Yes, I’ll comment that the summary the story gives is pretty obviously slanted and inaccurate.
For example, when a proxy paleoclimate reconstruction is presented, nobody reasonable is going to say that “it showed how hard it is to create accurate climate models.” New information on paleoclimate has at best an indirect bearing on climate modeling–and certainly the quotes that follow that ‘summary’ don’t support its interpretation. In fact, I’d go so far as to call the Examiner story a hatchet job.
But thanks for the tip on the study. Now I’ll go have a look and see what it really says.
My previous, calling the Examiner piece a ‘hatchet job’–Yep, just as I suspected. It’s based on a Reuters press feed piece, but shamelessly cherry-picks to order to attack climate modeling. And it’s clearly an intentional slanting. Anything that can be used to cast doubt on the mainstream conclusions is included, with an ‘appropriate’ slant where necessary. Anything too ‘inconvenient’ is omitted.
The two leading examples of the latter:
Ljungqvist said the findings did not mean current climate change, blamed on rising man-made greenhouse gas emissions, was less of a threat than thought.
“Absolutely not,” he said, adding that the pace of warming had increased in recent years and that the 20th century was the warmest in the records.
That becomes, in the Examiner’s telling, a mere allusion to “the now-standard caveat that global warming is still occurring.” Nothing about the fact that it is just as much a threat as ever.
And this was suppressed completely:
James Renwick, of Victoria University of Wellington, said it was always hard to match century-long data with recent decades of warming.
“We know that human-induced climate change is already affecting the hydrological cycle”, he wrote, with evidence such as recent drought in Syria that he said was the worst in 900 years.
It’s also noteworthy that the original story contains not one word about the “Medieval Warm Period” or “Little Ice Age”. Apparently the reporter for the Examiner has a serious yen for the balmy days when Hubert Lamb’s work was on the cutting edge of paleoclimate study.
One last point interests me, which is the suppression of the statement from the Reuters piece that:
Variations in the sun’s output were among factors driving natural shifts in the climate in past centuries.
Was it to preserve the fiction that ‘warmists’ only ascribe to CO2 the power to affect climate, foolishly ignoring the obvious role of the sun? It’s a recurring irony that denialist literature has a tendency to mention the role of insolation mainly when accusing ‘warmists’ of ignoring it.
Thanks Kev at 150. You did think about the question hard. I appreciate that. I have thought about talking about the climate models not as good or bad, but not good enough. You pose a similar spectrum with the term useful. I will use that term. Thanks.
So, most of the models are not useful at predicting sea ice loss. That is not opinion, that is the record (link was provided above).
The Hansen et al study suggest that most of the models are not useful at predicting the rate and extent of Antarctic ice loss. I hope Hansen is wrong about that because the slr that arises per Hansen et al will really stress our species. Probably won’t bother me, but my grandkids may know that impact. That troubles me.
so, useful. that is a useful term.
Martin at 142: I appreciate your pleasant tone. Thanks for that.
On the question of posting the daily and monthly CO2 levels: Yes, the daily and even monthly readings are noisy. But within the noise, if you watch and listen closely you can tease out the trend, maybe learn something about the real state of things. by real, I mean: the CO2 ppm readings are not a measurement that can be easily tweaked or faked. They are real numbers. I think we can all agree that accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere creates a hotter planet and we probably all agree that a hotter planet is generally not useful for our species. The folks behind the website co2.earth give us this raw data. That website does provide some context for evaluating the number. Use it or not. Your choice. I think the actual trend in CO2 level is best reviewed in the context of the annual cycle of increase and decrease of CO2 ppm and that is the way that the folks behind CO2.earth present the data. Make of it what you will. It is a bit of a lark to repost that data here because the number is real and will occasionally catch someone saying well, I won’t get excited until it hits some magic number, then it’s tragicomic to hit their magic number. I have to amuse myself. I can’t always rely on others to amuse me.
Noise is relative. Think about the noise issue that plagued the radio astronomers in the last century. They kept picking up this low level noise, there were theories about the source of the noise (bird droppings on the radio telescopes was my favorite!) until someone said wait a minute, that’s not noise, that is the echo of the big bang! Important lesson: don’t stop looking at something because you think it is noisy.
and consider this from the piece from a doctoral student involved in the study, “at least part of the reason for the incomplete publication of the data might have been human nature. The Minnesota investigators had a theory that they believed in — that reducing blood cholesterol would make people healthier. Indeed, the idea was widespread and would soon be adopted by the federal government in the first dietary recommendations. So when the data they collected from the mental patients conflicted with this theory, the scientists may have been reluctant to believe what their experiment had turned up.
“The results flew in the face of what people believed at the time,” said Broste. “Everyone thought cholesterol was the culprit. This theory was so widely held and so firmly believed — and then it wasn’t borne out by the data. The question then became: Was it a bad theory? Or was it bad data? … My perception was they were hung up trying to understand the results.”
Mike: It is sometimes easier for laypersons to evaluate data than it is for the experts who are strongly invested in their theories.
I was thinking about the resistance to broad/open evaluation that happens on this and similar threads and the term “yes men” came to mind. A lot of traditional yes men were not bad people, they were just underlings/students etc. who existed in relationship to experts/authorities/mentors in a certain way that was predictably useful in many ways, especially in terms of career advancement. And to be clear and non-sexist, same applies to “yes women” though that term is not in common usage. Probably should switch to “yes folk.”
We compare the reconstructed hydroclimate anomalies with coupled atmosphere–ocean general circulation model simulations and find reasonable agreement during pre-industrial times. However, the intensification of the twentieth-century-mean hydroclimate anomalies in the simulations, as compared to previous centuries, is not supported by our new multi-proxy reconstruction.
“Reasonable agreement” is not very compatible with the Examiner’s take that ‘the models are broken.’
The precise interpretation of the second statement, though, remains unclear to me. Is it ‘not supported’ because the magnitude of variability in the reconstruction is greater than previously thought, and thus 20th-century observations are therefore relatively ‘less exceptional’? That seems in line with some of the statements in the press coverage, for example:
…”several other centuries show stronger and more widespread extremes,” lead author Fredrik Ljungqvist of Stockholm University told Reuters. “We can’t say it’s more extreme now.”
But that seems a bit dicey to me. Given that the anthropogenic warming signal seems retrospectively to have emerged around 1970, what are the chances that we’d have enough ‘signal’ in 20th-century mean value to be detectible, even if the effect of an intensifying hydrological cycle is actually happening? If, for example, you did 50-year means instead of 100-year ones, what would the period from 1960-2010 look like in the context of the Ljungqvist et al. reconstruction?
Richard Caldwellsays
KevinMcKinney: For you, it appears that climate models are ‘unsound’ if they get anything wrong about anything at any timescale.
