tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post4170202570990397038..comments2024-03-28T03:08:44.068-07:00Comments on Cliff Mass Weather Blog: The European Heat Wave and Global WarmingCliff Mass Weather Bloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13948649423540350788noreply@blogger.comBlogger79125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-82792971089367839852022-07-30T20:08:03.801-07:002022-07-30T20:08:03.801-07:00Is there a point buried in there? I couldn't f...Is there a point buried in there? I couldn't find it.Placeholderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02967627809480888708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-26203115743630759942022-07-30T09:27:40.401-07:002022-07-30T09:27:40.401-07:00Placeholder says this in response to my observatio...Placeholder says this in response to my observation that placing a $5 per gallon state tax on gasoline and diesel would be a quick and effective means for prying Seattle's drivers out of their cars and trucks: <br /><br />"Punish diesel, you say. Good. Let's start with the diesel pumps that move Seattle's water and sewage. Then ban the diesel trucks that deliver food to Seattle's grocery stores. Ban the diesel ships that bring things to Seattle. Ban the diesel buses in Seattle. Ban the diesel powered state ferries. Ban all trains -- freight and passenger -- from entering Seattle, because they're all diesel powered. Close Sea-Tac. And no more intercity buses. Have fun."<br /><br />Mr. Placeholder raises an important point for consideration by Seattle-ites, the great majority of whom are (apparently) in favor of President Biden's Net Zero economic and energy policies. <br /><br />Those two policies are inextricably linked. Biden's energy policy is his economic policy, and his economic policy is his energy policy. These policies are One Thing.<br /> <br />The Biden administration is now in the process of rolling out greatly more restrictive environmental and OSHA regulations on the American carbon fuels industry.<br /><br />The goal is to use the regulatory powers of the Executive Branch for significantly reducing the extraction, production, and distribution of gasoline, diesel, natural gas, and coal in this country.<br /><br />The refineries which produce our gasoline and diesel from crude oil are primary targets of these new regulations. The objective is force the early closure of many, if not most, of these refinery facilities.<br /><br />Where will our refined gasoline and diesel products come from if not from American refineries? <br /><br />It will come from refineries located in nations and regions which are not subject to Biden's anti-carbon regulations; e.g., Mexico, the Middle East, India, Southeast Asia, and China. <br /><br />The offshoring of America's energy resources and our energy production technology is a consciously chosen feature of Biden's energy-economic policy, not an unintended consequence.Betah Blocherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05830083338356921513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-18846188405191672542022-07-28T17:32:45.866-07:002022-07-28T17:32:45.866-07:00Punish diesel, you say. Good. Let's start with...Punish diesel, you say. Good. Let's start with the diesel pumps that move Seattle's water and sewage. Then ban the diesel trucks that deliver food to Seattle's grocery stores. Ban the diesel ships that bring things to Seattle. Ban the diesel buses in Seattle. Ban the diesel powered state ferries. Ban all trains -- freight and passenger -- from entering Seattle, because they're all diesel powered. Close Sea-Tac. And no more intercity buses. Have fun. Placeholderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02967627809480888708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-7268417290515691672022-07-28T11:46:36.612-07:002022-07-28T11:46:36.612-07:00Cliff, kudos to you for responding in detail. You&...Cliff, kudos to you for responding in detail. You're correct, and they aren't.Placeholderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02967627809480888708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-51526342280867114722022-07-28T08:28:55.006-07:002022-07-28T08:28:55.006-07:00Mark..this is not correct. We have a tool to look...Mark..this is not correct. We have a tool to look ahead for tipping points--climate models. We have dozens of them, plus high-resolution downscaled versions. Climate prediction is not based on extrapolation of trends..cliffCliff Mass Weather Bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13948649423540350788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-78261889899210937592022-07-27T23:44:44.326-07:002022-07-27T23:44:44.326-07:00"Consider a 50 y year period. Determine the t..."Consider a 50 y year period. Determine the top, say 10, temperatures. See what years they occur in. You will find they are pretty equally distributed over time. " That's false. https://www.history.co.uk/articles/the-10-hottest-recorded-temperatures-in-uk-historyMark Frankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07117994136165938870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-12448131694759675872022-07-27T23:42:47.688-07:002022-07-27T23:42:47.688-07:00Whether there is a bend is of course a matter of d...Whether there is a bend is of course a matter of dispute - that is essentially what a tipping point is. My point is that you cannot conclude there is no bend (and therefore no need for urgent action) because you are currently on a relatively straight bit of road (not that I think it is that straight). You have to look ahead.Mark Frankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07117994136165938870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-69738696198080841762022-07-27T21:05:46.555-07:002022-07-27T21:05:46.555-07:00bruce...my math is fine...you simply don't und...bruce...my