Chris Machens @201,
Your big picture is a 2 minute video of Arctic sea ice showing what NASA’s Walt Meier calls the third dimension, which is not thickness but age. The video of the ice runs through the melts and freezes from 1991 to today but curiously does so twice. I wonder if the video were run at half speed, this double-take could be avoided.
Of course, the dynamics of the Arctic is captured but a full appreciation of the scale of the loss of multi-year ice perhaps requires a static image, like this one of Arctic ice age 1985-to-date (usually 2 clicks to ‘download your attachment’)
“Russell, I’d like to see your rewrite of that statement to make it gather more support rather than drive people away. What would you recommend saying?
Seriously. The only models extant do a lot of demonizing, unless they’re Cassandra’s warnings.
What’s better?”
Hank, models don’t demonize anything– political operatives and PR men do.
Neither science communication or climate policy benefit from political framing aimed at alienating half the Congress and electorate.
The advancement of science is ill served by declarations of contempt for its political neutrality.
Radge Haverssays
People who claim that AGW is a hoax demonize themselves. It is unremarkable if politicians who accept the science want to reframe their message, though I admit it can be a difficult line for scientists to walk.
Russel (@151, 169 etc.): I gotta say, having read the memo, that it seems pretty well thought-out and demonstrates that someone is taking the threat seriously. I’d love to know if any of this was implemented back in 2014 when it was proposed.
And whoever butchered the memo on the link you included did a real disservice to the public. They took statements away from the context that explained the intent of the authors and outright changed the intent of some parts of the memo. They even join by ellipsis words that were from different paragraphs! I do not know who did the editing there, but it verges on the dishonest.
Russel (@203): the memo isn’t about the advancement of science. It’s about getting something done in a political context. For that, it is an excellent memo!
MA Rodger, i agree the repeat of the animation could have been avoided, nevertheless good video by NASA with great narration. Also want to point out, sea ice thickness and sea ice age are not the same thing, but sea ice age provides a proxy for thickness. https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/sea_ice.html
Weird ‘Gravity’ Waves Above Antarctica Caused by Ice Vibrations
Peculiar atmospheric waves that have puzzled scientists since they were spotted in Antarctica a few years ago, above the massive Ross Ice Shelf, may have a source: Tiny vibrations in the ice are traveling miles into the sky to create huge atmospheric ripples.
Since ice thickness is one factor that determines the size of the resulting atmospheric ripples, scientists could someday use measurements in the air disruptions to monitor the Ross Ice Shelf, said lead study author Oleg Godin, a professor of physics at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. http://www.livescience.com/56686-ice-vibrations-cause-weird-waves-above-antarctica.html
Thomassays
187 Chuck Hughes, 182 Martin Bernstein, and 180 zebra.
The saying goes “with friends like you … ”
I like what Mike said “You connect the dots, kemosabe.”
And if you can’t then it isn’t my problem.
Nemesissays
About Thomas and “trolling” as some call it:
People are trying to keep sane, to keep rational, to keep calm, to keep cool, to keep optimistic ect blah blah, BUT:
The situation we are in is NOT sane, NOT rational, NOT calm, NOT cool, NO reason for optimism ect blah blah.
So I do have a great deal of understanding for people, who, like Thomas, say it like it is these days, with one post and two posts and a million posts if necessary.
You know, I have been told all my life “be rational, be optimistic, be opportunistic, do, what the system, what Empire wants you to do!”
You know what? I give a shit, actually, I gave a shit a very long time ago already and THAT is exactly the reason, why I realized REALITY, climate reality, ecologic reality, political reality, economic reality a long time ago. Say what you have to say, Thomas, say it loud and clearly, one time, two times, a million times. We can be calm and silent, when we are dead.
Thomas (@209) So, you are wishing Trump on the US? And you care about combatting climate change? You’ve got to be kidding me. If you think that a Trump presidency will magically bring on the change we need, you’re delusional, naive or a troll. I’m inclined to think it’s one of the former two. Seriously, in your own words explain how you think the presidency of the racist, pro-ignorance and utterly selfish Trump would be better for fighting climate change than Clinton. Please. I’d LOVE to hear this.
Russell (@211) That was not editing for length. It was editing for deception. It elided parts of the text that were not closely connected. It made it sound like the writer was suggesting ignoring the data on climate change. In the actual text, it’s obvious that they were talking about a different kind of data. Here’s the entire quote:
“While public opinion research can certainly help guide and refine any approach (particularly in how to talk about who is right and who is wrong), one cannot be handcuffed by data on a fundamental moral issue of this kind.”
And including a link at the end does not remove the editor’s culpability for deceptive editing in the first place. Look, I’m sorry to be so strident on this. You’re just the messenger here. But it really bugs me when people on either side of an issue do this kind of thing.
Thomas says:
30 Oct 2016 at 8:27 AM
187 Chuck Hughes, 182 Martin Bernstein, and 180 zebra.
I like what Mike said “You connect the dots, kemosabe.” And if you can’t then it isn’t my problem.”
Thomas, the idea that you’re going to connect my dots or anyone else’s dots is laughable. I’d prefer to hear from someone who didn’t spend their youth munching on lead paint chips.
Chuck Hughessays
Nemesis says:
30 Oct 2016 at 12:47 PM
“About Thomas and “trolling” as some call it:
People are trying to keep sane, to keep rational, to keep calm, to keep cool, to keep optimistic ect blah blah, BUT:
The situation we are in is NOT sane, NOT rational, NOT calm, NOT cool, NO reason for optimism ect blah blah.”
Scientific discussion has to be rational. It’s one of the few rational things humans do and I for one don’t care to read manic ramblings about disparate topics from a guy calling himself “Thomas”. Maybe you should start a thread for “Things I Found On The Internet” if you’re really interested.
Thomassays
I’ve made a point this year to post snippets about unprecedented weather and climate events in Australia – and occasionally the latest research about such things. eg the bleaching on the GBR and theath of 800klms of mangroves in nth oz.
I’m am curious if there is are any archives/record websites of similar unprecedented ‘climate news’ anywhere online – be it for the globe or about other nations and regions.
Or is there a uni/science body that is tracking these events collectively.
If you ever hear of something like this please pass it on. thx
Nemesissays
Once again about the massive global insect decline:
” 26.10.2016 – Insektensterben statt Bienentanz
Wissenschaftler fordern Sofortmaßnahmen gegen den rasanten Artenschwund
Ganze Landstriche ohne bestäubende Insekten – in China ist das schon heute Wirklichkeit. Dort müssen Pflanzen von Hand bestäubt werden. In wenigen Jahren könnte es auch in Deutschland so weit sein. Denn neueste Forschungsergebnisse zeigen: Der Bestand von Wildbienen und anderen Insekten ist drastisch gesunken.
Wenn der Trend beim Insektenschwund sich fortsetzt, sterben viele Arten in weniger als zehn Jahren aus. Die Folgen wären eine ökologische Katastrophe, die nicht zuletzt massive wirtschaftliche Schäden in Milliardenhöhe für die Landwirtschaft und Nahrungsmittelproduktion mit sich bringen würde. Daher verabschiedeten 77 Forscher bei einer Fachtagung des Staatlichen Museums für Naturkunde Stuttgart und der Universität Hohenheim eine Resolution an Bundesumweltministerin Dr. Barbara Hendricks. Sie fordern Sofortmaßnahmen, um den drastischen Rückgang von Wildbienen und anderen Insekten zu stoppen.
Neonicotinoide schwächen Wildbienen
In ihrer Resolution verlangen die Forscher ein vollständiges Verbot von Insektengiften der Gruppe der Neonicotinoide bis zum wissenschaftlich sauberen Nachweis ihrer Umweltverträglichkeit. Außerdem fordern sie Maßnahmen zur Erhöhung der Strukturvielfalt in der Kulturlandschaft wie eine Verbesserung des Blütenangebots sowie ein Langzeit-Monitoring von Insekten, insbesondere Wildbienen. Das soll ermöglichen, gefährdete Bestände zukünftig besser zu lokalisieren und rechtzeitig Gegenmaßnahmen einzuleiten.
„Die Experten sind sich einig, dass nur durch schnelles Handeln zum Schutz der Insekten der Artbestand gerettet werden kann. Wir hoffen, dass durch unsere Resolution in der Öffentlichkeit der Ernst der Lage erkannt wird und die Politik Maßnahmen ergreift“, so Dr. Lars Krogmann vom Staatlichen Museum für Naturkunde Stuttgart.
Um die Jahrtausendwende wurden verstärkt neuartige Insektenvernichtungsmittel eingesetzt: Sie enthalten Neonicotinoide – hochwirksame Pestizide gegen Insekten. Sie gelten als neues Mittel der Wahl gegen Blatt- und Schildläuse, Schmetterlinge, Zikaden und Käfer. Auf Honigbienen zeigte das Nervengift zunächst keine tödliche Wirkung. Daher sahen die Verantwortlichen auch keinen Grund, die neuen Pestizide nicht zuzulassen. Mittlerweile gibt es jedoch zahlreiche Untersuchungen, die Langzeitwirkungen aufzeigen und eine Anreicherung von Neonicotioniden in Ackerböden selbst bei vorschriftsgemäßer Anwendung.
