RealClimate

Climate science from climate scientists...

You are here: Home / Climate Science / Unforced variations: May 2014

Unforced variations: May 2014

by

This month’s open thread. In order to give everyone a break, no discussion of mitigation options this month – that has been done to death in previous threads. Anything related to climate science is totally fine: Carbon dioxide levels maybe, or TED talks perhaps…

Reader Interactions

394 Responses to "Unforced variations: May 2014"

  1. 287 Radge Havers et al
    RE says “what if the people who do this for a living actually had a better handle on the nuances of this situation”

    What if they do not? Richard Tol comes to mind here. it’s a very very long list in fact. What about AR5 WG3? Did RC post several articles about the under-estimation of the conclusions of the IPCC AR5 WGI or not?

    What about this? https://theconversation.com/australia-has-nothing-to-fear-from-deep-global-carbon-cuts-27009 ?????????

    “As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently reported, strong climate action would shave less than 0.1 percentage points a year off the world’s annual economic growth.”

    As part of the Deep Decarbonisation Pathway Project, experts are working out what we need to do to put each of these economies on a path to deep carbon cuts by 2050 … Led by eminent US economist Jeffrey Sachs

    Australia also has great potential for carbon capture and storage ….. [ like does anyone have a URL to a real coal fired plant using CCS effectively and economically anywhere? ]

    Brightsiding climate is a bad strategy
    Is all “good news” and no “bad news” a good climate action and communications strategy? This analysis finds that the answer is a resounding “no”. http://www.climatecodered.org/p/brightsiding.html with 20 page pdf fwiw … the internet is rife with supporting material about this, IF one would imagine even looking for it, and crosschecking psychology papers related to CC, public surveys, the Media etc etc etc

    Even read or watch Gavin Schmidt’s previous Manager/Supervisor Dr James Hansen’s many scientific papers, lectures, articles, interviews, and quote back to DIO any item that contradicts anything he has said/intimated so far.
    Publications http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/publications.shtml
    On the webpage “Updating the Climate Science: What Path is the Real World Following?”, Drs. Makiko Sato and James Hansen update figures in the book Storms of My Grandchildren http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/
    OPINION “Renewable Energy, Nuclear Power and Galileo” (2014/02/21) http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2014/20140221_DraftOpinion.pdf

    JH Species extinction http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5B-JsTLEF0&list=UUOfWROvWestkWbBhZTk147w
    Peter Ward species extinction
    https://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/tag/dr-peter-ward/
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HP_Fvs48hb4&feature=youtu.be&t=33m1s

    Peter Sinclair, producer of “Climate Change Crock of the Week” talks with the attendees of Texas Renewables 2012 about the continued thinning of the ice in the Arctic, and how dangerous anthropogenic climate change is happening now.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6166HGdCZE

    So tell me again, besides a lack of politeness and tact, what exactly is DIO saying that is NOT supported by the CLIMATE SCIENCE DATA and TOP WORLD SCIENTISTS???

    I imagine not following the RULES of a Blog might get him shot or life imprisonment in China, or Syria, or Egypt … pretty serious stuff here apparently. Naughty Diogenes!

  2. What a scam that Denis Rancourt climate guy blog is with Peter Laux’s challenge for a $10000 prize to :present a conclusive argument based on empirical evidence that increasing atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuel burning drives global warming”

    My submission was simple
    1 warming is unequivocal
    2 Peter Laux’s comment in reply to me on FB ” all you have shown is that the RF for CO2 is 1.6Wm2 that does not prove that it is due to humans”
    3 the laws of physice are non debatable

    of course he refused and i was called a troll but i asked for his address and that of his lawyer so it could be tested in court, i was then blocked and peter has gone into hiding

    c’est la vie

  3. Chris Dudley #298,

    “So, “we” means the entire world for a long time, and our experience is that that sort of thing falls apart after a while. The UN has shown a little staying power, but the League of Nations did not endure. So, the “we” that needs to make decisions may not be well enough defined for long enough to be capable of making decisions.”

    You need to start connecting the dots.

    Dot #1: From post #271, the target peak temperature for (hopefully) avoiding going on autopilot is 1 C, OR LESS!

    Dot #2: Per your quote, we need strong multi-generational global commitment to this target in order to have any chance of coming close.

    Dot #3: See http://www.lowyinstitute.org/2013pollinteractive/climatechange.php, which shows how Australia’s support for climate change action has dropped by about half since its peak in 2006. Support took a slight uptick last year, and it is being spun as a major change. This poll parallels the recent Gallup Poll on climate change attitudes in America (the Gallup had no uptick), and would have to be in the 80s or 90s in order for Dot #2 to have any chance of being operable.

    All three dots (and many more) have to be connected in order for the trends to reverse. The odds of that happening are probably in the nano-percent region!

  4. Iconoclast (et al.) @~ 300

    Re: hyperbolic venting and other deliberately obtuse rhetorical games

    Could we please not make what’s left of this month’s UV thread about the moderators?

