Something similar noticeable in Pacific Northwest fisheries.
Jasper Jaynessays
Ray#149,
” So the rest of us will continue working toward a solution while you quietly slit your wrists over in the corner?”
I see little difference with respect to the final outcome of my accepting the inevitable and your furiously running in place on a treadmill. Perhaps the endorphins you generate in the process will make you feel better, but at this stage, I see little impact (on the climate measures that count) of the people who collectively are ‘working toward a solution’.
It’s no mystery as to why. Only vague definitions of where we need to go have been offered (other than to rapidly reduce fossil fuel use), and I have yet to see an approach offered that will produce a ‘sea change’ in fossil fuel use and associated emissions. Iyo has it right: ” we wouldn’t do anything about it if we could”, and not one responder to my initial post has convinced me otherwise.
#151–I was surprised to see that result in connection with the most recent deglaciation. Another reason for the caution and prudence that seems in such short supply.
SecularAnimistsays
Jasper Jaynes, with all due respect, your comments are as ill-informed about ongoing efforts to address the global warming problem as the comments of deniers are ill-informed about the reality and severity of the problem.
You can be part of the solution — or you can embrace defeatism, do nothing, and be part of the problem. It’s your choice.
Has anyone pointed out that people proclaiming something can’t be done usually try to stand in the way of people who are actually doing it?
Human behavior is odd, except when delay is profitable.
steve Fishsays
Re- Comment by Jasper Jaynes — 29 Jan 2015 @ 11:44 AM, ~#152
Okay Jasper, I get it that you don’t see how to get from here to there, so what is your purpose for posting fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD)? What is gained? Why bother?
Steve
GORGIASsays
#Jasper Jaynes
I can’t imagine that any sane person could still believe that the current approach, for want of a better term, to tackling this issue is going to prevent a 2 degree rise in global mean temp. And if that already arbitrary target is gone, everything that is discussed within that 2 degree framework (which ironically includes a 3 degree target) is out the window as well. However, we can still compartmentalize and do research on the climate system (or any other field of study for that matter) and publish our findings. That in itself is not an act of propagating misinformation.
There’s a reason why mitigation is not allowed to be discussed here. If anything, there’s actually a glimmer of honesty to be found in that guideline even though it’s claimed to be in place for purposes of reducing noise, drama and what have you in the forums.
Could anyone who’s worked with Peter Ward’s studies comment on how this overlaps his work and other earlier work along these lines?
Journal Reference:
Sarah E. Moffitt, Russell A. Moffitt, Wilson Sauthoff, Catherine V. Davis, Kathryn Hewett, Tessa M. Hill. Paleoceanographic Insights on Recent Oxygen Minimum Zone Expansion: Lessons for Modern Oceanography. PLOS ONE, 2015; 10 (1): e0115246 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0115246
Ice at deep grounding lines may be weakened by hydrofracturing and reduced buttressing, and may fail structurally if stresses exceed the ice yield strength, producing rapid retreat. Incorporating these mechanisms in our ice-sheet model accelerates the expected collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet to decadal time scales …
Earth and Planetary Science Letters
Volume 412, 15 February 2015, Pages 112–121
Potential Antarctic Ice Sheet retreat driven by hydrofracturing and ice cliff failure
David Pollarda, Robert M. DeContob, Richard B. Alley
doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2014.12.035
Marcussays
Re #157
“There’s a reason why mitigation is not allowed to be discussed here.”
It could be because this is a site about client science (accounts and misconceptions of client science in the media, to be more precise)
Jasper Jaynessays
GORGIAS#157,
” However, we can still compartmentalize and do research on the climate system (or any other field of study for that matter) and publish our findings. That in itself is not an act of propagating misinformation.”
I agree. Publishing honest research is not misinformation propagation. My objection was to Kevin’s selection of performance measures that provided a skewed view of progress towards the larger objective: “Quoting electric vehicle and clean energy statistics without addressing the unabated growth in fossil fuel production and emissions, at present and for the foreseeable future, is misinformation.”
We are losing the battle for the climate, and it’s possible we may have lost the war already. None of the approaches I’ve seen recommended are commensurate with the scale of the problem. That’s the point that has to be emphasized, and re-emphasized. Further, the reality on the ground is that the USA is pursuing an ‘all-of-the-above’ energy exploitation strategy with fossil in the lead, and many other countries are following suit. We are ‘fortunate’ enough to have a wealth and diversity of energy resources such that when the barriers to exploitation are removed, we can out-produce many other nations.
I heard a presentation by Congressman Jeff Duncan (S.C.) last night, and he is pushing a concept called EXPAND. If approved, it would remove most of the remaining permitting and regulatory barriers to energy expansion, mainly fossil fuel production expansion. That’s where we’re headed. Duncan wants to open the full Atlantic continental shelf to drilling, the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, parts of Alaska, and so on. President Obama appears willing to open up some of these areas to drilling, as I mentioned in a previous post. So, when we should be cutting fossil fuel production and use rapidly, instead, we are expanding it. How can I be optimistic under such circumstances?
Ray Ladburysays
OK, Jasper. Fine. The rest of us will keep pushing toward a solution while you moan, “Oh, woe is me,” over in the corner. Don’t worry. Not everyone has the courage to work toward success even while knowing the odds are against us.
Most interesting. Because this week the exact same sort of legislation was introduced at the state level in Virginia by a Frank Wagner (R-Virginia Beach), a state senator. Clearly this is not just a coincidence. It is highly likely that the common denominator is ALEC/the Koch Brothers, who are huge sources of denialist funding. Not only do they lobby but they go quite further by actually writing the draft legislation for the politicians who they generously contribute to as well. Obviously they have made a strategic push this week at the state and federal level. Too bad the media does not want to report this obvious collusion.
Not whingeing in public is a good start toward that.
Readers here can’t fix your despair.
This site isn’t all about you (or me).
“Don’t mourn. Organize.”