Rückgänge um bis zu 75 Prozent in nur zehn Jahren
Eine aktuelle Studie weist nach, dass die Bestände bestimmter Wildbienenarten, die bereits auf der Roten Liste der bedrohten Arten stehen, drastisch zurückgehen: „In manchen Gegenden um bis zu 75 Prozent in einem Zeitraum von zehn Jahren“, erklärt der Tierökologe Prof. Dr. Johannes Steidle von der Universität Hohenheim. „Das ist Alarmstufe Rot.“…”
While Berstein asserts the writers “were talking about a different kind of data”:
Russell (@211) That was not editing for length. It was editing for deception. It elided parts of the text that were not closely connected. It made it sound like the writer was suggesting ignoring the data on climate change. In the actual text, it’s obvious that they were talking about a different kind of data. Here’s the entire quote:
“While public opinion research can certainly help guide and refine any approach (particularly in how to talk about who is right and who is wrong), one cannot be handcuffed by data on a fundamental moral issue of this kind.”
and their cover letter makes it perfectly clear that they are writing about climate change. It too was linked in my post and here is its full text- which speaks for itself- I have bolded the parts quoted : the ellipses are in the original.
John —
Really nice seeing you last week… Per your request, attached is a memorandum outlining a possible unifying approach for the Administration when it comes to climate (TS may have sent you this doc last night — but believe he may have sent a slightly earlier draft so please use this one)… Please note that the specific material requested (a range of so-called “frames”) is found on pages 6-7 and written so as one could just cut and paste and lift out… In addition, the document seeks to provide some strategic thinking on the politics of climate informed by our experiences to date… and, finally, at the back end, we provided a possible model of how the effort could be organized within the Administration based on a calendar that factors in various external events (which we also discussed last week)… We hope this is helpful and stand ready to support whatever you may need… Break a leg (or a hand, as the case may be) tonight…
Best, Lehane
In short, Martin, ellipisis is not elision, and it is the authors themselves who exort their readers to “just cut and paste and lift out ” what they exposit.
#291 Thomas says:
31 Oct 2016 at 3:57 AM “Yet look at all the climate science denying psychopaths ..”
Don’t be fooled, there is a vocal minority which casts doubt on the science and distracts, nothing knew. Ofc, there are “legit” deniers mixed in as well. NatGeo should just ban all these users, because they clearly have an agenda when denying reality.
Russel, there is nothing special about this document or what you quote. Its a standard strategic paper, well written. If you want to be concerned be concerned about natural gas as a pipe dream.
Russell (@222): First, I’m sorry. I had no idea you were the author of that web-site. So, when I spoke to the motivation of the author, I did it with a lack of personal knowledge of the author. I’ll take you at your word that you did not intend to deceive.
However, I still think your “summary” of the memo does misrepresent the contents of the actual memo (which is why I characterized the the summary the way I did). I don’ think we need to debate this here. As you point out, you do include the link to the original memo, so others can peruse it on their own.
Cheers!
Chuck Hughessays
Nemesis says:
31 Oct 2016 at 6:21 AM
@Chuck Hughes, #216
” Scientific discussion has to be rational”
Yoh, I second that. But don’t worry, in the face of death and destruction, even science will become completely irrelevant ;-)”
I know we’re in bad shape but has something new happened? Last thing I remember we were heading for societal collapse by ~2035, and that was the good news. I thought we still had a few more decades of blissful ignorance left. I was just about to take Thomas’ advice and vote for Jill Stein.
mike @224,
Have you spotted Tamino’s assessment of atmospheric CO2 increases. His conclusion on the subject of the present rate of increase is – “All in all, the evidence suggests that the present long-term rate of CO2 increase is right around 2.25 ppmv/yr.” The rates of increase for present days, weeks & months are still being boosted by El Nino. But for that, September’s 401.03ppm, the result of a 3.4ppm increase in September 2015, would have been presumably depressed in excess of 1ppm and MLO would have then recorded a final sub-400ppm month (instead of the single rogue sub-400ppm daily reading of 29th August).
The first day of the new month & UAH has posted the October global temperature anomaly for its TLTv6.0(beta5) at +0.41ºC (two significant places), the 25th warmest anomaly on the record. This probably best described as equal-warmest October on record as October last year is listed at +0.411ºC. This year’s October animaly represents a small fall on September’s anomaly. The year-to-date average stands at +0.538ºC, To achieve the ‘warmest calendar year on record’ (which remains 1998 at +0.484ºC) the remainder of 2016 would have to average in excess of +0.216ºC.
The table here allows comparison with the 1997-99 El Nino years. That 1997-98 El Nino was quickly followed by La Nina conditions. While the 2015-16 El Nino ended pretty-much in sinc with 1997-98 El Nino, the La Nina conditions now appear to be a non-event. Predictions in October show the trend away from La Nina conditions in coming months & the 30-day SOI index has dropped back strongly into negative El-Nino-esque values (although this is not a signal of a done deal).
Back in 1998 as per the table below, the November value showed the beginning of the big drop from the elevated El Nino temperatures. So this coming month should see the first big sign of difference (or not) between the post-1998 El Nino temperatures & 2016’s. Stuff can happen but I see no reason for a repeat of the 1998 drop this year.
……….1997/99 … 2015/16
Dec … +0.250ºC … +0.450ºC
Jan … +0.479ºC … +0.540ºC
Feb … +0.653ºC … +0.832ºC
Mar … +0.475ºC … +0.734ºC
Apr … +0.743ºC … +0.714ºC
May … +0.643ºC … +0.545ºC
Jun .… +0.575ºC … +0.338ºC
Jul … +0.511ºC . … +0.389ºC
Aug … +0.516ºC …. +0.435ºC
Sep … +0.441ºC …. +0.440ºC
Oct … +0.403ºC …. +0.410ºC
Nov … +0.123ºC
Dec … +0.246ºC
Jan … +0.060ºC
Feb … +0.166ºC
Mar … -0.081ºC
Apr … +0.009ºC
May … -0.037ºC
Jun … -0.154ºC
MAR at 228: yes, I read Tamino’s posts on a regular basis and I looked at the one you referenced and wondered if, and hoped that, Tamino is correct and that the baseline CO2 increase number is around 2.25 ppmv/yr. I am not sufficiently grounded and knowledgeable about the CO2 cycle to project what the baseline number actually is. I can track hard numbers, unbuffered by potential modifiers, and review them against other time frames with similar modifiers and draw some conclusions/best guesses about what is going on. In the case of the impact of EN as a modifier, I can look back at 1998/1999 EN event for context.
because even the annual numbers are noisy, I look at the following:
1988 2.40 ppm increase (outlier on the high side, EN?)
1989 1.50 ppm increase (baseline at that time?)
1990 1.28 ppm
1991 1.22 ppm
1992 0.82 ppm (economic downturn?)
1993 0.69 ppm
1994 1.75 ppm
1995 1.97 ppm
1996 1.79 ppm
1997 1.12 ppm
1998 2.95 ppm (big EN event)
1999 1.67 ppm
2000 1.20 ppm
2001 1.61 ppm
2002 2.08 ppm (EN cycle?)
2003 2.56 ppm
2004 1.72 ppm
2005 2.31 ppm
2006 2.10 ppm
2007 1.86 ppm
2008 1.82 ppm
2009 1.78 ppm
2010 2.48 ppm
2011 1.78 ppm
2012 2.19 ppm
2013 2.66 ppm
2014 2.13 ppm
2015 2.21 ppm
2016 ???
2017 ???
As the months go by and we see the most recent EN event in the past, we should see the increase number of current mo average drop when compared to the same month in 2015. At some point, we should be comparing a monthly average of non-EN numbers against past year of EN number and then we should see the month to month comparison differential drop, right?
When I look at monthly averages from 1998 and 1999 and calc the differences, then I see increase showing in Jan 99 (2.94 ppm for Jan 1999 v. 2.14 for Jan 1998, then flattening off by April increase of 2.35 ppm for 1999 and 2.36 for 1998, then the numbers turn around with 1998 showing larger month to month increase from 1997 than are shown with 1999 compared to 1998. I am watching and waiting to see this happen in the month to month comparisons in the current EN event and we have not hit a flat month yet. The most recent month to month that I can work with is Sep showing 3.47 increase from 2016 compared with Sep 2015 which showed a 2.28 ppm increase from Sep 2014.
Sep 1999 showed a 0.93 ppm increase over Sept 1998 which showed a 3.7 ppm increase over Sep 1997
So what I am seeing is that there is no flat month yet showing that the EN bump has started to subside. Once we hit a flat month we should then start seeing a reduction of increase in month to month annual comparison. It just has not happened yet, not even to the baseline increase of 2.25 ppm that tamino proposes.
I want to keep this discussion as simple as possible, so will leave it there and we can carry over to UV thread if it continues to exist in any meaningful way on this website.
Warm regard,
Mike
Thomassays
228 MA Rodger, “The rates of increase for present days, weeks & months are still being boosted by El Nino.”
Is there any confirmation by climate scientists that El Nino has not, can not be, boosted (made more extreme/pushed up) by the existing global warming and the already higher temps in the pacific ocean?
It sounds to me that some people are presenting El Nino as if it is totally disconnected from the whole climate system. That doesn’t sound logical – or is it?
Thomassays
227 Chuck Hughes, “I know we’re in bad shape but has something new happened?”
Yes, new things are happening all the time, almost every day across the world. People can note and review the new unprecedented/ record events in their region as I have done for australia this year. One nation out of 197.
