Simon Abingdon, do I really have to explain to you the difference between a confidence interval and a best estimate? Are you really that bereft of clues?
The ability of climate models to simulate surface temperature has improved in many, though not all, important aspects relative to the generation of models assessed in the AR4. There continues to be very high confidence that models reproduce observed large-scale mean surface temperature patterns… There is high confidence that regional-scale surface temperature is better simulated than at the time of the AR4. Current models are also able to reproduce the large-scale patterns of temperature during the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), indicating an ability to simulate a climate state much different from the present.
There is very high confidence that models reproduce the general features of the global-scale annual mean surface temperature increase over the historical period, including the more rapid warming in the second half of the 20th century, and the cooling immediately following large volcanic eruptions…
Models are able to capture the general characteristics of storm tracks and extratropical cyclones…
Many models are able to reproduce the observed changes in upper ocean heat content from 1961 to 2005 with the multi-model mean time series falling within the range of the available observational estimates for most of the period. The ability of models to simulate ocean heat uptake, including variations imposed by large volcanic eruptions, adds confidence to their use in assessing the global energy budget and simulating the thermal component of sea level rise.
Current climate models reproduce the seasonal cycle of Arctic sea ice extent with a multi-model mean error of less than about 10% for any given month. There is robust evidence that the downward trend in Arctic summer sea ice extent is better simulated than at the time of the AR4, with about one quarter of the simulations showing a trend as strong as, or stronger, than in observations over the satellite era (since 1979).
Models are able to reproduce many features of the observed global and Northern Hemispher (NH) mean temperature variance on interannual to centennial time scales (high confidence), and most models are now able to reproduce the observed peak in variability associated with the El Niño (2- to 7-year period) in the Tropical Pacific. The ability to assess variability from millennial simulations is new since the AR4 and allows quantitative evaluation of model estimates of low-frequency climate variability. This is important when using climate models to separate signal and noise in detection and attribution studies (Chapter 10).
Of course, I omitted all the caveats, model failings and any bits in which models are not yet doing as well as we would all wish. In other words, I was cherry-picking.
In general, that’s not a good thing to do–which is why Chapter 9 does present such a ‘warts and all’ picture of the climate modeling.
But in the present instance, I have every confidence that richard won’t overlook them (should he bother to read the text), as he surely will overlook all points similar to the ones just quoted.
SteveFsays
Met Office article on the Mat Collins, Julia Slingo “disagreement”:
Demonstrating my earlier point, I have easily found (thanks to NOAA) that the jet stream is more the North and is more jagged by comparing 2 months: Januray 1982, brrrrrr a cold winter all over the Northern Hemisphere and January 2014 a strange winter for most. http://eh2r.blogspot.ca/
Is easy to understand, the interface between Cold Polar atmosphere and Temperate zone moved Northwards because it is warmer!
By using the above pattern as a mask and corelating with monthly average SLP I have calculated a series to indicate the strength of the pattern, this picks up on the AO rather a lot, but the post 2007 behaviour is clear. http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7411/10230252184_d85e7d9bc5_o.png
Wondering if there is such a thing as a “Climate Science Media Advisory”?
A place which hosts a Blacklist of Journalists and media organisations that climate scientists and advocates should totally avoid, such as David Rose, Fox news etc. Maybe even a private/covert list that scientists worldwide can access easily?
I suspect there isn’t given the conga line of ‘climate scientists’ MetOffice, university people who keep speaking to David Rose to manipulate, misquote and misrepresent.
#256 Chris Reynolds asks: “Where did you get that text of the interview between Prof Collins and Rose?”
From the Mail on Sunday. I put it as a quote between “…”. The next item in “…” was my common sense imagination of how Rose would normally put his questions to people like Collins.
Is that clearer?
[Response: Please make that explicit if you ever do it again. We have edited previous comment for clarity. ]
re ” I fail to see what you find out of Cox & Senior’s presentation that would be of any help for denialists like Rose.”
Yes, and this is the big problem.
Climate orientated Scientists need to choose what is more important to them personally. ‘Being right’ all the time, or ‘Being successful’. Billions are depending upon you all achieving the latter. After ~25 years believing the former is the most important thing, not seeing this has now become a very critical problem needing to be understood by all. And the sooner the better I believe. I could be wrong. Saying what I say shows I do not think that I am. It will take some convincing to change my mind.
Walter
ying yangsays
I’ll take a crack at question #1 mr. wheelsoc says…
” Somebody described the field as “a mess” and brought up the idea of CO2 fertilization specifically. The general claim is that we don’t know how big of an effect it is and can’t account for it if we can’t quantify it. The conclusion seems to be that all previous dendro-based reconstructions of temperature have a bias which makes the past look colder since CO2 concentrations were lower, hence slower-growing trees than in recent times.”
Only part of the reconstruction is based on tree rings pre 1960 intensity. Tree growth is used as indicator of temperature because it closely matches the instrumental record up until that point. pre industrial tree growth seems to be more closely aligned with temperature without industrial output skew. There are probably many fossil fuel theories about this that would give you a head ache but avoid the obvious. Pollution has caused growth suppression. PART of that suppression was mitigated by clean air technology. As intensity increases with population so also does the short lived pollution that suppresses tree growth. If you want a clear picture of what kind of extra co2 has been captured by co2 induced tree growth falling short of pre industrial. Go to the graph of increasing co2 made by keeling and still being compiled yearly. The trees inhale and exhale winter and summer and that is the small zig zag pattern in the mt Everest graph of anthropogenic increase. If you can notice any expansion in that zig or zag over time it would indicate your phenomenon. You may need a magnifying glass to see the issue you are referring to and miss the line drawn though the two going to the ceiling. There is no wildfire plant co2 sequestration due to increased co2. If there is, you have the graph upside down.
Waltersays
#256 Chris Reynolds asks: “Any comments?”
Well done. I understand what you are presenting there. makes perfect sense to me.
I doubt if even 0.14% of the Mail on Sunday readers would have the slightest clue. I know David Rose wouldn’t care at all what you have said and would simply dismiss it out of hand. He will never ‘report’ that.
That’s what people like David Rose do. A scientific level of evidence for the truth of my comments here are everywhere to be found.
I have the same question. I think Walter wrote the text with quotation marks, which is not a good idea as the internet never forgets.
Waltersays
I have an issue that I believe needs some airing here, especially for any not yet aware of it. I want to present in my own way, because it has interconnected parts. Understanding these are critical, in my view, to being able to recognize the import and why it should matter to all. Up to you what you make of it, but It would really nice to hear what it is that people think and feel about it here, especially the scientists in the field.
Let’s start off where I did myself. JANUARY 13, 2014
Note the about page, and the theme being ‘fact checking’ on that page, if you haven’t been there before. Please also pay close attention to “how” the subject matter, and Michael Q and John Cook were addressed by the few scientists there.
Next we go here: IPCC, Climate Scientists Baffled by the 17 year Pause by 1000frolly denier advocate and engineering and sceince graduate with 3 degrees. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-L1uB2yYOOE (ignore the video itself)
See the top comments thread, and open it up.
[edit]
You all noticed the “fraud” words there, as per Michael Mann current legal case?
OK? Moving on to WUWT to see what they said back in Sept (old news but …): “0.3% climate consensus, not 97.1%”
Scroll down to the Update for:
Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change
by David R. Legates, Willie Soon, William M. Briggs, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9
OK? So now Monckton has what he wanted for a long time now. He is a listed Co-AUTHOR of a climate science peer-reviewed paper. This he will be using everywhere he goes now to enhance his ‘authority and expertise’ level in the Public domain especially in the media.
Instead of being intentionally manipulative and using ‘spin’ the average person can’t work out, and where ‘plausible deniability’ is used for his public defense, now he can say it plainly without lying about it.
OK. So that one point. The other is the ‘peer-reviewed’ paper itself suggesting: “0.3% climate consensus, not 97.1%” and that John Cook of SkS is an incompetent climate scientist.
In a recent article here Michael Mann wrote about his NYT oped piece, where he said: “Yet a fringe minority of our populace clings to an irrational rejection of well-established science. This virulent strain of anti-science infects the halls of Congress, the pages of leading newspapers and what we see on TV, leading to the appearance of a debate where none should exist.”
This is the Context and Framing in which the above and below is viewed. I have been wondering what if anything has been done by ‘sceitists’ recently to tackle this issue of this paper and the attacks upon John Cook’s credibility and the same kind of ‘defamation’ being laid upon him as has been done to Michael Mann. I looked, and I cant’ find this being an issue in pro-science sites. Cooks 97% paper is highlighted, but not the personal attacks on his character. (of course i could have missed these too, there are time limits)
HOWEVER, there’s more. Scroll donw that WUWT page a little more for:
UPDATE: – Cook and Nuccitelli paper rejected:
Bishop Hill writes:
The Benestad (Cook, Nuccitelli) et al paper on “agnotology”, a bizarre concoction that tried to refute just about every sceptic paper ever written has been rejected by Earth System Dynamics.