Work is happening. Personally, I always recommend Eco-Equity, because I know some of those folks and they’re making sense (their site for a while was listed in the right sidebar, it’s not listed now, dunno why);
Don’t like their work? Pick another opportunity. YMMV.
If you haven’t read the sites listed under “Other Opinions” in the right sidebar, you should make the effort. Work may not make you optimistic, but work ameliorates pessimism.
This site is about climate science, learning that, which most of us need to do. Cheer up; remember — while some seven billion people are going to die within the next hundred years, all of us can leave the world better off (or not, of course) where we live. That’s a lot of opportunity to improve the place. Do it while we’re here.
SecularAnimistsays
The mutually-flattering defeatist dialog between “GORGIAS” and “Jasper Jaynes” has an eerie resemblance to the similar dialog between “DIOGENES” and his “admirer” that took over the comment threads on this site for several months, starting around this time last year — complete with the accusations that the moderators’ policy that mitigation is off-topic is really intended to censor comments about how really hopeless it all is, and that anyone who mentions the potential of renewable energy and efficiency to rapidly reduce emissions is presenting “misinformation”.
“The rest of us will keep pushing toward a solution”
If I believed that’s what the collective ‘you’ were doing, I wouldn’t be making these comments. However, from the recommendations that were posted when mitigation discussion was allowed, my impression was that the commenters were using an Abacus for a problem that required a Cray.
It took the whole hundred thousand day length and breadth of the Industrial Revolution to get the rate of warming up out of the single digits in micro-K per day.
However much emotional capital you have invested in immanentizing the matter, at 30, or for that matter 50 microkelvins a day it takes rather a long while to boil a frog,
Jasper Jaynessays
Dan#163,
” Too bad the media does not want to report this obvious collusion.”
It goes far beyond the media. There is a troika of industry-government-media collusion that perverts all areas of science and technology, some far more than others.
Case in point. The role of MMR vacc#ine in aut#ism has been subjected to acrimonious debate for decades. In 2001, the CDC did a detailed study to evaluate the potential linkage. They reported finding no linkage, and, in 2004, published their results in the journal Pediatrics. One of the authors was William Thompson, a CDC researcher. On 27 August 2014, Thompson issued a statement through his lawyer that he had deliberately excluded some data that would have showed a linkage. His co-authors, most of whom were executives at different levels of CDC, knew of this, but kept silent. An email that he had sent to Director, CDC, informing her of the data manipulation, was subsequently uncovered. The Director did nothing.
One would think all the major media would be standing in line to investigate and report this cover-up. Unfortunately, there has been a complete mainstream media blackout. The information comes through the blogs, and, like climate change, there are a few blogs that disseminate fact, and many that disseminate fiction.
What makes this case so egregious is the following. In typical cases of research fraud, there tends to be a rogue researcher who fabricates data. The fraud is usually uncovered when others try to replicate the data and fail, or they notice the same data appearing in myriad papers being represented as new findings. In the CDC case, it was not one lone rogue researcher, but many people throughout the chain of command, including the Director. Additionally, rogue researchers never voluntarily come forward and admit fraud; they usually have to be ‘flushed out’. In the CDC case, the researcher came forward and admitted guilt.
Given the breadth of the collusion, one can ask the following questions. Was the data that Thompson admitted covering up the only data on the study that was covered up? What other studies were manipulated in a similar manner, with the approval of myriad levels of management? What can we trust from the CDC? Is the CDC the only government agency involved in such practices? We can’t answer these questions, because, if there are cover-ups taking place, the miscreants will typically not come forward like Thompson and admit guilt.
My own belief is that anything is possible among the three-headed monster of industry-government-media, and I am open to the idea that major conspiracies to hide or skew data are possible, as in the CDC case. That’s why it is impossible to provide a credible response to the question Chuck Hughes has been raising about how bad could the climate change consequences be given our present actions. Neither industry nor government nor the media want to be the bearers of really bad news, and it is within the realm of possibility that there is a blackout on the true nature of where we are headed.
wilisays
Excuse me, but since when is stating facts as one sees them, however grim they may be, the same as ‘whining’ or ‘moaning “Woe is me”?
Much of the science presented here is very grim. Are the scientists then to be characterized as ‘whining’ and ‘moaning’?
#169–Wili, pretty much by definition projections are not facts, and “we are going to blow by all warming milestones and die miserably” is clearly in the realm of the former, not the latter.
Ralph Snydersays
A couple of times I’ve run into a comment like:
“At about 20m above the surface, the temperature MUST be the same as surface temperature because our climate system operates to minimise net surface IR warming of the Atmosphere, and radiation entropy production rate..
Figure 2.5 of Houghton’s ‘Physics of Atmospheres’ explains how and why.”
Despite looking diligently, I can find nothing on the subject.
Does anyone have any insight?
Mal Adaptedsays
One would think all the major media would be standing in line to investigate and report this cover-up. Unfortunately, there has been a complete mainstream media blackout.
The information comes through the blogs, and, like climate change, there are a few blogs that disseminate fact, and many that disseminate fiction.
Hmm, you’ve got Age of Autism making their case against vaccines from post hoc ergo propter hoc, and Respectful Insolence arguing on the basis of actual evidence. How did you choose which one to believe? RealClimate readers can decide for themselves, but I’ll go with science.
GORGIASsays
#165 SecularAnimist
Is it really that hard to imagine that people react differently to the same information that is presented here and elsewhere? If it’s your contention that the collective human attitude is going to make a U-turn in the next couple of years, I welcome you to it. I just can’t reconcile the dire predictions and the reality of a world full of people and peoples who throughout history have made it a point to not get along, to never passed up an opportunity to better themselves at the expense of others and to be more than happy to act like there’s no tomorrow.
I’m generally an upbeat guy, I suffer no depression or ill wish against our species, but at some point one just can’t deny anymore that there’s something seriously defective at the core of our collective psyche, assuming even that there is such a thing.
If it’s your contention that these thoughts have no place in the Unforced Variations section of this website, that indeed is up for debate. But that didn’t seem to be your objection.