Why would I say If you’re not shocked in 2016 then you haven’t been paying attention.? Oh yes that’s right I’m just a conspiracy theorist troll. Nothing to see with exxon-mobil or Lamar Smith and US politician games nor a whole state wiped out by massive storms and tornadoes. We don’t get tornadoes in Australia Chuck. It isn’t Nebraska. Nothing new to see in co2 ppm nor the arctic ice loss dynamics this year?
Chuck “I was just about to take Thomas’ advice and vote for Jill Stein.
People like you Chuck are a pain in the butt. I don’t give advice. I don;t tell people who to vote for not in the USA and not here either. I never said people should vote for Jill Stein – period.
I have no tolerance for big mouths who have not read what I wrote nor viewed the refs. If you wish to criticism other people it would surely help if you knew what they had presented in the first place and not be so immature to make shit up to make yourself feel better by easing the cognitive dissonance from being rattled.
The posting of link is not, repeat NOT an endorsement of what the link posits. But people are just too biased and too slow to work simple things like this out.
My “advice” and pov always comes back to two simple key point – THINK for yourself and RESEARCH the facts for yourself do not believe anyone without checking – especially the crap that gets put out by the media. Like how dumb are people who do that today?
Did any of the critics view Chomsky’s talk and the Q&A that directly addressed climate change and the denial industry and the connected political processes? Any one notice the direct similarities between that what the psychology professor said, how that matches up with John Cook denial strategies and other academic papers and research over the last 20 years and how and why that intersects with Lamar Smith, Exxon-Mobil, and the current US elections yet again?
Nah, too much like hard work.
Chuck don’t do anything you think I am “advising” because given what you say I know for sure you will get it wrong. Instead go listen to everything that Jill Stein has said over the last month including that Clinton is far more dangerous to the world than Trump could ever be.
While you’re at it stop listening to what the media hacks and politicians say about Putin and Russia and go hear him direct.
October 27, 2016 – President Vladimir Putin:
“Yes, we passed information on the Tsarnayev brothers on to our American partners. We wrote to them but received no response. After we wrote a second time we got a reply that they are US citizens and so it was none of our business and they would take care of everything themselves. I told the director of the FSB to archive the file. The response we received is still there, in the archives.”
“Sadly, a few months later, the Boston marathon terrorist attack took place and people were killed. It is a great shame that this tragedy took place. If contacts and trust between us and our partners had been better this could have been avoided. The Americans came here immediately following the attack and we gave them the information in our possession. But it was too late. People had already lost their lives.”
Thanks, Martin , but no need to apologize- it’s hard to fit 700 legible words on an page, and however you cut it , a one page condensation of a 104 paragraph document is doomed to make somebody unhappy.
Readers are of course at liberty to disturb others in turn by cutting it to fit their own political narratives, Troglodyte or otherwise,
Nemesissays
@Chuck Hughes, #227
I give a total, ultimate shit about funny politics, may it be funny Trump, funny Clinton, Sanders, Stein or whoever. When I see the media hype about the US election, I get SICK. As if any americano president would save the planet, gnahaha. Man, are we in a funny Hollywood movie or what? Americanos save the planet a million times in Hollywood movies, but they NEVER did that in reality. Politics isn’t done by politicians, but by money alone, the whole planet is ruled by funny MONEY and that funny gamez will go on… no, not forever, but until the whole shit goes down the drain, soon. After 30 years I realized, that NOTHING substantial will change, it is all about funny money and power. I realized, the discussions about climate change, about politics are just a waste of time and I will not waste anymore time on it, I wasted 30 years for NOTHING. So this is my final post, I give it up, I will enjoy the rest of my life from now on, accepting harsh reality. I’m done with politics, I am done with climate discussions. I am out.
mike @230,
If you use the NOAA MLO monthly CO2 data (which helpfully provide the ‘one year ago’ value for each week), the numbers are a bit volatile but when averaged over say 5-weeks much of that volatility is averaged out & you are left with weekly values of that average which show a little more precisely than monthly averages what is happening with 12-month CO2 increases.
Thus, in 1998 the 12-month CO2 rise can be shown to have peaked by the start of August (at +3.9ppm per year) while in 2016 the 12-month CO2 rise had peaked by the tart of June (at +4.2ppm per year) and has now dropped to roughly +3.3ppm per year.
Thomas @231,
I don’t think an anthropogenic influence on ENSO is being ignored. Rather, studies like Latif & Keenlyside (2008) can find no evidence for there being an anthropogenic influence so far. And they will continue to look.
Chuck Hughessays
MODERATORS: Notice that it took “Thomas” 5 links and over 11 paragraphs to respond to one of my statements.
On the internet that’s what’s known as “spamming”. Taking up massive amounts of real estate and essentially saying nothing or posting disparate ‘red herring’ statements or inflammatory nonsense. This guy does it incessantly and with impunity. I come here to read about Climate Change, not engage with a know nothing dolt. Thanks
22 Refer to anyone who does not immediately agree with you as being uneducated on the matter, lacking in important information, or just plain too stupid to understand your magnificent statements.
26 When all else fails…. SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM…..
Last thing I remember we were heading for societal collapse by ~2035, and that was the good news.
As I understand it, no. But by then, under BAU, we would be firmly committed to a climate future in which societal collapse would be far too likely.
The need to rapidly mitigate emissions *now* is why Trump would be a potential global-scale and millennial-scale disaster at this point.
Killiansays
Arctic is looking on track for another low summer in ’17. Bear in mind the 2-year (two summers, really) new low, near new low theory after El Ninos. That we’ve had pretty much perfect summers for keeping sea ice loss to a minimum since 2012, yet had a new low in ’12, nice dip in ’15 and new 2nd/tie for 2nd (depending on what you count and who counts), it is clear we’re getting significant bottom melt/sea temp-related melt.
So, let’s see what happens as energy from the EN moves about and how much of it gets into the Arctic.
I’d say odds are still good for a new low in Sept. ’17 with the ASI possibly starting from it’s lowest winter max in the record.
MAR at 229: “comparison with the 1997-99 El Nino years. That 1997-98 El Nino was quickly followed by La Nina conditions. While the 2015-16 El Nino ended pretty-much in sinc with 1997-98 El Nino, the La Nina conditions now appear to be a non-event. Predictions in October show the trend away from La Nina conditions in coming months & the 30-day SOI index has dropped back strongly into negative El-Nino-esque values (although this is not a signal of a done deal).
Back in 1998 as per the table below, the November value showed the beginning of the big drop from the elevated El Nino temperatures. So this coming month should see the first big sign of difference (or not) between the post-1998 El Nino temperatures & 2016’s. Stuff can happen but I see no reason for a repeat of the 1998 drop this year.”
The fact that we are not dropping into clear LN territory probably also keeps the CO2 increase numbers and comparison on year to year monthly averages from showing the flat month that I have been watching for and the flip into a smaller level of increase in year to year monthly average comparisons.
Be that as it may, the CO2 sats are real and have impact on the climate system that happens without any care as to whether the impact is amplified by EN or damped by LN conditions. We are at 402 ppm and we are in the up part of the cycle now. Fasten your seat belts, put your trays in the full upright condition, there is turbulence ahead.
Warm regards
Mike
Joe Cushleysays
I don’t think the respective presidential candidates’ energy plans have been put up next to each other here. Forgive if I’m wrong.
Hillary’s looks strong-ish, and admits that Climate Change is happening…
The Donald’s reads like an Andy Borowitz parody of a right-wing denier’s vision of free-market heaven. The disjunction between the ‘Vision’ and the ‘100 Day Plan’ sections, is jaw-droppingly hypocritical and hilarious.
Nemesis says:
2 Nov 2016 at 3:39 AM
@Chuck Hughes, #227
“I give a total, ultimate shit about funny politics, may it be funny Trump, funny Clinton, Sanders, Stein or whoever. When I see the media hype about the US election, I get SICK. As if any americano president would save the planet, gnahaha. Man, are we in a funny Hollywood movie or what?”
My first question is, Who’s laughing? Certainly not me. I wasn’t making any jokes. There are better choices and worse choices… better outcomes and worse outcomes. While I share your frustration I didn’t read anything you said that I haven’t already figured out or disagree with. I am sorry for our situation. I’ve been sorry for our situation for several years now. I happen to have a 19 year old daughter and a few grandkids. You think I’m not frustrated? Angry? Scared? Pissed off? Mad? At this particular moment I’m complaining about ONE thing and one thing only…. and it isn’t YOU.
I’m talking about the arrogant, bloviating, nonsensical, tedious postings that ramble on and on and on about unrelated topics as if nobody on this site has the ability to look anything up for themselves. I have to constantly scroll through miles of this to find other people’s comments. I’m not the only one complaining about it either. Others have said the same thing. It’s just that for all of Thomas’s self-ascribed ‘genius’ he can’t seem to figure out he’s being obnoxious. Instead he apparently thinks he’s God’s gift to scientific discovery or some other delusion. Right now he’s giving Donald Trump’s twitter account a run for its money.
If you’re sad and frustrated, welcome to the club! I’d rather not come to this site and face more frustration by having to swim through miles of Thomas’s posts. Savvy?
Thomassays
238 Barton Paul Levenson oh please try harder to get it right.
When a TV news announcers tells the audience what Pol Pot or Trump, do you then tell everyone on earth that the TV news announcer said and believes what Pol Pot and Trump said?
Why do you do this? If you are a logical scientist why do you RE-FRAME something said by Jill Stien of which I was “reporting” for clarity sake, into soime thing that I said as in this
Thos: Clinton is far more dangerous to the world than Trump could ever be.