Richard: I don’t think so. To me on a very generous day, a “sound” model will produce results using today’s code and initial conditions with tomorrows knowledge of forcings and results, and get within perhaps double the error bars. If you’re off by more than twice what you said you might be off, your model is definitely unsound. On a more strict day, I’d say if your error bounds are broken, your model is seriously flawed.
If you complain that too much is unknown (beyond forcings, of course), then widen your error bars to reflect reality, duh.
The Advertising Standards Canada ‘watchdog’ group evaluates FUD, after receiving 96 complaints:
“The ASC said one billboard featured the claim “The Sun is The Main Driver of Climate Change. Not You. Not CO2,” while the other said “Global Warming Stopped Naturally 16+ Years Ago.”
The watchdog said it found that “the categorical and unequivocal claims made in both advertisements could not be supported by the preponderance of current evidence on the matters in dispute.” It also said the ad about the sun omitted relevant information.”
CO2 at 408.97, kinda high, but headed in the right direction after the record of 409.34 set on April 10th. Where are those pesky molecules coming from?
It is easy to be misled. It’s hard to be be informed. I appreciate this group for its ability with the information step (except for the usual suspects whose true objective is to sow seeds of doubt).
Stay cool,friends, Getting some sunshine on the solar panel array this morning, lovely day, much to be thankful for.
Mike
Robin Johnsonsays
@145 Zebra – I hope you’re right.
Consider this…
In the old days, farmers kept 1-2 years worth of food in storage against bad harvests. People starved when they had three bad harvests in a row (war, weather and disease). Modern agriculture and the ability to move surplus grain and rice at will across the globe has resulted in a situation where there is less than 3 months of food reserves globally. Food disruption has been the impetus to many revolutions in the past. Ironically, in most cases – excess food was available – but it was withheld causing catastrophes and toppling of governments.
Jared Diamond showed the Rwanda genocide was motivated in part for a competition over limited food resources. Millions starved under incompetent and uncaring Communist governments. The current Syrian refugee crises was fueled in part by a four-year drought that drove a rebellion.
If a serious disruption occurs – and there is no reason to think it is impossible – the suffering will be grave. There might not be the political will or for a major disruption not enough resources. The threat is very real. Will humanity be destroyed – of course not, but South Asia is ripe for catastrophe. Just like the housing and market crises – they come quickly and suddenly when everyone thought everything was *fine* and sustainable – despite evidence to the contrary…
#153, mike–Thanks. I wouldn’t agree, FWIW, that “most of the models are not useful at predicting sea ice loss.” As discussed in the link below (Overland & Wang, 2013), models may under predict the rate of ice loss: “Recent data and expert opinion should be considered in addition to model results to advance the very likely timing for future sea ice loss to the first half of the 21st century, with a possibility of major loss within a decade or two.”
However, model results indicating that we are likely to see an ice-free summer Arctic in the years following 2040 are nonetheless useful. They should be considered in connection with the other two methods Overland and Wang discuss–extrapolation of trends, and estimation via probabilities and effects of further sudden loss events such as we saw in 2007 and 2012. Overland and Wang do just that to arrive at the estimate given above–essentially 2025-2050.
Modeling also is useful in that it gives a physical picture of *how* the melting happens at a specific physical level, in the sense that one can look at all the related changes that accompany the ice loss–circulation changes, atmospheric response, oceanic response, and so on.
To me on a very generous day, a “sound” model will produce results using today’s code and initial conditions with tomorrows knowledge of forcings and results, and get within perhaps double the error bars.
Are you trying to say that, IYHO, to judge model ‘soundness’ one should take original projections and error bars for today, correct for actual forcings that are known to have occurred, and see whether you get outcomes within twice the original projected error bars?
If so, I’d have formulated it “yesterday’s code and today’s knowledge,” but YMMV, I suppose.
I don’t think it’s quite that simple, always–for instance, in the global mean surface temperature record, how do we treat variability, given that the usual reference isn’t one realization of temperature, but rather the ensemble mean? In RC model/obs comparisons past, the standard has been the 95% confidence interval around the mean. Observations are well within that envelope, though they were flirting with the lower bound a couple of years back.
I mention that because that is the main basis of my opinion that vis a vis GMST, the models are indeed ‘sound.’ That was the original context of the discussion with mike.
wilisays
Kevin wrote: “Given that the anthropogenic warming signal seems retrospectively to have emerged around 1970, what are the chances that we’d have enough ‘signal’ in 20th-century mean value to be detectible”
That was my reaction, too. Good to see that great minds are…stuck in the same rut?? ‘-)
Chuck @142: Link not useful. 132 opinions of CC lovers, haters and those who just want to see their name in print (yes me too, sometimes).
“Freedom of Speech” is a major problem on the internet. If you went to a pub and ended up sitting next to some known ratbags, would you have a conversation with them?
I would like to see a blogging enhancement, which allows you to have a personal exclusion list for those people you do not currently want to listen to and topics, which you are not currently interested in. I say currently, cause this list should be dynamic.
Having a list like that on scientists and scientific papers would save lot of effort too. If the title seems silly, like yet again hiatus, or one of the author has been previously discounted, why bother reading that paper? And more importantly, why react to it or even mention it or their names? Even when the news media highlights such a study, with no reaction at all, they will soon be looking for other news.
I know that this works from experience. Sometimes I spend my valuable time cooking a really interesting post for RC and then when I get no reaction at all, I am not so keen to do it again. Ha ha, maybe I am already on such a list.
(and while I got your attention: I am very sad to see the loss of my main CC indicator @ NSIDC. Now using http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr2/ but I will miss the monthly wrap up)
Chuck Hughessays
Anyone care to comment?
Comment by Victor — 12 Apr 2016
Weaktor! You’re Baaaaack! I was afraid we’d lost you forever.
Lawrence Colemansays
127: Theo. Latest understanding on the topic indicates same number of cylones or maybe even fewer but the average intensity of those that form will be and is increasing. Warmer ocean more evaporation, warmer atmosphere can hold more water vapour and the path of the jetstream changing from it’s usual latitudes, thus cyclones won’t get their heads chopped off so often and can build higher and hold more water.
Lawrence Colemansays
137: Chuck; The petit arctic ice death spiral graphs does it for me. That’s about as hOly s**t as you can get. Never seen that graph bandied about in the media circles though..pity.
Lawrence Colemansays
just read an article on the slowdown of the gulfstream at http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/gulf-stream-is-slowing-down-faster-than-ever-scientists-say-10128700.html :
The warm northeastern flow and the salty cold north to south currents have slowed by 15 – 20%. To me what this indicates is that the warm water travelling east will spend 15-20% longer in the fresh frigid waters heading south from Greenland cooling them faster than ever. A good view of the process in on nullschool ocean/current/SSTA or SST and pools of superchilled fresh water is smashing head on with what’s left of the warm salty gulfstream. What I hope will happen is that the warm salty will simply flow under the cold fresh pool as the thermoclines there would have abrupt demarcation lines and keep heading towards europe. Something tells this is not the case though.