  6. wili #297,

    You quote AlJazeera America on the implications of WAIS on SLR:

    “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in August warned of a three-foot sea level rise by 2100. But with new insight into melting glaciers in West Antarctica, that increase must be revised to at least seven feet.” http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/5/18/greenland-ice-melt.html

    I do not know where they get 7 feet from. I think it is hard to say what this would mean for updating the IPCC projections. They would probably be revised upward, but it is hard to say how much.

    To get a feeling what it might mean I recommend Aslak Grinsted’s post, where he uses the expert-elicitation from Bamber and Aspinall (2013) to derive new aggregate numbers based on the IPCC baseline scenarios, which results in ca 1.6 meter by 2100 for RCP8.5:
    http://www.glaciology.net/Home/Miscellaneous-Debris/comparisonofsealevelprojections

    How much the upper limit by 2100 by an expert elicitation would affect the new findings from WAIS and Antarctica would be interesting to see. I hope that Bamber and Aspinall plan to make an update of their paper. We need more of these qualitative assessments focusing on the tail events.

    Note also that the IPCC range is only qualified by being “likely”. The IPCC did not provide any specific numbers for the more uncertain tail-outcomes, which includes a collapse of WAIS.

  7. Steve (#294),

    Reread my posts more carefully. I’ve been discussing carbon dioxide levels and TED talks this month. I did correct flxible’s misunderstanding of the energy requirements for a technology I’ve discussed here in other months when a comment was directed my way. https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/02/unforced-variations-feb-2013/comment-page-3/#comment-319432

    Just to reiterate, while renewable energy could be used to cut carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, a subject we are avoiding this month, its most probable use would be to increase levels up to 64 times preindustrial owing to the much deeper reach into fossil carbon pools that low cost energy affords. The anticipated trajectory of renewable energy technology, the geology of fossil carbon deposits and the normal functioning of economics makes this the most likely path. As we’ve discovered, even RCP8.5 counts as mitigation compared to what BAU would produce.

  8. That Al Jazeera piece is attributed to “Renee Lewis” who is a “Digital News Producer”

    The story’s claim that the IPCC estimated “3 feet” and that estimate now “must” be changed to “7 feet” appears without a cite, not attributed, and the “3 feet” claim links to an earlier Al Jazeera story on an early draft of the last IPCC report, which makes no such claim.

    Most of the actual quotes are from Mathieu Morlighem (at uci.edu in the Rignot Research Group) so I’d guess we’ll see a clarification from them and perhaps from the Al Jazeera “Digital News Producer” eventually.

    This is probably more useful as a reference for the earlier number
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/feb/18/scientists-worried-ipcc-underestimate-sea-level-rise

    Base the new estimate on that and you can get considerably higher water.

  9. Soils that formed on the Earth’s surface thousands of years ago and that are now deeply buried features of vanished landscapes have been found to be rich in carbon, adding a new dimension to our planet’s carbon cycle.

    The finding, reported today (May 25, 2014) in the journal Nature Geoscience,

    is significant as it suggests that deep soils can contain long-buried stocks of organic carbon which could, through erosion, agriculture, deforestation, mining and other human activities, contribute to global climate change.

    “There is a lot of carbon at depths where nobody is measuring,” says Erika Marin-Spiotta, a University of Wisconsin-Madison assistant professor of geography and the lead author of the new study. “It was assumed that there was little carbon in deeper soils. Most studies are done in only the top 30 centimeters. Our study is showing that we are potentially grossly underestimating carbon in soils.”

    The soil studied by Marin-Spiotta and her colleagues, known as the Brady soil, formed between 15,000 and 13,500 years ago in what is now Nebraska, Kansas and other parts of the Great Plains. It lies up to six-and-a- half meters below the present-day surface and was buried by a vast accumulation of windborne dust known as loess beginning about 10,000 years ago, when the glaciers that covered much of North America began to retreat.

    The region where the Brady soil formed was not glaciated, but underwent radical change as the Northern Hemisphere’s retreating glaciers sparked an abrupt shift in climate, including changes in vegetation and a regime of wildfire that contributed to carbon sequestration as the soil was rapidly buried by accumulating loess.

    “Most of the carbon (in the Brady soil) was fire derived or black carbon,” notes Marin-Spiotta, whose team employed an array of new analytical methods, including spectroscopic and isotopic analyses, to parse the soil and its chemistry. “It looks like there was an incredible amount of fire.”

  10. April’s HadCRUT4 was the tenth warmest month on record and the warmest outside an El Niño. And predictions that we are due an El Niño this year (eg) have increased certainty.

  11. PS — that article talks about buried carbon underneath “a vast accumulation of windblown dust known as loess”

    Well, how likely is loess to move away and uncover buried carbon?

    It happens all the time, particularly after periods of unusually heavy rainfall.

    So — add this to the consequences of more extreme weather: releasing previously uncounted buried fossil carbon.

    About that angry beast? Turns out that it’s a much, much larger animal than you thought when you began poking at it. Most of it was buried. Now we’ve awakened it.