—–
In that same long thread of comments please locate this comment:
[edit]
Not surprisingly, comments by one WallyKnitWit have been deleted from that thread. People can’t usually handle the Truth.
Richard Lock seems like a decent person doing what he can to no avail. Scientific facts have no use in these kinds of matters. Scientists still need to realize that and act accordingly. There is a ‘Public Opinion War’ going on. It’s loosely coordinated. Many puppets out there in cyberspace being used, not so many puppeteers in the shadows.
But do get this truth, there is a ‘covert’ war plan being acted upon. It’s best to not pretend there isn’t by naively believing that the ‘evidence’ will win the day all by itself. It will not. History proves this is so repeatedly.
So, where to now? Feel free to make your evaluation here, read the details provided in the links. Get the context in the big picture absolutely right, and then say what you like.
Meanwhile I have a couple of questions. Is there anyone out there in RC land that has a spare $100K sitting around that they would be willing to risk by giving it to John Cook to take the appropriate and in fact necessary legal action?
I can confirm that 1000frolly’s comments were formally reported to Google for ‘TOS abuse’. Google re-instated them with no action taken. But 1000frolly is the tip of the iceberg. It needs to go further than that.
Next is there perhaps another 10 intelligent people out there with a spare $100K each to throw at Michael Mann’s legal case? He must win that, no excuses. You have to realize that the defendants already have a bottom pit of funds to defend themselves. And I mean BOTTOMLESS.
One small error can sink any legal case. Mann’s team has to get this 100% perfect from the get go. They need people to do that, they need resources, and they cannot fail. Or you can all kiss your scientific work goodbye.
Scientists all over, and the readers supporters of this blog have to wake up and deal with the reality here. This is not a game. This is not a vigorous debate among post-grads in the university canteen. This is serious business. It is real and you have already lost the high-ground in this battle for the minds of the public in the Public Opinion War.
Outflanked, out planned, out gunned, out resourced, and out propagandized. It’s far better to face this reality square on and then act accordingly. No vapid conspiracy theory. No hyperbole. This is the telling it straight talk. Please don’t ignore this issue. It is not only about John Cook. It’s everywhere now and has been going on for years.
Please think about it, seriously and rationally.
Walter
Waltersays
Regarding the WUWT update about Cook:
“Bishop Hill writes:
The Benestad (Cook, Nuccitelli) et al paper on “agnotology”…..”
There is a reason why (there alwasy is) the name ‘Bishop Hill’ was chosen. Only the user and his closest confidants would know for certain.
Montford founded the Bishop Hill blog on 21 November 2006 which at first focused on British politics.
In July 2010, the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), a British think tank that is skeptical about global warming policy,[21] hired Montford to lead an inquiry into the three British investigations into the Climatic Research Unit email controversy, commonly known as “Climategate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Montford
[edit – tedious]
Walter
Waltersays
More on Andrew William Montford, for those not up to speed.
Sun, 2013-08-25
Defamation By Internet? Part 1 – Murry Salby’s Short-Lived Blog Storm
On July 9-12, Macquarie suffered this kind of attack (Wave 1). Ex-Professor Murry Salby made serious, but unsupported and sometimes contradictory, accusations against Macquarie, by the unusual route of email to bloggers. Joanne Nova (Australia), Anthony Watts (Watts Up With That, USA), and Andrew Montford (Bishop Hill, UK) republished them.
‘controversy storm’ – please remember that phrase. What it is. How it works. Why it works. And know that it is coordinated behind the scenes. Funding is no object. Monckton et al have all the money they want and ask for. No questions asked. More people need to understand how this kind of running ‘action teams’ works.
You could ask the CIA (black ops) or Mossad, but they are unlikely to tell you. Or you could research the life and times of Osama bin laden too.
“Patterns”, remember that word too. Do you really truly want to be successful or happy playing naive games, endlessly chasing your own tails and burning up your energy, and still losing every time?
There are other ways that are rational and proven to work. But one needs to take the situation seriously and see it for what it is. And learn how to ‘get out of the way’ long enough to come through the backdoor in a surprise pincer movement.
The wise should think about that long and hard. I’ll leave it at that for now. Don’t want to get ‘boring’ or hog the thread. You guys write, I’ll read and listen in silence.
Walter
kleymosays
At #77 and #87:
I did not understand him as saying changes in behavior would be helpful. What I understood him as saying is we would go the browntech route because we do not want to give up our technology even if it means we may die as a species.
Listen to what Nicole Foss has to say afterwards about financial problems. Her arguments, as well as those of Gail Tverberg, have not been refuted to my knowledge.
Basically, we are in the early stages of a bottleneck event. How can anything else be concluded, given the numbers on population (rising) compared with carrying capacity (using finite resources that are past peak) and available energy (more energy needed to obtain less and less energy)?
Walter, imho that is way to much information/detail, but maybe that’s just me. The liars in face of climate impacts, run out of cards and claim we can adapt. Thus, in debunking we should focus on making clear we cannot just adapt.
And this quote comes to mind, in regards to the recent denier meme’s.
“If you can’t convince them, confuse them.” – Harry S. Truman
siddsays
1) Enderlin(2014) doi: 10.1002/2013GL059010
Cohort from Byrd Polar Research Center and Utrecht
Mass waste from all causes 2009-2012 378+/-50 Gtonne/yr (more than 1mm/yr sea level rise,) accelerating at 27+/-9 GTonne/yr^2 (will double in 15yr)
SMB has taken over in Greenland since 2006.
“Our results confirm a decline in the relative importance of discharge to ice sheet mass loss (Figure 3). The 17% increase in discharge between 2000 and 2005 accounted for 58% of the mass loss during that time. This fraction decreased to 36% in 2005–2009 and again to 32% between 2009 and 2012. Since 2009, nearly all (84%) of the increase in the rate of mass loss has been due to increased surface melting and runoff.”
They do say that (under some assumptions):
“…21st century sea level rise from Greenland glacier discharge should not exceed 80 mm.”
but go on to temper it with:
“Given the large variability in discharge and SMB observed within the past decade and the potential for unaccounted positive feedback within the ice-climate system, however, the contribution of GrIS discharge to future sea level rise remains highly uncertain.”
Sing it. Glacier discharge 80mm and SMB how much ? Looks to me like SMB is accelerating too, from fig 3. SMB is already larger than discharge. And Greenland albedo is dropping. Our worst cases grow direr.
2) Meanwhile basal melt drives Antarctica
Depoorter(2013) doi:10.1038/nature12567
Depoorter judges that total basal melt and calving are just about balanced in terms of quantity. (1321+/-144Gtonne/yr calving, 1454+/-174Gtonne/yr basal melt). The two big ice shelves still lose mass predominantly through calving, Thwaites shelf is balanced between the two, PIG is more basal melt. Their map of shelf thinning rates is on fire in the Amundsen sea, and more uneasily, between Totten and Moscow U. The latter are included in their list of glaciers “vulnerable to oceanic forcing.”
Pitchard(2012) doi:10.1038/nature10968
Pritchard points out that basal melt is a control on total mass waste “… through a reduction in buttressing of the adjacent ice sheet leading to accelerated glacier flow.” They conclude:
“…the most profound contemporary changes to the ice sheets and their contribution to sea level rise can be attributed to ocean thermal forcing that is sustained over decades and may already have triggered a period of unstable glacier retreat.”
Rignot(2013) doi:10.1126/science.1235798
Has about the same figures for basal melting than Depoorter (1325+/-235 Gtonne/yr basal melt) but lower for calving (1089+/-139Gtonne/yr.) They point out that most of the basal melt come from “small warm cavity ice shelves” and warn about the same stretch near Totten:
” “Modified” warm deep water at a temperature near 0°C has been reported 40 km south of the continental shelf break northeast of Totten (30). By analogy with observations in the Amundsen Sea, our results suggest the presence of seawater at similar temperatures under several East Antarctic ice shelves. Even zero-degree seawater at outer continen tal shelf depths could expose ice shelves with deep grounding lines like the Totten (2.2 km), Moscow (2.0 km) and Shackleton (1.8 km) to temperatures more than 3°C above their melting points.”
They conclude with another warning:
“…if major shifts in sea ice cover and ocean circulation tip even large ice shelf cavities from cold to warm (35), there could be major changes in ice shelf and thus ice sheet mass balance.”
“Professor Collins when asked by the The Mail on Sunday “Can the current extreme weather, flooding and snow storms be attributed to global warming and climate change?” said the following:… ”
Everything after “said the following:” is what you’ve made up?
Waltersays
Thanks Prok, it’s not you, others have far less patience.
Sure I could nip and tuck several bits, but if you can edit down those 3 comments and yet still convey my intention and get people to actually go read the links, then I am all ears.
I know I have tried sharing complex inter-connected info like this in the most simplest ways over the years. Such as a short heading and only providing the links, assuming people will go ‘see’ what’s there to see. That doesn’t work either.
Maybe I am just a johnny-come-lately and everyone already knew this and comprehend clearly broader implications and thus are over it. Or do not even recognize the importance of it. I don’t know. I am not a mind-reader.