Rossjwsays
I was recently looking for readily presentable data for an amateur scientist presentation and found this quote on the EPA site: “Some changes to the climate are unavoidable. Carbon dioxide can stay in the atmosphere for nearly a century, so Earth will continue to warm in the coming decades.” Everything I have ever read says CO2 has much longer persistence. Is the EPA glossing over the emissions implications? https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/basics/
You hope I’m right? I hope I’m quite wrong about the potential for nuclear war between India and Pakistan!
There is no disagreement that there would be tragic consequences for those involved in famine and war that might be precipitated by climate change. I’m just saying that it would be a local phenomenon, and things would go on just about the same afterwards.
My objection to the hyperbole is that it is counterproductive. People in the US know they aren’t going to starve, even if people in South Asia do. So what’s the point? Arguments to deal with climate change have to be valid at a local level to have any effect.
Hi Kev at 159: ok, I read through Overland and Wang and the paper seems clear to me in its conclusion that the gcm’s have consistently underpredicted sea ice loss.
Just one quote from O&W:
“Observations and citations support the conclusion that most global climate model results in the CMIP5 archive are too conservative in their sea ice projections. Recent data and expert opinion should be considered in addition to model results to advance the very likely timing for future sea ice loss to the first half of the 21st century, with a possibility of major loss within a decade or two.”
Maybe we are just talking past each other? We read the same material and react to it in very different ways because of our individual frame of reference. My frame of reference is: does the science motivate our species to make the kind of changes that are needed to provide a livable planet to my grandchildren? That is the “use” of the science that is important to me.
If your frame of reference is the advancement of science, then models that are useless to me and my grandchildren still have a lot of utility for you. I understand and appreciate the generic usefulness of science. Science works. This generic appreciation and belief in the scientific method as a means and end unto itself is essentially an ideology when it hinders our ability to make decisions that have impact in our lives and the lives of our grandchildren. It is derided as “ivory tower” thinking by the deciders who are making choices that drive us toward a planet that is too hot for many species currently trying to call this small blue planet home.
A lot of folks here do not like the way the headlines and journalists construe scientific studies and reports. I get that. It is very sloppy by scientific standards, but the slop in mainstream journalism with a modicum of integrity and a minimum of misunderstanding produces scary headlines. These scary headlines are useful to my dream of a planet that is not relentlessly harsh to my beloved grandchildren.
Imagine, if you can, a day when the sloppy headline is “New Climate Study Shows We No Longer Need Carbon Capture and Sequestrations Technology”
This groundbreaking report shows that stable climate has been achieved and is supported by the data from MLO showing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere to be headed back to 350 ppm instead of 560 ppm.
blah blah blah from a journalist with a ba in english literature that gets only part of the big story right, but includes a pic and quote from a famous athlete and another from a supermodel about our rosy future and a graph that shows the Dow Jones jumping and setting a one-day record gain as investors get bullish on the good news with quotes from IMF and Treasury officials.
Man, I would love to be complaining about the journalistic shortcomings of a story along those lines.
Kev – do you have kids or grandkids? That is a serious question. Maybe my question is whether any of the science and climate models are useful to my grandkids? or your grandkids?
Daily CO2
April 13, 2016: 408.70 ppm
April 13, 2015: 404.84 ppm
All we need is for the engineering types to get busy and build the DAC machine that will drop this number by 50 points in 20 years and we can all laugh off our little squabbles and celebrate. I am waiting for that kind of headline. Even if story is wrong and it’s really going to take 100 years to knock down 50 ppm, I would love to read that headline and story.
Warm regards to all,
Mike
Victor Grauersays
#163 “Weaktor! You’re Baaaaack! I was afraid we’d lost you forever.”
Never fear, Chuck. I’ve never really left. Check the Bore Hole and you’ll find me. :-)
The intention of this script is to hide the comments of commentors you, the reader, do not wish to hear from. In that respect, it’s like an old usenet killfile. It does not affect what other visitors to the site will see, nor does it affect what you see before the page finishes loading (due to some limitations in Mozilla, you really don’t want to rewrite HTML that’s not entirely there yet).
This is not a tool meant for handling spam, only for an individual comment reader to avoid having to see comments they don’t wish to see.
When the script works for a given blog, comments will have a [hush] link near the commentor’s name. (visible only on mouseover!) Clicking on that will hide comments from that person from then on.
Theosays
Re Lawrence @164: Thanks, that is the standard prediction, but are they talking about them forming or tacking further South?
Currently on the East coast SST gets to 26.5 near Brisbane. http://www.bom.gov.au/products/IDY00002.shtml A few degrees of global warming would see that same SST near Byron or even further South. So could that increase, change the tracks of our Tropical Cyclones?
Theosays
Good start. Thanks Hank @173
Chuck Hughessays
Never fear, Chuck. I’ve never really left. Check the Bore Hole and you’ll find me. :-)
Comment by Victor Grauer — 14 Apr 2016
The trick is to ask relevant questions like; how much longer do we have to live? Will I be able to play the violin and if so, where can I buy one? When I die can I be compressed into a can of aerosol cheese?
#171, Mike–My frame of reference has similar priorities to yours; if I didn’t think this whole climate change thing was crucial, I’d give it up and just play music. But the climate models are our best tool to discern and hence communicate the dangers we face. If sometimes the results aren’t as scary as we would ‘like’ we don’t just get to toss them out.
As an example, let’s take sea ice again. While modeling underestimates extent loss currently, it’s quite possible that the results will be more accurate over time than simple extrapolation. For example, there is a feedback to ice loss whereby more heat is lost to the atmosphere from open water than from ice-covered water.
If that’s a significant reason why ice persists longer in model-based projections than you’d expect from extrapolation, then you have a good reason to think extrapolated results will over-predict ice loss. (And in fact, extrapolation failed to predict relatively strong extent rebounds in 2012 & ’13.)
Ray Ladburysays
Zebra: “There is no disagreement that there would be tragic consequences for those involved in famine and war that might be precipitated by climate change. I’m just saying that it would be a local phenomenon, and things would go on just about the same afterwards.”
Do you appreciate the irony of saying with great confidence that that consequences would be local when the phenomenon we are talking about is inherently global? It is not hyperbole to admit that we cannot confidently claim that the conditions necessary to sustain an advanced, global, technological civilization may not persist under a changed climate–particularly when all the infrastructure necessary to sustain that civilization was developed under conditions of exceptional climatic stability.
You claim the guy is a expert, then claim he is wrong but won’t say why. Would it not be better to not post at all? He does seem to have all the relevant scientific bodies on his side.
zebra @170: People in the US know they aren’t going to starve, even if people in South Asia do.
