditions, the CO2 is neither liquid nor gas, but it does not expand as rapidly when heated.
The problem is that compressing CO2, which usually occurs in flue gas at slightly above atmospheric pressure (about 15 psia) up to over 1,100 psia requires a huge energy input. Most commercial centrifugal compressors can achieve an outlet/inlet pressure ratio of about 2.5 per stage, but a pressure ratio of 1,100 / 15 = 73.3 requires five stages of compression in series, with at least four interstage coolers to remove the heat of compression and reduce the volume of gas to be compressed (which decreases power consumption).
It is estimated that compressing the CO2 generated by a coal-fired power plant to 1,100 psia would consume about 30% of the power generated by the plant, so that the same amount of coal would produce only 70% of the net power output if CO2 was compressed. Put another way, generating the same amount of net power requires 43% more coal consumption if CO2 is compressed.
For natural gas-fired plants, the power required for CO2 compression is about 20% of the power generated, so that CO2 sequestration would consume about 25% more natural gas for the same net power generated.
CO2 sequestration only results in a huge waste of precious resources (43% more coal, 25% more natural gas), for very little (if any) gain, if temperatures would be predicted to be a few hundredths of a degree cooler a century from now. Not to mention the high capital cost of the compressors, which is to be amortized by…what? What is the bottom-line benefit of compressing a harmless gas to 75 times atmospheric pressure and burying it in the ground?
The actual CSS Illinois experiment into a deep saline aquifer exposed another problem. The CO2 reacted with the brine to ‘plug’ the injection wells with carbonates. You cannot afford to drill a new one every few weeks.
The storage window is from about 1 km below the surface/seafloor down to the top of geopressure. In that window, CO2 is a supercritical liquid. There is a tremendous volume of suitable pore space in depleted oil and gas reservoirs and saline formations.
Or you could just leave it as plant food for humanity to continue thriving.
It’s pseudoscience all the way down. Someone forgot to tell Maxwell that his contemporaries had figured out climate. Einstein destroyed the laughable hypothesis in 1917 and it should have been put to rest then but the world is currently in a delusional mania state and everything is standing on its head.
http://web.ihep.su/dbserv/compas/src/einstein17/eng.pdf
I abandoned the American Nurses Association years ago due to their stance on gun control. More power to you if you stay but I refuse to give money to an organization that actively works against my interests.
I have taken the same stance with AARP for the same reason.
They are big on Arrhenius (“seminal paper”), apparently don’t know about the original concern about his work questioned by Krogh, 1904, who cited his 1896 paper. Only reason I know about Krogh is that he apparently gave up on oceanic gases and became an expert (Nobel Prize) on osmotic exchanges, easier to measure I expect. Krogh’s CO2 work was recognized by Moberg, et al., interesting co-author.
Krogh, A. 1904. The abnormal CO2 – percentage in the air in Greenland and the general relations between atmospheric and oceanic carbonic acid. Meddelser om Grönland. 26(7):409-434.
Moberg, E. G., D. M. Greenberg, R. Revelle, and E. C. Allen. 1934. The buffer mechanism of sea water. Bulletin Scripps Institute Oceanography. 3(11):231-278.
Also check Forbes, December 25, 1989–The Global Warming Panic, essentially predicted this -“And that is why fears of the greenhouse effect threaten to push the US into a costly environmental mistake. ”
What I learned from geologists, not limited to them, was that you had to do extensive homework. They also know (knew?) about dangers with mixing politics and science. I tried to resign from Sigma Xi which publishes American Scientist as they are into the same nonsense. Posted on that before as they joined climate initiative with AAAS. Never heard back, I think they threw my resignation in the trash, may have had an impact, more likely because a bunch of members climbed all over the director. We will see, later issues better.
President & CEO, not director.
Arrhenius was unaware of 2 important factors
1 the quantum nature of absorption spectra
2 the overlap between water and Co2 absorption
He estimated infra r ed absorption by observing Ir radiation from the moon and comparing to what it should hav e been without ghg
Seminal work given the limitations on theory And available instrumentation, but not enough to justify the inDecent squandering of resources to solve a non problem
The geolsoc of london are similar and i am in a quandry about staying or not
It is extremely entertaining to watch Mr. Middleton’s reaction as more and more of his compatriots in the oil and gas industry acknowledge the findings of science.
It is extremely entertaining to watch Brian once again miss the point of the article.
SEG never polled it’s members, this was a statement from the politicians who run the organization only.
Then again using politicians to force their will on the larger population is what progressives do.
BTW, there is no science behind the apocalyptic claims of the alarmists. The only evidence is in the so called models. Models that can’t hindcast, and who’s every prediction has failed.
Out here in the real world, there is nothing unusual about the temperatures. Indeed for most of the last 10,000 years temperatures have been 3 to 5C warmer than what we are enjoying today.
There has been no increase in storms.
There has been no increase in droughts.
There has been no increase in floods.
There have been no increases in wild fires.
None of the bad predictions have come to pass.
On the other hand, so called renewable energy has been an absolute failure, as anyone who knows anything about science could have predicted.