My quote?
“When you do not know something, you will not know that you do not know it, until you do.” Walter Esq.
re #256 and 264. It’s really hard for me to accept what I have done is not self-evident and as clear as day in #250. Too long yeah, sure. The rest is pretty obvious, or should be. I’ll put it down to being boring and just a lousy writer, again.
Walter
Nigel Williamssays
Walter. Dr Mann does not have to win his case. You can put every climate scientist in the known universe behind bars if it would make you happy.
But the next day, the next month and the next year humanity’s actions will see the concentration of greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere grow, the energy content of the oceans and atmosphere increase, and seas will inexorably rise. With this will come all the predicted ills we know about, and as it all tips over the edge we will get those ills we don’t yet know about as well, and it I there that there be dragons we should fear the most.
271 Chris Reynolds, your choice of the words would not be an accurate description. I’d prefer it to say I wrote each of those words with thought and clear intent. Hoping it would tell a clear and coherent narrative that leaves one with a singular take away message.
My purpose was to show how it could be done by way of an example, that might be compelling. (not likely given past feedback) Still, it is a fact that the general public don’t understand the science and can’t handle the complexities or the jargon.
Psychology and neural science tells us that what connects with humans is ‘narrative’ (or story telling mode). Simple ones that conclude with a single take away message.
ie “The question really should be, no matter what the weather is today or tomorrow, what are we going to do now about reducing the amount of GHGs, CO2 from fossil fuels especially, that we are putting into the atmosphere each and every day?”
Of course not too many would get the opportunity to say all that I wrote there in one go in an ‘interview situation’. I tried to show how many different ways one could say this and end up at the same end point.
It is also not easy to do this off the bat, but anyone in front of a camera or a microphone can be trained to do this using role play. Anyone!
I think everything I said was ‘scientifically sound’ and supported by valid climate science consensus.
The cherry-picked quotes from Collins that Rose used had more to do with what “scientists did not know” and then an image of “disagreement”. Handed it to him on a plate. Rose just ignored everything else Collins and others said. That’s what they do.
What did my text focus on instead?
Is there any word, any phrase or sentence or paragraph that could be taken out of context and misused? Or disagrees with the ‘consensus’ as per the IPCC reports (the #1 authority?) Would any climate scientist disagree with what was actually said? (I wont expect an answer of course. I got that clear as a bell!)
Genuine questions but it that makes no difference and so doesn’t matter anymore.
Walter
simon abingdonsays
#250 Walter
This post is utterly disgraceful. What were the moderators thinking?
To represent several paragraphs as a verbatim account of an merely imagined interview is quite extraordinary.
At the very least realclimate should dissociate itself absolutely from this post and publish a frank apology to its readers for allowing such misleading material to appear under its imprimatur.
It hosted a sort of debate (more later), but first it had the MP Laura Sandys, who is not a contrarian, (at about 6.45m) asserting that “Actually even the climate skeptics are only skeptical about whether it is man made”. I wonder if she noticed that this major simplification of contrarian advocacy appeared to be contradicted at once by Andrew Montford who tried his best to suggest that sea level rise as well as heavy rainfall were nothing new. The policy of balance did not favour him on this occasion because he was sitting opposite Kevin Anderson.
Dan Hughes @277.
To link to a 6,000 word speech and ask about some unspecified “mis-characterizations” it contains that would be of concern to climate scientsts – to do that without a hint of what it is about is an act of gross disrespect. If it is the mention by Kerry of the GHGs being a described as a layer a “half an inch … (that is) way up there at the edge of the atmosphere” that concerns you, or perhaps mention of the speed of global warming being shown by “all 10 of the hottest years on record” being younger than Google, or maybe mention of the process of ocean acidification occurring “when the rain falls the rain spills the acidity into the ocean” then do say so, do indicate what it is you are blathering on about. That a politician chooses to speak so colourfully that he becomes unscientific and causes “mis-characterizations”, so what? (And I think only the last of these three examples would totally falls into that category. A speech has visual communication as well as the literal meaning of the words on the page.)
Walter Pearcesays
Re: 276. Agreed. Utterly disgraceful to make stuff up. An apology for that one is in order as well.
Steve Fishsays
Re- Comment by Walter — 18 Feb 2014 @ 9:20 AM ~#275
Your response to Chris Reynolds is an extended excuse for your error. It would seem that a simple, two sentence, admission of fault and an apology would be more appropriate.
Steve
Waltersays
282 Steve Fish, there was no ‘error’, nor ‘fault’ by me and no ‘apology’ is coming nor is it ‘appropriate’ that I do so.
It is NOT real, so get over yourself. There is NO difference between a graph a diagram and ‘word picture’. NONE.
AS someone else said, the “internet does not lie” … what I wrote is as clear as day.
I am not responsible for others *Interpretation* anymore than you are for David Rose’s ‘interpretations’ of climate science.
While you all ignore the import of the content and why it is critical to communicating the ‘science’ implications ot the public clearly and simply and properly in a way that it cannot be misused.
But no, some people just can’t be told they do not know it all already. What a joke this ‘storm in a tea cup is’ in a world full of Dr Coopers out of touch with reality it seems.
Does it really matter what the % of contribution is? Why? A storm is a storm. Encouraging the public and politicians and business to reduce emissions might help more. Because a theoretical computerized guesstimate with error bars is still not reality, but an ‘representative image’. It will still be labeled ‘a fraud’ anyway.
Is this another example of the tail (denier industry) wagging the dog (scientists) wasting their time and eating up their energy and resources?
5 x IPCC reports, 25 years, and CO2 now @ 400ppm knowing already that will increase exponentially from now to 2030+ on BAU. What else does anyone ‘really’ need to know before ‘acting rationally’?
[Response: A tempest in a teapot, as usual, pun intended.–eric]
I get the joke. Is it a joking matter?
If it is a merely a tempest in a teapot why let richard’s comments through?
Gavin responds 3 times, a clear pattern break from his normal behaviour.
I hear people speak a lot about “noise” and then generate it themselves. Multiple readers respond to richard’s comments on top of Gavin’s, and now it;s a storm in a tea cup? What doesn’t fit this picture here Eric?
If it is richard the UK MP, then simply say so. Speak the truth and put it on the record publicly. Don’t play silly games.
It isn’t a game unless it is really only about attention seeking and having a forum to talk about one’s own ‘really important’ personal work activities and greater knowledge level than the hoi polloi. Anyone can do that. Cable TV is full of such things from Pawn shops to repossessions to pimping my truck.
If it’s about ” a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to *developing stories* and provide the context sometimes missing in *mainstream commentary*.”, then please do so and drop the facade.
People bring *developing stories* here repeatedly and all of you barely say a word about it. People have to fend for themselves, and 1% of genuine questions are ever answered directly by the *working climate scientists*.
This “richard” manipulator shows up here, yet again, and he gets the noisiest attention as if it’s an in-house sport.
A tempest in a teapot indeed. What’s your RC 2014 project plan of your role in communicating the critical importance to the politicians and the world at large that immediate reductions in GHG emissions are critical now?
Bar playing word games with ‘richard’ et al, and referencing an article by MM on the NYTs? I’m curious to know. Others too might get inspired if they got to hear about that. It would shut me up for weeks on end. Free bonus for all!
Walter
[Response: I was just responding to one comment; I did not bother to read through the history of who said what to whom and which comment “get through”. If I had my way we would have no open comments at all — just “letters to the editor” like traditional media. –eric]
BH richard says: 17 Feb 2014 at 3:28 AM
“229 walter
now i know ippc is based on unvalidated models its not even worth talking about them.”
Richard, the IPCC (reports) are based on scientific rigour, hard facts, accumulated meaningful evidence, dialectic argument, and rational reasoned best judgments.
Models are tools used to “present” that science in a more meaningful way that is comprehensible to human beings, including the scientists studying the climate. They are also used as a communication tool between scientists in order or them to understand each other as they do their own individual work. Models are also ‘yardsticks’ in order to compare apples wit apples, and apples with oranges effectively in a way that has meaning to the scientists.
The IPCC reports and their findings are IN FACT not ‘based upon models’ at all. To suggest this is so is a blatant falsehood, a lie, and a gross misrepresentation of the truth of the matter.
It’s a shame so many like you richard do not know this and spread such disinformation wide and far. What goes around will come around in due course.
Why such matters are not clarified in the public domain (a decade ago now and repeatedly) so that everyone in the OECD understood this, is a mystery to me and many others.
Walter
[insert why I am wrong Here: …….]
[edit – stick to substantive points]
Waltersays
#280 MARodger says it very well: “A speech has visual (imaginative) communication as well as the literal meaning of the words on the page.”
I agree with that. It’s proven in neural science and psychology in fact.
btw I added in the (imaginative) myself, in case that isn’t totally clear already for a few. I hope it is only ‘a few’. Or we’re all doomed for sure!
Walter
Waltersays
And a key basis for Linguistics too!
Waltersays
Btw Australia no longer has a car manufacturing industry. The last 3 corps Ford, GM and Toyota have all announced “they quit” in the last 6 months.
