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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.