Like what exactly is wrong with your so called scientific rational logic here?
Why are you lying about what was said?
Why are you totally misrepresenting what I said and meant and think?
Why are you behaving the same way that AGW/CC deniers operate as detailed by John Cook in his many videos and published papers of the 5 Characteristics of Climate science denial BPL? (and others?)
and of course – Fake experts – “Chuck has more science chops in his little finger”
So effing what? These are individuals purporting to be experts but whose views are inconsistent with established knowledge.
Scientists are not know-it-alls on every subject such as psychology, cognitive science, linguistics, mass media, politics, advertising, marketing tech, social sciences, corporate fraud, and HISTORY.
Scientists are as much victims to manipulation, fraud, corruption, sophistry, and deceit as anyone else.
What are you so afraid of that you must TWIST and FRACTURE the TRUTH and then use ridicule and ad hominem to shore up your pathetic inchoherent over-reaction and distortions?
Pride?
Thomassays
236 MA Rodger, thanks for that info. My point and query wasn’t about any ‘anthropocentric’ forcing of or ‘tipping points’ from el nino (ENSO).
eg snippets from the paper – “The feedbacks may change in response to global warming as the mean state changes, and this can lead to rather different ENSO dynamics. ”
and “ENSO stability and characteristics are strongly controlled by the background mean state, as may inferred from the discussion above and can be easily shown by linear stability analysis”
While the climate system globally and regionally is complex and ‘chaotic’ there is a distinctive trend of global warming. That global warming does have an impact across the board, more easily observed in the upswing in extreme weather events and new weather records and unprecedented events like the mangrove die off in the Gulf of Carpentaria and GBR coral bleaching this year in Oz (during an El Nino event btw).
To me, logically, the Mean State is the level playing field. Medium term climatic swings and short term weather cycles are playing on that Mean Field (?). That playing field is changing in one direction, ie the trend direction.
Now while I can readily accept the limitation in climate models and other evaluations to not be able to separate the minute signals and determine a direct overt ’cause’ or say ‘forcing’ it seems logical to me that they must be doing so – the playing field (the Mean State) is shifting and changing.
AS such surely it must logically and rationally be having an impact on ENSO in the very same way that global warming it is having an effect on the size and strength of Atlantic Hurricanes.
AS Gavin has said, all climate models are wrong, yet they are still useful (even if imperfect). That a climate model cannot as yet definitively determine the effect of a the changing Mean State upon the ENSO dynamics and more extreme impact of El Nino surely Logic and related insights from other climate models re extreme weather events would suggest that the current Mean State, the state of the current “climate playing field” globally and regionally in the Pacific most certainly should.
There appears to me much definitive weather temp data that suggest the 2016 El Nino is much more ‘powerful/impact’ than the one in 1998. Why? because it was activated on a higher playing field state than in 1997/98.
It is also well known that the 2016 El Nino began at a time where CO2 ppm where much higher than in 1997. Albeit probably minor in the overall dynamics of natural variability involved CO2 is a forcing driver of the climate system, therefore logically the higher levels MUST have had some as yet ill-defined effect on this extent/size/timing of the 2016 El Nino – to me that is basic Logic based on climate science knowledge.
That being so, it would flow that the 2016 El Nino had itself another directly related impact on the short term increase of CO2 ppm across 2016 as well. ie making it higher than it otherwise would have absent the shift in the Mean State being forced by global warming across the board since 1997/98.
iow Logically everything ‘climate and weather’ is and must be connected, even if as yet we do not have the necessary scientific tools or data to definitively spell it out precisely.
That being said, I am OK with patiently waiting for greater insights and output from the climate scientists who are deep into the detail.
Thomassays
234 Nemesis, I hear you clearly. Your frustration at present is more to do with “with friends like you who needs enemies ….” – The Jews of Europe especially in Germany pre-1939 knew what that felt like.
Ignorance is Bliss is a truism because it is true. And so if you wish, yes do go and enjoy your life. Walk away. The only thing beating your head against a brick wall will get you is a severely bruised forehead. :-)
Beliefs get changed one head at a time. And each person is 100% responsible for the irrational illogical beliefs that drive their thinking and actions.
Peace!
Thomassays
The USA is doing nothing and will continue to nothing about mitigating AGW/CC no matter who the President is, bar the ongoing rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic as it continues to sink.
Mike Mann had some pointed words to say on the new Before the Flood doco.
But who cares about that when you can argue about mythical beliefs and illogical crap on a climate science blog site while effectively doing absolutely nothing about what Mann said is the core issue today? :-)
Thomassays
What does Mike Mann and Jim Hansen both keep saying about the barriers to action on Climate Change? Go look it up for yourself. What are they doing about it?
“I won’t let anyone take us backward, deny our economy the benefits of harnessing a clean energy future, or force our children to endure the catastrophe that would result from unchecked climate change.”
“… will deliver on the pledge President Obama made at the Paris climate conference—without relying on climate deniers in Congress to pass new legislation. … will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 30 percent in 2025 relative to 2005 levels and put the country on a path to cut emissions more than 80 percent by 2050.”
“I’d like to see a price on carbon, but I’m more optimistic about persuading Congress to support more investment in clean energy, more investment in energy efficiency, more investment in research and development… These are things that can create jobs and economic opportunity”
“We really care about black lives, global poverty and climate change.”
… cross-check the facts for yourself and then maybe think about it some.
‘The Young Turks’ host Cenk Uygur closes his news report with: “Because this is how things actually work in our deeply corrupted system.”
Two rhetorical questions:
“How much to you really personally and honestly care about serious open accountable action on climate change where you live?”
“What are you doing about that which will actually could make a genuine long term difference globally for all of Humanity?”
I know what the climate scientists are doing and I support them 1,000% and always have.
Thomassays
So why is climate science denial so successful? Because it is funded by corrupt players. The very same players who make political donations to fund the election of people they ‘own’.
This happens everywhere of course, however where is climate science denial the strongest and most effective? Where is ground zero? In the USA.
Which nation is the #1 contributor to global warming on the planet? The USA is. As shown in a peer-reviewed science papers from which I posted some figures about various nation’s contributions and compared them to the USA.
I hear people reacting badly to TYT video (if you were game enough to watch it) and crying out – “Oh that ‘The Young Turks’ host Cenk Uygur is biased and a crazy Trump supporter.”
No his is not.
He says so himself the same day as the other news report linked to above. In the next link he tears Trump ‘the fascist monster’ and the Republicans a new ‘….’ over their corruption.
He’s been saying it for over a year now, so why would any intelligent logical rational person, including really smart ‘scientists’ cherry-pick a single video or anyone’s blog comments only to jump to rash illogical assumptions out of ignorance?
Hey, you don’t need to tell me, for I already know the answer to that rhetorical question! :-)
But I suspect several posters here still will not believe it (or more likely won’t even bother to watch it – ignorance is bliss right?) – the same as they refuse to believe me despite all the published evidence here that is the opposite of their very misguided and incorrect beliefs?
Meanwhile it should be obvious that the American political system is corrupt from the ground up and it is this that is the #1 driver of climate science denial globally and it is also the #1 barrier to effective climate change action both inside and outside the USA today.
Denying the cause will never fix the problem.
The evidence is everywhere such as in the Greens Vote in western democracies. The corrupt USA political system stops alternative parties like the Greens make any inroads into the national consciousness. That’s why The Greens rarely get on a ticket for election in the first place, and why nationally The Greens are lucky if they can poll 1-2%.
In Germany Alliance ’90/The Greens (GRÜNE) at elections get 8% of the vote and elect 63 people into their national parliament. The USA has zero Greens in political office.
In Australia the Greens get 11% of the Vote and have 13 members in the federal parliament. In Sweden 7% – not only is that a right leaning nation politically now but Sweden’s goal is to go carbon neutral by 2045.
8 parliamentary parties? Versus only 2 in the USA who are in effect a one-party system of corruption and fraud.
As we speak everything touched by the ‘Repubocrats’ is tainted and untrustworthy – from the bottom to the very top.
And this is why nothing of any significant effect is happening now or will be happening in the USA about Climate Science Denial or AGW/CC Action anytime soon – because of the institutionalized political corruption.
There’s nothing that climate scientists alone or climate science as a field can do about that. Or non-Americans.
Maybe listening to one of your own like Cenk Uygur could be the difference? He and many others like Noam Chomsky, George Lakoff, Stiglitz, Snowdon and that Psychologist Kroth have been warning the American people about the real problem for years now.
Nothing changes if nothing changes. That’s a fact. :-)
MA Rodger says:
22 Oct 2016 at 2:35 AM
Arctic Sea Ice Extent
The big picture https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsRflXO9mCs
Chris Machens @201,
Your big picture is a 2 minute video of Arctic sea ice showing what NASA’s Walt Meier calls the third dimension, which is not thickness but age. The video of the ice runs through the melts and freezes from 1991 to today but curiously does so twice. I wonder if the video were run at half speed, this double-take could be avoided.
Of course, the dynamics of the Arctic is captured but a full appreciation of the scale of the loss of multi-year ice perhaps requires a static image, like this one of Arctic ice age 1985-to-date (usually 2 clicks to ‘download your attachment’)
Hank Roberts says: 25 Oct 2016 at 3:23 PM re:
The White House “Troglodyte Narrative”:
Hank, models don’t demonize anything– political operatives and PR men do.