16 February 2014, 9.58pm AEST
The great global warming subsidy
“the fuel tax credit scheme to the mining industry. In 2011, for example, the mining industry accounted for A$2 billion of the $5.2 billion total ”
18 February 2014, 1.48pm AEST
Australian aluminium outgunned by cheap, coal-free global rivals
“Alcoa’s decision to close the Point Henry smelter, at a cost of almost 1000 jobs in Geelong and elsewhere, comes amid a perfect storm buffeting Australia’s aluminium industry. Point Henry will be the second of Australia’s six aluminium smelters to close, after the demise of Kurri Kurri in 2012.”
I think Australian graduates may be emigrating to India soon to get work in a Call Center as their last hope for a job.
( For the few who don’t get that, it is just a joke. I really do not believe it, honestly. Not yet at least. OK? Need to be real clear on real climate these days. Pun intended. )
High-precision timeline for Earth’s most severe extinction
… Onset of a major reorganization of the carbon cycle immediately precedes the initiation of extinction and is punctuated by a sharp (3‰), short-lived negative spike in the isotopic composition of carbonate carbon. Carbon cycle volatility persists for ∼500 ka before a return to near preextinction values. Decamillenial to millennial level resolution of the mass extinction and its aftermath will permit a refined evaluation of the relative roles of rate-dependent processes contributing to the extinction, allowing insight into postextinction ecosystem expansion, and establish an accurate time point for evaluating the plausibility of trigger and kill mechanisms.
Comparison to current rate of change and quantities, anyone?
(remembering that the baseline for that event was not the same as our present climate, so YMMV)
btw all aluminium smelters here received massive subsidies from the state governments with extremely low electricity pricing rates. How much is not known. “commercial in confidence” is the plausible deniability explanation by all sides of politics for decades now.
Things are ‘heating up’ now everywhere. Kerry’s comments will come back to haunt them, political chaos in Thailand, Iraq, Syria, nth Korea, Ukraine, Israel (and children), Philippines, Indonesia, Bosnia, India, Burma, Egypt unrest far from over yet, plus all over African nations, there’s UK storms n floods, Australian heat waves and fires plus disbanding all CC institutions – major renewable projects being abandoned – and all mitigation carbon price govt policies reversed, there’s CA droughts, eastern nth america frigid, record low arctic ice extent in January, the Keystone pipeline protests, Murdoch’s media criminal trial in the UK still unfolding with dire News Corp implications eventually, $US and Equities about to fall off a cliff, Gold poised to go over $2000, fracking oil and gas output in the US will not be able to hidden soon so all will know the huge projections are a myth, extreme weather in Ireland, Europe, Mediterranean region, hot in Sochi and Alaska, Amazon droughts (not the bookseller) and too many other things to list in Sth America no one gets to hear about, with the next IPCC reports not far away now.
Life’s good! How are you doing where you are?
Quoting :
“The U.S. Senate Homeland Security Committee was on the spot with a Feb. 12, hearing: “Extreme Weather Events: The Costs of Not Being Prepared.” All we have to do is look out the window to get an understanding of the problem.
This isn’t about future climate change. It is about now.
“We need to stop rewarding communities that fail to prepare,” Secretary O’Mara told committee members. “They get everything paid for, they get all the shiny new infrastructure. It’s completely crazy.” ”
“If I had my way we would have no open comments at all — just “letters to the editor” like traditional media. –eric”
They should listen to your good advice Eric. It is spot on. Totally agree, even recommend it myself to ears that do not hear.
Thanks … really, I mean it.
Richard Hawessays
This has got right under my skin!
I would like to state categorically that whoever “Richard”, it is NOT ME!
Richard J. Hawes, P.Geol., B.Sc. (Geography and Geology) London 1971,
3 years with GSC mapping the Mackenzie Valley and Arctic Islands Pipelines in Ottawa
MSc Geography (glacial geology) Calgary 1977,
PhD Geology DNF 1980 (was going to be in glacial geology but I fell 20 m off a mountain east of Revelstoke,
Went into the oil patch, where I have remained ever since
MBA Calgary 1990 (finance)
Openly looking for a new PhD subject in 10 to 15 years
Member of APEGGA, AAPG, CSPG and GSL
“The multiple lines of scientific evidence indicates that Anthropogenic Global Warming is real”
Got THAT off my chest …
Dave Peterssays
I offered the speculation near the last of January, that empty Sierra reservoirs could still be significantly replenished if the blocking ridge broke down, but that, should rains continue to fail, damages from drought could eclipse such recent climatic heartaches as storm Sandy and the inundation of New Orleans. Today marks a noteworthy moment in this situation, for while the ridge did indeed yield to abrupt multi-day, record-setting torrent in early February, this month’s accumulation has now fallen back to dead-on average. Moreover, the remainder of the month is now forecast to be quite dry.
Sacramento can illustrate California’s Central Valley. On average, it receives 82% of its annual twenty-one inches, during five rainy months from November thru March, with the tapers beginning and ending this season separated by an utterly dry July. The drought started last Winter in mid-season, unfortunate because flood control is practiced in early season releases. Rain in quarter I of 2013 was off by 3/4ths, and the blocking ridge set up following a record half-inch of rain which fell on the fall equinox. From there, to the end of January 20014, Sacramento received two rains and a drizzle which totaled an inch and a half, off 87% for that interval. Thus, should the current 10-day forecast prove out, Sacramento will have wracked up a deficit only four days worth shy of a full-year, 21 inch shortfall, since January 1, 2013.
Salient circumstances at present include a forecast zero flow nomination to the State Water Project, a counter-intuitive assessment that supplies for southern, highly populated counties are far less seriously threatened due to more robust storage, Bay Area delta eco systems threatened with “collapse”, and land fallowing in the San Joaquin running to half a million acres (of a CA total of ~8 million irrigated, that produce nearly half the nation’s fruits and veggies). Lastly, the harrowing prospect for mass residential service loss, hangs on the receipt of March moisture, and frantic local efforts to effect emergency alternative water sources.
Walter Motor Fingers @285 left out the ending to the “About RC” statement: ” …. The discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science. All posts are signed by the author(s), except ‘group’ posts which are collective efforts from the whole team.”
What that refers to is the blog, not the open comment section, and refers to the blog posts signed by the authors – “The contributors to this site do so in a personal capacity during their spare time” – whether any of the site owners are inclined to answer any particular question flung out in the comments is entirely up to them and the time they volunteer to policing these comment threads, especially ‘Unforced Variations’, which was established as the open comment section to allow the public to post useful information, not to critique the owners. Real Climate and it’s professionals owe nothing to any of the readers.
[Response: Thanks! Well said (and accurate).–eric]
Jim Larsensays
At 9:57PM on the 17th Walter promised, ” Don’t want to get ‘boring’ or hog the thread. You guys write, I’ll read and listen in silence.”
Richard @ 241.
Regarding the models being wrong. Have a read of this, hopefully it is picthed suitably for you to able to understand.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/09/why-trust-climate-models-its-a-matter-of-simple-science/
Simon Abingdon, do I really have to explain to you the difference between a confidence interval and a best estimate? Are you really that bereft of clues?
The question, dear richard, is: do you know what is in that PDF?
Or did you just read somewhere that it contain some supposedly ’embarrassing’ quotes to be mined?
Rather ironic that it’s based on the AR5 chapter I linked for you, and which you show no sign of having investigated.
Following Gavin’s link to the final text, here is Chapter 9 again:
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf
From the executive summary:
Of course, I omitted all the caveats, model failings and any bits in which models are not yet doing as well as we would all wish. In other words, I was cherry-picking.
In general, that’s not a good thing to do–which is why Chapter 9 does present such a ‘warts and all’ picture of the climate modeling.
But in the present instance, I have every confidence that richard won’t overlook them (should he bother to read the text), as he surely will overlook all points similar to the ones just quoted.
Met Office article on the Mat Collins, Julia Slingo “disagreement”:
http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/met-office-in-the-media-16-february-2014-response-by-professor-mat-collins-and-the-met-office/
Demonstrating my earlier point, I have easily found (thanks to NOAA) that the jet stream is more the North and is more jagged by comparing 2 months: Januray 1982, brrrrrr a cold winter all over the Northern Hemisphere and January 2014 a strange winter for most. http://eh2r.blogspot.ca/
Is easy to understand, the interface between Cold Polar atmosphere and Temperate zone moved Northwards because it is warmer!
Walter,
Where did you get that text of the interview between Prof Collins and Rose?
Richard,
Met Office UK Rainfall figures are available here:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/pub/data/weather/uk/climate/datasets/Rainfall/date/UK.txt
The top ten wettest summers (JJA) are as follows
1912 384.4
2012 379.2 *
1956 359.2
2007 357.8 *
1985 343.2
1927 337.1
1931 327.6
1946 326.8
2009 323.0 *
2008 320.2 *
You will note that in the top ten are four years from 2007 onwards. The probability of this happening by chance is 0.14%.