  12. Don’t let loud voices proclaiming that “something must be done”
    not drown out those already working at it

    I only learned this search term yesterday.
    Don’t know why I hadn’t heard it before.
    These groups are using climate modeling extensively,
    though more for policy than for research.

  13. Naughty Diogenes!

    Comment by Iconoclast — 25 May 2014

    (DIO – I’m afraid you’ve become a little unhinged my friend.)

    Moving on…. I’ve been reading all the links that have been provided here concerning Antarctica’s WAIS and it’s glaciers. So do I have this right that they are no longer “moored” to the ocean floor via a grounding line? I’m assuming this means they are basically untethered and free to roam about the Southern hemisphere?

    I realize as wili has pointed out that this probably changes the math on SLR. I am also assuming that it changes the time scale on how soon we can expect significant SLR. It seems to me that several factors concerning Climate Change are coming together more quickly than anticipated. We have a lot of “conservative estimates” but they don’t seem to be holding up to reality too well. Are there any “liberal estimates” we might need to look at, just in case?

    Thanks.

  15. > So do I have this right that they are no longer “moored” …
    > I’m assuming this means they are basically untethered

    You’re having us on, right?

  16. Iconoclast #300,

    “what exactly is DIO saying that is NOT supported by the CLIMATE SCIENCE DATA and TOP WORLD SCIENTISTS??”

    The problem is, most of the posters here only want to hear a sub-set of climate science, and it’s not the same sub-set on which I focus. Look at medical research. There are many papers that discuss the etiology of a specific disease only. They track the evolution of the biomarkers through time, and document how they deteriorate. it’s the research equivalent of watching a patient die. There are other papers that focus on identifying the critical pathways, on which ddrruugg development can be concentrated.

    On RC, the main focus of the articles is on the etiology of the climate, and the main interest of the readers appears to be the etiology. I am far more interested in the climate analog of the ddrruugg development targets: what are the temperature and other variable values that should not be exceeded during our transition away from fossil fuels? Yet, for some reason, the moderators have instituted an embargo on that topic. I have yet to see a Hansen or Spratt post on limits, and how close we are NOW, much less how close we will be in decades.

    I know that when the atmosphere is trapping net heat, ocean, land, and atmosphere temperatures will increase, and ice will melt! Endless posts bemoaning the rapid loss of ice at both poles and in glaciers offer little insight RELATIVE TO UNDERSTANDING THE LIMITS OF TEMPERATURE ET AL THAT WILL DRIVE US OVER THE BRINK!! And, without a good scientifically-rigorous analysis and specification of those limits/targets, how can I/we take effective actions to avoid them???

  17. Gavin,

    You’ve left my question in #285 hanging. I’m pretty clear that you feel that climate models are not decision engines. It is interesting that game theory models strongly determine military policy and stock market models, in the form of high frequency trading algorithms, are autonomously setting economic policy. Models, in themselves, are not incapable of doing policy.

    But, I still can’t tell from your talk or your answers here, how much skill you think climate models have for informing human led policy decisions. One way of reading what you wrote is that they are completely useless.

    Do you have a statement on what climate model projections of the future can do which balances what you say they can not do?

  18. Chris Dudley #299,

    “There is a guy who’s father’s project at a national lab was a horrible mess to clean up. He wants our global warming problem to be a means of vindicating his dad’s failed project. He’s worked hard at promoting that and now Jim Hansen is writing the President about it. What a waste of time.”

    I would expect a post like this from the ‘tag team’, not from you. Please provide a reference, so we can judge for ourselves.

  19. Susan Anderson #293,

    “And unfortunately, some people are not related to reality. Our House of Representatives, for example, who voted to pass this”

    Three comments.

    First, those measures, even if implemented, would not even be in the ballpark of where we need to go to stay within the quasi-safe limit of 1 C. They are no better than the ‘tag team’ proposals.

    Second, ‘we’ voted those politicians in office, knowing full well their philosophies on a number of issues. They are doing their job, representing their constituents.

    Third, there are many posters here who are very quick in blaming someone else for our climate change predicament. Oh, it is because of the Koch Brothers, or Rex Tillerson, or James Inhofe, or ….. The truth is, we are our own worst enemy. Let me count the ways. Our radical ‘leaders’, including Kevin Anderson, Bill McKibben, etc, select a target temperature of 2 C, recommend a plan based on achieving the 2 C, then, in the next breath, tell us that 2 C is a dangerous regime. What non-ideologue in his right mind would follow such a plan, especially when the leaders state the targets are ‘dangerous’? Also, with all of our prodigious postings decrying the lack of action on climate change, most people here ‘run for the hills’ when they are told about the levels of sacrifice and deprivation that will be required to achieve temperatures in the 1 C range. Yes, these external influences are not working for our benefit, but if truth be told, we’re doing most of their dirty work for them.