Neither science communication or climate policy benefit from political framing aimed at alienating half the Congress and electorate.
The advancement of science is ill served by declarations of contempt for its political neutrality.
People who claim that AGW is a hoax demonize themselves. It is unremarkable if politicians who accept the science want to reframe their message, though I admit it can be a difficult line for scientists to walk.
Russel (@151, 169 etc.): I gotta say, having read the memo, that it seems pretty well thought-out and demonstrates that someone is taking the threat seriously. I’d love to know if any of this was implemented back in 2014 when it was proposed.
And whoever butchered the memo on the link you included did a real disservice to the public. They took statements away from the context that explained the intent of the authors and outright changed the intent of some parts of the memo. They even join by ellipsis words that were from different paragraphs! I do not know who did the editing there, but it verges on the dishonest.
Russel (@203): the memo isn’t about the advancement of science. It’s about getting something done in a political context. For that, it is an excellent memo!
MA Rodger, i agree the repeat of the animation could have been avoided, nevertheless good video by NASA with great narration. Also want to point out, sea ice thickness and sea ice age are not the same thing, but sea ice age provides a proxy for thickness. https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/sea_ice.html
Weird ‘Gravity’ Waves Above Antarctica Caused by Ice Vibrations
Peculiar atmospheric waves that have puzzled scientists since they were spotted in Antarctica a few years ago, above the massive Ross Ice Shelf, may have a source: Tiny vibrations in the ice are traveling miles into the sky to create huge atmospheric ripples.
Since ice thickness is one factor that determines the size of the resulting atmospheric ripples, scientists could someday use measurements in the air disruptions to monitor the Ross Ice Shelf, said lead study author Oleg Godin, a professor of physics at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. http://www.livescience.com/56686-ice-vibrations-cause-weird-waves-above-antarctica.html
187 Chuck Hughes, 182 Martin Bernstein, and 180 zebra.
The saying goes “with friends like you … ”
I like what Mike said “You connect the dots, kemosabe.”
And if you can’t then it isn’t my problem.
About Thomas and “trolling” as some call it:
People are trying to keep sane, to keep rational, to keep calm, to keep cool, to keep optimistic ect blah blah, BUT:
The situation we are in is NOT sane, NOT rational, NOT calm, NOT cool, NO reason for optimism ect blah blah.
So I do have a great deal of understanding for people, who, like Thomas, say it like it is these days, with one post and two posts and a million posts if necessary.
You know, I have been told all my life “be rational, be optimistic, be opportunistic, do, what the system, what Empire wants you to do!”
You know what? I give a shit, actually, I gave a shit a very long time ago already and THAT is exactly the reason, why I realized REALITY, climate reality, ecologic reality, political reality, economic reality a long time ago. Say what you have to say, Thomas, say it loud and clearly, one time, two times, a million times. We can be calm and silent, when we are dead.
Love,
Nemesis
205 MartinJB :
Podesta’s 7 page PR memo has indeed been edited for length, but the selection posted ends with this link in bold:
Thomas (@209) So, you are wishing Trump on the US? And you care about combatting climate change? You’ve got to be kidding me. If you think that a Trump presidency will magically bring on the change we need, you’re delusional, naive or a troll. I’m inclined to think it’s one of the former two. Seriously, in your own words explain how you think the presidency of the racist, pro-ignorance and utterly selfish Trump would be better for fighting climate change than Clinton. Please. I’d LOVE to hear this.
Russell (@211) That was not editing for length. It was editing for deception. It elided parts of the text that were not closely connected. It made it sound like the writer was suggesting ignoring the data on climate change. In the actual text, it’s obvious that they were talking about a different kind of data. Here’s the entire quote:
“While public opinion research can certainly help guide and refine any approach (particularly in how to talk about who is right and who is wrong), one cannot be handcuffed by data on a fundamental moral issue of this kind.”
And including a link at the end does not remove the editor’s culpability for deceptive editing in the first place. Look, I’m sorry to be so strident on this. You’re just the messenger here. But it really bugs me when people on either side of an issue do this kind of thing.
Before the Flood – Full Movie | National Geographic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90CkXVF-Q8M #Trending
Thomas says:
30 Oct 2016 at 8:27 AM
187 Chuck Hughes, 182 Martin Bernstein, and 180 zebra.
I like what Mike said “You connect the dots, kemosabe.” And if you can’t then it isn’t my problem.”
Thomas, the idea that you’re going to connect my dots or anyone else’s dots is laughable. I’d prefer to hear from someone who didn’t spend their youth munching on lead paint chips.
Nemesis says:
30 Oct 2016 at 12:47 PM
“About Thomas and “trolling” as some call it:
People are trying to keep sane, to keep rational, to keep calm, to keep cool, to keep optimistic ect blah blah, BUT:
The situation we are in is NOT sane, NOT rational, NOT calm, NOT cool, NO reason for optimism ect blah blah.”
Thomas is “spamming”…
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=spamming&defid=6045240
Scientific discussion has to be rational. It’s one of the few rational things humans do and I for one don’t care to read manic ramblings about disparate topics from a guy calling himself “Thomas”. Maybe you should start a thread for “Things I Found On The Internet” if you’re really interested.
I’ve made a point this year to post snippets about unprecedented weather and climate events in Australia – and occasionally the latest research about such things. eg the bleaching on the GBR and theath of 800klms of mangroves in nth oz.
I’m am curious if there is are any archives/record websites of similar unprecedented ‘climate news’ anywhere online – be it for the globe or about other nations and regions.
Or is there a uni/science body that is tracking these events collectively.
If you ever hear of something like this please pass it on. thx
Once again about the massive global insect decline:
” 26.10.2016 – Insektensterben statt Bienentanz
Wissenschaftler fordern Sofortmaßnahmen gegen den rasanten Artenschwund
Ganze Landstriche ohne bestäubende Insekten – in China ist das schon heute Wirklichkeit. Dort müssen Pflanzen von Hand bestäubt werden. In wenigen Jahren könnte es auch in Deutschland so weit sein. Denn neueste Forschungsergebnisse zeigen: Der Bestand von Wildbienen und anderen Insekten ist drastisch gesunken.
Wenn der Trend beim Insektenschwund sich fortsetzt, sterben viele Arten in weniger als zehn Jahren aus. Die Folgen wären eine ökologische Katastrophe, die nicht zuletzt massive wirtschaftliche Schäden in Milliardenhöhe für die Landwirtschaft und Nahrungsmittelproduktion mit sich bringen würde. Daher verabschiedeten 77 Forscher bei einer Fachtagung des Staatlichen Museums für Naturkunde Stuttgart und der Universität Hohenheim eine Resolution an Bundesumweltministerin Dr. Barbara Hendricks. Sie fordern Sofortmaßnahmen, um den drastischen Rückgang von Wildbienen und anderen Insekten zu stoppen.
Neonicotinoide schwächen Wildbienen
In ihrer Resolution verlangen die Forscher ein vollständiges Verbot von Insektengiften der Gruppe der Neonicotinoide bis zum wissenschaftlich sauberen Nachweis ihrer Umweltverträglichkeit. Außerdem fordern sie Maßnahmen zur Erhöhung der Strukturvielfalt in der Kulturlandschaft wie eine Verbesserung des Blütenangebots sowie ein Langzeit-Monitoring von Insekten, insbesondere Wildbienen. Das soll ermöglichen, gefährdete Bestände zukünftig besser zu lokalisieren und rechtzeitig Gegenmaßnahmen einzuleiten.
„Die Experten sind sich einig, dass nur durch schnelles Handeln zum Schutz der Insekten der Artbestand gerettet werden kann. Wir hoffen, dass durch unsere Resolution in der Öffentlichkeit der Ernst der Lage erkannt wird und die Politik Maßnahmen ergreift“, so Dr. Lars Krogmann vom Staatlichen Museum für Naturkunde Stuttgart.
Um die Jahrtausendwende wurden verstärkt neuartige Insektenvernichtungsmittel eingesetzt: Sie enthalten Neonicotinoide – hochwirksame Pestizide gegen Insekten. Sie gelten als neues Mittel der Wahl gegen Blatt- und Schildläuse, Schmetterlinge, Zikaden und Käfer. Auf Honigbienen zeigte das Nervengift zunächst keine tödliche Wirkung. Daher sahen die Verantwortlichen auch keinen Grund, die neuen Pestizide nicht zuzulassen. Mittlerweile gibt es jedoch zahlreiche Untersuchungen, die Langzeitwirkungen aufzeigen und eine Anreicherung von Neonicotioniden in Ackerböden selbst bei vorschriftsgemäßer Anwendung.
Rückgänge um bis zu 75 Prozent in nur zehn Jahren
Eine aktuelle Studie weist nach, dass die Bestände bestimmter Wildbienenarten, die bereits auf der Roten Liste der bedrohten Arten stehen, drastisch zurückgehen: „In manchen Gegenden um bis zu 75 Prozent in einem Zeitraum von zehn Jahren“, erklärt der Tierökologe Prof. Dr. Johannes Steidle von der Universität Hohenheim. „Das ist Alarmstufe Rot.“…”
https://www.nabu.de/news/2016/10/21429.html
214 prokaryotes, thx, that video is very good.
The views rose by over 200,000 and +5000 likes while I was watching it.
1.1 million views now on the first day of uploading it? Amazing.
Yet look at all the climate science denying psychopaths who are commenting about it at the same time. They’re sickos who have lost their humanity.