BPL: Excuse me. When the droughts get bad enough, plus the coastal storms, even people in the US will starve. The idea that the US is immune from climate change is wrong.
Thomassays
170 zebra says: “People in the US know they aren’t going to starve, even if people in South Asia do.”
How do they (you) ‘know’ that? Sounds like a wild assumption to me.
GISTEMP has posted for March at +1.28ºC. which is just 0.06ºC lower than February’s record anomaly. This is a smaller drop than in the El Nino of 1997/98 when the Feb-Mar 1998 drop was a healthy 0.27ºC. So the monthly global temperature rise 1998 to 2016 is higher than ever, at 0.67ºC or 0.37ºC/decade. The GISTEMP anomaly’s global map for March shows much more extensive warming than 1998 over NH land & the Arctic with the intense warming over the tropics being less extensive than 1998.
The MEI for Feb/Mar fell a little below 2.0 which is over two months ahead of the drop in 1998 so now suggests a weaker El Nino than in 1998. (MEI & averaged global temperature anomalies 1998/2016 compared here (usually two clicks to ‘download your attachment’).) The NINO3.4 temperatures do remain a above 1998 by about a week & SOI is still negative but weaker than the 1998 level. All in all, I reckon the crazy high-latitude NH temperatures we’ve see through the start of 2016 seem a more and more strange as the outcome of an El Nino.
Robin Johnsonsays
@zebra-
Obviously, I misread your comment. I was probably drinking. We are on the same page. ;)
@ Victor — 12 Apr 2016 @ 11:28 AM and Kevin McKinney — 13 Apr 2016 @ 9:07 AM
What the Nature paper says –
“Data treatment. Prior to computing centennial anomalies, all proxy records with irregularly spaced time steps were converted into time series with annually spaced time steps using simple linear
interpolation, then smoothed by a cubic smoothing spline having a 50% frequency response at 100 years.”
“For the subset including only hydroclimate records decadally resolved or better, we obtained decadal anomalies using the same method as described above but instead using a spline with a 50%
frequency response at 10 years.”
What the Examiner newspaper says
“A new study published yesterday shows there hasn’t been an increase in extreme rainfall and droughts during the 20th century, even as humans ramped up burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil) in the late 1800s. It also shows that previous centuries show much more extreme weather, even though carbon dioxide levels were far lower than today’s. ”
I’ll be charitable and say the the news article author’s right wing ideology and journalism degree (remind you or a certain half-a…, er, “term” Alaska governor?) doesn’t provide him with the intellectual ability to understand the difference between extreme rainfall, drought, and weather; and
” centennial hydroclimate proxy anomalies, derived from the proxy data shown in Fig. 1a, over land areas with at least three independent proxies within the estimated centennial correlation decay length for centennial-scale hydrological variability. ”
I’d recommend http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-already-driving-increases-in-rainfall-extremes-1.19508 for news from people who do understand the difference.
““In both wet and dry regions, we see these significant and robust increases in heavy precipitation,” says Markus Donat, a climate scientist at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, who is the study’s lead author.”
Lawrence Colemansays
74:Theo, looking at nullschool.net : Ocean/current/SSTA The pacific east of qld (I live on the Sunshine Coast) is about 2C hotter right out to the longitude thru Auckland. I hadn’t noticed how long that warm pool has been there but I would guess for quite a while. This is probably the new norm and would be conducive for cyclone formation to your neck of the woods.
Edward Greischsays
179 Chris Dudley: LOL, LOL, LOL! :) :)
I said at 144: “Dr Jim Green is the national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth Australia and editor of the Nuclear Monitor newsletter. Dr Jim Green’s counterpunch article is wrong and Chris Dudley is trying to sucker me into making an off-topic comment. Jim Green made the scientific misrepresentation. “Hormesis” is the word you were looking for.”
And I meant:
1. With “Friends of the Earth” like “Friends of the Earth,” the Earth doesn’t need any enemies.
2. “Nuclear Monitor newsletter” is pure coal company propaganda.
3. “counterpunch” is pure coal company propaganda.
4. Dr Jim Green is a liar and Dr Jim Green is clearly NOT an expert on that subject.
5. Chris Dudley is trying to sucker me into making an off-topic comment.
6. Not even Chris Dudley can sucker me into making an off-topic comment.
7. I compliment Chris Dudley on his amazing ability to intentionally misinterpret what somebody says.
8. As a provoker, Chris Dudley has failed. I took Chris Dudley’s disinterpretation as a joke.
9. Look up “Hormesis” for yourself.
Edward Greischsays
170 zebra: BPL is correct. Letting more third world people into the first world will only hasten your own demise. You can’t “save” anybody.
185 Chris Dudley: Hi, I’m not real sure why I went to read your ‘apology’, but glad I did. It was pretty funny and I needed a laugh. Sorry if that wasn’t your intention though.
I really like and appreciate Jim and also think his/their carbon fee/dividend is a great idea – one to try out back in 1992 perhaps?
And of course ‘regulation’ is and always has been the only logical rational and ethical way to go. Which is exactly why it ain’t going to happen. It’s the very same reason, imo, the take-away agreements from COP21 are such BS.
I will skip the nuclear aspects as it’s off-topic here.
EG @193, please be aware I am not opposed to immigration.
zebrasays
@Robin Johnson 188,
“I was probably drinking”.
And why not, given the topic…
zebrasays
@The Zombie Apocalypse Zealots, previously known as the Apocalypse Study Group:
This is supposed to be a science-oriented forum.
Robin Johnson gave some numbers, which I don’t think anyone has disagreed with. The US produces enough to feed maybe three times its population. That’s without increasing production by eliminating corn ethanol production, ending subsidies for not producing, putting otherwise unused land into production, and so on.
The US also has plenty of energy sources, and technological infrastructure. Floodwaters can be captured in the drought/downpour case, and there’s always the Great Lakes as a last resort. It has an insanely powerful military, so it is not going to be forced to export food if it doesn’t want to. And anyway, we are grossly overfed, both in quantity and type of food.
So, seriously, under what scenario are people in the US going to “starve”?
And under what scenario is the technology going away? Or some form of ordered society?
And again, having warfare and suffering going on is not the same as “the end of civilization”, vide WWII.
Your thinking frequently suffers from the fallacy of the excluded middle. For this reason, it takes no effort or intent on my part to make you a sucker.
Edward Greischsays
I agree with 194 Thomas that there is a lot to laugh at in Chris Dudley’s apology. Chris Dudley needs to do some fact checking.
#147, Victor–“Anyone care to comment?”
Yes, I’ll comment that the summary the story gives is pretty obviously slanted and inaccurate.
For example, when a proxy paleoclimate reconstruction is presented, nobody reasonable is going to say that “it showed how hard it is to create accurate climate models.” New information on paleoclimate has at best an indirect bearing on climate modeling–and certainly the quotes that follow that ‘summary’ don’t support its interpretation. In fact, I’d go so far as to call the Examiner story a hatchet job.