Regarding the resemblance in sentiment over the objective of the non mitigation guideline and screen names, that’s obviously not a coincidence, even though I’m not that other Greek Philosopher. I’m also not a sock puppet of Jasper, or the other way around, if that was implied. The Gorgias screen name was/is just a little jab at sarcasm as he is often associated with nihilism.
The reason I suspect there may be other reasons for banning mitigation discussion than what is stated to be the reasons, simply stems from the idea that it would be completely logical to do so if such discussions would undermine the credibility of the compartmentalized efforts to better our understanding of climate system dynamics. But I would be the first to admit that I could be completely wrong about that since that’s merely conjecture.
SecularAnimist says:
The mutually-flattering defeatist dialog between “GORGIAS” and “Jasper Jaynes” has an eerie resemblance to the similar dialog between “DIOGENES” and his “admirer” …
+1
GORGIASsays
#162 Rad ladbury
Exactly who do you think you are speaking for? I have yet to come across a single person, outside of internet fora, who vaguely expressed a hart felt concern about Global Warming if they even acknowledged the issue at all. And Frankly, the delusion that the average Joe has got influence on the course of this matter, is becoming increasingly insulting to have to read.
The science tells us Draconian measures are needed to avoid a fair bit of catastrophe. No Draconian measures are being undertaken at this point in time. No indication as towards a change in this attitude is foreseeable on any relevant time scale.
Smoking increases the chance of getting cancer.
What on Earth is controversial about any of that?
Tony Weddlesays
Ray, just to be clear, when you say “working towards a solution”, are you really talking about a solution (as in, the problem is solved and we can now carry on as before with everything returning to what we’ve come to think of as normal) or a response to a predicament, that could, perhaps, slow the deterioration or stop it becoming as bad as it appears to be getting? I’m just thinking that if there is no “solution”, then working towards one is a bit of a waste of time. However, working towards a rational approach to our predicament is a different behaviour that might prove to have some worth.
One phrase keeps popping up, whether it’s scientists offering opinions or science writers/bloggers offering opinions: “it’s still not too late but we must act now”. As I’ve been hearing or reading that phrase for many years, I’m not quite sure what the word “now” is supposed to mean.
Gavin, a pointer would be welcome to any discussion of the SMAP data and its uses, if that’s going on anywhere that we of the peanut gallery can watch/read it.
The SMAP data will help characterize the relationship between soil moisture, its freeze/thaw state, and the associated environmental constraints to ecosystem processes including land-atmosphere carbon, water and energy exchange, and vegetation productivity. Soil moisture is a key control on evaporation and transpiration at the land-atmosphere boundary. Since large amounts of energy are required to vaporize water, soil control on evaporation and transpiration also has a significant impact on the surface energy fluxes. Therefore, soil moisture variations affect the evolution of weather and climate over continental regions. Initialization of numerical weather prediction (NWP) models and seasonal climate models with correct soil moisture information enhances their prediction skill and extends their skillful lead-times….
…
… The SMAP mission concept includes an L-band radiometer and an L-band high-resolution radar that share a single feedhorn and parabolic mesh reflector. The radar operates with VV, HH, and HV/VH transmit-receive polarizations, and uses separate transmit frequencies for the H (1.26 GHz) and V (1.29 GHz) polarizations. The radiometer operates with V, H and U (third Stokes parameter) polarizations at 1.41 GHz. The reflector is offset from nadir and rotates about the nadir axis at 13.0 rpm, providing a conically scanning antenna beam with a surface incidence angle of approximately 40º. The reflector diameter is approximately 6 m, providing a radiometer footprint of about 40 km defined by the one-way 3 dB beamwidth.
I watched the launch just now — live from the front porch, visible in the southern sky from northern California as it climbed out toward the south from Vandenburg, leaving a high white contrail in the otherwise cloudless dawn sky.
We’re not completely stupid. Some of the tools we build can make us smarter.
How soon will we see the soil moisture data showing up in models?
How complicated is it when you add in observations with added detail like this to an existing model?
Ray Ladburysays
Jasper Jaynes (shorter): Concern troll is concerned.
… listen to climate scientists, instead, we find more than enough justification for immediate action on climate change without resorting to sci-fi-like exaggeration. And action would be a lot more productive than sitting around waiting for an extinction that isn’t going to show up on the date circled on your calendar.
Reality — facts you can cite to good science sources — is plenty scary.
The climate scientists and ecologists are working damned hard.
I suppose you could insist they wear T-shirts like those the bomb disposal guys favor, that say “If I’m running, follow me fast ….”
But, seriously, we know that already. They are. We should.
GORGIAS wrote: “The science tells us Draconian measures are needed to avoid a fair bit of catastrophe. No Draconian measures are being undertaken at this point in time.”
OK, that’s pretty much word-for-word verbatim boilerplate from last year’s DIOGENES, and from a similarly named commenter who posted the same repetitive stuff for weeks on end at ClimateProgress. Are we in for another few months of such stuff?
With all due respect, GORGIAS, what is your freaking point? Resistance is futile, there’s nothing that can be done, and if there is then it won’t be done, and it’s all over, it’s all hopeless, anybody who says otherwise is deluded or a liar (have you gotten to the “windmill salesmen” part of your script yet?).
But SO WHAT? What are YOU going to about it? Whine? If all you have to offer is this WHINING, then please take it somewhere else. It’s just an annoying, boring noise.
GORGIASsays
#161 JJ
Strictly speaking, you are in error. To not mention the negative side effect of e.g. a plasma screen in terms of raising figures on the utility bill when comparing the output quality of different visual media, is also not a case of furthering misinformation. But I take your complaint to be more general in the sense that a more negative outlook on the whole AGW issue and/or mitigation is lacking in this forum.
One could say that such an observation borders on trolling. Without going into depths over the stated purpose of the Unforced Variations discussion forum, first and foremost this is an outlet for the climate science community, clearly revolving around the more current research in that field of study. If this was a website dedicated to financial investment, a post complaining about the lack of warranty of a total global financial collapse alongside every investment admonition, wouldn’t come across as entirely sincere either.