@Chuck Hughes, #216
” Scientific discussion has to be rational”
Yoh, I second that. But don’t worry, in the face of death and destruction, even science will become completely irrelevant ;-)
” I for one don’t care to read manic ramblings about disparate topics from a guy calling himself “Thomas”.”
Well, not to read any comments you don’t care to read, seems to be a pretty good solution. I don’t read any comments I don’t care about either ;-)
For all of those who doubt mass extinction:
” 28.10.2016 – Sixth mass extinction? Two-thirds of wildlife may be gone by 2020: WWF”
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/26/world/wild-animals-disappear-report-wwf/
213 Martin Bernstein is mistaken in both his accusation that I edited a blog post to decieve rather than condense, and his representation of the ‘Troglodyte Narrative memo to which that post refers
While Berstein asserts the writers “were talking about a different kind of data”:
and their cover letter makes it perfectly clear that they are writing about climate change. It too was linked in my post and here is its full text- which speaks for itself- I have bolded the parts quoted : the ellipses are in the original.
#291 Thomas says:
31 Oct 2016 at 3:57 AM “Yet look at all the climate science denying psychopaths ..”
Don’t be fooled, there is a vocal minority which casts doubt on the science and distracts, nothing knew. Ofc, there are “legit” deniers mixed in as well. NatGeo should just ban all these users, because they clearly have an agenda when denying reality.
October 23 – 29, 2016 402.07 ppm
October 23 – 29, 2015 398.50 ppm
looks like 3.57 ppm increase. Read’m and weep
Mike
Russel, there is nothing special about this document or what you quote. Its a standard strategic paper, well written. If you want to be concerned be concerned about natural gas as a pipe dream.
Russell (@222): First, I’m sorry. I had no idea you were the author of that web-site. So, when I spoke to the motivation of the author, I did it with a lack of personal knowledge of the author. I’ll take you at your word that you did not intend to deceive.
However, I still think your “summary” of the memo does misrepresent the contents of the actual memo (which is why I characterized the the summary the way I did). I don’ think we need to debate this here. As you point out, you do include the link to the original memo, so others can peruse it on their own.
Cheers!
Nemesis says:
31 Oct 2016 at 6:21 AM
@Chuck Hughes, #216
” Scientific discussion has to be rational”
Yoh, I second that. But don’t worry, in the face of death and destruction, even science will become completely irrelevant ;-)”
I know we’re in bad shape but has something new happened? Last thing I remember we were heading for societal collapse by ~2035, and that was the good news. I thought we still had a few more decades of blissful ignorance left. I was just about to take Thomas’ advice and vote for Jill Stein.
mike @224,
Have you spotted Tamino’s assessment of atmospheric CO2 increases. His conclusion on the subject of the present rate of increase is – “All in all, the evidence suggests that the present long-term rate of CO2 increase is right around 2.25 ppmv/yr.” The rates of increase for present days, weeks & months are still being boosted by El Nino. But for that, September’s 401.03ppm, the result of a 3.4ppm increase in September 2015, would have been presumably depressed in excess of 1ppm and MLO would have then recorded a final sub-400ppm month (instead of the single rogue sub-400ppm daily reading of 29th August).
The first day of the new month & UAH has posted the October global temperature anomaly for its TLTv6.0(beta5) at +0.41ºC (two significant places), the 25th warmest anomaly on the record. This probably best described as equal-warmest October on record as October last year is listed at +0.411ºC. This year’s October animaly represents a small fall on September’s anomaly. The year-to-date average stands at +0.538ºC, To achieve the ‘warmest calendar year on record’ (which remains 1998 at +0.484ºC) the remainder of 2016 would have to average in excess of +0.216ºC.
The table here allows comparison with the 1997-99 El Nino years. That 1997-98 El Nino was quickly followed by La Nina conditions. While the 2015-16 El Nino ended pretty-much in sinc with 1997-98 El Nino, the La Nina conditions now appear to be a non-event. Predictions in October show the trend away from La Nina conditions in coming months & the 30-day SOI index has dropped back strongly into negative El-Nino-esque values (although this is not a signal of a done deal).
Back in 1998 as per the table below, the November value showed the beginning of the big drop from the elevated El Nino temperatures. So this coming month should see the first big sign of difference (or not) between the post-1998 El Nino temperatures & 2016’s. Stuff can happen but I see no reason for a repeat of the 1998 drop this year.
……….1997/99 … 2015/16
Dec … +0.250ºC … +0.450ºC
Jan … +0.479ºC … +0.540ºC
Feb … +0.653ºC … +0.832ºC
Mar … +0.475ºC … +0.734ºC
Apr … +0.743ºC … +0.714ºC
May … +0.643ºC … +0.545ºC
Jun .… +0.575ºC … +0.338ºC
Jul … +0.511ºC . … +0.389ºC
Aug … +0.516ºC …. +0.435ºC
Sep … +0.441ºC …. +0.440ºC
Oct … +0.403ºC …. +0.410ºC
Nov … +0.123ºC
Dec … +0.246ºC
Jan … +0.060ºC
Feb … +0.166ºC
Mar … -0.081ºC
Apr … +0.009ºC
May … -0.037ºC
Jun … -0.154ºC
MAR at 228: yes, I read Tamino’s posts on a regular basis and I looked at the one you referenced and wondered if, and hoped that, Tamino is correct and that the baseline CO2 increase number is around 2.25 ppmv/yr. I am not sufficiently grounded and knowledgeable about the CO2 cycle to project what the baseline number actually is. I can track hard numbers, unbuffered by potential modifiers, and review them against other time frames with similar modifiers and draw some conclusions/best guesses about what is going on. In the case of the impact of EN as a modifier, I can look back at 1998/1999 EN event for context.
because even the annual numbers are noisy, I look at the following:
1988 2.40 ppm increase (outlier on the high side, EN?)
1989 1.50 ppm increase (baseline at that time?)
1990 1.28 ppm
1991 1.22 ppm
1992 0.82 ppm (economic downturn?)
1993 0.69 ppm
1994 1.75 ppm
1995 1.97 ppm
1996 1.79 ppm
1997 1.12 ppm
1998 2.95 ppm (big EN event)
1999 1.67 ppm
2000 1.20 ppm
2001 1.61 ppm
2002 2.08 ppm (EN cycle?)
2003 2.56 ppm
2004 1.72 ppm
2005 2.31 ppm
2006 2.10 ppm
2007 1.86 ppm
2008 1.82 ppm
2009 1.78 ppm
2010 2.48 ppm
2011 1.78 ppm
2012 2.19 ppm
2013 2.66 ppm
2014 2.13 ppm
2015 2.21 ppm
2016 ???
2017 ???
As the months go by and we see the most recent EN event in the past, we should see the increase number of current mo average drop when compared to the same month in 2015. At some point, we should be comparing a monthly average of non-EN numbers against past year of EN number and then we should see the month to month comparison differential drop, right?
When I look at monthly averages from 1998 and 1999 and calc the differences, then I see increase showing in Jan 99 (2.94 ppm for Jan 1999 v. 2.14 for Jan 1998, then flattening off by April increase of 2.35 ppm for 1999 and 2.36 for 1998, then the numbers turn around with 1998 showing larger month to month increase from 1997 than are shown with 1999 compared to 1998. I am watching and waiting to see this happen in the month to month comparisons in the current EN event and we have not hit a flat month yet. The most recent month to month that I can work with is Sep showing 3.47 increase from 2016 compared with Sep 2015 which showed a 2.28 ppm increase from Sep 2014.
Sep 1999 showed a 0.93 ppm increase over Sept 1998 which showed a 3.7 ppm increase over Sep 1997
So what I am seeing is that there is no flat month yet showing that the EN bump has started to subside. Once we hit a flat month we should then start seeing a reduction of increase in month to month annual comparison. It just has not happened yet, not even to the baseline increase of 2.25 ppm that tamino proposes.
I want to keep this discussion as simple as possible, so will leave it there and we can carry over to UV thread if it continues to exist in any meaningful way on this website.
Warm regard,
Mike
228 MA Rodger, “The rates of increase for present days, weeks & months are still being boosted by El Nino.”
Is there any confirmation by climate scientists that El Nino has not, can not be, boosted (made more extreme/pushed up) by the existing global warming and the already higher temps in the pacific ocean?
It sounds to me that some people are presenting El Nino as if it is totally disconnected from the whole climate system. That doesn’t sound logical – or is it?
227 Chuck Hughes, “I know we’re in bad shape but has something new happened?”
Yes, new things are happening all the time, almost every day across the world. People can note and review the new unprecedented/ record events in their region as I have done for australia this year. One nation out of 197.
Why would I say If you’re not shocked in 2016 then you haven’t been paying attention.? Oh yes that’s right I’m just a conspiracy theorist troll. Nothing to see with exxon-mobil or Lamar Smith and US politician games nor a whole state wiped out by massive storms and tornadoes. We don’t get tornadoes in Australia Chuck. It isn’t Nebraska. Nothing new to see in co2 ppm nor the arctic ice loss dynamics this year?
Chuck “I was just about to take Thomas’ advice and vote for Jill Stein.
People like you Chuck are a pain in the butt. I don’t give advice. I don;t tell people who to vote for not in the USA and not here either. I never said people should vote for Jill Stein – period.
I have no tolerance for big mouths who have not read what I wrote nor viewed the refs. If you wish to criticism other people it would surely help if you knew what they had presented in the first place and not be so immature to make shit up to make yourself feel better by easing the cognitive dissonance from being rattled.