The organization is just following the major oil companies, like ExxonMobil that acknowledged their product is warming the planet. Ditto for Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Royal Dutch Shell, and British Petroleum (BP).
…
You have to realize that these companies employ a lot of the non-polled members of the SEG.
..
Follow the (big) money.
.
https://www.independent.com/2020/09/12/oil-companies-admit-to-contributing-to-climate-change-and-blame-you/
By the way, why do you follow me around on this site Mr. MarkW?
Mr. Middleton is a big boy, he doesn’t need your help in defense.
You are right, David doesn’t need my help. What has that to so with anything, other than the fact that it annoys you when I point out how stupid you are?
You confuse annoyance with laughter. Nice to have someone pay attention to my every post.
I wont kick an ankle biter because I like dogs.
That explains you childish chihuahua-like yapping behaviour.
As I suspected. You are an attention seeker.
I really have managed to rattle Brian, 3 posts in under 5 minutes. All in response to himself.
And he’s the one who believes that he’s living in my mind.
Replying to yourself again, major kooksign.
He thinks it’s his job to badger anyone who disagrees with the poster, no matter how preposterous. He’s been at it for years, so no point engaging. If you’re being badgered by MarkW, its a pretty good sign you’re over a soft target.
That’s not it at all Loydo, he just doesn’t much care for liars and idiots spewing invective without any facts or data to back it up!
What period of geologic history has lower CO2 levels and temps than the present, and what is your proposed solution to the natural decline of CO2 due to biomineralization? If you don’t have good answers to those questions and some ability to see back beyond the LIA you’re just displaying an embarrassing level of ignorance!
Past 400,000 years:
.
.
and
.
https://th.bing.com/th/id/OIP.yksIC6lIinAykDNfn23SGQHaF3?pid=ImgDet&rs=1
Hey Brain,
What happened to the rest geologic history? You’re only looking at the Pleistocene, and you didn’t include temperature or the 500-800 year lag where CO2 follows temps. Do you think Cause follows Effect?
Abolition Man posts: ” If you don’t have good answers to those questions and some ability to see back beyond the LIA you’re just displaying an embarrassing level of ignorance!”
…
Why do you move the goal posts?…..400,000 years ago is a long time before the LIA.
I am an avid student of geology! I don’t confine myself to only the recent past; but I asked what PERIOD of geologic history and you gave me data going back to the middle Pleistocene! That’s still part of the Quaternary; our current period!
The last time CO2 and temps approached these exceedingly low levels was around 250,000,000 years ago during the Permian!
Do try to keep up!
The earth is a lot older than 400K years.
Homo Sapiens are not
So what? The question is what impact does CO2 have on climate. Whether Homo Sapiens existed at the time isn’t relevant. Though we are all getting used to your desperate efforts to move the goal posts whenever you get behind.
One other question, Brain. How come temps aren’t following the recent steep rise in CO2? I thought your religion claimed it is the control knob for temperature and climate change? It looks like they are going out of synch of late!
Thermal inertia of the oceans.
roflmao.
Make it up as you go along .
EXPOSE YOUR MANIC SCIENTIFIC ILLITERACY
what about temperatures over the same period? do they go up and down in sinc with CO2?
Brian gives an excellent demonstration in how to lie with statisitics.
Take that same chart, blow it up so that you see the centenial scale, and you will see that CO2 ALWAYS trails temperature. Most of the time by 900 years or more.
But for Warmunists like Brainless Jackass, causation can work backwards in time!
The visual correlation is pretty good for the last 800,000 years — until the present! Why has the correlation broken down? The oceans have always been present to act as thermal dampeners.
GREAT NEWS that raised CO2 level isn’t it brainless. !
EVERY LIVING THING ON THE PLANET now has a better chance of survival.
The 280ppm level is very low for platt use, and 180ppm is barely survival level.
Thank goodness it didn’t drop any further. !
And of course there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE of any detrimental effects from all that extra plant food. !.
A Freudian analyst would have such a good time with the obsession exhibited by members of the Church of Global warming with the creation of hockey stick imagery from their imaginations.
“and what is your proposed solution to the natural decline of CO2”
Through the looking glass we go. “…decline of CO2″… You dead set pillock.
Btw,
Mr. MarkW is a big boy, he doesn’t need your help in defense.
Loydo,
For the last 150,000,000 years CO2 has been declining from 2,000-2,500ppm down to about 180ppm during the last period of glaciation. Please explain how a rise to mere 250 ppm above the Death threshold for most plants is important, much less dangerous!
Loydo only knows what his cell leader tells him to know.
There was a wise man who stated that communism is the political system for social insects like ants and termites.
Hammer, meet nail!
That “wise” man forgot to mention that communism is an economic system, not a political system.
The only way to impose communism is via the political process. Left alone, people always adopt capitalism.
It is dangerous for the human species, because never in the history of human beings has the CO2 level been as high as it is today.
I know your religion claims that; but ALL animal life evolved over millions of years with CO2 levels over 2,000ppm, and only in the last 60,000,000 years did it drop below 1,000ppm!