But thanks for the tip on the study. Now I’ll go have a look and see what it really says.
My previous, calling the Examiner piece a ‘hatchet job’–Yep, just as I suspected. It’s based on a Reuters press feed piece, but shamelessly cherry-picks to order to attack climate modeling. And it’s clearly an intentional slanting. Anything that can be used to cast doubt on the mainstream conclusions is included, with an ‘appropriate’ slant where necessary. Anything too ‘inconvenient’ is omitted.
The two leading examples of the latter:
That becomes, in the Examiner’s telling, a mere allusion to “the now-standard caveat that global warming is still occurring.” Nothing about the fact that it is just as much a threat as ever.
And this was suppressed completely:
It’s also noteworthy that the original story contains not one word about the “Medieval Warm Period” or “Little Ice Age”. Apparently the reporter for the Examiner has a serious yen for the balmy days when Hubert Lamb’s work was on the cutting edge of paleoclimate study.
One last point interests me, which is the suppression of the statement from the Reuters piece that:
Was it to preserve the fiction that ‘warmists’ only ascribe to CO2 the power to affect climate, foolishly ignoring the obvious role of the sun? It’s a recurring irony that denialist literature has a tendency to mention the role of insolation mainly when accusing ‘warmists’ of ignoring it.
Link to Reuters story:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-extremes-idUSKCN0X325Y
Thanks Kev at 150. You did think about the question hard. I appreciate that. I have thought about talking about the climate models not as good or bad, but not good enough. You pose a similar spectrum with the term useful. I will use that term. Thanks.
So, most of the models are not useful at predicting sea ice loss. That is not opinion, that is the record (link was provided above).
The Hansen et al study suggest that most of the models are not useful at predicting the rate and extent of Antarctic ice loss. I hope Hansen is wrong about that because the slr that arises per Hansen et al will really stress our species. Probably won’t bother me, but my grandkids may know that impact. That troubles me.
so, useful. that is a useful term.
Martin at 142: I appreciate your pleasant tone. Thanks for that.
On the question of posting the daily and monthly CO2 levels: Yes, the daily and even monthly readings are noisy. But within the noise, if you watch and listen closely you can tease out the trend, maybe learn something about the real state of things. by real, I mean: the CO2 ppm readings are not a measurement that can be easily tweaked or faked. They are real numbers. I think we can all agree that accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere creates a hotter planet and we probably all agree that a hotter planet is generally not useful for our species. The folks behind the website co2.earth give us this raw data. That website does provide some context for evaluating the number. Use it or not. Your choice. I think the actual trend in CO2 level is best reviewed in the context of the annual cycle of increase and decrease of CO2 ppm and that is the way that the folks behind CO2.earth present the data. Make of it what you will. It is a bit of a lark to repost that data here because the number is real and will occasionally catch someone saying well, I won’t get excited until it hits some magic number, then it’s tragicomic to hit their magic number. I have to amuse myself. I can’t always rely on others to amuse me.
Noise is relative. Think about the noise issue that plagued the radio astronomers in the last century. They kept picking up this low level noise, there were theories about the source of the noise (bird droppings on the radio telescopes was my favorite!) until someone said wait a minute, that’s not noise, that is the echo of the big bang! Important lesson: don’t stop looking at something because you think it is noisy.
On scientific bias and reticence: ready this one
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/04/12/this-study-40-years-ago-could-have-reshaped-the-american-diet-but-it-was-never-fully-published/?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_headlines
and consider this from the piece from a doctoral student involved in the study, “at least part of the reason for the incomplete publication of the data might have been human nature. The Minnesota investigators had a theory that they believed in — that reducing blood cholesterol would make people healthier. Indeed, the idea was widespread and would soon be adopted by the federal government in the first dietary recommendations. So when the data they collected from the mental patients conflicted with this theory, the scientists may have been reluctant to believe what their experiment had turned up.
“The results flew in the face of what people believed at the time,” said Broste. “Everyone thought cholesterol was the culprit. This theory was so widely held and so firmly believed — and then it wasn’t borne out by the data. The question then became: Was it a bad theory? Or was it bad data? … My perception was they were hung up trying to understand the results.”
Mike: It is sometimes easier for laypersons to evaluate data than it is for the experts who are strongly invested in their theories.
I was thinking about the resistance to broad/open evaluation that happens on this and similar threads and the term “yes men” came to mind. A lot of traditional yes men were not bad people, they were just underlings/students etc. who existed in relationship to experts/authorities/mentors in a certain way that was predictably useful in many ways, especially in terms of career advancement. And to be clear and non-sexist, same applies to “yes women” though that term is not in common usage. Probably should switch to “yes folk.”
Warm regards all
Mike
On Ljungqvist et al.–Nature abstract is here:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v532/n7597/full/nature17418.html
The ‘money’ quote is probably this:
“Reasonable agreement” is not very compatible with the Examiner’s take that ‘the models are broken.’
The precise interpretation of the second statement, though, remains unclear to me. Is it ‘not supported’ because the magnitude of variability in the reconstruction is greater than previously thought, and thus 20th-century observations are therefore relatively ‘less exceptional’? That seems in line with some of the statements in the press coverage, for example:
But that seems a bit dicey to me. Given that the anthropogenic warming signal seems retrospectively to have emerged around 1970, what are the chances that we’d have enough ‘signal’ in 20th-century mean value to be detectible, even if the effect of an intensifying hydrological cycle is actually happening? If, for example, you did 50-year means instead of 100-year ones, what would the period from 1960-2010 look like in the context of the Ljungqvist et al. reconstruction?
KevinMcKinney: For you, it appears that climate models are ‘unsound’ if they get anything wrong about anything at any timescale.
Richard: I don’t think so. To me on a very generous day, a “sound” model will produce results using today’s code and initial conditions with tomorrows knowledge of forcings and results, and get within perhaps double the error bars. If you’re off by more than twice what you said you might be off, your model is definitely unsound. On a more strict day, I’d say if your error bounds are broken, your model is seriously flawed.
If you complain that too much is unknown (beyond forcings, of course), then widen your error bars to reflect reality, duh.
Noted:
The Advertising Standards Canada ‘watchdog’ group evaluates FUD, after receiving 96 complaints:
“The ASC said one billboard featured the claim “The Sun is The Main Driver of Climate Change. Not You. Not CO2,” while the other said “Global Warming Stopped Naturally 16+ Years Ago.”
The watchdog said it found that “the categorical and unequivocal claims made in both advertisements could not be supported by the preponderance of current evidence on the matters in dispute.” It also said the ad about the sun omitted relevant information.”
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/advertising-complaints-1.3533538
Are the global climate models useful at predicting wildfires and the net carbon exchange from boreal forests?