Since 2007 a new pattern has asserted itself in the summer northern hemisphere summer.
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3743/10579649774_a9889a9a0a_o.png
By using the above pattern as a mask and corelating with monthly average SLP I have calculated a series to indicate the strength of the pattern, this picks up on the AO rather a lot, but the post 2007 behaviour is clear.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7411/10230252184_d85e7d9bc5_o.png
Adjusting for the rise in geopotential heights due to AGW, 500mbGPH over grid boxes in Siberia (May) and Greenland (JJA) shows marked increases post 2007.
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3705/10230342105_4765d6ffda_o.png
Any comments?
PS, I fail to see what you find out of Cox & Senior’s presentation that would be of any help for denialists like Rose.
Another post about the impossibility of economic growth in a limited world:
http://www.resilience.org/stories/2014-02-12/limits-to-growth-at-our-doorstep-but-not-recognized
“Limits to Growth–At our doorstep, but not recognized”
Amory Lovins now:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/17/amory-lovins-renewable-energy
Wondering if there is such a thing as a “Climate Science Media Advisory”?
A place which hosts a Blacklist of Journalists and media organisations that climate scientists and advocates should totally avoid, such as David Rose, Fox news etc. Maybe even a private/covert list that scientists worldwide can access easily?
I suspect there isn’t given the conga line of ‘climate scientists’ MetOffice, university people who keep speaking to David Rose to manipulate, misquote and misrepresent.
Walter
ClimateState news round up, past 48hrs.
Arctic Sea Ice Hits Record Low
Biochar – The Next Stage In Climate Action
UK Minister: Climate Change a National Security Crisis
Kerry: US to Work With China on Climate Change
BBC Wavier jet stream ‘may drive weather shift’
Flooded Soil Science
ESA: Arctic Lakes Show Climate On Thin Ice
#256 Chris Reynolds asks: “Where did you get that text of the interview between Prof Collins and Rose?”
From the Mail on Sunday. I put it as a quote between “…”. The next item in “…” was my common sense imagination of how Rose would normally put his questions to people like Collins.
Is that clearer?
[Response: Please make that explicit if you ever do it again. We have edited previous comment for clarity. ]
re ” I fail to see what you find out of Cox & Senior’s presentation that would be of any help for denialists like Rose.”
Yes, and this is the big problem.
Climate orientated Scientists need to choose what is more important to them personally. ‘Being right’ all the time, or ‘Being successful’. Billions are depending upon you all achieving the latter. After ~25 years believing the former is the most important thing, not seeing this has now become a very critical problem needing to be understood by all. And the sooner the better I believe. I could be wrong. Saying what I say shows I do not think that I am. It will take some convincing to change my mind.
Walter
I’ll take a crack at question #1 mr. wheelsoc says…
” Somebody described the field as “a mess” and brought up the idea of CO2 fertilization specifically. The general claim is that we don’t know how big of an effect it is and can’t account for it if we can’t quantify it. The conclusion seems to be that all previous dendro-based reconstructions of temperature have a bias which makes the past look colder since CO2 concentrations were lower, hence slower-growing trees than in recent times.”
Only part of the reconstruction is based on tree rings pre 1960 intensity. Tree growth is used as indicator of temperature because it closely matches the instrumental record up until that point. pre industrial tree growth seems to be more closely aligned with temperature without industrial output skew. There are probably many fossil fuel theories about this that would give you a head ache but avoid the obvious. Pollution has caused growth suppression. PART of that suppression was mitigated by clean air technology. As intensity increases with population so also does the short lived pollution that suppresses tree growth. If you want a clear picture of what kind of extra co2 has been captured by co2 induced tree growth falling short of pre industrial. Go to the graph of increasing co2 made by keeling and still being compiled yearly. The trees inhale and exhale winter and summer and that is the small zig zag pattern in the mt Everest graph of anthropogenic increase. If you can notice any expansion in that zig or zag over time it would indicate your phenomenon. You may need a magnifying glass to see the issue you are referring to and miss the line drawn though the two going to the ceiling. There is no wildfire plant co2 sequestration due to increased co2. If there is, you have the graph upside down.
#256 Chris Reynolds asks: “Any comments?”
Well done. I understand what you are presenting there. makes perfect sense to me.
I doubt if even 0.14% of the Mail on Sunday readers would have the slightest clue. I know David Rose wouldn’t care at all what you have said and would simply dismiss it out of hand. He will never ‘report’ that.
That’s what people like David Rose do. A scientific level of evidence for the truth of my comments here are everywhere to be found.
Walter
Where did you get that text of the interview between Prof Collins and Rose?
I have the same question. I think Walter wrote the text with quotation marks, which is not a good idea as the internet never forgets.
I have an issue that I believe needs some airing here, especially for any not yet aware of it. I want to present in my own way, because it has interconnected parts. Understanding these are critical, in my view, to being able to recognize the import and why it should matter to all. Up to you what you make of it, but It would really nice to hear what it is that people think and feel about it here, especially the scientists in the field.
Let’s start off where I did myself. JANUARY 13, 2014
The new CCNF website: http://climatechangenationalforum.org/quantifying-the-consensus-on-anthropogenic-global-warming-in-the-scientific-literature-by-dr-john-cook-et-al-97-1-agree-that-humans-are-causing-global-warming/
Note the about page, and the theme being ‘fact checking’ on that page, if you haven’t been there before. Please also pay close attention to “how” the subject matter, and Michael Q and John Cook were addressed by the few scientists there.
Next we go here: IPCC, Climate Scientists Baffled by the 17 year Pause by 1000frolly denier advocate and engineering and sceince graduate with 3 degrees. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-L1uB2yYOOE (ignore the video itself)
See the top comments thread, and open it up.
[edit]
You all noticed the “fraud” words there, as per Michael Mann current legal case?
OK? Moving on to WUWT to see what they said back in Sept (old news but …): “0.3% climate consensus, not 97.1%”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/
Scroll down to the Update for:
Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change
by David R. Legates, Willie Soon, William M. Briggs, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9
OK? So now Monckton has what he wanted for a long time now. He is a listed Co-AUTHOR of a climate science peer-reviewed paper. This he will be using everywhere he goes now to enhance his ‘authority and expertise’ level in the Public domain especially in the media.
Instead of being intentionally manipulative and using ‘spin’ the average person can’t work out, and where ‘plausible deniability’ is used for his public defense, now he can say it plainly without lying about it.
OK. So that one point. The other is the ‘peer-reviewed’ paper itself suggesting: “0.3% climate consensus, not 97.1%” and that John Cook of SkS is an incompetent climate scientist.
In a recent article here Michael Mann wrote about his NYT oped piece, where he said: “Yet a fringe minority of our populace clings to an irrational rejection of well-established science. This virulent strain of anti-science infects the halls of Congress, the pages of leading newspapers and what we see on TV, leading to the appearance of a debate where none should exist.”
and also said ” How will history judge us if we watch the threat unfold before our eyes, but fail to communicate the urgency of acting to avert potential disaster?”
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/01/if-you-see-something-say-something/
This is the Context and Framing in which the above and below is viewed. I have been wondering what if anything has been done by ‘sceitists’ recently to tackle this issue of this paper and the attacks upon John Cook’s credibility and the same kind of ‘defamation’ being laid upon him as has been done to Michael Mann. I looked, and I cant’ find this being an issue in pro-science sites. Cooks 97% paper is highlighted, but not the personal attacks on his character. (of course i could have missed these too, there are time limits)
HOWEVER, there’s more. Scroll donw that WUWT page a little more for:
UPDATE: – Cook and Nuccitelli paper rejected:
Bishop Hill writes:
The Benestad (Cook, Nuccitelli) et al paper on “agnotology”, a bizarre concoction that tried to refute just about every sceptic paper ever written has been rejected by Earth System Dynamics.
—–
Please read the ‘rejection’ note slowly and carefully (I did) :
http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/4/C400/2013/esdd-4-C400-2013.pdf
—–
NOW we travel back to the ‘professor clown’ 1000frolly youtube page again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-L1uB2yYOOE
In that same long thread of comments please locate this comment:
[edit]
Not surprisingly, comments by one WallyKnitWit have been deleted from that thread. People can’t usually handle the Truth.
Richard Lock seems like a decent person doing what he can to no avail. Scientific facts have no use in these kinds of matters. Scientists still need to realize that and act accordingly. There is a ‘Public Opinion War’ going on. It’s loosely coordinated. Many puppets out there in cyberspace being used, not so many puppeteers in the shadows.
But do get this truth, there is a ‘covert’ war plan being acted upon. It’s best to not pretend there isn’t by naively believing that the ‘evidence’ will win the day all by itself. It will not. History proves this is so repeatedly.
So, where to now? Feel free to make your evaluation here, read the details provided in the links. Get the context in the big picture absolutely right, and then say what you like.
Meanwhile I have a couple of questions. Is there anyone out there in RC land that has a spare $100K sitting around that they would be willing to risk by giving it to John Cook to take the appropriate and in fact necessary legal action?