Are primates and humans especially sensitive to high CO2 levels?
If so, why do US Navy submarines routinely operate with 2,000ppm to 5,000ppm?
Doesn’t it seem more idiotic to worry about elevated levels when the only REAL danger is levels dropping below survivability for plants?
What absolute and complete BALDERDASH !!
At any level in the atmosphere that is possible, CO2 has basically zero effect on humans
It is not “dangerous in the slightest
STOP MAKING UP TOTAL BULLC**P !!
What is the optimum concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere?
Brian if what you say is true why aren’t submariners dying like flies? Nuclear subs can have CO2 levels over a 1000 ppm for months.
https://www.google.com/search?q=co2+exposure+chart&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari#imgdii=TlkS4UGYniiCCM&imgrc=391ihg4FgZ0zwM
Once again, when Brian finds himself losing an argument, he tries to change it.
The geological record proves that CO2 has little to no impact on climate.
You’re so right. I was in a meeting with several other people last week. The ambient CO2 must have increased tenfold within an hour, whereupon everyone died.
Boy, trolls really get upset when people disagree with them.
When more than one does, they get even more peeved.
I’m not trying to defend MarkW, I just find lying and ignorance highly offensive! Just like racism, and tolerance for slavery and human trafficking; some of the common traits of the climate alarmist movement!
Please quote any lie I have posted.
A totally WRONG… and since you claim to have a basic education.
A TOTAL AND DELIBERATE LIE !!
Claiming I’m wrong isn’t good enough, please tell me when in the recent history when homo sapiens walked on the earth was CO2 more than 300 ppm?
Poor Brian, when he gets hold of a bad argument, he just can’t let go of it.
The science shows that CO2 is a bit player at best in climate.
Your post at 8:34 is a load of bull; you’re either lying or ignorant! Your choice!
Homo Sapiens have been around for 300,000 years. When during that time has CO2 been higher than 300 ppm?
Since CO2 is irrelevant, then so is your argument.
Lucy – a fairly well known hominid, is around the 3.4 million year mark – when, according to yhang et al, temperature was 3 to 4 degrees warmer and carbon dioxide was at the same level as today. She and her ilk seemed to do ok…
That’s why Brian wants to limit the discussion to Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
Others have been even more desperate and tried to limit the discussion to the time period since civilization has developed.
”Homo Sapiens have been around for 300,000 years. When during that time has CO2 been higher than 300 ppm?”
There are your claims that the science backs your religious beliefs.
You need someone to come to your defense, loy-dodo.
You are a total waste of space
A non-contributor to the human species.
Off in your magic mushroom la-la-land state of being, as always.
It really is fascinating how trolls get so flustered whenever they have to talk to more than one person at a time.
It’s almost as if their tiny little minds can’t handle the complexity.
If you don’t like the idea of a free-for-all, then why are you attacking Abolition Man in support of Jackson?
Mr.
MarkWJackson is a big boy, he doesn’t need your help in defense.Loydo still can’t actually refute anything I have written, but you can tell it really bugs him.
You haven’t written anything that is refutable.
You also never back up your posts with links to authorities.
Neither do you.
EVERY you have written is refutable, because its based on a total lack of scientific knowledge r understanding
Which explains why you can NEVER refute him.
Poor brianless one, So sad to be so pathetically worthless.
No wonder you have to yap so loud for attention.
That you can’t refute anything I have written has become painfully obvious.
“Loydo still can’t actually refute anything I have written”
Umm … I can and have a few times. You seem to run away when I do.
Example I hear you say? OK so Mark let’s have a reference for this weeks (Make it up Mark ) comment, that…. catalytic converters on modern cars results in the air they pump out being cleaner than the “ambient ” air.
And what about your big lie that the average temp of the earth for the last 10,000 years is warmed than today?
Looking forward to your reply….
Fred, don’t bother.
Whining that I’m wrong, is not refutation.
Well? References, links please, or are you just gonna roll over?
I’ve given them to you before, but you refuse to look because they don’t come from sites approved by your masters.
No you haven’t. You are so full of it.
Loy-dodo has been posting WASTED SPACE posts since he first posted here.
He has no other option.
We both read the same articles. How is that following you around?
Are you paranoid as well as delusional and moronic?
No, but I love the fact that I live rent free in your head.
Lots of empty space there too, cause griff is living in the opposite hemisphere.
WOW you seriously are an EMPTY SOCK, brainless one..
… waiting for a hand up your **** to make you into a muppet. !
And me…. that’s three.
Replying to your posts means you are living in my head?
Your connection to reality has been broken for years, hasn’t it.
Idiocy and imbecility are also distinct possibilities!
I find it fascinating that all three of them assume that because I respond to some of their posts, I spend the rest of my time fantasizing about them.
I guess even a troll has to have something to give their lives meaning.
Because you try to be everywhere?
Poor brainless one posts RANDOM GARBAGE on the blog in a puerile trolling attempt
Then complains, like all insipid leftist twits, when someone corrects his fallacies.
How much more PATHETIC and worm-like can a psuedo-person get !!.
Have you noticed how they have changed the subject from their lies about climate to me.