math is fine...you simply don't understand how this is done. Consider a 50 y year period. Determine the top, say 10, temperatures. See what years they occur in. You will find they are pretty equally distributed over time. If GW was dominant, then more of them would be in recent years...cliffCliff Mass Weather Bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13948649423540350788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-47026234858217788922022-07-27T14:21:25.931-07:002022-07-27T14:21:25.931-07:00Mark Frank. This is not correct. The point is ...Mark Frank. This is not correct. The point is that there is no "bend" in the road. We will just see a progressive warming that will be larger by the end of the century. End of the world, apocalyptic talk is counterproductive....cliffCliff Mass Weather Bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13948649423540350788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-81342009168401448702022-07-27T11:05:31.774-07:002022-07-27T11:05:31.774-07:00"GW would cause a progressive increase in ext..."GW would cause a progressive increase in extreme events ... Here in the NW, there is no trend for record temps."<br /><br />Your math is wrong, Cliff. As there are more years of recorded history, we should expect a decrease in record events because there are more years to beat. For example, if we started recording temperatures in 1900, then in 1901 we would expect to see record highs on 50% of the days, but in 1999, only on 1% of the days, if there were no GW. So even a constant rate of record highs would be evidence of GW. <br /><br />(The above math excludes rounding effects -- we generally round to the nearest degree F and talk about beating or tying records -- but the point stands.)Bruce Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13889440013826088099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-2454567590355462672022-07-27T08:17:30.081-07:002022-07-27T08:17:30.081-07:00Cliff - I disagree about the current impacts. But...Cliff - I disagree about the current impacts. But setting that aside, moderate impacts now doesn't mean we have time. It just doesn't follow. If you are approaching a bend in the road too fast it is a bad strategy to wait until there is a significant impact before acting! On the other hand the actions you suggest - move to nuclear, fix the forests, increase AC in some areas, and work on renewables - are just the action I would hope for. So maybe in practice it makes little difference.Mark Frankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07117994136165938870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-83701828004439173532022-07-27T08:12:22.956-07:002022-07-27T08:12:22.956-07:00Brad...the answer is simple. GW would cause a pro...Brad...the answer is simple. GW would cause a progressive increase in extreme events. So are record events happening more often in a location? That is what you have to look at. Here in the NW, there is no trend for record temps. Very important point.Cliff Mass Weather Bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13948649423540350788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-20862558143221555592022-07-27T08:09:03.629-07:002022-07-27T08:09:03.629-07:00Mark Frank... The point is that we have time an...Mark Frank... The point is that we have time and that the impacts are modest or ones we can adapt to. So we need not panic, but deliberately work on energy technology and adaptation. We need to move to nuclear, fix the forests, increase AC in some areas, and work on renewables. But the end of the world is not nigh....Cliff Mass Weather Bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13948649423540350788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-84858303031103481312022-07-27T01:12:19.341-07:002022-07-27T01:12:19.341-07:00Cliff - surely the point is that we have to act no...Cliff - surely the point is that we have to act now to avoid more severe consequences later. Greenhouse gasses (other than water vapour) take a very long time to be removed from the atmosphere and so they accumulate. If we wait until the consequences are (even more) severe it will be too late to do anything about it.<br /><br />I would also echo the point several others have made. The current 1C increase in average temperature has (at least) two consequences for extreme heat waves. It makes them even more extreme - presumably by about 1C although I am sure it is much more complicated than that - and for any given extreme temperature it makes that temperature more frequent. Assuming maximum temperatures for a given date/location are distributed vaguely normally then this second consequence can be quite dramatic for extremes - increasing the frequency many times. Mark Frankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07117994136165938870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-81368584760263629672022-07-26T21:51:00.321-07:002022-07-26T21:51:00.321-07:00I just want to say I appreciate this exchange. Wh...I just want to say I appreciate this exchange. While I appreciate Cliff's expertise in the field and his ability to communicate the science around it. I'm often left wanting for his analysis on GW events. I understand his desire to push back against the hyperbole of media on GW but I feel like he pushes the pendulum too far in response. <br />Chris' and Fred's comments above capture my thoughts better than I could express. I guess my question to Cliff is how many extreme events does it take in how many years before we can call it GW? Even if there isn't a direct correlation? Bradhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11359837677996986672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-68869823579490203102022-07-25T21:52:39.267-07:002022-07-25T21:52:39.267-07:00There is a deep literature demonstrating that cold...There is a deep literature