I can confirm that 1000frolly’s comments were formally reported to Google for ‘TOS abuse’. Google re-instated them with no action taken. But 1000frolly is the tip of the iceberg. It needs to go further than that.
Next is there perhaps another 10 intelligent people out there with a spare $100K each to throw at Michael Mann’s legal case? He must win that, no excuses. You have to realize that the defendants already have a bottom pit of funds to defend themselves. And I mean BOTTOMLESS.
One small error can sink any legal case. Mann’s team has to get this 100% perfect from the get go. They need people to do that, they need resources, and they cannot fail. Or you can all kiss your scientific work goodbye.
Scientists all over, and the readers supporters of this blog have to wake up and deal with the reality here. This is not a game. This is not a vigorous debate among post-grads in the university canteen. This is serious business. It is real and you have already lost the high-ground in this battle for the minds of the public in the Public Opinion War.
Outflanked, out planned, out gunned, out resourced, and out propagandized. It’s far better to face this reality square on and then act accordingly. No vapid conspiracy theory. No hyperbole. This is the telling it straight talk. Please don’t ignore this issue. It is not only about John Cook. It’s everywhere now and has been going on for years.
Please think about it, seriously and rationally.
Walter
Regarding the WUWT update about Cook:
“Bishop Hill writes:
The Benestad (Cook, Nuccitelli) et al paper on “agnotology”…..”
“Bishop Hill” is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_Hill_State_Historic_Site
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_Hill_Colony
… united by their peculiar doctrines, and by the efforts of their preachers. I am told that they came into existence as a sect about 1830; in 1843 their chief preacher was a man of some energy, Eric Janson by name; and he taught them the duty of living after the manner of the Primitive Christian Church, inculcating humble and prayerful lives, equality of conditions, and community of property.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/utopia/csus/csus26.htm
There is a reason why (there alwasy is) the name ‘Bishop Hill’ was chosen. Only the user and his closest confidants would know for certain.
Montford founded the Bishop Hill blog on 21 November 2006 which at first focused on British politics.
In July 2010, the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), a British think tank that is skeptical about global warming policy,[21] hired Montford to lead an inquiry into the three British investigations into the Climatic Research Unit email controversy, commonly known as “Climategate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Montford
[edit – tedious]
Walter
More on Andrew William Montford, for those not up to speed.
Sun, 2013-08-25
Defamation By Internet? Part 1 – Murry Salby’s Short-Lived Blog Storm
On July 9-12, Macquarie suffered this kind of attack (Wave 1). Ex-Professor Murry Salby made serious, but unsupported and sometimes contradictory, accusations against Macquarie, by the unusual route of email to bloggers. Joanne Nova (Australia), Anthony Watts (Watts Up With That, USA), and Andrew Montford (Bishop Hill, UK) republished them.
After 4 days and 1,500+ comments at those blogs alone, SalbyStorm’s Wave 1 ended quickly when Salby’s checkered past was detailed at DeSmogBlog. Discussions stopped, although with little apology or introspection about gullibility at “skeptical” blogs. A very few people had wondered at oddities of Salby’s claims, searched for his past history, and independently started finding problems within a few hours. Salby supporters did not do that, preferring to specualte and comment.
http://www.yasni.info/ext.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.desmogblog.com%2F2013%2F08%2F25%2Fdefamation-by-internet-part-1-murry-salbys-short-lived-blog-storm&name=Andrew+William+Montford&showads=1&lc=en-us&lg=en&rg=us&rip=au
http://www.yasni.info/ext.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotsrenewables.com%2Fmontford.html&name=Andrew+William+Montford&showads=1&lc=en-us&lg=en&rg=us&rip=au
http://www.yasni.info/ext.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scottishoilclub.org.uk%2F110217.htm&name=Andrew+William+Montford&showads=1&lc=en-us&lg=en&rg=us&rip=au
‘controversy storm’ – please remember that phrase. What it is. How it works. Why it works. And know that it is coordinated behind the scenes. Funding is no object. Monckton et al have all the money they want and ask for. No questions asked. More people need to understand how this kind of running ‘action teams’ works.
You could ask the CIA (black ops) or Mossad, but they are unlikely to tell you. Or you could research the life and times of Osama bin laden too.
“Patterns”, remember that word too. Do you really truly want to be successful or happy playing naive games, endlessly chasing your own tails and burning up your energy, and still losing every time?
There are other ways that are rational and proven to work. But one needs to take the situation seriously and see it for what it is. And learn how to ‘get out of the way’ long enough to come through the backdoor in a surprise pincer movement.
The wise should think about that long and hard. I’ll leave it at that for now. Don’t want to get ‘boring’ or hog the thread. You guys write, I’ll read and listen in silence.
Walter
At #77 and #87:
I did not understand him as saying changes in behavior would be helpful. What I understood him as saying is we would go the browntech route because we do not want to give up our technology even if it means we may die as a species.
Listen to what Nicole Foss has to say afterwards about financial problems. Her arguments, as well as those of Gail Tverberg, have not been refuted to my knowledge.
http://ourfiniteworld.com/2014/02/06/limits-to-growth-at-our-doorstep-but-not-recognized/
Basically, we are in the early stages of a bottleneck event. How can anything else be concluded, given the numbers on population (rising) compared with carrying capacity (using finite resources that are past peak) and available energy (more energy needed to obtain less and less energy)?
Walter, imho that is way to much information/detail, but maybe that’s just me. The liars in face of climate impacts, run out of cards and claim we can adapt. Thus, in debunking we should focus on making clear we cannot just adapt.
And this quote comes to mind, in regards to the recent denier meme’s.
“If you can’t convince them, confuse them.” – Harry S. Truman
1) Enderlin(2014) doi: 10.1002/2013GL059010
Cohort from Byrd Polar Research Center and Utrecht
Mass waste from all causes 2009-2012 378+/-50 Gtonne/yr (more than 1mm/yr sea level rise,) accelerating at 27+/-9 GTonne/yr^2 (will double in 15yr)
SMB has taken over in Greenland since 2006.
“Our results confirm a decline in the relative importance of discharge to ice sheet mass loss (Figure 3). The 17% increase in discharge between 2000 and 2005 accounted for 58% of the mass loss during that time. This fraction decreased to 36% in 2005–2009 and again to 32% between 2009 and 2012. Since 2009, nearly all (84%) of the increase in the rate of mass loss has been due to increased surface melting and runoff.”
They do say that (under some assumptions):
“…21st century sea level rise from Greenland glacier discharge should not exceed 80 mm.”
but go on to temper it with:
“Given the large variability in discharge and SMB observed within the past decade and the potential for unaccounted positive feedback within the ice-climate system, however, the contribution of GrIS discharge to future sea level rise remains highly uncertain.”
Sing it. Glacier discharge 80mm and SMB how much ? Looks to me like SMB is accelerating too, from fig 3. SMB is already larger than discharge. And Greenland albedo is dropping. Our worst cases grow direr.
2) Meanwhile basal melt drives Antarctica
Depoorter(2013) doi:10.1038/nature12567
Depoorter judges that total basal melt and calving are just about balanced in terms of quantity. (1321+/-144Gtonne/yr calving, 1454+/-174Gtonne/yr basal melt). The two big ice shelves still lose mass predominantly through calving, Thwaites shelf is balanced between the two, PIG is more basal melt. Their map of shelf thinning rates is on fire in the Amundsen sea, and more uneasily, between Totten and Moscow U. The latter are included in their list of glaciers “vulnerable to oceanic forcing.”
Pitchard(2012) doi:10.1038/nature10968
Pritchard points out that basal melt is a control on total mass waste “… through a reduction in buttressing of the adjacent ice sheet leading to accelerated glacier flow.” They conclude:
“…the most profound contemporary changes to the ice sheets and their contribution to sea level rise can be attributed to ocean thermal forcing that is sustained over decades and may already have triggered a period of unstable glacier retreat.”
Rignot(2013) doi:10.1126/science.1235798
Has about the same figures for basal melting than Depoorter (1325+/-235 Gtonne/yr basal melt) but lower for calving (1089+/-139Gtonne/yr.) They point out that most of the basal melt come from “small warm cavity ice shelves” and warn about the same stretch near Totten:
” “Modified” warm deep water at a temperature near 0°C has been reported 40 km south of the continental shelf break northeast of Totten (30). By analogy with observations in the Amundsen Sea, our results suggest the presence of seawater at similar temperatures under several East Antarctic ice shelves. Even zero-degree seawater at outer continen tal shelf depths could expose ice shelves with deep grounding lines like the Totten (2.2 km), Moscow (2.0 km) and Shackleton (1.8 km) to temperatures more than 3°C above their melting points.”
They conclude with another warning:
“…if major shifts in sea ice cover and ocean circulation tip even large ice shelf cavities from cold to warm (35), there could be major changes in ice shelf and thus ice sheet mass balance.”
Thwaites is the one that keeps me awake at night.
sidd
Walter,
So when you posted:
“Professor Collins when asked by the The Mail on Sunday “Can the current extreme weather, flooding and snow storms be attributed to global warming and climate change?” said the following:… ”
Everything after “said the following:” is what you’ve made up?