Jackson
Sorry to bust your balloon, but you aren’t special. He follows everyone.
Not the Exxon Knew nonsense again? Is there no lie that you won’t repeat?
The oil companies acknowledge that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Guess what, so do I.
However the claim that CO2 is causing dangerous changes has not been proven.
And now you are claiming that the employees of a company all believe as the company does.
If you want to follow the big money in climate research, you have to follow the government grants.
Why don’t you explain to everyone here why the 5 top oil producing companies have acknowledged the scientific facts. In a court of law….
.
““Chevron accepts the consensus in the scientific communities on climate change,” said Boutrous. “There’s no debate about climate science.”
..
and the other four companies concurred.
..
Read the findings of the presiding judge in the case from the link I posted.
So you’re defending corporate executives because they are kowtowing to your religious beliefs, but you still aren’t bringing much science and data to the discussion!
Well, you’ve got me convinced! Another fanatic cult member, who believes in human sacrifice!
Brainless is CLUELESS how executives voice these claims to avoid far-left harassment.
Yet still keep prodcuing oil and gass an digging up coal. 😉
Once again, all they have accepted is the scientific consensus that CO2 is a green house gas. They have never accepted the lies about it being dangerous.
Why can’t you for once accurately portray the arguments of those who disagree with you?
“Indeed for most of the last 10,000 years temperatures have been 3 to 5C warmer than what we are enjoying today.”
Indeed, indeed, I’m pretty sure Middleton would go along with this. He must be thrilled to bits having loyal warriors like MarkW in his corner, addressing the misapprehensions, so he doesn’t have to.
Since what I’ve written is the truth, why do I need to worry about whether David agrees or not.
As to defending David, I’m not. I’m just refuting the lies of you alarmists.
References/links please?
I’m pretty sure MarkW is incapable of posting a link.
Ever heard of the Holocene Thermal Optimum?
3-5°C warmer than now? Make-it-up-Mark doesn’t do evidence, do you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum
Even Warmist Wikipedia agrees the HCO was real, and a lot warmer.
You dummy Graeme. A tip: if you’re asked to provide evidence, it should probably be evidence in support, not evidence that refutes:
From your link:
Shows the temperature in 2016 as higher than the HCO not 3-5 lower. lol
Tip 2: Don’t believe anything make-it-up-Mark ..well, makes up.
Btw, when F-wit Fred jumps in to trash this graph be sure to let him know whose idea it was wont you.
Yep, it’s the old trick of splicing a modern thermometric record onto a proxy record.
Try again, little Loydo.
It was your graph you nincompoop.
Explain this: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222513245_Holocene_Treeline_History_and_Climate_Change_Across_Northern_Eurasia
You didn’t read it, did you?
“Out of 140 sites across the western Arctic, there is clear evidence for conditions warmer than now at 120 sites. At 16 sites, where quantitative estimates have been obtained, local HTM temperatures were on average 1.6±0.8 °C higher than now. Northwestern North America had peak warmth first, from 11,000 to 9,000 years ago, while the Laurentide Ice Sheet still chilled eastern Canada. Northeastern North America experienced peak warming 4,000 years later. Along the Arctic Coastal Plain in Alaska, there are indications of summer temperatures 2–3 °C warmer than present.[5] Research indicates that the Arctic had less sea ice than the present.[6]“
“It is extremely entertaining to watch Mr. Middleton’s reaction as more and more of his compatriots in the oil and gas industry
acknowledge the findings of scienceboard the gravy train.”FIFY
Findings of science:
No poverty
Zero hunger
Good health and well being
Quality education
Gender equality …. etc.
Makes me sick. A sick dinosaur.
Poor brainless one.
Doesn’t realise that many of the societies get INFILTRATED with leftist scum that floats to the top.
Then applies their standard totalitarian viewpoint
Why are you SO UNAWARE of basically every facet of everything, brainless one ?
Findings 😉
Yup, right over the target.
Fascinating. People point out all the places where someone is wrong. And that’s proof that he’s right.
And to think, progressives believe they are the smart ones.
MarkW, do you know how to post a link?
Poor loy-dodo.
You don’t even have the vaguest clue where the target is.
You always miss completely !
Your comments start and end in that completely empty space between your ears.
They have ZERO WORTH to any rational discussion.
And yet…you spend half your life responding to them. Who do you actually think your fooling?
Perhaps you realize that a membership in any such society is, for the most part, compensated permission to add the society name to your personal or professional identity in return for a magazine subscription? Unless one successfully takes an active role to determine the direction of the society and its publications, one is merely along for the ride. If you don’t like it, and don’t want to change it, and don’t care for surrender, then departure is your only route.
As an aside, most of these publications share editorial staff with other outlets, often having nothing to do with the various disciplines they represent. These people steer the direction and slant of the publication. It should not be surprising to find the writers and editors have an agenda unconnected with that of the subscribers. Often they can arrange determine who sits on the board that ostensibly oversees their activity.
“SEG joins nearly 200 other scientific societies worldwide and the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in agreement with the IPCC ….”