Other than that, yes, it does seem like a hopeless cause. Like I said, that’s hardly controversial.
Edward Greischsays
169 Jasper Jaynes: There can be legitimate reasons for excluding data. There is a statistical test for removing extreme outliers. If such outliers are found, it is best to examine the system/apparatus to find out what caused the problem. Generally, one finds that there is a failed component in the machinery or for some other reason there is reason to say that the excluded data has been corrupted. There is no reason to claim that there was fraud just because corrupted data was excluded.
Jasper Jaynessays
Gorgias#174,
“there may be other reasons for banning mitigation discussion”
The main reason for banning mitigation discussion seems straight-forward to me. There has been no meaningful mitigation in the past, there is no meaningful mitigation at present, and there are no proposals for meaningful mitigation on the table. What’s the purpose of discussing a non-entity? Mitigation is a smoke-screen; adaptation is where we are, and where we are headed. Sandy and Katrina came and went, and we ended up re-building in place, only higher and stronger. Climate science will not serve mitigation; climate science will serve the implementation of adaption.
“The Earth is hurtling towards disaster and up to half of all species on the planet may be extinct in 100 years’ time, a leading biologist has warned.
“If we keep on doing what we are doing, by the end of the century our planet will really be a pretty horrendous place”
Professor Pimm
Stuart Pimm, a Professor of Conservation Ecology at Duke University, USA, has conducted research into major extinction events throughout history, including the last great extinction 65 million years ago when a huge asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs.
“When you look at the range of unsustainable things that we are doing to the planet,” Professor Pimm told Reuters, “changing the atmosphere, global warming, massively depleting fisheries, driving species to extinction, we realize that we have a decade or two. If we keep on doing what we are doing, by the end of the century our planet will really be a pretty horrendous place.”
Expect the unexpected when you least expect it and you’ll be fully prepared.
Jasper Jaynessays
Edward#188,
“There can be legitimate reasons for excluding data.”
No question, but that’s not what happened in the case at point. Further discussion has been deemed ‘off topic’, so I will not go into further detail.
Jasper Jaynessays
Hank#181,
Your referenced article contains the following:
” “The physical knowledge that too-tall cliffs fail is very old and familiar to every miner or quarry-worker. The physical knowledge that ice is not the strongest rock on the planet is also rather old. And, the suggestion that cliff failure could affect West Antarctic stability dates back to 1962,” Alley wrote.”
So, ‘cliff failure’ is many decades old, and hydrofracturing is not exactly a new topic. Yet, these physical processes, which could provide a much better picture of how precarious our climate situation really is, are only now being inserted into the ice models? And, all the major known carbon feedbacks have yet to be inserted into the climate models? Where is the William Thompson (see #169) of climate science who will admit how bad the situation really is, and will admit the impotence of presently-proposed mitigation for addressing the real climate change problem?
Jasper Jaynessays
Gorgias#187,
“But I take your complaint to be more general in the sense that a more negative outlook on the whole AGW issue and/or mitigation is lacking in this forum.”
I’m not interested in a more negative, positive, pessimistic, or optimistic outlook in this forum. I’m interested in seeing the full spectrum of facts laid out so that the reader can make fact-based decisions. What I see for the most part are e.g. posts like #134: ” analysts are almost uniformly in agreement that that will not slow the progress of clean electrical generation, and most think it won’t even slow down the progress of electric vehicles in the marketplace.” That’s not only one-sided, it’s the exposition of the least meaningful ‘facts’. We will succeed or fail in arresting climate change if we have been able to bring carbon fuel usage, carbon emissions, and atmospheric carbon concentrations under control. When all I see are the latter three measures continually increasing, that’s what’s important, not the two irrelevancies mentioned in #134.
” yes, it does seem like a hopeless cause. Like I said, that’s hardly controversial.”
Based on the facts, it should not be controversial at all. However, what we see here is ‘manufactured controversy’, what I call the ‘Audacity of (manufactured) Hope’. Maybe the ‘Audacity of Hype’ would be even more descriptive! The arrows that count are all headed in the wrong direction, and nothing I have seen so far will reverse that.
Earth’s energy imbalance since 1960 in observations and CMIP5 models
Doug M. Smith, Richard P. Allan, Andrew C. Coward, Rosie Eade1, Patrick Hyder, Chunlei Liu, Norman G. Loeb, Matthew D. Palmer, Chris D. Roberts and Adam A. Scaife1
Mitigation is engineering. This is a science blog. Many people confuse engineering and science, but not us. It is what philosophers call the category mistake. Others confuse engineering with public policy. The problem is to keep the categories sorted out so that scientists do science, engineers do engineering and politicians and others do no more and no less than policy narrowly defined.
There is a language problem. The public does not know how to ask for what it really wants. Somebody has to help with the translation.
#189–“There has been no meaningful mitigation in the past, there is no meaningful mitigation at present, and there are no proposals for meaningful mitigation on the table.”
Unless you are going to use “meaningful” for a weasel word, that statement is flatly untrue:
GORGIAS wrote: “I suspect there may be other reasons for banning mitigation discussion than what is stated to be the reasons”
This is nothing but conspiracy theorizing. You are accusing the moderators of this site of deliberately lying to cover up their actual “reasons” for making mitigation off-topic in discussions here. This is nonsense and trollery.
The folks who give generously of their time to make this site possible are climate scientists and they want to keep discussion focused on their area of expertise and the reason for this site’s existence, which is climate science.
THAT is why the moderators want to keep discussions focused on climate science, rather than on subjects like the technology and economics of phasing out fossil fueled electricity generation, where they have no particular expertise to offer, and no interest in baby-sitting ill-informed and often ill-mannered arguments.
Smothered oceans: Extreme oxygen loss in oceans accompanied past global climate change
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/01/150128152155.htm
Something similar noticeable in Pacific Northwest fisheries.