demonstrating that cold wave kill far more folks than heat waves. My blog discusses some of them:https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2021/09/heat-wave-versus-cold-wave-deaths-in-us.htmlCliff Mass Weather Bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13948649423540350788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-50635774350085584572022-07-25T21:46:20.038-07:002022-07-25T21:46:20.038-07:00Dave...I don't think you are right about this....Dave...I don't think you are right about this. The Seattle Times and climate activists are blaming heat waves on global warming...and then they call for doing all kinds of things to stop the warming. So the activist side is constantly making the case that heat waves are not natural. If they are wrong...if heat waves are mainly natural.... then there is less urgency to do what they want. So I think you should scold the ADVOCATES of immediate and draconian action for pushing the division. <br />And you are wrong about the climate skeptic argument business. We need to deal with GW with the urgency it deserves...based on the best science. If it is slow and relatively minor for a while, we have time to develop alternative energy source (e.g., fusion) and to work on adaptation. So we agree..focus on the effect climate is having...and the answer is...not much as this time, but increasing later in the century.Cliff Mass Weather Bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13948649423540350788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-66364166234999750612022-07-25T20:14:24.118-07:002022-07-25T20:14:24.118-07:00Tad..what you are saying is not true. Turns out i...Tad..what you are saying is not true. Turns out islands in the Pacific are rising with sea level...so no problem. And sea level rise is not accelerating and we can take steps to protect the coastal zone...like in the Netherlands...cliffCliff Mass Weather Bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13948649423540350788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-19362675570414285462022-07-25T20:12:16.277-07:002022-07-25T20:12:16.277-07:00Alex.... I was not being misleading...did you even...Alex.... I was not being misleading...did you even read that paper? They are talking about the end of the century when the warming is much greater. Furthermore, the problem was mainly in Africa and India. Exactly what I am saying was true in North American and Europe where temperatures can get cold. Please refrain from name-calling until you carefully review your claims...cmCliff Mass Weather Bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13948649423540350788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-40811933324342278212022-07-24T19:34:28.962-07:002022-07-24T19:34:28.962-07:00For myself, as someone who has spent most of my ca...For myself, as someone who has spent most of my career in the nuclear industry, my primary interest lies in the area of energy policy issues. And so I have a decidedly simplistic view of the science side of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). <br /><br />IMHO, the earth is likely to continue warming for another 100 years or more, reaching 2C above pre-industrial as the most likely outcome by the year 2100. As a practical matter, nothing anyone can do between now and the year 2100 can stop this steady increase in GMT. See this one page graphical analysis which many of you have seen before:<br /><br /><a href="https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51295091190_94386cc94a_o.png" rel="nofollow">Beta Blocker's Year 2100 GMT Prediction Envelope (April, 2020)</a><br /><br />For those of you who want a deeper dive into the science issues, the 'Watts Up With That' version of the Cliff Mass article, as posted on that blog, has now garnered more than 450 comments. <br /><br /><a href="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/07/21/the-european-heat-wave-and-global-warming/" rel="nofollow">'The European Heat Wave and Global Warming (WUWT version)'</a><br /><br />It is unusual for any WUWT article to get more than 150 comments, let alone 450 plus. In their combative enthusiasm, the AGW believers and the AGW skeptics on that blog are busily beating each other up in their debates over the science issues presented in the Cliff Mass article. And with gusto. <br /><br />Getting back to energy policy issues, it has been reported that President Biden will soon declare a National Climate Emergency and will use executive orders to continue and expand his regulatory assault on the carbon fuels industry. <br /><br />In the expectation that sooner or later Biden would be making such a declaration, I have previously written two long essays posted as comments to articles written by others on the WUWT blog. These two are:<br /><br /><a href="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/07/09/the-administrative-state-moves-to-show-whos-boss-on-energy-policy/#comment-3552914" rel="nofollow">'West Virginia versus EPA is Not an Impenetrable Barrier Against Aggressive Carbon Regulation'</a><br /><br />and<br /><br /><a href="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/03/18/a-plan-b-for-addressing-climate-change-and-the-energy-transition/#comment-3480244" rel="nofollow">'The Supply Side Carbon Emission Control Plan (SSCECP): a fast track approach for eliminating fossil fuels from America’s economy'</a><br /><br />The US Supreme Court's recent decision in West Virginia vs EPA sets a legal precedent for limiting the power of the Executive Branch for unilaterally enforcing a sweeping transformation of America's energy sector; and therefore, a sweeping transformation of the American economy as a whole. <br /><br />In response to the Supreme Court's decision, Biden's climate and economic advisors have said publicly they will ignore West Virginia vs EPA and will move forward with their climate action plans regardless of what rulings the Supreme Court might hand down in the future.