The posting of link is not, repeat NOT an endorsement of what the link posits. But people are just too biased and too slow to work simple things like this out.
My “advice” and pov always comes back to two simple key point – THINK for yourself and RESEARCH the facts for yourself do not believe anyone without checking – especially the crap that gets put out by the media. Like how dumb are people who do that today?
Did any of the critics view Chomsky’s talk and the Q&A that directly addressed climate change and the denial industry and the connected political processes? Any one notice the direct similarities between that what the psychology professor said, how that matches up with John Cook denial strategies and other academic papers and research over the last 20 years and how and why that intersects with Lamar Smith, Exxon-Mobil, and the current US elections yet again?
Nah, too much like hard work.
Chuck don’t do anything you think I am “advising” because given what you say I know for sure you will get it wrong. Instead go listen to everything that Jill Stein has said over the last month including that Clinton is far more dangerous to the world than Trump could ever be.
Better still go listen to what comes out of the horses mouth and attempt to actually think for yourself for once!
https://www.c-span.org/video/?414279-1/green-party-nominee-jill-stein-holds-news-conference
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ny1qT4oyY6Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GheOE9Q-3-I
While you’re at it stop listening to what the media hacks and politicians say about Putin and Russia and go hear him direct.
October 27, 2016 – President Vladimir Putin:
“Yes, we passed information on the Tsarnayev brothers on to our American partners. We wrote to them but received no response. After we wrote a second time we got a reply that they are US citizens and so it was none of our business and they would take care of everything themselves. I told the director of the FSB to archive the file. The response we received is still there, in the archives.”
“Sadly, a few months later, the Boston marathon terrorist attack took place and people were killed. It is a great shame that this tragedy took place. If contacts and trust between us and our partners had been better this could have been avoided. The Americans came here immediately following the attack and we gave them the information in our possession. But it was too late. People had already lost their lives.”
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/53151
and wake the eff up!
America – the biggest goldfish bowl and echo chamber on the planet.
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/myopic
226
Thanks, Martin , but no need to apologize- it’s hard to fit 700 legible words on an page, and however you cut it , a one page condensation of a 104 paragraph document is doomed to make somebody unhappy.
Readers are of course at liberty to disturb others in turn by cutting it to fit their own political narratives, Troglodyte or otherwise,
@Chuck Hughes, #227
I give a total, ultimate shit about funny politics, may it be funny Trump, funny Clinton, Sanders, Stein or whoever. When I see the media hype about the US election, I get SICK. As if any americano president would save the planet, gnahaha. Man, are we in a funny Hollywood movie or what? Americanos save the planet a million times in Hollywood movies, but they NEVER did that in reality. Politics isn’t done by politicians, but by money alone, the whole planet is ruled by funny MONEY and that funny gamez will go on… no, not forever, but until the whole shit goes down the drain, soon. After 30 years I realized, that NOTHING substantial will change, it is all about funny money and power. I realized, the discussions about climate change, about politics are just a waste of time and I will not waste anymore time on it, I wasted 30 years for NOTHING. So this is my final post, I give it up, I will enjoy the rest of my life from now on, accepting harsh reality. I’m done with politics, I am done with climate discussions. I am out.
Love and good luck,
Nemesis
mike @230,
If you use the NOAA MLO monthly CO2 data (which helpfully provide the ‘one year ago’ value for each week), the numbers are a bit volatile but when averaged over say 5-weeks much of that volatility is averaged out & you are left with weekly values of that average which show a little more precisely than monthly averages what is happening with 12-month CO2 increases.
Thus, in 1998 the 12-month CO2 rise can be shown to have peaked by the start of August (at +3.9ppm per year) while in 2016 the 12-month CO2 rise had peaked by the tart of June (at +4.2ppm per year) and has now dropped to roughly +3.3ppm per year.
Thomas @231,
I don’t think an anthropogenic influence on ENSO is being ignored. Rather, studies like Latif & Keenlyside (2008) can find no evidence for there being an anthropogenic influence so far. And they will continue to look.
MODERATORS: Notice that it took “Thomas” 5 links and over 11 paragraphs to respond to one of my statements.
On the internet that’s what’s known as “spamming”. Taking up massive amounts of real estate and essentially saying nothing or posting disparate ‘red herring’ statements or inflammatory nonsense. This guy does it incessantly and with impunity. I come here to read about Climate Change, not engage with a know nothing dolt. Thanks
I’ve highlighted a few ‘Thomas techniquies’ for reference. More can be found here:
http://www.insolitology.com/tests/credo.htm
22 Refer to anyone who does not immediately agree with you as being uneducated on the matter, lacking in important information, or just plain too stupid to understand your magnificent statements.
26 When all else fails…. SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM…..
> 232 Thomas says:
1 Nov 2016 at 5:19 PM
Thos: Clinton is far more dangerous to the world than Trump could ever be.
BPL: Right, but Chuck “got it wrong” by saying you were recommending Jill Stein. What else could you have been implying? Gary Johnson?
BTW, Chuck has more science chops in his little finger than you have in your whole cynical, angry, little-man-syndrome body.
As I understand it, no. But by then, under BAU, we would be firmly committed to a climate future in which societal collapse would be far too likely.
The need to rapidly mitigate emissions *now* is why Trump would be a potential global-scale and millennial-scale disaster at this point.
Arctic is looking on track for another low summer in ’17. Bear in mind the 2-year (two summers, really) new low, near new low theory after El Ninos. That we’ve had pretty much perfect summers for keeping sea ice loss to a minimum since 2012, yet had a new low in ’12, nice dip in ’15 and new 2nd/tie for 2nd (depending on what you count and who counts), it is clear we’re getting significant bottom melt/sea temp-related melt.
So, let’s see what happens as energy from the EN moves about and how much of it gets into the Arctic.
I’d say odds are still good for a new low in Sept. ’17 with the ASI possibly starting from it’s lowest winter max in the record.
Carry on.
MAR at 229: “comparison with the 1997-99 El Nino years. That 1997-98 El Nino was quickly followed by La Nina conditions. While the 2015-16 El Nino ended pretty-much in sinc with 1997-98 El Nino, the La Nina conditions now appear to be a non-event. Predictions in October show the trend away from La Nina conditions in coming months & the 30-day SOI index has dropped back strongly into negative El-Nino-esque values (although this is not a signal of a done deal).
Back in 1998 as per the table below, the November value showed the beginning of the big drop from the elevated El Nino temperatures. So this coming month should see the first big sign of difference (or not) between the post-1998 El Nino temperatures & 2016’s. Stuff can happen but I see no reason for a repeat of the 1998 drop this year.”
The fact that we are not dropping into clear LN territory probably also keeps the CO2 increase numbers and comparison on year to year monthly averages from showing the flat month that I have been watching for and the flip into a smaller level of increase in year to year monthly average comparisons.
Be that as it may, the CO2 sats are real and have impact on the climate system that happens without any care as to whether the impact is amplified by EN or damped by LN conditions. We are at 402 ppm and we are in the up part of the cycle now. Fasten your seat belts, put your trays in the full upright condition, there is turbulence ahead.
Warm regards
Mike
I don’t think the respective presidential candidates’ energy plans have been put up next to each other here. Forgive if I’m wrong.
Hillary’s looks strong-ish, and admits that Climate Change is happening…
http://tinyurl.com/zsqy684
The Donald’s reads like an Andy Borowitz parody of a right-wing denier’s vision of free-market heaven. The disjunction between the ‘Vision’ and the ‘100 Day Plan’ sections, is jaw-droppingly hypocritical and hilarious.
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trumps-america-first-energy-plan
Nemesis says:
2 Nov 2016 at 3:39 AM
@Chuck Hughes, #227
“I give a total, ultimate shit about funny politics, may it be funny Trump, funny Clinton, Sanders, Stein or whoever. When I see the media hype about the US election, I get SICK. As if any americano president would save the planet, gnahaha. Man, are we in a funny Hollywood movie or what?”
My first question is, Who’s laughing? Certainly not me. I wasn’t making any jokes. There are better choices and worse choices… better outcomes and worse outcomes. While I share your frustration I didn’t read anything you said that I haven’t already figured out or disagree with. I am sorry for our situation. I’ve been sorry for our situation for several years now. I happen to have a 19 year old daughter and a few grandkids. You think I’m not frustrated? Angry? Scared? Pissed off? Mad? At this particular moment I’m complaining about ONE thing and one thing only…. and it isn’t YOU.
I’m talking about the arrogant, bloviating, nonsensical, tedious postings that ramble on and on and on about unrelated topics as if nobody on this site has the ability to look anything up for themselves. I have to constantly scroll through miles of this to find other people’s comments. I’m not the only one complaining about it either. Others have said the same thing. It’s just that for all of Thomas’s self-ascribed ‘genius’ he can’t seem to figure out he’s being obnoxious. Instead he apparently thinks he’s God’s gift to scientific discovery or some other delusion. Right now he’s giving Donald Trump’s twitter account a run for its money.
If you’re sad and frustrated, welcome to the club! I’d rather not come to this site and face more frustration by having to swim through miles of Thomas’s posts. Savvy?
238 Barton Paul Levenson oh please try harder to get it right.
When a TV news announcers tells the audience what Pol Pot or Trump, do you then tell everyone on earth that the TV news announcer said and believes what Pol Pot and Trump said?