NYT got me thinking about this with this article abt wildfires:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/13/science/wildfires-season-global-warming.html?emc=edit_th_20160413&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=29826959&_r=0
Google search at first blush tends to suggest models are useful at predicting wildfire incidence, but a little deeper look finds the following:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28362-climate-models-may-be-wrong-as-fires-cancel-forest-carbon-sinks/
Scientist Ryan Kelly? Is he a respected scientist or a charlatan?
Also found this:
https://news.illinois.edu/blog/view/6367/265408
Scientist Feng Sheng Hu? Reputable scientist?
CO2 at 408.97, kinda high, but headed in the right direction after the record of 409.34 set on April 10th. Where are those pesky molecules coming from?
It is easy to be misled. It’s hard to be be informed. I appreciate this group for its ability with the information step (except for the usual suspects whose true objective is to sow seeds of doubt).
Stay cool,friends, Getting some sunshine on the solar panel array this morning, lovely day, much to be thankful for.
Mike
@145 Zebra – I hope you’re right.
Consider this…
In the old days, farmers kept 1-2 years worth of food in storage against bad harvests. People starved when they had three bad harvests in a row (war, weather and disease). Modern agriculture and the ability to move surplus grain and rice at will across the globe has resulted in a situation where there is less than 3 months of food reserves globally. Food disruption has been the impetus to many revolutions in the past. Ironically, in most cases – excess food was available – but it was withheld causing catastrophes and toppling of governments.
Jared Diamond showed the Rwanda genocide was motivated in part for a competition over limited food resources. Millions starved under incompetent and uncaring Communist governments. The current Syrian refugee crises was fueled in part by a four-year drought that drove a rebellion.
If a serious disruption occurs – and there is no reason to think it is impossible – the suffering will be grave. There might not be the political will or for a major disruption not enough resources. The threat is very real. Will humanity be destroyed – of course not, but South Asia is ripe for catastrophe. Just like the housing and market crises – they come quickly and suddenly when everyone thought everything was *fine* and sustainable – despite evidence to the contrary…
#153, mike–Thanks. I wouldn’t agree, FWIW, that “most of the models are not useful at predicting sea ice loss.” As discussed in the link below (Overland & Wang, 2013), models may under predict the rate of ice loss: “Recent data and expert opinion should be considered in addition to model results to advance the very likely timing for future sea ice loss to the first half of the 21st century, with a possibility of major loss within a decade or two.”
However, model results indicating that we are likely to see an ice-free summer Arctic in the years following 2040 are nonetheless useful. They should be considered in connection with the other two methods Overland and Wang discuss–extrapolation of trends, and estimation via probabilities and effects of further sudden loss events such as we saw in 2007 and 2012. Overland and Wang do just that to arrive at the estimate given above–essentially 2025-2050.
Modeling also is useful in that it gives a physical picture of *how* the melting happens at a specific physical level, in the sense that one can look at all the related changes that accompany the ice loss–circulation changes, atmospheric response, oceanic response, and so on.
Overland & Wang, 2013:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50316/full
#155–
Are you trying to say that, IYHO, to judge model ‘soundness’ one should take original projections and error bars for today, correct for actual forcings that are known to have occurred, and see whether you get outcomes within twice the original projected error bars?
If so, I’d have formulated it “yesterday’s code and today’s knowledge,” but YMMV, I suppose.
I don’t think it’s quite that simple, always–for instance, in the global mean surface temperature record, how do we treat variability, given that the usual reference isn’t one realization of temperature, but rather the ensemble mean? In RC model/obs comparisons past, the standard has been the 95% confidence interval around the mean. Observations are well within that envelope, though they were flirting with the lower bound a couple of years back.
I mention that because that is the main basis of my opinion that vis a vis GMST, the models are indeed ‘sound.’ That was the original context of the discussion with mike.
Kevin wrote: “Given that the anthropogenic warming signal seems retrospectively to have emerged around 1970, what are the chances that we’d have enough ‘signal’ in 20th-century mean value to be detectible”
That was my reaction, too. Good to see that great minds are…stuck in the same rut?? ‘-)
CarbonBrief has a good take-down of some of the misrepresentations of this study here: http://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-are-climate-models-wrong-on-rainfall-extremes
Chuck @142: Link not useful. 132 opinions of CC lovers, haters and those who just want to see their name in print (yes me too, sometimes).
“Freedom of Speech” is a major problem on the internet. If you went to a pub and ended up sitting next to some known ratbags, would you have a conversation with them?
I would like to see a blogging enhancement, which allows you to have a personal exclusion list for those people you do not currently want to listen to and topics, which you are not currently interested in. I say currently, cause this list should be dynamic.
Having a list like that on scientists and scientific papers would save lot of effort too. If the title seems silly, like yet again hiatus, or one of the author has been previously discounted, why bother reading that paper? And more importantly, why react to it or even mention it or their names? Even when the news media highlights such a study, with no reaction at all, they will soon be looking for other news.
I know that this works from experience. Sometimes I spend my valuable time cooking a really interesting post for RC and then when I get no reaction at all, I am not so keen to do it again. Ha ha, maybe I am already on such a list.
(and while I got your attention: I am very sad to see the loss of my main CC indicator @ NSIDC. Now using http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr2/ but I will miss the monthly wrap up)
Anyone care to comment?
Comment by Victor — 12 Apr 2016
Weaktor! You’re Baaaaack! I was afraid we’d lost you forever.
127: Theo. Latest understanding on the topic indicates same number of cylones or maybe even fewer but the average intensity of those that form will be and is increasing. Warmer ocean more evaporation, warmer atmosphere can hold more water vapour and the path of the jetstream changing from it’s usual latitudes, thus cyclones won’t get their heads chopped off so often and can build higher and hold more water.
137: Chuck; The petit arctic ice death spiral graphs does it for me. That’s about as hOly s**t as you can get. Never seen that graph bandied about in the media circles though..pity.
just read an article on the slowdown of the gulfstream at http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/gulf-stream-is-slowing-down-faster-than-ever-scientists-say-10128700.html :
The warm northeastern flow and the salty cold north to south currents have slowed by 15 – 20%. To me what this indicates is that the warm water travelling east will spend 15-20% longer in the fresh frigid waters heading south from Greenland cooling them faster than ever. A good view of the process in on nullschool ocean/current/SSTA or SST and pools of superchilled fresh water is smashing head on with what’s left of the warm salty gulfstream. What I hope will happen is that the warm salty will simply flow under the cold fresh pool as the thermoclines there would have abrupt demarcation lines and keep heading towards europe. Something tells this is not the case though.