Thanks Prok, it’s not you, others have far less patience.
Sure I could nip and tuck several bits, but if you can edit down those 3 comments and yet still convey my intention and get people to actually go read the links, then I am all ears.
I know I have tried sharing complex inter-connected info like this in the most simplest ways over the years. Such as a short heading and only providing the links, assuming people will go ‘see’ what’s there to see. That doesn’t work either.
Maybe I am just a johnny-come-lately and everyone already knew this and comprehend clearly broader implications and thus are over it. Or do not even recognize the importance of it. I don’t know. I am not a mind-reader.
My quote?
“When you do not know something, you will not know that you do not know it, until you do.” Walter Esq.
re #256 and 264. It’s really hard for me to accept what I have done is not self-evident and as clear as day in #250. Too long yeah, sure. The rest is pretty obvious, or should be. I’ll put it down to being boring and just a lousy writer, again.
Walter
Walter. Dr Mann does not have to win his case. You can put every climate scientist in the known universe behind bars if it would make you happy.
But the next day, the next month and the next year humanity’s actions will see the concentration of greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere grow, the energy content of the oceans and atmosphere increase, and seas will inexorably rise. With this will come all the predicted ills we know about, and as it all tips over the edge we will get those ills we don’t yet know about as well, and it I there that there be dragons we should fear the most.
That is the truth you have to deal with. Cope
http://climatechangenationalforum.org/the-weather-trap-by-john-nielsen-gammon/
271 Chris Reynolds, your choice of the words would not be an accurate description. I’d prefer it to say I wrote each of those words with thought and clear intent. Hoping it would tell a clear and coherent narrative that leaves one with a singular take away message.
My purpose was to show how it could be done by way of an example, that might be compelling. (not likely given past feedback) Still, it is a fact that the general public don’t understand the science and can’t handle the complexities or the jargon.
Psychology and neural science tells us that what connects with humans is ‘narrative’ (or story telling mode). Simple ones that conclude with a single take away message.
ie “The question really should be, no matter what the weather is today or tomorrow, what are we going to do now about reducing the amount of GHGs, CO2 from fossil fuels especially, that we are putting into the atmosphere each and every day?”
Of course not too many would get the opportunity to say all that I wrote there in one go in an ‘interview situation’. I tried to show how many different ways one could say this and end up at the same end point.
It is also not easy to do this off the bat, but anyone in front of a camera or a microphone can be trained to do this using role play. Anyone!
I think everything I said was ‘scientifically sound’ and supported by valid climate science consensus.
The cherry-picked quotes from Collins that Rose used had more to do with what “scientists did not know” and then an image of “disagreement”. Handed it to him on a plate. Rose just ignored everything else Collins and others said. That’s what they do.
What did my text focus on instead?
Is there any word, any phrase or sentence or paragraph that could be taken out of context and misused? Or disagrees with the ‘consensus’ as per the IPCC reports (the #1 authority?) Would any climate scientist disagree with what was actually said? (I wont expect an answer of course. I got that clear as a bell!)
Genuine questions but it that makes no difference and so doesn’t matter anymore.
Walter
#250 Walter
This post is utterly disgraceful. What were the moderators thinking?
To represent several paragraphs as a verbatim account of an merely imagined interview is quite extraordinary.
At the very least realclimate should dissociate itself absolutely from this post and publish a frank apology to its readers for allowing such misleading material to appear under its imprimatur.
Which climate scientists will correct the mis-characterizations in this U. S. Department of State Remarks on Climate Change:
http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2014/02/221704.htm
277 Dan Hughes says: “Which climate scientists will correct …”
I’m sure the auditors, oscillators, vents and etc. — your blogroll favorites — will mention what concerns you.
You can look this stuff up.
BBC 2 Newsnight on the floods in England
It hosted a sort of debate (more later), but first it had the MP Laura Sandys, who is not a contrarian, (at about 6.45m) asserting that “Actually even the climate skeptics are only skeptical about whether it is man made”. I wonder if she noticed that this major simplification of contrarian advocacy appeared to be contradicted at once by Andrew Montford who tried his best to suggest that sea level rise as well as heavy rainfall were nothing new. The policy of balance did not favour him on this occasion because he was sitting opposite Kevin Anderson.
Dan Hughes @277.
To link to a 6,000 word speech and ask about some unspecified “mis-characterizations” it contains that would be of concern to climate scientsts – to do that without a hint of what it is about is an act of gross disrespect. If it is the mention by Kerry of the GHGs being a described as a layer a “half an inch … (that is) way up there at the edge of the atmosphere” that concerns you, or perhaps mention of the speed of global warming being shown by “all 10 of the hottest years on record” being younger than Google, or maybe mention of the process of ocean acidification occurring “when the rain falls the rain spills the acidity into the ocean” then do say so, do indicate what it is you are blathering on about. That a politician chooses to speak so colourfully that he becomes unscientific and causes “mis-characterizations”, so what? (And I think only the last of these three examples would totally falls into that category. A speech has visual communication as well as the literal meaning of the words on the page.)
Re: 276. Agreed. Utterly disgraceful to make stuff up. An apology for that one is in order as well.
Re- Comment by Walter — 18 Feb 2014 @ 9:20 AM ~#275
Your response to Chris Reynolds is an extended excuse for your error. It would seem that a simple, two sentence, admission of fault and an apology would be more appropriate.
Steve
282 Steve Fish, there was no ‘error’, nor ‘fault’ by me and no ‘apology’ is coming nor is it ‘appropriate’ that I do so.
#282 WP, that’s silly too. This was “made up” https://www.realclimate.org/images/england4.png
It is NOT real, so get over yourself. There is NO difference between a graph a diagram and ‘word picture’. NONE.
AS someone else said, the “internet does not lie” … what I wrote is as clear as day.
I am not responsible for others *Interpretation* anymore than you are for David Rose’s ‘interpretations’ of climate science.
While you all ignore the import of the content and why it is critical to communicating the ‘science’ implications ot the public clearly and simply and properly in a way that it cannot be misused.
But no, some people just can’t be told they do not know it all already. What a joke this ‘storm in a tea cup is’ in a world full of Dr Coopers out of touch with reality it seems.
Walter
[Response: Whatever. Don’t do it again. – gavin]
The chief scientist of the Met Office has been criticized … http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/environment/article4008590.ece
‘richard’ source/guidance/nym alias sockpupett what have you.
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2014/2/17/slingo-alone.html
[Response: A tempest in a teapot, as usual, pun intended.–eric]
As the Met Office report states ‘With a credible modelling system in place it should now be possible to perform scientifically robust assessments of […] the degree to which there is a contribution from human-induced climate change.’
http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/met-office-in-the-media-16-february-2014-response-by-professor-mat-collins-and-the-met-office/
Does it really matter what the % of contribution is? Why? A storm is a storm. Encouraging the public and politicians and business to reduce emissions might help more. Because a theoretical computerized guesstimate with error bars is still not reality, but an ‘representative image’. It will still be labeled ‘a fraud’ anyway.
Is this another example of the tail (denier industry) wagging the dog (scientists) wasting their time and eating up their energy and resources?
5 x IPCC reports, 25 years, and CO2 now @ 400ppm knowing already that will increase exponentially from now to 2030+ on BAU. What else does anyone ‘really’ need to know before ‘acting rationally’?
Walter
Walter is on ignore until his
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/garrulity
tapers off.
Quite a bit.
[Response: A tempest in a teapot, as usual, pun intended.–eric]
I get the joke. Is it a joking matter?
If it is a merely a tempest in a teapot why let richard’s comments through?
Gavin responds 3 times, a clear pattern break from his normal behaviour.
I hear people speak a lot about “noise” and then generate it themselves. Multiple readers respond to richard’s comments on top of Gavin’s, and now it;s a storm in a tea cup? What doesn’t fit this picture here Eric?
If it is richard the UK MP, then simply say so. Speak the truth and put it on the record publicly. Don’t play silly games.
It isn’t a game unless it is really only about attention seeking and having a forum to talk about one’s own ‘really important’ personal work activities and greater knowledge level than the hoi polloi. Anyone can do that. Cable TV is full of such things from Pawn shops to repossessions to pimping my truck.
If it’s about ” a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to *developing stories* and provide the context sometimes missing in *mainstream commentary*.”, then please do so and drop the facade.
People bring *developing stories* here repeatedly and all of you barely say a word about it. People have to fend for themselves, and 1% of genuine questions are ever answered directly by the *working climate scientists*.
This “richard” manipulator shows up here, yet again, and he gets the noisiest attention as if it’s an in-house sport.
A tempest in a teapot indeed. What’s your RC 2014 project plan of your role in communicating the critical importance to the politicians and the world at large that immediate reductions in GHG emissions are critical now?
Bar playing word games with ‘richard’ et al, and referencing an article by MM on the NYTs? I’m curious to know. Others too might get inspired if they got to hear about that. It would shut me up for weeks on end. Free bonus for all!