  20. Thanks, hank @#308, for the link to that excellent Guardian article. I was aware of the Horton survey from last year, but not of the “Vision Prize” on (even though it is partly sponsored by my local university!). Here it is again:

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/feb/18/scientists-worried-ipcc-underestimate-sea-level-rise

    From that survey we read:

    “41 percent responded that it’s likely or very likely that sea level rise will exceed the IPCC highest estimate [of .91 meters], and 71 percent answering that it’s at least as likely as not.”

    I am struck that these experts did not say that their own _highest estimate_ was higher than the IPCCs, but that they thought that, as I read it, actual sea level rise would exceed IPCC’s highest estimate of about a meter. One wonders, then, what their highest estimate would be. Especially in the light of the most recent research.

    Presumably at this point we can conclude that most experts would expect actual sea level rise to exceed one meter by 2100. The questions remain–By how much? And what would the high-end estimates be, the ones that are so important for doing accurate risk assessment? And how much faster do we expect these levels of sea rise to appear? Any light that any of our experts or search sleuths can throw on these important issues would be most welcome.

  23. Re- Comment by Chris Dudley — 26 May 2014 @ 10:36 AM, ~#307

    It is this poorly reasoned anti mitigation idea about using nonpolluting energy to produce polluting energy that you have been asked to not talk about because it clogs up discussion. You have trolled this idea in this thread something more than a dozen times when there is an open topic specifically about mitigation and another Unforced Variations thread that has been left open for more contentious discussion. Your behavior is (gasp) “inconvenient.”

    Steve

  24. >You’re having us on, right?<

    Comment by Hank Roberts

    Maybe I misspoke a little. When I said "untethered" and "free to roam about"… I meant that they would eventually break off and float away since there's apparently nothing grounding them to the ocean floor. That's the impression I got from reading some of the findings. I was engaging in a bit of hyperbole but I guess that's not appropriate on here. It sounds like a serious situation to me but I'm not sure how this changes the timescales on when we might expect SLR to really kick in or how much we can expect this century, in light of this new development.

    So Hank, I would like to know your personal opinion on this since you were kind enough to respond. In particular, this is what I was reading and looking at:

    http://rabett.blogspot.com/2014/05/something-scary-comes-this-way.html

    Incidentally, are you by any chance British? Just curious.

    Thanks

  27. This has gotten ridiculous even by my standards.

    There is a productive discussion to be had about how scientists can best inform policy. It won’t be helped very much by self-absorbed posturing, amateurish vaudeville ventriloquism, or clueless caricatures. Nor are out-of-date, finger wagging bromides about how democracy works particularly helpful. Also in this day and age, rowdy activism for its own sake, without respect for both how scientists need to work and how politics get done, runs the risk of being quickly undone.

    On this site in particular, it is probably best to approach the subject as thoughtfully, patiently, mindfully, and professionally as possible. If you can’t do that, consider turning your talents to where they might be of some use, like annoying Rush Limbaugh and similar intransigent impediments to progress.

  28. re 316 DIOGENES says: “On RC, the main focus of the articles is on the etiology of the climate, and the main interest of the readers appears to be the etiology.”

    If that is what it is, then it is what it is. You’ve made your point, and many agree with you, and far more than will ever tell you publicly here. As we say in Australia, When you are up shits creek in a barbed wire canoe without a paddle, you may as well get out and walk. Or trying to push shit uphill can only result in one thing. Why bother? May as well go argue with Monckton as beat your head against a brick wall here. Gavin isn’t interested. I can only conclude he must know who you are via your email address, or he wouldn’t have given you an entire thread left open for months. No one has ever got that here ever. Gavin isn’t going to change here, ever. And he’s rules the roost. I don’t think it is worth it, but whatever, do as you wish. I’m not judging you in any way. Best

  29. 293 DIOGENES asks about “implode globally” 99.99% chance this won;t even get through, but what the hell.

    Dio, history repeats. To see the future look backwards and connect the dots and use multiple diverse tools. Despite the surface changes that often look bigger than they really are today is not much different to when henry Viii was cutting his wives heads off. People are people, and they keep acting like people.