Now that the pendulum has swung leftward to its fullest extent, it is time for it to turn, turn, turn.
To paraphrase: ‘It’s not our boy that’s marching out of step, it’s everybody else!’
and poor rusty is still clinging on by his corroded little mind !
Much more rust, it will be total decay.
As Einstein once said, it only takes one to prove me wrong.
Science is determined by a popularity contest.
not determined by a popularity contest.
You have been proven wrong countless times, which is mathematically greater than once.
Stay a member .. keep them honest !!
There is a third option: form your own Exploration Geophysicists org. Think of a name, make a web site, apply for 501(c)(3) status, recruit members. Counter their BS.
Calling these two warming episodes “very similar” may be pushing it a little, David.
The current one isn’t only faster, it has already lasted longer and shows no sign of letting up.
Also, your chart shows +0.6 C warming in HadCRUT4 from 1904-1945 (which in that data is up to Dec 1944) and +0.8C warming since 1975 (since Jan 1975). Using the HadCRUT4 data, downloaded from the same source you used (WfTs), and using Excel and rounded to 2 deciml places, I get a total of +0.5 C warming from 1904-1945 and +0.9 C since 1975. The difference in total warming between the two periods, according to the data you are using, seems to be larger than your chart suggests. Any comments?
Should read: ’rounded to 1 decimal place’, excuse me.
And more kooksign with this one.
You mean the “once-was-data” that has been SPECIFICALLY MALADJUSTED to suit the AGW cult agenda ?
That HadCrud? !
It’s a question of miscalculating or misrepresenting the trends. The data set was chosen by the author.
+6 °C and +8 °C were Mark I Eyeball estimates.
Here’s the OCD version:
The other warming periods showed no sign of stopping either. Until it did.
Odd that they ALWAYS came to an ABRUPT COOLING TREND when CO2 levels were at their highest 😉
LIAR.
The warming has only come at El Nino events.. no human cause.
Certainly the data adjustments show no sign of letting up
And of course, that SMALL AMOUNT OF HIGHLY BENEFICIAL warming that we have had out of the coldest period in 10,000 years has been a BOON to all life on Earth
And there is absolutely ZERO provable human warming except urban effect
There is NO EVIDENCE that the HIGHLY BENEFICIAL rise in atmospheric CO2 ihas any effect whatsoever on climate
If there was , you would be able to answer these two simple questions.
BUT YOU CAN’T…
you and all your slimy cult members are totally EMPTY of any actual science on the matter.
1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?
2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human released CO2 causation?
Oh yeah, fred’s magic ENSO; the one in which natural warming gets edited out but natural cooling is retained. Amazingly, this lowers the warming trend! Why did no one think of this brfore freddy?
Just to illustrate the silliness of the ‘warming was all caused by El Nino’ meme, as advanced by fred and others, simply compare annual ENSO index data against annual global temperature data. We can even use fred’s data set of choice, UAH_TLT v6 (the coolest one, of course), the first full year of which starts in 1979.
Most people know that the ‘O’ in ENSO stands for ‘oscillation’; an oscillation being a regular variation about a central point. This should be enough to tell us what to expect when we look at ENSO data over a long period – no strong trend one way or the other (otherwise it wouldn’t be called an oscillation).
What you find when you compare annual average data from the ENSO Index to UAH_TLT over the 42 years from 1979 to 2020 is a slight down trend (-0.05) in ENSO index, which, if anything, should imply a slight overall natural cooling effect; but in UAH over the same period there is a distinct warming trend (+0.14 C/dec).
You can see the various peaks and troughs in the UAH data that closely follow the el Nino/la Nina extremes in ENSO (after a lag); so yes, ENSO variations do affect global temperatures short term. But they do so in both directions. They warm and cool the atmosphere in roughly equal proportions; so ENSO cannot be driving the long term warming trend apparent in UAH and all the other temperature global data sets.
NOAA ENSO index data here: https://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php
UAH_TLT v6 data here: https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
”Most people know that the ‘O’ in ENSO stands for ‘oscillation’; an oscillation being a regular variation about a central point. This should be enough to tell us what to expect when we look at ENSO data over a long period – no strong trend one way or the other (otherwise it wouldn’t be called an oscillation).”
Garbage. Positive ENSOs (and negative) can have wildly different amplitudes and can bring GAT to settle at a different level such as was seen after the massive thermal shock of 1998 were we saw it 0.2 degrees higher from then on. This could mean any number of things such as the background influence of other cycles occurring at the same time. Co2 does NOTHING to help explain it.
“Can have”, but is there a net positive or negative affect?
Or is it well named as an oscillation.
Why don’t you try time series analysis to determine what happens when. Remove the trend by first difference and then see when changes occur. There are also other more complete procedures to analyze more closely.
You can’t just look at regression trends to find accurate correlations between different variables. They first need to be stationary, i.e., no means changes, constant variance, etc.
The Complete Guide to Time Series Analysis and Forecasting | by Marco Peixeiro | Towards Data Science
“What you see when you turn the light on …”
Reminded me of a housekeeping tip I once heard.
“To hide the dirt in your house, turn the lights down.”