I was recently looking for readily presentable data for an amateur scientist presentation and found this quote on the EPA site: “Some changes to the climate are unavoidable. Carbon dioxide can stay in the atmosphere for nearly a century, so Earth will continue to warm in the coming decades.” Everything I have ever read says CO2 has much longer persistence. Is the EPA glossing over the emissions implications?
https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/basics/
Interested to learn that taming global warming may produce a glut of steel. https://slashdot.org/journal/2623305
Hank #136,
There was a review of Six Degrees here so it seemed relevant. BTW, restoring buffalo habitat also eliminates the Gulf dead zone. https://slashdot.org/journal/2621427/explanatory-note-for-better-home-through-chemistry
@Robin Johnson 158,
You hope I’m right? I hope I’m quite wrong about the potential for nuclear war between India and Pakistan!
There is no disagreement that there would be tragic consequences for those involved in famine and war that might be precipitated by climate change. I’m just saying that it would be a local phenomenon, and things would go on just about the same afterwards.
My objection to the hyperbole is that it is counterproductive. People in the US know they aren’t going to starve, even if people in South Asia do. So what’s the point? Arguments to deal with climate change have to be valid at a local level to have any effect.
Hi Kev at 159: ok, I read through Overland and Wang and the paper seems clear to me in its conclusion that the gcm’s have consistently underpredicted sea ice loss.
Just one quote from O&W:
“Observations and citations support the conclusion that most global climate model results in the CMIP5 archive are too conservative in their sea ice projections. Recent data and expert opinion should be considered in addition to model results to advance the very likely timing for future sea ice loss to the first half of the 21st century, with a possibility of major loss within a decade or two.”
Maybe we are just talking past each other? We read the same material and react to it in very different ways because of our individual frame of reference. My frame of reference is: does the science motivate our species to make the kind of changes that are needed to provide a livable planet to my grandchildren? That is the “use” of the science that is important to me.
If your frame of reference is the advancement of science, then models that are useless to me and my grandchildren still have a lot of utility for you. I understand and appreciate the generic usefulness of science. Science works. This generic appreciation and belief in the scientific method as a means and end unto itself is essentially an ideology when it hinders our ability to make decisions that have impact in our lives and the lives of our grandchildren. It is derided as “ivory tower” thinking by the deciders who are making choices that drive us toward a planet that is too hot for many species currently trying to call this small blue planet home.
A lot of folks here do not like the way the headlines and journalists construe scientific studies and reports. I get that. It is very sloppy by scientific standards, but the slop in mainstream journalism with a modicum of integrity and a minimum of misunderstanding produces scary headlines. These scary headlines are useful to my dream of a planet that is not relentlessly harsh to my beloved grandchildren.
Imagine, if you can, a day when the sloppy headline is “New Climate Study Shows We No Longer Need Carbon Capture and Sequestrations Technology”
This groundbreaking report shows that stable climate has been achieved and is supported by the data from MLO showing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere to be headed back to 350 ppm instead of 560 ppm.
blah blah blah from a journalist with a ba in english literature that gets only part of the big story right, but includes a pic and quote from a famous athlete and another from a supermodel about our rosy future and a graph that shows the Dow Jones jumping and setting a one-day record gain as investors get bullish on the good news with quotes from IMF and Treasury officials.
Man, I would love to be complaining about the journalistic shortcomings of a story along those lines.
Kev – do you have kids or grandkids? That is a serious question. Maybe my question is whether any of the science and climate models are useful to my grandkids? or your grandkids?
Daily CO2
April 13, 2016: 408.70 ppm
April 13, 2015: 404.84 ppm
All we need is for the engineering types to get busy and build the DAC machine that will drop this number by 50 points in 20 years and we can all laugh off our little squabbles and celebrate. I am waiting for that kind of headline. Even if story is wrong and it’s really going to take 100 years to knock down 50 ppm, I would love to read that headline and story.
Warm regards to all,
Mike
#163 “Weaktor! You’re Baaaaack! I was afraid we’d lost you forever.”
Never fear, Chuck. I’ve never really left. Check the Bore Hole and you’ll find me. :-)
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/blog-killfile/
Follow the link to learn more.
Re Lawrence @164: Thanks, that is the standard prediction, but are they talking about them forming or tacking further South?
Currently on the East coast SST gets to 26.5 near Brisbane. http://www.bom.gov.au/products/IDY00002.shtml A few degrees of global warming would see that same SST near Byron or even further South. So could that increase, change the tracks of our Tropical Cyclones?
Good start. Thanks Hank @173
Never fear, Chuck. I’ve never really left. Check the Bore Hole and you’ll find me. :-)
Comment by Victor Grauer — 14 Apr 2016
The trick is to ask relevant questions like; how much longer do we have to live? Will I be able to play the violin and if so, where can I buy one? When I die can I be compressed into a can of aerosol cheese?
#171, Mike–My frame of reference has similar priorities to yours; if I didn’t think this whole climate change thing was crucial, I’d give it up and just play music. But the climate models are our best tool to discern and hence communicate the dangers we face. If sometimes the results aren’t as scary as we would ‘like’ we don’t just get to toss them out.
As an example, let’s take sea ice again. While modeling underestimates extent loss currently, it’s quite possible that the results will be more accurate over time than simple extrapolation. For example, there is a feedback to ice loss whereby more heat is lost to the atmosphere from open water than from ice-covered water.
If that’s a significant reason why ice persists longer in model-based projections than you’d expect from extrapolation, then you have a good reason to think extrapolated results will over-predict ice loss. (And in fact, extrapolation failed to predict relatively strong extent rebounds in 2012 & ’13.)
Zebra: “There is no disagreement that there would be tragic consequences for those involved in famine and war that might be precipitated by climate change. I’m just saying that it would be a local phenomenon, and things would go on just about the same afterwards.”
Do you appreciate the irony of saying with great confidence that that consequences would be local when the phenomenon we are talking about is inherently global? It is not hyperbole to admit that we cannot confidently claim that the conditions necessary to sustain an advanced, global, technological civilization may not persist under a changed climate–particularly when all the infrastructure necessary to sustain that civilization was developed under conditions of exceptional climatic stability.
@Mike #171 – You may be interested in this snippet from an interview I did last year with Mark Serreze from the NSIDC?
Mark Serreze and the Arctic Sea Ice Death Spiral
Mark told me that he still stood by his 2030 estimate for the onset of a seasonally ice free Arctic, although “Most models say more like 2050”
Edward #141,
You claim the guy is a expert, then claim he is wrong but won’t say why. Would it not be better to not post at all? He does seem to have all the relevant scientific bodies on his side.
Rossjw @167,
No, they didn’t say the planet would cool off. They said it would stop warming. First derivative.
zebra @170: People in the US know they aren’t going to starve, even if people in South Asia do.
BPL: Excuse me. When the droughts get bad enough, plus the coastal storms, even people in the US will starve. The idea that the US is immune from climate change is wrong.
170 zebra says: “People in the US know they aren’t going to starve, even if people in South Asia do.”