    I mentioned at an earlier date about a major financial crisis around the corner phase 2 of the GFC that will it look like someone only broke wind. It’s very close and much is about to be exposed. What happens when Govts keep printing money and borrowing money from other nations like there is no tomorrow or it will never come? The contagion will spread to China in a flash, and the two biggest economies on the world !40% of all GHG emissions fall off a cliff overnight. All the shale gas fields become uneconomical and the financial impacts keeping getting worse. Global GDP fals off a cliff, the GFC was 7.5% worldwide drop, well quadruple that for a decade or two. Climate change effects keep coming in the short term, el nino around the corner and arctic ice loss in summmer circa 2025, and the extreme weather events kill both the Insurance companies and multiple governments already under stress. Social crisis follow, farming and fish stocks ie food big problems mass starvation and no bailouts. Sure a few wars here and there, no biggy, Russia and China are already top dogs now, a couple of nukes and even a few volcanoes and the globe will cool .. mass starvation, floods and droughts, all at once, and by 2040 your looking a brave new world starting over like it’s 1945. NO one will be arguing about climate change anymore, and then some intelligence will reign supreme for a while and tech will get back on track less a few billion here and there. The self sufficient will survive, the ingroups will survive, people will save things like rescuing text from the Library at Alexandria, common sense will return, and life will be very different. GDP and the global economy won;t matter and the invisible hand of the markets will finally be dead too and seen as the myth it always has been. Does have to be this way, can play out differently but the fact is that people are just stupid, and others usually those in power tend to be somewhat Mad – which is why shit happens. Look at Ukraine and all the spin and lies about that. If the really extreme weather events hit hard in the next 5 years maybe the worlds govts and masses will wake up about climate and economics like the US did regarding Slavery. But remember the US went through civil war hell and a couple million dead before that commons sense rational change was made. Don’t hold out much hope this time either. Slavery and carbon emissions? Same bone different horse, pattern repeat. There wont be world wars like 20th century too but most have wised up to that bs, and won’t throw their lives away for nothing again. So no one will need to burn 2000 GtC by 2100, reason and logic wise Philosopher Kings will return to the stage in good time. Frankly, I don’t really care that much about it one way or t’other. I know what I am doing and have taught my children to be survivors in a very tough world. My job is done.

  30. 316 DIOGENES also asked: “how can I/we take effective actions to avoid them???”

    You can’t. Use your common sense and trust your own instincts. WITH or “without a good scientifically-rigorous analysis and specification of those limits/targets”

    Stop waiting for the rest of the world or governments to have an epiphany. have your OWN epiphany and then act in your own best interests and your loved ones …. buy land with ground water natural fed stream, and feed yourself, set yourself up independent and self-sufficient. Anything else is relying on others to play fair and honestly and use their brains. It ain’t gonna happen like that .. it might happen but your betting your life and your children life on that. It would take a civil war there to overturn the current insane mindset of the majority of Americans to wake to the reality of climate change and a change to the economic order that is part of the US DNA now. Christ they haven’t gotten over racism and religious bigotry yet. Ya reckon the US will wake up one day and go shit, the “free markets” hey it’s a myth, let’s fix it today? Taking carbon out of the economy is like ripping your own heart out of your cheat and believing you can still run a 4 minute mile. ( smile ) I ain’t depressed, this isn’t negative – just telling it how it is. the details don’t matter … YOU get the science all lined up and then YOU get the big picture right and then YOU do whatever you can. 5 years left for a global agreement in line with Hansen/Anderson/350org etc .. and then it’s game over anyway… the next phase is basic survival. A D-Day Moment that will last 2 decades. If the global financial crisis ala Depression hits which I think is pretty much guaranteed now, and soon, no one will be interested in GHG mitigation anyway, too many other things going on and the UNFCCC (the whole UN probably) will go down the toilet anyway. You don;t need Walmart or the Stock Market, nor GDP oir the pedophiles in the Catholic church etc so forget it, and get on wiht your life and enjoy doing something constructive for those you love and who love. No one here or Gavin loves you Dio, so walk away mate! I am not here for them either. Cheers

  31. Kevin, thx re #301 but your link goes to this —

    296 – Chris Dudley says:
    25 May 2014 at 10:53 AM

    Which is nothing about CCS operational???

    I have checked here for example … http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/projects/browse and says there are NONE. Check the Project variations and look for yourself. That is why I asked here .. so what gives? I had heard (recall?) something about a US or Canadian power plant, a small one was trying to do CCS prototype system and had been funded as a test, but as yet still zero CO2 into the ground for storage.

    btw most of the projects on that page have nothing to do with Coal fired power plants .. but other things that are only marginally a positive for mitigation bar the basic tech itself. Several are running in Australia already in the west on gas fields but really they are nothing much of value imho. It’s more about getting more gas up out of a reserve, which is the last thing anyone needs except Shell et all.

  33. > I would like to know your personal opinion on this

    My opinion is we should be listening to the scientists.
    The pointer above to Richard Alley is a good start. ‘oogle his name and images to find his slide shows.

    The web pages for the most recent two papers discussed, after a while, will start to display “cited by” links — papers referencing the new information.

    Those will be the next round of answers. Await publication.

  35. Re- Comment by Radge Havers — 27 May 2014 @ 1:45 PM, ~#326

    I think that your concern has to do with the fact that the Real Climate Silly Season (RCSS) has arrived. The RCSS is a short term irregular cyclic phenomenon that isn’t a directional forcing in science blog commentary. The RCSS is thought to be the chaotic result of random variations having to do with the interaction of local day length and weather with a commenter’s contact with reality.

    Steve

  36. Wally, the link should go to the comment from which I quoted; it’s auto-generated by the blog software as a convenience for those following the thread, if you do a copy-paste.

    It’s still not June, so I’m not getting into mitigatory measures, of which CCS is one.