Ray#149,
” So the rest of us will continue working toward a solution while you quietly slit your wrists over in the corner?”
I see little difference with respect to the final outcome of my accepting the inevitable and your furiously running in place on a treadmill. Perhaps the endorphins you generate in the process will make you feel better, but at this stage, I see little impact (on the climate measures that count) of the people who collectively are ‘working toward a solution’.
It’s no mystery as to why. Only vague definitions of where we need to go have been offered (other than to rapidly reduce fossil fuel use), and I have yet to see an approach offered that will produce a ‘sea change’ in fossil fuel use and associated emissions. Iyo has it right: ” we wouldn’t do anything about it if we could”, and not one responder to my initial post has convinced me otherwise.
#151–I was surprised to see that result in connection with the most recent deglaciation. Another reason for the caution and prudence that seems in such short supply.
Jasper Jaynes, with all due respect, your comments are as ill-informed about ongoing efforts to address the global warming problem as the comments of deniers are ill-informed about the reality and severity of the problem.
You can be part of the solution — or you can embrace defeatism, do nothing, and be part of the problem. It’s your choice.
> I see little difference
between two strawman alternatives; you’re restricting options to bad choices.
> I see little impact
nor does anyone, yet; warming will go on even at best and sea level will rise no matter how well we do.
> Only vague definitions
Stop burning carbon
> I have yet to see
Fortunately the people with money to invest have begun doing so
http://www.wri.org/publication/avoiding-bioenergy-competition-food-crops-and-land
Has anyone pointed out that people proclaiming something can’t be done usually try to stand in the way of people who are actually doing it?
Human behavior is odd, except when delay is profitable.
Re- Comment by Jasper Jaynes — 29 Jan 2015 @ 11:44 AM, ~#152
Okay Jasper, I get it that you don’t see how to get from here to there, so what is your purpose for posting fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD)? What is gained? Why bother?
Steve
#Jasper Jaynes
I can’t imagine that any sane person could still believe that the current approach, for want of a better term, to tackling this issue is going to prevent a 2 degree rise in global mean temp. And if that already arbitrary target is gone, everything that is discussed within that 2 degree framework (which ironically includes a 3 degree target) is out the window as well. However, we can still compartmentalize and do research on the climate system (or any other field of study for that matter) and publish our findings. That in itself is not an act of propagating misinformation.
There’s a reason why mitigation is not allowed to be discussed here. If anything, there’s actually a glimmer of honesty to be found in that guideline even though it’s claimed to be in place for purposes of reducing noise, drama and what have you in the forums.
Could anyone who’s worked with Peter Ward’s studies comment on how this overlaps his work and other earlier work along these lines?
Journal Reference:
Sarah E. Moffitt, Russell A. Moffitt, Wilson Sauthoff, Catherine V. Davis, Kathryn Hewett, Tessa M. Hill. Paleoceanographic Insights on Recent Oxygen Minimum Zone Expansion: Lessons for Modern Oceanography. PLOS ONE, 2015; 10 (1): e0115246 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0115246
Cite Page:
University of California – Davis. “Smothered oceans: Extreme oxygen loss in oceans accompanied past global climate change.” ScienceDaily, 28 January 2015.
Remember when “glacially” meant “slowly”?
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X14007961
Earth and Planetary Science Letters
Volume 412, 15 February 2015, Pages 112–121
Potential Antarctic Ice Sheet retreat driven by hydrofracturing and ice cliff failure
David Pollarda, Robert M. DeContob, Richard B. Alley
doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2014.12.035
Re #157
“There’s a reason why mitigation is not allowed to be discussed here.”
It could be because this is a site about client science (accounts and misconceptions of client science in the media, to be more precise)
GORGIAS#157,
” However, we can still compartmentalize and do research on the climate system (or any other field of study for that matter) and publish our findings. That in itself is not an act of propagating misinformation.”
I agree. Publishing honest research is not misinformation propagation. My objection was to Kevin’s selection of performance measures that provided a skewed view of progress towards the larger objective: “Quoting electric vehicle and clean energy statistics without addressing the unabated growth in fossil fuel production and emissions, at present and for the foreseeable future, is misinformation.”
We are losing the battle for the climate, and it’s possible we may have lost the war already. None of the approaches I’ve seen recommended are commensurate with the scale of the problem. That’s the point that has to be emphasized, and re-emphasized. Further, the reality on the ground is that the USA is pursuing an ‘all-of-the-above’ energy exploitation strategy with fossil in the lead, and many other countries are following suit. We are ‘fortunate’ enough to have a wealth and diversity of energy resources such that when the barriers to exploitation are removed, we can out-produce many other nations.
I heard a presentation by Congressman Jeff Duncan (S.C.) last night, and he is pushing a concept called EXPAND. If approved, it would remove most of the remaining permitting and regulatory barriers to energy expansion, mainly fossil fuel production expansion. That’s where we’re headed. Duncan wants to open the full Atlantic continental shelf to drilling, the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, parts of Alaska, and so on. President Obama appears willing to open up some of these areas to drilling, as I mentioned in a previous post. So, when we should be cutting fossil fuel production and use rapidly, instead, we are expanding it. How can I be optimistic under such circumstances?
OK, Jasper. Fine. The rest of us will keep pushing toward a solution while you moan, “Oh, woe is me,” over in the corner. Don’t worry. Not everyone has the courage to work toward success even while knowing the odds are against us.
re: 161. “I heard a presentation by Congressman Jeff Duncan (S.C.) last night, and he is pushing a concept called EXPAND. If approved, it would remove most of the remaining permitting and regulatory barriers to energy expansion, mainly fossil fuel production expansion.” – See more at: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/01/unforced-variations-jan-2015/comment-page-4/#comment-624392
Most interesting. Because this week the exact same sort of legislation was introduced at the state level in Virginia by a Frank Wagner (R-Virginia Beach), a state senator. Clearly this is not just a coincidence. It is highly likely that the common denominator is ALEC/the Koch Brothers, who are huge sources of denialist funding. Not only do they lobby but they go quite further by actually writing the draft legislation for the politicians who they generously contribute to as well. Obviously they have made a strategic push this week at the state and federal level. Too bad the media does not want to report this obvious collusion.