<br /><br />The Biden administration has presented nothing in the way of a credible plan for deploying the numbers and types of renewable energy resources needed to reach his GHG reduction targets while still keeping America at our current level of energy consumption. <br /><br />Both of my two WUWT commentaries make the point that Biden’s policy goals for climate action cannot be met without imposing stringent and far-reaching energy conservation measures on the American people and on America’s entire economy as a whole.<br /><br />If Biden formally commits the United States to a 50% reduction in our carbon GHG emissions by 2030, as now seems probable, then America must be consuming roughly half as much energy in the year 2030 as we do today in the year 2022.<br /><br />What this means for those of us living in the US Northwest is that the coal-fired and gas-fired power generation resources currently serving our region must be retired at an accelerated pace, without full replacement by zero-carbon power resources.<br /><br />Thus leaving the region short of electricity at a time when demand for electricity must grow as electric vehicles replace gasoline and diesel-powered cars and trucks. Betah Blocherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05830083338356921513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-57867402913792824562022-07-24T12:37:50.166-07:002022-07-24T12:37:50.166-07:00Cliff, as I have commented on previous posts regar...Cliff, as I have commented on previous posts regarding deaths from climate change, you are not doing a sufficiently detailed analysis when you make your claim that global warming will decrease deaths from temperature extremes. Though it is true that more people die from cold extremes than from hot extremes, the rate of deaths increases far more when you add a couple degrees at the high end then when you subtract a couple of degrees at the low end. This means that increasing temperatures could increase total global deaths by increasing the number of high temperature deaths more than it decreases the number of cold related deaths. See this Nature paper for one such analysis:<br /><br />Bressler, R.D., Moore, F.C., Rennert, K. et al. Estimates of country level temperature-related mortality damage functions. Sci Rep 11, 20282 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-99156-5<br /><br />I appreciate your efforts to keep conversations grounded in science, so it is discouraging when you make such misleading statements.AlexHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08248399279657566781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-89726464769108004232022-07-24T12:36:21.626-07:002022-07-24T12:36:21.626-07:00Hot Summer NOT caused by climate change/the scienc...Hot Summer NOT caused by climate change/the science <br /><br />https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/87422/mike maguirehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17176167926282465487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-65359446210773622582022-07-24T10:31:39.580-07:002022-07-24T10:31:39.580-07:00I guess the costs - in lives, cultures, and dollar...I guess the costs - in lives, cultures, and dollars - of submerging coastlines and islands throughout the world is too ephemeral to consider here.Tadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15047987016294144657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-66050900449841432522022-07-24T10:19:20.677-07:002022-07-24T10:19:20.677-07:00Regarding the climate change question, I think we&...Regarding the climate change question, I think we're focusing on the wrong thing (at times). It doesn't matter what percent of the heat wave is due to climate change and what is natural variation. What matters is how much of an impact the new temperatures and weather patterns will have on the lives of humans and animals. <br /><br />Your comment reminds me of the climate skeptic argument, that since human created CO2 is a relatively small amount of the CO2 in the atmosphere, that it's not a big deal or it's not our problem to solve. This is a distraction. What's important is this: "What is the effect of the CO2 that we're putting in the atmosphere?" And that effect, built up over time, is substantial. <br /><br />So, focus on the effects these climate events are having. Not on what imagined percent of the event is due to climate change. David Ellingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00887381364690379393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-5605555307629069422022-07-24T09:27:02.778-07:002022-07-24T09:27:02.778-07:00As per a chart at weather.gov, heat in 2021 was th...As per a chart at weather.gov, heat in 2021 was the most prolific killer in the USA, including territories. Winter technically had two data points with the assumption of one being direct cold and the other being accidents ( car wrecks, slips, falls, heart attacks shoveling snow etc). The two combined did not surpass heat. Floods were the biggest killer as far as a singular weather event, followed by rip currents. Now, this is just one year in the USA. No idea if there is even a global data set since accuracy varies from nation to nation as well as the motive of reporting or not reporting. It's doubtful that completely eliminating winter as some kind of silver lining will save those lives. They will move to other data sets. Floods could be a major transference. Saying a warming world will save lives is a weak argument at best that does not even take into account what happens to ecosystems, wildlife and so on. The heat dome last year supposedly killed billions of marine creatures. That has to make some kind of difference.BAMCIShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05285865892838328830noreply@blogger.com