Why do you do this? If you are a logical scientist why do you RE-FRAME something said by Jill Stien of which I was “reporting” for clarity sake, into soime thing that I said as in this
Thos: Clinton is far more dangerous to the world than Trump could ever be.
Like what exactly is wrong with your so called scientific rational logic here?
Why are you lying about what was said?
Why are you totally misrepresenting what I said and meant and think?
Why are you behaving the same way that AGW/CC deniers operate as detailed by John Cook in his many videos and published papers of the 5 Characteristics of Climate science denial BPL? (and others?)
In particular 3) Cherry picking and 5) Misrepresentation and logical fallacies
http://www.skepticalscience.com/5-characteristics-of-scientific-denialism.html
and of course – Fake experts – “Chuck has more science chops in his little finger”
So effing what? These are individuals purporting to be experts but whose views are inconsistent with established knowledge.
Scientists are not know-it-alls on every subject such as psychology, cognitive science, linguistics, mass media, politics, advertising, marketing tech, social sciences, corporate fraud, and HISTORY.
Scientists are as much victims to manipulation, fraud, corruption, sophistry, and deceit as anyone else.
What are you so afraid of that you must TWIST and FRACTURE the TRUTH and then use ridicule and ad hominem to shore up your pathetic inchoherent over-reaction and distortions?
Pride?
236 MA Rodger, thanks for that info. My point and query wasn’t about any ‘anthropocentric’ forcing of or ‘tipping points’ from el nino (ENSO).
eg snippets from the paper – “The feedbacks may change in response to global warming as the mean state changes, and this can lead to rather different ENSO dynamics. ”
and “ENSO stability and characteristics are strongly controlled by the background mean state, as may inferred from the discussion above and can be easily shown by linear stability analysis”
While the climate system globally and regionally is complex and ‘chaotic’ there is a distinctive trend of global warming. That global warming does have an impact across the board, more easily observed in the upswing in extreme weather events and new weather records and unprecedented events like the mangrove die off in the Gulf of Carpentaria and GBR coral bleaching this year in Oz (during an El Nino event btw).
To me, logically, the Mean State is the level playing field. Medium term climatic swings and short term weather cycles are playing on that Mean Field (?). That playing field is changing in one direction, ie the trend direction.
Now while I can readily accept the limitation in climate models and other evaluations to not be able to separate the minute signals and determine a direct overt ’cause’ or say ‘forcing’ it seems logical to me that they must be doing so – the playing field (the Mean State) is shifting and changing.
AS such surely it must logically and rationally be having an impact on ENSO in the very same way that global warming it is having an effect on the size and strength of Atlantic Hurricanes.
AS Gavin has said, all climate models are wrong, yet they are still useful (even if imperfect). That a climate model cannot as yet definitively determine the effect of a the changing Mean State upon the ENSO dynamics and more extreme impact of El Nino surely Logic and related insights from other climate models re extreme weather events would suggest that the current Mean State, the state of the current “climate playing field” globally and regionally in the Pacific most certainly should.
There appears to me much definitive weather temp data that suggest the 2016 El Nino is much more ‘powerful/impact’ than the one in 1998. Why? because it was activated on a higher playing field state than in 1997/98.
It is also well known that the 2016 El Nino began at a time where CO2 ppm where much higher than in 1997. Albeit probably minor in the overall dynamics of natural variability involved CO2 is a forcing driver of the climate system, therefore logically the higher levels MUST have had some as yet ill-defined effect on this extent/size/timing of the 2016 El Nino – to me that is basic Logic based on climate science knowledge.
That being so, it would flow that the 2016 El Nino had itself another directly related impact on the short term increase of CO2 ppm across 2016 as well. ie making it higher than it otherwise would have absent the shift in the Mean State being forced by global warming across the board since 1997/98.
iow Logically everything ‘climate and weather’ is and must be connected, even if as yet we do not have the necessary scientific tools or data to definitively spell it out precisely.
That being said, I am OK with patiently waiting for greater insights and output from the climate scientists who are deep into the detail.
234 Nemesis, I hear you clearly. Your frustration at present is more to do with “with friends like you who needs enemies ….” – The Jews of Europe especially in Germany pre-1939 knew what that felt like.
Ignorance is Bliss is a truism because it is true. And so if you wish, yes do go and enjoy your life. Walk away. The only thing beating your head against a brick wall will get you is a severely bruised forehead. :-)
Beliefs get changed one head at a time. And each person is 100% responsible for the irrational illogical beliefs that drive their thinking and actions.
Peace!
The USA is doing nothing and will continue to nothing about mitigating AGW/CC no matter who the President is, bar the ongoing rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic as it continues to sink.
So I repeat: America – the biggest goldfish bowl and echo chamber on the planet. https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/myopic
Mike Mann had some pointed words to say on the new Before the Flood doco.
But who cares about that when you can argue about mythical beliefs and illogical crap on a climate science blog site while effectively doing absolutely nothing about what Mann said is the core issue today? :-)
What does Mike Mann and Jim Hansen both keep saying about the barriers to action on Climate Change? Go look it up for yourself. What are they doing about it?
“I won’t let anyone take us backward, deny our economy the benefits of harnessing a clean energy future, or force our children to endure the catastrophe that would result from unchecked climate change.”
“… will deliver on the pledge President Obama made at the Paris climate conference—without relying on climate deniers in Congress to pass new legislation. … will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 30 percent in 2025 relative to 2005 levels and put the country on a path to cut emissions more than 80 percent by 2050.”
“I’d like to see a price on carbon, but I’m more optimistic about persuading Congress to support more investment in clean energy, more investment in energy efficiency, more investment in research and development… These are things that can create jobs and economic opportunity”
“We really care about black lives, global poverty and climate change.”
Who said that?
Please take 18 minutes out of your life to watch this video news report
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApcqXijVzYU
… cross-check the facts for yourself and then maybe think about it some.
‘The Young Turks’ host Cenk Uygur closes his news report with:
“Because this is how things actually work in our deeply corrupted system.”
Two rhetorical questions:
“How much to you really personally and honestly care about serious open accountable action on climate change where you live?”
“What are you doing about that which will actually could make a genuine long term difference globally for all of Humanity?”
I know what the climate scientists are doing and I support them 1,000% and always have.
So why is climate science denial so successful? Because it is funded by corrupt players. The very same players who make political donations to fund the election of people they ‘own’.
This happens everywhere of course, however where is climate science denial the strongest and most effective? Where is ground zero? In the USA.
Which nation is the #1 contributor to global warming on the planet? The USA is. As shown in a peer-reviewed science papers from which I posted some figures about various nation’s contributions and compared them to the USA.
I hear people reacting badly to TYT video (if you were game enough to watch it) and crying out – “Oh that ‘The Young Turks’ host Cenk Uygur is biased and a crazy Trump supporter.”
No his is not.
He says so himself the same day as the other news report linked to above. In the next link he tears Trump ‘the fascist monster’ and the Republicans a new ‘….’ over their corruption.
He’s been saying it for over a year now, so why would any intelligent logical rational person, including really smart ‘scientists’ cherry-pick a single video or anyone’s blog comments only to jump to rash illogical assumptions out of ignorance?
Hey, you don’t need to tell me, for I already know the answer to that rhetorical question! :-)
Here’s the proof that Cenk Uygur is not a Trump supporter @ 6mins49sec
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyc8LGOmwWs&feature=youtu.be&t=6m49s
But I suspect several posters here still will not believe it (or more likely won’t even bother to watch it – ignorance is bliss right?) – the same as they refuse to believe me despite all the published evidence here that is the opposite of their very misguided and incorrect beliefs?
Meanwhile it should be obvious that the American political system is corrupt from the ground up and it is this that is the #1 driver of climate science denial globally and it is also the #1 barrier to effective climate change action both inside and outside the USA today.
Denying the cause will never fix the problem.
The evidence is everywhere such as in the Greens Vote in western democracies. The corrupt USA political system stops alternative parties like the Greens make any inroads into the national consciousness. That’s why The Greens rarely get on a ticket for election in the first place, and why nationally The Greens are lucky if they can poll 1-2%.
In Germany Alliance ’90/The Greens (GRÜNE) at elections get 8% of the vote and elect 63 people into their national parliament. The USA has zero Greens in political office.
In Australia the Greens get 11% of the Vote and have 13 members in the federal parliament. In Sweden 7% – not only is that a right leaning nation politically now but Sweden’s goal is to go carbon neutral by 2045.
“Seven out of eight parliamentary parties back proposal for rapid greenhouse gas emissions cuts.”
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/02/11/sweden-to-go-carbon-neutral-by-2045/
8 parliamentary parties? Versus only 2 in the USA who are in effect a one-party system of corruption and fraud.
As we speak everything touched by the ‘Repubocrats’ is tainted and untrustworthy – from the bottom to the very top.
And this is why nothing of any significant effect is happening now or will be happening in the USA about Climate Science Denial or AGW/CC Action anytime soon – because of the institutionalized political corruption.
There’s nothing that climate scientists alone or climate science as a field can do about that. Or non-Americans.
Maybe listening to one of your own like Cenk Uygur could be the difference? He and many others like Noam Chomsky, George Lakoff, Stiglitz, Snowdon and that Psychologist Kroth have been warning the American people about the real problem for years now.
Nothing changes if nothing changes. That’s a fact. :-)
N 234: Americanos save the planet a million times in Hollywood movies, but they NEVER did that in reality.
BPL: World War II?