Walter
[Response: I was just responding to one comment; I did not bother to read through the history of who said what to whom and which comment “get through”. If I had my way we would have no open comments at all — just “letters to the editor” like traditional media. –eric]
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/02/13/1318201111.abstract
supporting information online at
http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1318201111/-/DCSupplemental
Arctic albedo change feedback
BH richard says: 17 Feb 2014 at 3:28 AM
“229 walter
now i know ippc is based on unvalidated models its not even worth talking about them.”
Richard, the IPCC (reports) are based on scientific rigour, hard facts, accumulated meaningful evidence, dialectic argument, and rational reasoned best judgments.
Models are tools used to “present” that science in a more meaningful way that is comprehensible to human beings, including the scientists studying the climate. They are also used as a communication tool between scientists in order or them to understand each other as they do their own individual work. Models are also ‘yardsticks’ in order to compare apples wit apples, and apples with oranges effectively in a way that has meaning to the scientists.
The IPCC reports and their findings are IN FACT not ‘based upon models’ at all. To suggest this is so is a blatant falsehood, a lie, and a gross misrepresentation of the truth of the matter.
It’s a shame so many like you richard do not know this and spread such disinformation wide and far. What goes around will come around in due course.
Why such matters are not clarified in the public domain (a decade ago now and repeatedly) so that everyone in the OECD understood this, is a mystery to me and many others.
Walter
[insert why I am wrong Here: …….]
[edit – stick to substantive points]
#280 MARodger says it very well: “A speech has visual (imaginative) communication as well as the literal meaning of the words on the page.”
I agree with that. It’s proven in neural science and psychology in fact.
btw I added in the (imaginative) myself, in case that isn’t totally clear already for a few. I hope it is only ‘a few’. Or we’re all doomed for sure!
Walter
And a key basis for Linguistics too!
Btw Australia no longer has a car manufacturing industry. The last 3 corps Ford, GM and Toyota have all announced “they quit” in the last 6 months.
16 February 2014, 9.58pm AEST
The great global warming subsidy
“the fuel tax credit scheme to the mining industry. In 2011, for example, the mining industry accounted for A$2 billion of the $5.2 billion total ”
https://theconversation.com/the-great-global-warming-subsidy-the-truth-about-australian-corporate-welfare-23281
18 February 2014, 6.45am AEST
Will Steffan Climate Council: heatwaves are getting hotter and more frequent
“… called the “silent killers”, they cause the greatest number of deaths of any natural disaster type”
https://theconversation.com/climate-council-heatwaves-are-getting-hotter-and-more-frequent-23253
18 February 2014, 1.48pm AEST
Australian aluminium outgunned by cheap, coal-free global rivals
“Alcoa’s decision to close the Point Henry smelter, at a cost of almost 1000 jobs in Geelong and elsewhere, comes amid a perfect storm buffeting Australia’s aluminium industry. Point Henry will be the second of Australia’s six aluminium smelters to close, after the demise of Kurri Kurri in 2012.”
https://theconversation.com/australian-aluminium-outgunned-by-cheap-coal-free-global-rivals-23135
I think Australian graduates may be emigrating to India soon to get work in a Call Center as their last hope for a job.
( For the few who don’t get that, it is just a joke. I really do not believe it, honestly. Not yet at least. OK? Need to be real clear on real climate these days. Pun intended. )
Walter
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/02
Seth D. Burgess, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1317692111
High-precision timeline for Earth’s most severe extinction
supporting information online at
http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1317692111/-/DCSupplemental
Comparison to current rate of change and quantities, anyone?
(remembering that the baseline for that event was not the same as our present climate, so YMMV)
btw all aluminium smelters here received massive subsidies from the state governments with extremely low electricity pricing rates. How much is not known. “commercial in confidence” is the plausible deniability explanation by all sides of politics for decades now.
Things are ‘heating up’ now everywhere. Kerry’s comments will come back to haunt them, political chaos in Thailand, Iraq, Syria, nth Korea, Ukraine, Israel (and children), Philippines, Indonesia, Bosnia, India, Burma, Egypt unrest far from over yet, plus all over African nations, there’s UK storms n floods, Australian heat waves and fires plus disbanding all CC institutions – major renewable projects being abandoned – and all mitigation carbon price govt policies reversed, there’s CA droughts, eastern nth america frigid, record low arctic ice extent in January, the Keystone pipeline protests, Murdoch’s media criminal trial in the UK still unfolding with dire News Corp implications eventually, $US and Equities about to fall off a cliff, Gold poised to go over $2000, fracking oil and gas output in the US will not be able to hidden soon so all will know the huge projections are a myth, extreme weather in Ireland, Europe, Mediterranean region, hot in Sochi and Alaska, Amazon droughts (not the bookseller) and too many other things to list in Sth America no one gets to hear about, with the next IPCC reports not far away now.
Life’s good! How are you doing where you are?
Quoting :
“The U.S. Senate Homeland Security Committee was on the spot with a Feb. 12, hearing: “Extreme Weather Events: The Costs of Not Being Prepared.” All we have to do is look out the window to get an understanding of the problem.
This isn’t about future climate change. It is about now.
“We need to stop rewarding communities that fail to prepare,” Secretary O’Mara told committee members. “They get everything paid for, they get all the shiny new infrastructure. It’s completely crazy.” ”
http://www.delmarvanow.com/article/20140218/OPINION/302180002/Editorial-Extreme-weather-no-longer-rare
Ouch!
Walter
“If I had my way we would have no open comments at all — just “letters to the editor” like traditional media. –eric”
They should listen to your good advice Eric. It is spot on. Totally agree, even recommend it myself to ears that do not hear.
Thanks … really, I mean it.
This has got right under my skin!
I would like to state categorically that whoever “Richard”, it is NOT ME!
Richard J. Hawes, P.Geol., B.Sc. (Geography and Geology) London 1971,
3 years with GSC mapping the Mackenzie Valley and Arctic Islands Pipelines in Ottawa
MSc Geography (glacial geology) Calgary 1977,
PhD Geology DNF 1980 (was going to be in glacial geology but I fell 20 m off a mountain east of Revelstoke,
Went into the oil patch, where I have remained ever since
MBA Calgary 1990 (finance)
Openly looking for a new PhD subject in 10 to 15 years
Member of APEGGA, AAPG, CSPG and GSL
“The multiple lines of scientific evidence indicates that Anthropogenic Global Warming is real”
Got THAT off my chest …
I offered the speculation near the last of January, that empty Sierra reservoirs could still be significantly replenished if the blocking ridge broke down, but that, should rains continue to fail, damages from drought could eclipse such recent climatic heartaches as storm Sandy and the inundation of New Orleans. Today marks a noteworthy moment in this situation, for while the ridge did indeed yield to abrupt multi-day, record-setting torrent in early February, this month’s accumulation has now fallen back to dead-on average. Moreover, the remainder of the month is now forecast to be quite dry.
Sacramento can illustrate California’s Central Valley. On average, it receives 82% of its annual twenty-one inches, during five rainy months from November thru March, with the tapers beginning and ending this season separated by an utterly dry July. The drought started last Winter in mid-season, unfortunate because flood control is practiced in early season releases. Rain in quarter I of 2013 was off by 3/4ths, and the blocking ridge set up following a record half-inch of rain which fell on the fall equinox. From there, to the end of January 20014, Sacramento received two rains and a drizzle which totaled an inch and a half, off 87% for that interval. Thus, should the current 10-day forecast prove out, Sacramento will have wracked up a deficit only four days worth shy of a full-year, 21 inch shortfall, since January 1, 2013.
Salient circumstances at present include a forecast zero flow nomination to the State Water Project, a counter-intuitive assessment that supplies for southern, highly populated counties are far less seriously threatened due to more robust storage, Bay Area delta eco systems threatened with “collapse”, and land fallowing in the San Joaquin running to half a million acres (of a CA total of ~8 million irrigated, that produce nearly half the nation’s fruits and veggies). Lastly, the harrowing prospect for mass residential service loss, hangs on the receipt of March moisture, and frantic local efforts to effect emergency alternative water sources.
Gwynne Dyer: Extreme weather a little payback for temperate emitters
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11204955
Walter Motor Fingers @285 left out the ending to the “About RC” statement: ” …. The discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science. All posts are signed by the author(s), except ‘group’ posts which are collective efforts from the whole team.”
What that refers to is the blog, not the open comment section, and refers to the blog posts signed by the authors – “The contributors to this site do so in a personal capacity during their spare time” – whether any of the site owners are inclined to answer any particular question flung out in the comments is entirely up to them and the time they volunteer to policing these comment threads, especially ‘Unforced Variations’, which was established as the open comment section to allow the public to post useful information, not to critique the owners. Real Climate and it’s professionals owe nothing to any of the readers.
[Response: Thanks! Well said (and accurate).–eric]
At 9:57PM on the 17th Walter promised, ” Don’t want to get ‘boring’ or hog the thread. You guys write, I’ll read and listen in silence.”
He lasted until 1:55AM.