(I think many restaurants use that trick!)
From their religious epistle.
“Position geophysics as central to decarbonization strategies, with emphasis on carbon capture, utilization, and storage and CO2 storage-site characterization and monitoring.”
Wait a minute, I had a friend who was a Louisiana geophysicist. All his life was devoted to that, except decarbonization. Dictionary definition– Geophysics–“A branch of earth science dealing with the physical processes and phenomena occurring esp. in the earth and in its vicinity. ” He knew carbon capture from the earth was possible, atmosphere in a different sphere.
Different from their definition of “Geopolitics,”
“Mapping geophysics to SDG 16 — Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all, and build effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels”
CASE CLOSED-need to rename the society. Whether you quit or not, go after them.
I read this article and fully agree. I have similar issues with CIGRE, that is struggling not to be captured (I hope that is what is happening!).
By chance, I also read this article from National Geographic today (https://t.co/lOpp7jjhJH?amp=1) — which manages to describe a pass that was used during the medieval warming period and closed by the onset of the little ice age without mentioning either of them — which also says that the uncovering of the pass due to the current warming is “bittersweet” because of climate change concerns!
SEG goes dufus.
I can hardy wait for Society of Petroleum Engineers and American Petroleum Institute do the same!!
I am continually appalled at how deeply politics has corrupted science. Reason and facts just don’t matter anymore. All we can do is keep up the good fight.
David,
Seeing professional and scientific associations go off the cliff of climate alarmism is always sad; much like watching a friend or family member fall into addiction or mental health problems! My initial reaction is to stay, and do what you do best; use ridicule and irony along with your professional experience to skewer the self-proclaimed experts!
As we have seen all too clearly with Fauxi the weathervane, those that spend too much time in politics and academia often lose sight of reality. There’s nothing like a few well placed darts to pop their bubbles and get their attention! And if darts don’t work, there’s always the 2X4 method!
I’m a (still) practicing geologist__BA ’70, MS’73, PhD ’77. I long ago gave up membership in all geology professionals organizations because they all became echo chambers for PC/correct think. When I couldn’t understand the titles to articles in the Journal of Economic Geology I gave up. Same holds for Scientific American even though as a grad student I had a grant from them to support my research but they long ago drank the Kool-aid. Why the organization’s persist in crafting and publishing these kind of statements is beyond me.
Antonio Gramsci’s march through the institutions continues apace. Presumably, even such hallowed organizations as the International Society of Oilfield Trash will eventually bend a knee. /S
You must fight ! Start SEG web blog critiquing website, for SEG members who outspokenly object to the present party line. Make it known that you are all running a slate for the next election, and the plan is to fire any of the administrative staff that dable in non-geological politicking.
Keep in mind that any temperature chart you see that does not show the Early Twentieth Century as being as warm as it is today, means you are looking at a bogus, bastardized, instrument-era Hockey Stick chart.
A bogus Hockey Stick produces bogus conclusions.
All regional surface temperature charts from around the world and in both hemispheres, show that the Early Twentieth Century was just as warm as today.
Here’s the U.S. regional surface temperature chart. It shows the Early Twentieth Century was just as warm as today (1998 and 2016 being equal) which makes 1934, 0.5C warmer than both 1998 and 2016.
All the regional charts look like this one.
None of them look like the bogus Hockey Stick chart, which is the only chart that shows unprecedented warming taking place today. All this unprecedented warmth is generated in the computer, not in the real world.
Hockey Stick = Buyer Beware
This graph at the top of the comment section would have saved me(and many other readers I suspect)some wasted time.Doesn’t it say everything about this crap?
Tony Heller has a bunch of videos on YouTube exposing the appalling manipulations and alterations of the historical temperature records, all cooling the past and warming the present.
SEG, “… but the current rate of increase of … temperature … may be unprecedented in the past 66 million years… ”
The Society of Exploration Geophysicists has never heard of Heinrich events?
Never mind about Covid-19. The real pandemic is the CC-88 virus. The mind-virus that struck in 1988 and spread across Earth turning the minds of susceptible scientists into mush.
Unprecedented is the tragic level of stupidity to which they have been reduced.
These people must know they’re lying. Money doesn’t seem to be enough to explain it. Myself, I think it’s a pathological need to join the righteous crowd.
I have another idea. These people, Pat, don’t necessarily know anything. Below I mentioned expanding the franchise by which I mean recruiting lots of people who have little talent for something, and would not have had any interest either except we recruited them with mindless vigor. Many became exceptionally mediocre graduates or abandoned their program of study and became something like malcontents. They often occupy jobs where they dream up stuff like the icons in the mapping of geophysics above.
Peter Druker maintained that were you to direct organizations away from their core competencies, you end up destroying the organization. His main example was ruining public education by making it the engine for racial integration — it was a noble goal but it directed education away from its core competency, and the educational system has never recovered.
Train way too many mediocre graduates and all they can contribute is to redirect the organization toward things that interest them.
A very good observation, Kevin. In making education the vehicle for integration, teachers and school boards lowered the standards so that the remedial classes would not be filled primarily with black children.