Yep, that’s a fact, for most values of “we”
Yep, that’s a fact, for most values of “we”
No surprises so far.
Not whingeing in public is a good start toward that.
Readers here can’t fix your despair.
This site isn’t all about you (or me).
“Don’t mourn. Organize.”
Work is happening. Personally, I always recommend Eco-Equity, because I know some of those folks and they’re making sense (their site for a while was listed in the right sidebar, it’s not listed now, dunno why);
Don’t like their work? Pick another opportunity. YMMV.
If you haven’t read the sites listed under “Other Opinions” in the right sidebar, you should make the effort. Work may not make you optimistic, but work ameliorates pessimism.
This site is about climate science, learning that, which most of us need to do. Cheer up; remember — while some seven billion people are going to die within the next hundred years, all of us can leave the world better off (or not, of course) where we live. That’s a lot of opportunity to improve the place. Do it while we’re here.
The mutually-flattering defeatist dialog between “GORGIAS” and “Jasper Jaynes” has an eerie resemblance to the similar dialog between “DIOGENES” and his “admirer” that took over the comment threads on this site for several months, starting around this time last year — complete with the accusations that the moderators’ policy that mitigation is off-topic is really intended to censor comments about how really hopeless it all is, and that anyone who mentions the potential of renewable energy and efficiency to rapidly reduce emissions is presenting “misinformation”.
“The poll found that 83 percent of Americans, including 61 percent of Republicans and 86 percent of independents, say that if nothing is done to reduce emissions, global warming will be a very or somewhat serious problem in the future.” http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/31/us/politics/most-americans-support-government-action-on-climate-change-poll-finds.html
Ray#162,
“The rest of us will keep pushing toward a solution”
If I believed that’s what the collective ‘you’ were doing, I wouldn’t be making these comments. However, from the recommendations that were posted when mitigation discussion was allowed, my impression was that the commenters were using an Abacus for a problem that required a Cray.
16:
Chill, Ray.
It took the whole hundred thousand day length and breadth of the Industrial Revolution to get the rate of warming up out of the single digits in micro-K per day.
However much emotional capital you have invested in immanentizing the matter, at 30, or for that matter 50 microkelvins a day it takes rather a long while to boil a frog,
Dan#163,
” Too bad the media does not want to report this obvious collusion.”
It goes far beyond the media. There is a troika of industry-government-media collusion that perverts all areas of science and technology, some far more than others.
Case in point. The role of MMR vacc#ine in aut#ism has been subjected to acrimonious debate for decades. In 2001, the CDC did a detailed study to evaluate the potential linkage. They reported finding no linkage, and, in 2004, published their results in the journal Pediatrics. One of the authors was William Thompson, a CDC researcher. On 27 August 2014, Thompson issued a statement through his lawyer that he had deliberately excluded some data that would have showed a linkage. His co-authors, most of whom were executives at different levels of CDC, knew of this, but kept silent. An email that he had sent to Director, CDC, informing her of the data manipulation, was subsequently uncovered. The Director did nothing.
One would think all the major media would be standing in line to investigate and report this cover-up. Unfortunately, there has been a complete mainstream media blackout. The information comes through the blogs, and, like climate change, there are a few blogs that disseminate fact, and many that disseminate fiction.
What makes this case so egregious is the following. In typical cases of research fraud, there tends to be a rogue researcher who fabricates data. The fraud is usually uncovered when others try to replicate the data and fail, or they notice the same data appearing in myriad papers being represented as new findings. In the CDC case, it was not one lone rogue researcher, but many people throughout the chain of command, including the Director. Additionally, rogue researchers never voluntarily come forward and admit fraud; they usually have to be ‘flushed out’. In the CDC case, the researcher came forward and admitted guilt.
Given the breadth of the collusion, one can ask the following questions. Was the data that Thompson admitted covering up the only data on the study that was covered up? What other studies were manipulated in a similar manner, with the approval of myriad levels of management? What can we trust from the CDC? Is the CDC the only government agency involved in such practices? We can’t answer these questions, because, if there are cover-ups taking place, the miscreants will typically not come forward like Thompson and admit guilt.
My own belief is that anything is possible among the three-headed monster of industry-government-media, and I am open to the idea that major conspiracies to hide or skew data are possible, as in the CDC case. That’s why it is impossible to provide a credible response to the question Chuck Hughes has been raising about how bad could the climate change consequences be given our present actions. Neither industry nor government nor the media want to be the bearers of really bad news, and it is within the realm of possibility that there is a blackout on the true nature of where we are headed.
Excuse me, but since when is stating facts as one sees them, however grim they may be, the same as ‘whining’ or ‘moaning “Woe is me”?
Much of the science presented here is very grim. Are the scientists then to be characterized as ‘whining’ and ‘moaning’?
#169–Wili, pretty much by definition projections are not facts, and “we are going to blow by all warming milestones and die miserably” is clearly in the realm of the former, not the latter.
A couple of times I’ve run into a comment like:
“At about 20m above the surface, the temperature MUST be the same as surface temperature because our climate system operates to minimise net surface IR warming of the Atmosphere, and radiation entropy production rate..
Figure 2.5 of Houghton’s ‘Physics of Atmospheres’ explains how and why.”
Despite looking diligently, I can find nothing on the subject.
Does anyone have any insight?
You don’t think CNN counts as mainstream media?
You mean like Andrew Wakefield, whose Autism Media Channel made the video in which Thompson’s allegations were first disclosed, without Thompson’s knowledge?
Hmm, you’ve got Age of Autism making their case against vaccines from post hoc ergo propter hoc, and Respectful Insolence arguing on the basis of actual evidence. How did you choose which one to believe? RealClimate readers can decide for themselves, but I’ll go with science.