  37. Hi Radge @ 326 you say: “On this site in particular, it is probably best to approach the subject as thoughtfully, patiently, mindfully, and professionally as possible.” Now that’s a good standard to aim for, especially professionalism.

    Wasting time at a Limbaugh or WUWT site is a waste of time, more fun putting one;s head into a meat grinder. About 9 months ago TheConversation (Uni fact driven news site) was infested with deniers, some professionals in anti-CC orgs, and Murdoch Newscorp/fox type shills and right wing political junkies. I counted at least 30 regulars who would disrupt comments on every climate related article and were very obnoxious and insulting and baited everyone. Most were Uni grads and some retired physics geologists and engineers some professors. It was a lot of fun (at times), but they really did upset people as well as the moderators who were overtaxed and copped a lot of grief and couldn’t keep up.
    In January they appointed a community standards person full time, Corey. Have a look at here, acknowledging it’s a different kind of site with far more resources .. here is their Community Standards fyi https://theconversation.com/au/community_standards eg “Be respectful Treat people with the respect you’d like to receive. Admit when you’re wrong.” “in an article about the policy response to climate change, comments that deny the science of climate change will be considered off topic.” and “Be constructive – Explain why you disagree or agree with something. Your reasoning is as important as your opinion.” “This article sucks” will be deleted. “I disagree with this article. Here’s why…” and the rest.

    Last year I never took a backward step and eventually got barred … but not before I managed to help (with some talent at pushing buttons and arguing hard facts with refs) until they worst offenders spat the dummy and the most egregious perpetrators booted first. It was a price I was willing to pay … then along came Corey who cleaned a lot of others. A few months back there were still some old Trolls there, so I had a another dig in, and helped get several of those booted permanently almost immediately. Now there’s ONE left, and he has tamed down so much now it;s no big deal. No more BS .. new people are making comments and asking good questions, so many in the world are really in need of a lot of help in understanding the complexities of CC etc. It VERY difficult and takes time and patience from helpers willing to share info refs and be supportive. But until the crap was cleaned out and denialism banned properly and professionally it was incredibly difficult. Clear guidelines are critical and then enforcing those fairly and consistently without fear or favour is more than just critical. Posters cannot maintain a standard when the moderators don’t.

    Today I posted a simple but detailed unoffensive comment on another thread, a reply to these, noting given they mention nuclear then I should be able to reply fairly, and I quoted several passages from a James Hansen article which itself was referencing other sources. My straight forward content rich NON-insulting non-adhom comment has been sent to the bottom of the pacific yet again, no problem, I really don’t care anyway. The following is but an example … I could pick almost any poster here really, I could.
    161 Chris Dudley says: 28 Apr 2014 at 1:51 PM Edward (#157), You are becoming quite unbalanced. […] It’s not about rhetoric Edward, it is about your emotional state regarding nuclear power. Your seem to be driven to delusion.

    153 Chris Dudley says: 26 Apr 2014 at 3:30 PM
    Edward (#140), You’ve really misunderstood the situation with nuclear power. The levelized cost of new nuclear power is vastly greater than for renewables. (end quote)

    It was the last one I addressed with HARD FACTS and references, simply for readers and the original poster to have an OPPORTUNITY to look for themselves. No brow beating. Did my comment get deleted because I mentioned nuclear, and said I was doing that openly, due to the existing multiple comments already o the thread cross several pages .. it wasn’t an UV thread either.

    Most climate issues show up here https://theconversation.com/au/environment They constantly feed through new release science papers, and article are by scientists and academics from around the world. The discussions are intelligent , light hearted usually, friendly mostly (now), and the moderation is consistent and fair. They also have a UK site. There’s other sites around similar i think, most blogs get a bit centric on the owners personal interests. CP doesnt take comments anymore and then there’s http://climatechangenationalforum.org/ who have Judith Curry in residence now so a broad range of ‘arguments” are arising. Comments are allowed and it is US Centric plus CC science in general, and soon will shift into Politics mode too. People have mentioned BNC (?) and the nuclear mitigation/energy topics etc here before, but i find it far from inspiring, and pretty slow. I don;t like what Chris has done to climatestate, but so long as he and those who use it are happy not a problem. Each to their own hey?
    I think a Dio type person and many others might find one of the two sites linked pretty interesting places to investigate … to both contribute value of their own efforts/knowledge and learn more along the way.
    And if you love it hear then have at it, as they say in the land of the free. (sic) But at the end of the day when only 1 out 10 of my wise comments ever make it through to this place … know that DIOs are passed right through day after day as are Dudley’s no matter what. Who knows why, and who cares? Not me. But you can;t blame Dio or Chris for what appears on this website space. They do not control it. And neither do you et al. C’est la vie, huh?
    Cheers and enjoy the scenery you Crazy Oats you! ( smiling )

  38. Chris Dudley #324,

    “Claiming McKibben is seeking a 2 C temperature stabilization target is false.”

    In McKibben’s infamous Rolling Stone article (Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math), he states the following:

    “The official position of planet Earth at the moment is that we can’t raise the temperature more than two degrees Celsius – it’s become the bottomest of bottom lines. Two degrees.”