Given the success of Dunbar High school in Washington DC, one can surmise that circumstance would have lasted about half a generation. After that, with a supportive home life, black children would have reached the requisite academic standard and gone on to careers and productive lives. Just as they did from Dunbar High (until 1955).
It was the implicit racism of low expectations that caused the ruination of academic standards so as to impose immediate ethnic equity in graduation rates. School officials wrecked the opportunity and prospects for black children. The progressive left can be fully blamed for that.
Dick Lindzen spoke of just the process you described as bringing the ruination of the National Academy. A back-door entrance was constructed for mediocre scientists, and the result has been a parade of incompetence.
But I know Phil Bucksbaum, the president of the APS. He is enormously intelligent. But he hasn’t changed the benighted position of the APS on CO2 emissions. I don’t understand it.
FYI, Pat
I think Ben Shapiro provides an interesting partial explanation here when he opines about why Dr. Seuss had to go. Many institutions, facts, degree programs and jobs face the same pressure….
As I have gotten older I have learned that membership in these clubs is not worth very much. Recall that Richard Feynman refused membership in the NAS because, as he said, there was no point in being a member of a society whose main function was to decide who was august enough to be a member.
I have quit AGU, APS, AAAS, and SEG over the past two decades because they have taken idiotic stands on a variety issues and not once over climate change, which speaks to the number of possible idiotic stands available. There is a general enfeeblement of the Western world at present, and at least part of this process began in the world of professional technical societies when we expanded the franchise. So, I feel there is no point being a member of a me-too organization that engages in groupthink. Who knows if the situation will change within my remaining lifetime?
A lot of juvenile point – scoring squabbling occurred in the comments of this article. Can i suggest that people self moderate a bit and dare i say turn the other cheek on occasion
‘The Earth is continuously undergoing climate change, but the current rate of increase of both temperature (Diffenbaugh and Field, 2016) and atmospheric CO2 levels (Zeebe et al., 2016) may be unprecedented in the past 66 million years, per currently available data. Since the mid-1800s, it has been understood that small changes in atmospheric gases, including CO2, can alter the Earth’s climate. (For a good historical summary, see Ortiz and Jackson, 2020; for two of the seminal papers, see Foote, 1856, and Arrhenius, 1896).’
There you go, all you people who seem to think I should point you to the clear evidence on CO2 on climate change – there are the central references to the science.
Enjoy!
And those references totally ignore the limits of resolution… A concept central to geophysics.
Couching it with the qualifier “may” is no excuse, particularly regarding temperature.
Griff,
have you even read Arrhenius, 1896 or better still Arrhenius, 1906 ??
where he admits his earlier (1896) findings were flawed, after fellow Swede Knut Angstrom in 1897 proved Arrhenius was measuring water vapour.
Arrhenius was proved wrong again by Angstrom & Koch in 1900
https://ozonedepletiontheory.info/Papers/Angstrom1900-English.pdf
In 1909 American Robert Wood proved there is no ‘greenhouse effect’ .
Arrhenius was a mediocre chemist & much of his work was fruitless but he did some good work on toxins & anti-toxins, he also devised the theory now known as panspermia.
Although it took him 10yrs Arrhenius was man enough to say he was wrong …not many scientists would do that today !
you should also read –
“Atmospheric Radiation” by Frank W.Very
https://archive.org/details/atmosphericradia00veryrich
I have a second edition.
Arrhenius did some great work on kinetics (the pre-exponential factor is represented by the letter A in his honour) and in acid-base theory, but was out of his depth in radiative physics. I believe he withdrew his hypothesis of CO2 warming after it was shown to be in error by Zeeman and Angstrom, which demonstrates his integrity.
I have scanned this, reading some sections thoroughly and I must say I am impressed. This fellow would be called OCD in today’s climate science when reading the amazing detail he went to in order to find errors and insure precision in his measurements.
Everyone espousing CO2 as a control knob should read this in order to understand what they are claiming.
Your quote just goes to show, griff, that certain scientists have reached the level of scholarship pioneered by academic intellectuals: there’s no idea so stupid that they won’t believe it.
The temperature claim is factually and demonstrably wrong. The CO2 claim, even if sustained, is a cause for celebration. The terrestrial climate has been heading for CO2 starvation for the past 2.5 million years. Until we humans stepped in and saved the day.
This plot, by the way, shows that 66 million years ago CO2 levels were about 4x what they are today.
That plot is the output of a model. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Geocarb_III-Berner.pdf
No, it’s not.
The BioCab plot derives from combined empirical studies. The data sources are given at the site. None of them include models.
“Oddly enough, with a TCR of 1.6 °C, we would expect to see 0.8 °C of warming at 400 ppm CO2.”
Doubling CO2 does not double the temperature. (ECS and TCR are one and the same thing. It does not take decades for CO2 forcing to warm the surface anymore than it takes the sun decades to warm the surface when it rises each morning. )
ECS for doubling CO2 is about a degree and a bit C (1C to 1.2 C seems to be the general agreement)
Since we haven’t seen a WV increase over land (NVAP-M, ISCCP, NCEP RE2) there is no amplification of this.