How do they (you) ‘know’ that? Sounds like a wild assumption to me.
Still very high
113 134 128
You can see the blog killfile script in action at
https://fractalplanet.wordpress.com/discussions/general-climate-discussion-4/
which is well worth a visit anyhow. Don’t miss the video that appears under this heading, it’s climate-relevant (and snarky)
I’ve posted a public apology to James Hansen here:https://slashdot.org/journal/2623577
GISTEMP has posted for March at +1.28ºC. which is just 0.06ºC lower than February’s record anomaly. This is a smaller drop than in the El Nino of 1997/98 when the Feb-Mar 1998 drop was a healthy 0.27ºC. So the monthly global temperature rise 1998 to 2016 is higher than ever, at 0.67ºC or 0.37ºC/decade. The GISTEMP anomaly’s global map for March shows much more extensive warming than 1998 over NH land & the Arctic with the intense warming over the tropics being less extensive than 1998.
The MEI for Feb/Mar fell a little below 2.0 which is over two months ahead of the drop in 1998 so now suggests a weaker El Nino than in 1998. (MEI & averaged global temperature anomalies 1998/2016 compared here (usually two clicks to ‘download your attachment’).) The NINO3.4 temperatures do remain a above 1998 by about a week & SOI is still negative but weaker than the 1998 level. All in all, I reckon the crazy high-latitude NH temperatures we’ve see through the start of 2016 seem a more and more strange as the outcome of an El Nino.
@zebra-
Obviously, I misread your comment. I was probably drinking. We are on the same page. ;)
CD @185: I’ve posted a public apology to James Hansen here:https://slashdot.org/journal/2623577
BPL: You have class, Chris. Glad we’re on the same side.
@ Victor — 12 Apr 2016 @ 11:28 AM and Kevin McKinney — 13 Apr 2016 @ 9:07 AM
What the Nature paper says –
“Data treatment. Prior to computing centennial anomalies, all proxy records with irregularly spaced time steps were converted into time series with annually spaced time steps using simple linear
interpolation, then smoothed by a cubic smoothing spline having a 50% frequency response at 100 years.”
“For the subset including only hydroclimate records decadally resolved or better, we obtained decadal anomalies using the same method as described above but instead using a spline with a 50%
frequency response at 10 years.”
What the Examiner newspaper says
“A new study published yesterday shows there hasn’t been an increase in extreme rainfall and droughts during the 20th century, even as humans ramped up burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil) in the late 1800s. It also shows that previous centuries show much more extreme weather, even though carbon dioxide levels were far lower than today’s. ”
I’ll be charitable and say the the news article author’s right wing ideology and journalism degree (remind you or a certain half-a…, er, “term” Alaska governor?) doesn’t provide him with the intellectual ability to understand the difference between extreme rainfall, drought, and weather; and
” centennial hydroclimate proxy anomalies, derived from the proxy data shown in Fig. 1a, over land areas with at least three independent proxies within the estimated centennial correlation decay length for centennial-scale hydrological variability. ”
I’d recommend http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-already-driving-increases-in-rainfall-extremes-1.19508 for news from people who do understand the difference.
““In both wet and dry regions, we see these significant and robust increases in heavy precipitation,” says Markus Donat, a climate scientist at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, who is the study’s lead author.”
74:Theo, looking at nullschool.net : Ocean/current/SSTA The pacific east of qld (I live on the Sunshine Coast) is about 2C hotter right out to the longitude thru Auckland. I hadn’t noticed how long that warm pool has been there but I would guess for quite a while. This is probably the new norm and would be conducive for cyclone formation to your neck of the woods.
179 Chris Dudley: LOL, LOL, LOL! :) :)
I said at 144: “Dr Jim Green is the national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth Australia and editor of the Nuclear Monitor newsletter. Dr Jim Green’s counterpunch article is wrong and Chris Dudley is trying to sucker me into making an off-topic comment. Jim Green made the scientific misrepresentation. “Hormesis” is the word you were looking for.”
And I meant:
1. With “Friends of the Earth” like “Friends of the Earth,” the Earth doesn’t need any enemies.
2. “Nuclear Monitor newsletter” is pure coal company propaganda.
3. “counterpunch” is pure coal company propaganda.
4. Dr Jim Green is a liar and Dr Jim Green is clearly NOT an expert on that subject.
5. Chris Dudley is trying to sucker me into making an off-topic comment.
6. Not even Chris Dudley can sucker me into making an off-topic comment.
7. I compliment Chris Dudley on his amazing ability to intentionally misinterpret what somebody says.
8. As a provoker, Chris Dudley has failed. I took Chris Dudley’s disinterpretation as a joke.
9. Look up “Hormesis” for yourself.
170 zebra: BPL is correct. Letting more third world people into the first world will only hasten your own demise. You can’t “save” anybody.
I agree with James Hansen on politics and politicians. http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2016/20160415_Hypocrites.pdf
185 Chris Dudley: Hi, I’m not real sure why I went to read your ‘apology’, but glad I did. It was pretty funny and I needed a laugh. Sorry if that wasn’t your intention though.
I really like and appreciate Jim and also think his/their carbon fee/dividend is a great idea – one to try out back in 1992 perhaps?
And of course ‘regulation’ is and always has been the only logical rational and ethical way to go. Which is exactly why it ain’t going to happen. It’s the very same reason, imo, the take-away agreements from COP21 are such BS.
I will skip the nuclear aspects as it’s off-topic here.
EG @193, please be aware I am not opposed to immigration.
@Robin Johnson 188,
“I was probably drinking”.
And why not, given the topic…
@The Zombie Apocalypse Zealots, previously known as the Apocalypse Study Group:
This is supposed to be a science-oriented forum.
Robin Johnson gave some numbers, which I don’t think anyone has disagreed with. The US produces enough to feed maybe three times its population. That’s without increasing production by eliminating corn ethanol production, ending subsidies for not producing, putting otherwise unused land into production, and so on.
The US also has plenty of energy sources, and technological infrastructure. Floodwaters can be captured in the drought/downpour case, and there’s always the Great Lakes as a last resort. It has an insanely powerful military, so it is not going to be forced to export food if it doesn’t want to. And anyway, we are grossly overfed, both in quantity and type of food.
So, seriously, under what scenario are people in the US going to “starve”?
And under what scenario is the technology going away? Or some form of ordered society?
And again, having warfare and suffering going on is not the same as “the end of civilization”, vide WWII.
Edward #192,
Your thinking frequently suffers from the fallacy of the excluded middle. For this reason, it takes no effort or intent on my part to make you a sucker.
I agree with 194 Thomas that there is a lot to laugh at in Chris Dudley’s apology. Chris Dudley needs to do some fact checking.
Thomas #194,
Some think things could progress rapidly. http://m.phys.org/news/2016-04-fossil-fuels-phased-worldwide-decade.html#jCp