    He then goes on to state:

    “Scientists estimate that humans can pour roughly 565 more gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by midcentury and still have some reasonable hope of staying below two degrees.”

    Those are two of the three numbers in his ‘terrifying new math’. The third, of course, is the fossil fuel reserves ‘we’re currently planning to burn’, five times his allowable budget. He then goes on to conclude:

    “The three numbers I’ve described are daunting – they may define an essentially impossible future. But at least they provide intellectual clarity about the greatest challenge humans have ever faced. We know how much we can burn, and we know who’s planning to burn more.”

    The implication/inference is we have a carbon budget remaining of ~565 gigatons that we can burn and stay within 2 C, and we should aim for that. While he gives examples of scientists who believe much above 1 C is dangerous, he does not state that should be our target, and bases his carbon budget on the 2 C number.

  39. Wally #328,

    “No one here or Gavin loves you Dio, so walk away mate!”

    First, I want to thank you for your response in #327. Second, I don’t post here for accolades from the moderators or other posters. I post to exchange useful information, and ignore most of the incoming noise. I have not walked away, because I would like to get more info on the appropriate targets, and of all the climate blogs, this one offers the highest probability of such information being produced. The fact that it has essentially not been addressed yet is very disappointing, but hope springs eternal. My full statement on the request for targets in #316 (And, without a good scientifically-rigorous analysis and specification of those limits/targets, how can I/we take effective actions to avoid them???) really meant the global ‘we’.

  40. 338

    “The number 350 means climate safety: to preserve a livable planet, scientists tell us we must reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from its current level of 400 parts per million to below 350 ppm.

    We believe that a global grassroots movement can hold our leaders accountable to the realities of science and the principles of justice. That movement is rising from the bottom up all over the world, and is uniting to create the solutions that will ensure a better future for all.” http://350.org/about/what-we-do/

    Given your handle, you can’t help being churlish, but it is definitely a lie to call McKibben’s description his position.

  41. On the central coast of CA another blowback of global warming is in process.
    The rainfall shortage has led to a feed shortage for cattle. Not wishing to sell them all off, wishing to preseve their carefully-amassed mother herd, ranchers are trucking large numbers of them to Colorado.
    They will need to be shipped back when CA again sees rain.
    How bad will the climate disruption get? That’s what much discussion here is pointed to.
    In some highly charged and pressurized future will things like A/C use and cattle trucking be banned because the carbon budget is completely used up and energy from other sources has to be reserved for higher priorities?
    The growth of “cli-fi” literature makes sense.

  42. The second PMIP3 general meeting … between the 25th and the 30rd May 2014 … Namur (Belgium)
    The Palaeoclimate Modelling Intercomparison Project (PMIP) is a consortium of research scientists and academics that has been active since 1995 to study past climates, with a focus on model-model and model-data comparison. Its objectives are to document performance of climate models, understand mechanisms of past climate change, and improve our knowledge of climate sensitivity…..
    Follow the meeting on twitter : #PMIP3
    ——

    My thought as a casual reader here:

    I mentioned above that more extreme precipitation events predicted as climate changes, falling on the loess soils that accumulated at the last great climate change (at the end of the last ice age) likely are going to cause more landslides.

    I’d expect the alluvial fans formed back then (which have appeared to be stable for centuries, and on which we’ve built a lot of structures) to start moving again.

  43. Wally #337,

    “But at the end of the day when only 1 out 10 of my wise comments ever make it through to this place … know that DIOs are passed right through day after day as are Dudley’s no matter what. Who knows why, and who cares? Not me. But you can;t blame Dio or Chris for what appears on this website space. They do not control it.”

    Stay with the facts. Neither you nor I know what gets submitted; we only know what gets posted. My straight technical comments almost always (or perhaps always) get posted. My responses to some extremely vituperative comments many times will not see the light of day. I don’t know what Chris’ statistics are; he can speak for himself, if he so chooses.

    We can’t set the rules; someone else owns the ball. We can only choose whether to play the game or not. I try to minimize my responses to slanderous and vindictive comments; no one benefits from either set of comments. My goal is to try and elicit any ideas that could offer a way out of the climate predicament into which we have gotten ourselves. If one out of ten comments contributes to that goal, it’s better than nothing. I would prefer nine out of ten.