So 0.8 C for ~50% more CO2 is on line for 1.2C for 100% more CO2. At most.
From the post…
The scenario isn’t for what you think ECS is. It’s for the average ECS that recent observation-based studies have derived.
Matthew, why does my thermodynamics book not mention this capability of CO2, nor does the NIST data sheet for CO2, nor the Shomate equation, nor specific heat tables?
David (& others),
Please stop calling CO2 a ‘greenhouse gas’ ( like water vapour, it is a re-radiative or radiatively active gas . ) That’s an alarmist’s junk term with no place in physics.
.
The nearest thing we have to a transparent roof for earth is the ozone layer.
Note: the only time CO2 is ever a ‘greenhouse gas’ is when it’s pumped into a greenhouse to fertilize the plants.
David,
I can empathize. I’ve been a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers for decades and increasingly I am seeing my professional organization falling prey to the pressures of other organizations to endorse poorly conceived sciences, such as global warming.
Part of the problem are the Academics, who have a hard time believing that mass batching of concrete, for example, is more complex and less rigorously measured in the field that it is in the book written by the Professor.
The other part of the problem is the leaders of large engineering organizations who suck up to government officials that spout climate change nonsense, in order to sustain good relations with contractual clients.
I don’t know what happened to professional integrity. Certainly the engineering disciplines have not become as bad as, say, journalists or attorneys. But the trend toward intellectual dishonesty is disturbing.
How does one get to “No Poverty”, when poverty is a sliding index based on prosperity and is relative to the community in which you live?
I’ll admit I live in a very affluent area (inside the DC beltway in NOVA), and we just shut down a major traffic artery doing food distribution at church. I also travelled to rural Africa in November for work – the folks who needed the food at home would have been wealthy there.
But, as usual the answer to most of these issues is either cheaper energy or just ignore them as the petulant cries of the coddled who don’t have a purpose in life.
It is even worse than you state. The official measures of poverty do not take into account after tax transfers which “redistribute” income. In other words no amount of redistribution can reduce poverty by design.
“may be unprecedented in the past 66 million years, per currently available data”
That’s the money line folks. It’s also the price of virtue signaling to pass go at the expense of the membership.
Anyone, let alone a “serious scientist” who believes we have enough granular data from 66 million years ago to define a scary rate of increase in temperature is seriously deluded.
To paraphrase another great song (one I’ve used quite a bit in the last 12 months concerning my bailiwick, health data: “we are dazzled by the beauty of our data”…
Some one at the SEG was bought off.
There is no long term surface global warming just data altering and it is impossible for co2 which is 0.04% of the atmosphere to impact the climate. Co2 climate sensitivity has never been experimentally measured meaning present values are unsubstantiated.
David
My advice (Yes, I know that you didn’t ask for it.) would be to keep your membership current IF you think that the current ‘leadership’ is open to considering facts and cares what the membership thinks. On the other hand, if you think that the ‘leadership’ is composed of ideological zealots who are immune to facts and don’t care what you or others think, then withdraw your financial support, and let them know why you are not renewing.
I probably will stay in…
Foolish decision, drop them like a hot potato
David,
The best answer would be for ALL professional societies to poll the members as to what a postion paper should include.
IIRC the AMS polled its members ~2014 on climate change.
Could you ‘Stay’ and try to convince the board to do this?
I don’t think SEG polled anyone… Nor did AAPG before they revised their statement last year.
AMS polled members twice recently (2014 and 2016)…
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/23/president-trump-thinks-scientists-are-split-on-climate-change-hes-right-dana-nuccitelli-is-wrong/
The 2014 survey found that 52% or respondents thought anthropogenic activities were the primary cause of climate change over the past 100 years. The 2016 survey came up with 67% for the past 50 years. Neither survey found much support for the notion of a climate crisis or emergency.
However, theses surveys weren’t used to revise their climate change statement.
If I stay, I might write a letter… But I don’t get involved in organizational politics.
Stay. Words are only for communication. They can be ignored and can be acted upon. Virtue signalling has benefits. Look at china and follow the (greed ) money.
David:
Drop your membership. I left GSA and SEG specifically because of their stances on ‘climate’ and other nonsense. There is no point in trying to bring about any form of reconsideration of the position of the ‘society’, as these viewpoints are entrenched and not subject to examination.
You will simply be labeled, and ignored, by the powers-that-be. Leave them to their own devices. It will become apparent, soon enough, to everyone which viewpoint is the correct one. As Rush would say, when your enemy is in the process of making a fool of himself, stay out of the way.
Peace, health, and prosperity upon you and yours,
Vlad
I suspect the downfall of AGU began with the American Geophysical Union v. Texaco, Inc.case and judgment in favor of AGU began a long series of events that allowed the invasion of AGU by pedophile psychopath sociopaths like the Christine McEntee and many others. SEG, therefore, is just … following the litigation … to get … the money! Sad.
—
Don’t give up – fight from the inside!
I agree David, much easier to fight with facts on the inside of a professional organization, than to throw darts at it from the outside