Understanding the threat of climate tipping points

[btresist]

@DrBob2

That Michael Mann didn’t use the modern end of his tree ring proxy data. It declined and that was inconvenient, so he eliminated it, substituted thermometer data and spliced the two together.

Total nonsense.

Some background. Tree rings have long been shown to be an accurate proxy air temperature and so have been long used to estimate historical climate changes. However, from about 1960, tree rings in the northern hemisphere began to diverge from air temperature. This was graphically shown in a 1998 study that was NOT done by Michael Mann. I added the arrows, the blue shows air temps, the red shows tree rings. From https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/epdf/10.1098/rstb.1998.0191

This observation was well-known to climatologists by 2000 and was called the “Divergence Problem”. It even has its own Wikipedia page. Divergence problem - Wikipedia

This is the reason why temperature reconstructions before 1960 can use tree ring data, but after 1960 requires the addition of thermometer data.

@DrBob2

Phil Jones of the Climate Research Unit in the UK wrote in a e-mail about “Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years [from 1981] and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

The so-called “trick” was a method to compensate for the well-known post-1960 divergence of tree rings from air temperature. In this case, Michael Mann overlaid thermometer data (red) over the tree ring data (blue).

The data for tree rings is easily distinguished from that of thermometers and clearly labeled. What is being hidden? Nothing.

@DrBob2

but there is also the larger question about the reliability of tree-ring proxies. If the didn’t work in the modern era, how much credibility show we attribute to their paleo results?

Again, there is ample data showing tree rings to be an accurate proxy of air temp before 1960. There is also ample evidence that tree rings in the northern hemisphere became less correlated with air temp after 1960. This is why we can be confident about tree ring data before 1960 but question its reliability after 1960.

Finally, climate deniers rarely note that a special National Research Council (NRC) committee was formed at the request of Congress to investigate the Mann data. It found in favor of Michael Mann:

“The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators”.

North Report

[Leap1]

The US government needs to regulate every aspect of energy and materials policies and fund research at a much greater level of funding.

We should not be backing off that position for any sort of comprise.

There are super majority positions that should rule this country.

Rubbishy opinions should be put aside.

The rubbish comes with a poorer country’s pay cuts and layoffs.

[captainccs]

@JimA759s

Not an answer to my simple question, or do you not wish to take a stand?

“a) you don’t accept the earth as warming or b) you don’t accept the explanation as to cause (meaning: not our fault)?
I suppose there could be a c) the earth is warming; it is our fault; but not worried.”

If you took the word fault out of the question it would simplify matters. I don’t deal in guilt, in self flagellation.

@JimA759s

a) you don’t accept the earth as warming

Yes the earth warms and cools, it has been doing it since day ONE. I’ve said that before so there was no need to ask.

@JimA759s

b) you don’t accept the explanation as to cause (meaning: not our fault)?

Frankly ambiguous on that issue. As I have often said “life is terraforming.” One great example are the White Cliffs of Dover built out of the shells of marine life. Petroleum is also animal remains.

Petroleum (crude oil) formation
Petroleum (crude oil) does not come from dead dinosaurs. It was formed from the remains of tiny sea animals and plants that lived millions of years ago in a marine (water) environment before the dinosaurs. Over the years, layers of sand and silt covered the remains. Heat and pressure from these layers helped the remains turn into what we today call petroleum or crude oil .

Energy - Student Resources: Fossil Fuels.

It would not make sense in denying that humans might also contribute to climate change. But from there to declare ourselves as the sole culpable (guilty) villains makes no sense. I bring up the Science of Complexity to explain why picking one animal, humans, and one gas, CO2, as the cause of climate change is plain absurd.

@JimA759s

I suppose there could be a c) the earth is warming; it is our fault; but not worried.”

Much better would be, "c) what can I do to improve our environment?

Sailboat instead of motor boat
Plant trees
Don’t throw garbage into the sea
Recycle
Use solar panels
Be creative

Everyone of us can save the planet even if we don’t have private jets to fly to Davos to hobnob with other wastrels.

The Captain

[spinning]

@captainccs

I bring up the Science of Complexity to explain why picking one animal, humans, and one gas, CO2, as the cause of climate change is plain absurd.

In 2021 the Nobel Prize in physics went to advances in the Science of Complexity. Half the prize went to complexity scientists working on climate.

One of the prize winners, Hasselmann, developed fingerprint methods that do precisely what you say is absurd, he invented quantitative mathematical methods that identify specific causes in complex systems. You are right that at first sight this seems impossible. That’s why it’s such a big deal that Hasselmann figured it out and why they gave him a Nobel prize in physics. His fingerprint methods are used across climate science and are one of the reasons the majority of climate scientists are convinced that the warming is caused by humans.

The Science of Complexity does not contradict climate science, it is part of its foundation.

The Nobel Prize in Physics 2021

Perspectives on the importance of complex systems in understanding our...

[captainccs]

@spinning

The Science of Complexity does not contradict climate science, it is part of its foundation.

I didn’t say it did.

@captainccs

I bring up the Science of Complexity to explain why picking one animal, humans, and one gas, CO2, as the cause of climate change is plain absurd.

I said not enough inputs. Why, because to control the masses you need a message simple enough for them to grasp. They get evil humans and evil CO2. More than that is beyond the proles pay grade.

The Captain

[spinning]

@captainccs

I said not enough inputs. Why, because to control the masses you need a message simple enough for them to grasp. They get evil humans and evil CO2. More than that is beyond the proles pay grade.

Yes, people want to control the masses. Fear of communism, capitalism, Russians, Americans, democrats, republicans, fundamentalists, and atheists are all used to control the masses and get rich. Would-be tyrants and profiteers will always be with us.

When I buy fire insurance am I being sensible or controlled by Big Insurance? When Pfizer gets rich off vaccines are they lying about the germ theory of disease? Is Tesla’s success evidence that climate change is a fraud? Do GM’s profits from building B-25s in WW2 mean the threat of fascism wasn’t real?

I submit those most effective at controlling people use real risks to juice their wealth and power, it’s much easier than inventing fake ones.

[captainccs]

@spinning

I submit those most effective at controlling people use real risks to juice their wealth and power, it’s much easier than inventing fake ones.

Novelists would all starve to death.

The Captain