  45. 304 Radge Havers, in my opinion your comment is disengenous, ignores the actual content of my specific points which directly referred to YOUR own comment, and I find it unnecessarily offensive and irrational. You raised a point, I disagreed and gave very strong reason for that with references. Then you do not have the courtesy to even say thanks, or acknowledge even ONE single aspect of that which is true and factual. ala it is the science that supports Dio concerns – nothing else matters, and yet to continue to ignore that and discount the firm basis for his opinion and conclusions and have never once acknowledged the accuracy of those views are now widespread in the science academic economics WEF OECD IMF IPCC NAS Universities recent Literature and the broad community and showing up on every climate related info site across the world today. (as per my references given on this page in several places.) How you speak to Dio is your choice alone. You can be nice and polite or how you usually speak to him and so many others over the years here. Both have an EFFECT that returns to you and influences the discussion.
    Now you make it a admonimem strawman attack, and you then falsely twist that into me making it about the moderators. The problem is not mine, I see it as all yours. You have a choice how you speak to dio and everyone else. take responsibility for your own words before criticizing others may be a sound professional standard to apply to yourself.
    You wanna make it about me personally and the post is published then I should have equal right to present material that completely undermines your argument/s using reason and logic alone as well. Where are your credible references to “people who do this for a living actually had a better handle on the nuances of this situation””???? I see none, and none have been presented since Dio arrived months ago. Yet you and others speak from a high pulpit about “standards and professionalism” and the value of factual hard science and peer reviewed papers? Meanwhile personal attacks on other posters keep getting published while basic corrections of FACT (no insults with refs for anyone to check) about posts by Dudley are deleted x8 times on a “science” site over 4 days ? In my humble opinion you do not present a coherent logical argument that can withstand the slightest analysis based on the evidence here RH. (are my opinions allowed here of RHs criticisms and flawed arguments using factual material or only opinions, misrepresentations and insulting adhom comments by others about me and dio? I have no problem with the mods, I do not care one bit, they can do what they like it’s their website, but does that mean I have NO RIGHT to simply speak about the facts of the matter? Like why is it more important to maintain a misunderstanding and have false information left here instead of a simple correction of what was actually said and rejection of the insults and extra falsehoods I was accused of that do not stack up in any way??? It’s a fair question, that deserves an answer in my humble opinion. It raises some additional issues about “professional standards” that should be obvious to anyone. )

  46. 336 Kevin McKinney says:27 May 2014 at 10:50 PM
    “Wally, the link should go to the comment from which I quoted ….. ”

    IT DIDN’T – you try it.

    That was my point and why I was confused. It appears that Comment Numbers/urls are changing sometimes here (or the copy/paste of the link was in error). Several weird website issues have been happening here for a while pre/post their site update.

    Just letting you know that is WHY I didn’t understand what you were getting at. TY
    Don’t bother about my request on any CCS plant, it’s too late now, I don;t care anymore, I have enough valid info about no/limited credible activity on this subject at this time… all spin (misuse of grants subsidies) and wishful thinking to date.

  48. First it was the bad news from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet:
    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/344/6185/735.abstract
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL060140/abstract

    Then came the bad news from the Greenland Ice Sheet:
    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2167.html

    And, as if this was not enough, now we also need to worry about the East Antarctic Ice Sheet:
    ” the removal of a specific coastal ice volume equivalent to less than 80 mm of global sea-level rise at the margin of the Wilkes Basin destabilizes the regional ice flow and leads to a self-sustained discharge of the entire basin and a global sea-level rise of 3–4 m.”
    http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n6/full/nclimate2226.html

    Let us hope that these things take long time to unfold. But I think we need to start thinking really hard about how to live with rapidly changing sea levels…

  49. New Paper – The research to be published in Global Change Biology on June 3 was carried out by 10 researchers from 11 universities and research institutions in Brazil and the UK.

    Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-05-devastating-human-impact-amazon-rainforest.html

    54 GtC (billion tonnes of carbon) is lost from the Amazon every year due to selective logging and wildfires, making up 40% of the global yearly carbon loss from deforestation. [ note this appears it is not included in past/current net emissions data of IPCC, nor future scenarios RCPs]

    Lead researcher Dr Erika Berenguer from Lancaster University said: “The impacts of fire and logging in tropical forests have always been largely overlooked by both the scientific community and policy makers who are primarily concerned with deforestation. Yet our results show how these disturbances can severely degrade the forest, with huge amounts of carbon being transferred from plant matter straight into the atmosphere”.

    The findings come from Lancaster University, which conducted landmark research calculating the carbon loss from logging and fires in the tropics. It examined samples of trees, soil, litter and dead wood from 225 sites in the eastern Brazilian Amazon.

    The findings highlight the impact that the forest degradation due to logging has on emissions. Logging has altered the forest canopy making it less able to store carbon and more prone to wildfire.

  50. Kevin McKinney – previously you mentioned you were active in KeystoneXL/shale gas protests activism?
    FYI/motivation/ideas winning – Community coal seam gas campaigns have had some big wins lately, most recently in the suspension of the drilling licence for CSG company Metgasco in New South Wales. Referred to the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), the decision was partly attributed to lack of community consultation.
    In the Pilliga Forest, west of Tamworth, the ongoing actions and protests over plans to develop a CSG hub have delayed proceedings dramatically. In November last year, the Victorian government extended a moratorium on fracking until 2015. And in March, the NSW state government backed down on the granting of new CSG licences.
    So why are these community campaigns winning, even if it is just in the short term? https://theconversation.com/new-tactics-see-coal-seam-gas-protests-gain-the-upper-hand-26645