#165 SecularAnimist
Is it really that hard to imagine that people react differently to the same information that is presented here and elsewhere? If it’s your contention that the collective human attitude is going to make a U-turn in the next couple of years, I welcome you to it. I just can’t reconcile the dire predictions and the reality of a world full of people and peoples who throughout history have made it a point to not get along, to never passed up an opportunity to better themselves at the expense of others and to be more than happy to act like there’s no tomorrow.
I’m generally an upbeat guy, I suffer no depression or ill wish against our species, but at some point one just can’t deny anymore that there’s something seriously defective at the core of our collective psyche, assuming even that there is such a thing.
If it’s your contention that these thoughts have no place in the Unforced Variations section of this website, that indeed is up for debate. But that didn’t seem to be your objection.
Regarding the resemblance in sentiment over the objective of the non mitigation guideline and screen names, that’s obviously not a coincidence, even though I’m not that other Greek Philosopher. I’m also not a sock puppet of Jasper, or the other way around, if that was implied. The Gorgias screen name was/is just a little jab at sarcasm as he is often associated with nihilism.
The reason I suspect there may be other reasons for banning mitigation discussion than what is stated to be the reasons, simply stems from the idea that it would be completely logical to do so if such discussions would undermine the credibility of the compartmentalized efforts to better our understanding of climate system dynamics. But I would be the first to admit that I could be completely wrong about that since that’s merely conjecture.
+1
#162 Rad ladbury
Exactly who do you think you are speaking for? I have yet to come across a single person, outside of internet fora, who vaguely expressed a hart felt concern about Global Warming if they even acknowledged the issue at all. And Frankly, the delusion that the average Joe has got influence on the course of this matter, is becoming increasingly insulting to have to read.
The science tells us Draconian measures are needed to avoid a fair bit of catastrophe. No Draconian measures are being undertaken at this point in time. No indication as towards a change in this attitude is foreseeable on any relevant time scale.
Smoking increases the chance of getting cancer.
What on Earth is controversial about any of that?
Ray, just to be clear, when you say “working towards a solution”, are you really talking about a solution (as in, the problem is solved and we can now carry on as before with everything returning to what we’ve come to think of as normal) or a response to a predicament, that could, perhaps, slow the deterioration or stop it becoming as bad as it appears to be getting? I’m just thinking that if there is no “solution”, then working towards one is a bit of a waste of time. However, working towards a rational approach to our predicament is a different behaviour that might prove to have some worth.
One phrase keeps popping up, whether it’s scientists offering opinions or science writers/bloggers offering opinions: “it’s still not too late but we must act now”. As I’ve been hearing or reading that phrase for many years, I’m not quite sure what the word “now” is supposed to mean.
Gavin, a pointer would be welcome to any discussion of the SMAP data and its uses, if that’s going on anywhere that we of the peanut gallery can watch/read it.
I watched the launch just now — live from the front porch, visible in the southern sky from northern California as it climbed out toward the south from Vandenburg, leaving a high white contrail in the otherwise cloudless dawn sky.
We’re not completely stupid. Some of the tools we build can make us smarter.
How soon will we see the soil moisture data showing up in models?
How complicated is it when you add in observations with added detail like this to an existing model?
Jasper Jaynes (shorter): Concern troll is concerned.
PS for Wili and JJ and GOR, this answer comes from science blogger Scott Johnson:
Reality — facts you can cite to good science sources — is plenty scary.
The climate scientists and ecologists are working damned hard.
I suppose you could insist they wear T-shirts like those the bomb disposal guys favor, that say “If I’m running, follow me fast ….”
But, seriously, we know that already. They are. We should.
Oh, you _want_ scary?
http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/01/updated-ice-sheet-model-matches-wild-swings-in-past-sea-levels/
Like I said, reality is plenty scary enough.
[edit – this is way off topic and not appropriate here. Take it somewhere else]
[edit- OT]
Re- Comment by wili — 30 Jan 2015 @ 5:14 PM, ~#170
Wili, are you really unable to tell the difference between scientific projection and opinion about future societal behavior?
Steve
“I watched the launch just now” – 178
http://spaceweathergallery.com/indiv_upload.php?upload_id=108055&PHPSESSID=ldketim9fspcdu5v13hvd3si37
GORGIAS wrote: “The science tells us Draconian measures are needed to avoid a fair bit of catastrophe. No Draconian measures are being undertaken at this point in time.”
OK, that’s pretty much word-for-word verbatim boilerplate from last year’s DIOGENES, and from a similarly named commenter who posted the same repetitive stuff for weeks on end at ClimateProgress. Are we in for another few months of such stuff?
With all due respect, GORGIAS, what is your freaking point? Resistance is futile, there’s nothing that can be done, and if there is then it won’t be done, and it’s all over, it’s all hopeless, anybody who says otherwise is deluded or a liar (have you gotten to the “windmill salesmen” part of your script yet?).
But SO WHAT? What are YOU going to about it? Whine? If all you have to offer is this WHINING, then please take it somewhere else. It’s just an annoying, boring noise.
#161 JJ
Strictly speaking, you are in error. To not mention the negative side effect of e.g. a plasma screen in terms of raising figures on the utility bill when comparing the output quality of different visual media, is also not a case of furthering misinformation. But I take your complaint to be more general in the sense that a more negative outlook on the whole AGW issue and/or mitigation is lacking in this forum.
One could say that such an observation borders on trolling. Without going into depths over the stated purpose of the Unforced Variations discussion forum, first and foremost this is an outlet for the climate science community, clearly revolving around the more current research in that field of study. If this was a website dedicated to financial investment, a post complaining about the lack of warranty of a total global financial collapse alongside every investment admonition, wouldn’t come across as entirely sincere either.
Other than that, yes, it does seem like a hopeless cause. Like I said, that’s hardly controversial.
169 Jasper Jaynes: There can be legitimate reasons for excluding data. There is a statistical test for removing extreme outliers. If such outliers are found, it is best to examine the system/apparatus to find out what caused the problem. Generally, one finds that there is a failed component in the machinery or for some other reason there is reason to say that the excluded data has been corrupted. There is no reason to claim that there was fraud just because corrupted data was excluded.
Gorgias#174,
“there may be other reasons for banning mitigation discussion”
The main reason for banning mitigation discussion seems straight-forward to me. There has been no meaningful mitigation in the past, there is no meaningful mitigation at present, and there are no proposals for meaningful mitigation on the table. What’s the purpose of discussing a non-entity? Mitigation is a smoke-screen; adaptation is where we are, and where we are headed. Sandy and Katrina came and went, and we ended up re-building in place, only higher and stronger. Climate science will not serve mitigation; climate science will serve the implementation of adaption.
This is how scientists say they feel about climate change
Speaking about the future of mankind, Wilson said the living world is going to reach a tipping point where it is no longer in equilibrium.
“And when that happens, the whole thing collapses – and we collapse with it.” ~ E.O.Wilson
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/e-o-wilson-im-not-atheist-religion-should-be-eliminated-1485543
“The Earth is hurtling towards disaster and up to half of all species on the planet may be extinct in 100 years’ time, a leading biologist has warned.
“If we keep on doing what we are doing, by the end of the century our planet will really be a pretty horrendous place”
Professor Pimm
Stuart Pimm, a Professor of Conservation Ecology at Duke University, USA, has conducted research into major extinction events throughout history, including the last great extinction 65 million years ago when a huge asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs.
“When you look at the range of unsustainable things that we are doing to the planet,” Professor Pimm told Reuters, “changing the atmosphere, global warming, massively depleting fisheries, driving species to extinction, we realize that we have a decade or two. If we keep on doing what we are doing, by the end of the century our planet will really be a pretty horrendous place.”
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/earth-faces-mass-extinctions-by-2100-unless-we-change-1453716
Like I said, reality is plenty scary enough.
Comment by Hank Roberts — 31 Jan 2015
Expect the unexpected when you least expect it and you’ll be fully prepared.
Edward#188,
“There can be legitimate reasons for excluding data.”
No question, but that’s not what happened in the case at point. Further discussion has been deemed ‘off topic’, so I will not go into further detail.
Hank#181,
Your referenced article contains the following:
” “The physical knowledge that too-tall cliffs fail is very old and familiar to every miner or quarry-worker. The physical knowledge that ice is not the strongest rock on the planet is also rather old. And, the suggestion that cliff failure could affect West Antarctic stability dates back to 1962,” Alley wrote.”
So, ‘cliff failure’ is many decades old, and hydrofracturing is not exactly a new topic. Yet, these physical processes, which could provide a much better picture of how precarious our climate situation really is, are only now being inserted into the ice models? And, all the major known carbon feedbacks have yet to be inserted into the climate models? Where is the William Thompson (see #169) of climate science who will admit how bad the situation really is, and will admit the impotence of presently-proposed mitigation for addressing the real climate change problem?
Gorgias#187,
“But I take your complaint to be more general in the sense that a more negative outlook on the whole AGW issue and/or mitigation is lacking in this forum.”
I’m not interested in a more negative, positive, pessimistic, or optimistic outlook in this forum. I’m interested in seeing the full spectrum of facts laid out so that the reader can make fact-based decisions. What I see for the most part are e.g. posts like #134: ” analysts are almost uniformly in agreement that that will not slow the progress of clean electrical generation, and most think it won’t even slow down the progress of electric vehicles in the marketplace.” That’s not only one-sided, it’s the exposition of the least meaningful ‘facts’. We will succeed or fail in arresting climate change if we have been able to bring carbon fuel usage, carbon emissions, and atmospheric carbon concentrations under control. When all I see are the latter three measures continually increasing, that’s what’s important, not the two irrelevancies mentioned in #134.
” yes, it does seem like a hopeless cause. Like I said, that’s hardly controversial.”
Based on the facts, it should not be controversial at all. However, what we see here is ‘manufactured controversy’, what I call the ‘Audacity of (manufactured) Hope’. Maybe the ‘Audacity of Hype’ would be even more descriptive! The arrows that count are all headed in the wrong direction, and nothing I have seen so far will reverse that.
Earth’s energy imbalance since 1960 in observations and CMIP5 models
Doug M. Smith, Richard P. Allan, Andrew C. Coward, Rosie Eade1, Patrick Hyder, Chunlei Liu, Norman G. Loeb, Matthew D. Palmer, Chris D. Roberts and Adam A. Scaife1
DOI: 10.1002/2014GL062669
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL062669/abstract
(free full text)
Mitigation is engineering. This is a science blog. Many people confuse engineering and science, but not us. It is what philosophers call the category mistake. Others confuse engineering with public policy. The problem is to keep the categories sorted out so that scientists do science, engineers do engineering and politicians and others do no more and no less than policy narrowly defined.
There is a language problem. The public does not know how to ask for what it really wants. Somebody has to help with the translation.
#189–“There has been no meaningful mitigation in the past, there is no meaningful mitigation at present, and there are no proposals for meaningful mitigation on the table.”
Unless you are going to use “meaningful” for a weasel word, that statement is flatly untrue:
http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/g-gas/index_en.htm
GORGIAS wrote: “I suspect there may be other reasons for banning mitigation discussion than what is stated to be the reasons”
This is nothing but conspiracy theorizing. You are accusing the moderators of this site of deliberately lying to cover up their actual “reasons” for making mitigation off-topic in discussions here. This is nonsense and trollery.
The folks who give generously of their time to make this site possible are climate scientists and they want to keep discussion focused on their area of expertise and the reason for this site’s existence, which is climate science.
THAT is why the moderators want to keep discussions focused on climate science, rather than on subjects like the technology and economics of phasing out fossil fueled electricity generation, where they have no particular expertise to offer, and no interest in baby-sitting ill-informed and often ill-mannered arguments.